scholarly journals Reducing open access publication costs for biomedical researchers in the U.S.A.

2021 ◽  
pp. 91-99
Author(s):  
Daniel Gorelick ◽  
Ye Li

Open Access (OA) publishing is a critical route for biomedical researchers to broadly disseminate their research results and comply with policies from funding agencies. A popular business model for OA publishing requires scientists to pay an article processing charge (APC). In the last two decades, APCs have risen well beyond inflation, posing a burden to scientists and funding agencies that often pay APCs on behalf of scientists. There are no policies in place that address the rising costs of APCs. Here, we examined the history of OA in biomedical research and analyzed the benefits and limitations of different OA policies and their effects on APCs.

CytoJournal ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Vinod B Shidham ◽  
Anthony F Cafaro ◽  
Barbara F Atkinson

CytoJournalis published by an independent publisher BioMed Central, which is committed to ensuring that the peer-reviewed biomedical research is Open Access. Since its launch, BioMed Central has graciously supported the processing of all the articles published duringCytoJournal′ s first 6 months. However, for long term viability,CytoJournalhas to achieve financial viability to support publication expenses. From 1st March, 2005, authors will be asked by the publisher to pay a flat article-processing charge. This editorial discusses how a significant proportion of authors may not have to pay this fee directly under a variety of different mechanisms such as institutional and society memberships with BioMed Central.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Markie

Gold Open Access can be facilitated by an Article Processing Charge (APC), which refers to the author-facing charge levied for publishing an article openly in a specific journal. These charges vary significantly across journals and recently there has been a demand for publishers to be more transparent about how their APCs are calculated. Plan S has clearly set the need for transparency in its principles and implementations stating “When Open Access publication fees are applied, they must be commensurate with the publication services delivered and the structure of such fees must be transparent to inform the market and funders potential standardisation and capping of payments of fees”. This presentation will provide a landscape analysis of publishers, new initiatives (such as the new work just commissioned by the Wellcome and UKRI on behalf of cOAlition S on providing a framework to enable more transparent communication of OA publishing services and prices; http://www.informationpower.co.uk/news/press-release-transparent-comms-of-oa-services-and-prices/) and the current transparency around APCs and explore the range of direct and indirect costs of what constitutes an APC.


Author(s):  
Addisu Mekonnen ◽  
Colleen Downs ◽  
Edu Effiom ◽  
Mohamed Kibaja ◽  
Michael Lawes ◽  
...  

With open-access publishing authors pay an article processing charge and subsequently their article is freely available online. These charges are beyond the reach of most African academics. Thus, the trend towards open access publishing will shift the business model from a pay-wall model, where access to literature is limited, to a pay-to-publish one, where African scholars cannot afford to publish. We explore the costs of publishing and the ability of African scholars to afford to publish as open access. Three-quarters of the 40 top ecology journals required payment for open-access publishing (average cost $3,150). Paying such fees is a hardship for African scholars as grant funding is not available and it is not feasible to pay the fees themselves as salaries are low. We encourage funders and publishers to facilitate an equitable publishing model that allows African scholars to make their research available through open-access publishing.


2020 ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

The article processing charge (APC) lies at the heart of the gold open access (GOA) business model. Small and larger society-based, as well as commercial publishers, rely – to different extents – on the APC and the GOA model to thrive. There is wide debate regarding what amount of APC is considered to be exploitative, and the issue of low APCs is often erroneously associated with “predatory” OA publishing. Independent of this debate, there is still, surprisingly, considerable opacity related to the APC used to cover the cost of  GOA. In a bid to increase transparency, a simple 3-point plan at increasing academic and financial transparency of authors and journals/publishers regarding APCs is proposed: 1) indicate which author paid the APC in multi-author papers; 2) indicate the value of the APC paid; 3) provide online proof or certification of APC payment, including the indication of any discounts or waivers.


Open access article (synonym: open access publication) is a type of peer-reviewed article which gives a possibility to the readers to read and download it free of charge owing to paying an open access publication fee (OAPF) directly by its authors, their institutions, or funders.1 According to Solomon and Björk`s study, who analyzed about 1,370 journals, article processing charges range from 8 to 3,900 US Dollars.1, 2 Moreover, the official Elsevier`s page dedicated to the list of all company`s open access journals indicated that an article processing charge can reach 6,000 US Dollars excluding tax.3 First publishing houses that supported and develop open access journals have been two new academic publishers – BioMed Central (BMC) and Public Library of Science (PLoS).1 In 2000, they began establishing journals that rely on open access publication fee.1 Most motivation criteria for the authors from the fields of oral and maxillofacial surgery, periodontics in choosing to what peer-reviewed journal submit their paper may be classified under three chief groups: 1) indexing and abstracting in different recognized data bases (PubMed/Medline,4 Scopus, Web of Science, etc.), 2) an impact metric,5 and 3) an amount of the article processing charge. First two motivation criteria are precisely described in recent publications but the last one – open access publication fee and its amount – should be investigated more scrupulously.4, 5 There is a great need to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of OAPF both for authors and editorial staff/publishers. This is the aim of this study in order to understand the advantages and disadvantages the payment methods. For the purpose of comparative analysis we selected two peer-reviewed journals according to the following inclusion criteria: 1. Fully open access publication (hybrid or delayed open access journals were excluded during selection). 2. Similar term of publication history – about 5 years (similar starting point allows comparing the peer-reviewed journals more precisely). 3. Journals focused on oral surgery. 4. Different ways of receiving article processing charges after the submission of manuscripts. 5. English, as language of publications. Analysis was performed on the publishing statistics, abstracting and indexation of the journals as important characteristics of the ways of growth of both peer-reviewed publications.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mbachi Msomphora ◽  
Leif Longva

Open access targets at enabling anyone who has access to the internet to have access, read and use scientific documents, such as articles. In line with Horizon 2020’s new guidelines that open access publication of research results is an obligation, UiT The Arctic University of Norway aims to be an institution advancing free scholarly information and knowledge about how to find it, read it and use it. Through the open repository called Munin, UiT has since 2006 made, as much as possible, the scholarly documents produced by its researchers and graduate students openly available. Free access to scholarly information is one of the university's strategic goals, and researchers are recommended to save the files of their research articles to be openly available.The objective of this study is to find out researcher’s attitudes at the UiT The Arctic University of Norway regarding Open Access of research articles. Specifically, the study investigates the researchers’ attitudes, especially when it comes to archiving final drafts of their accepted manuscripts or journal articles in Munin, including their perceptions towards open access publication. Such information was mainly obtained through a survey questionnaire addressed to all researchers at UiT. For triangulation purposes, literature archives, record, reports and other publication documents were also used. SPSS statistical package was used for data analysis.Preliminary results shows that 93% of the researchers at UiT support OA publication principles, but only 46% are currently submitting to the OA university repository, Munin. Researchers indicate that the majority either do not know Munin well (60%) or they do not know it at all (12%). This portrays a need for information and clarification of what Munin is all about and processes for making the produced scholarly documents available openly. Already, 74.5% of the UiT researchers indicate willingness to archive their final draft in Munin. This implies that the output is already there and what is required is to sensitising researchers on why, who and how their research should be published openly in Munin, while making clear to them who’s responsibility it is to check the archiving permission; a point many researchers indicate being ignorant of. There is need to make available, in the Library information-desk, the information about how to publish and access the documents in Munin. In so doing, OA principles are encouraged, but it also acts as a means through which the quality of research is enhanced. And thereby also encouraging and supporting EU Horizon 2020 current projects, where the funding comes with strict rules in order to secure free sharing of research results and open access. As Msomphora (2016) notes, open access allow research results to be transparent, meaning that secrecy should be avoided in order to permit criticism of the knowledge produced. But, more so, it enhances global availability of quality knowledge, even in developing countries, and that taxpayers are able to get value for money. However, certain researchers criticise open access publication because it tends to discriminate against authors who cannot afford the article processing charges. Not everyone have the support of their institution as the UiT researchers have. Therefore, through the current survey and documented literature, this study produces arguments for improving the manageability, visibility and accessibility of scholarly documents in Munin at UiT, and for the growing research community worldwide.


Author(s):  
Helen R. Jacobus

This book’s contribution to the wider scholarly corpus on divination and to the history of the philosophy associated with this belief system rests on the various ways in which the gods speak as well as on the messages received by earthly mediators. Reviewed by: Helen R. Jacobus, Published Online (2021-08-31)Copyright © 2021 by Helen R. JacobusThis open access publication is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (CC BY-NC-ND) Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/aestimatio/article/view/37726/28728 Corresponding Author: Helen R. Jacobus,University of ManchesterE-Mail: [email protected]


2020 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Allison Langham-Putrow ◽  
Sunshine J. Carter

The introduction of Plan S, an initiative for open access launched by a group of primarily European national funding agencies and two foundations in late 2018, prompted discussion about how publishers will transition to full open access. Many current open access models involve article processing charge (APC) payments. Here we describe an alternative model, Subscribe to Open (S2O).


2021 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 1183-1213
Author(s):  
Pero Šipka

The article is a response to criticism published by Rajko Bukvić in Ekonomski vidici in the paper 'On quality and visibility of social and economic sciences of Serbia', more precisely in the section entitled Scandals directed by CEON/CEES: Does chaos rule in our (economic) periodic publishing? In this section, the author directly accuses CEON/CEES for producing chaos in social sciences in Serbia by "excluding" many journals from its database called the Serbian Citation Index (SCIndeks). According to the author, CEON/CEES, after the termination of the financial support by the Serbian ministry responsible for science, blackmailed journal publishers by accepting for indexation only those willing to pay a fee for content maintenance. The author also claims that excluding three journals published by the Faculty of Organizational Sciences (FON), University of Belgrade, was illegal and scandalous. He adds to his allegations against SCIndeks several other unfounded, less important issues, supported by some serious unwarranted ethical accusations against its publisher. In this response, it is demonstrated that all accusations are fabricated and malicious. The alleged exclusion of formerly indexed journals was explained as a fully justified action of "non-inclusion" of journals unwilling to pay the necessary service fee after the forced transition of SCIndeks's business model from a government-sponsored to the journals-sponsored ("diamond open access", Ševkušić, Kosanović, & Šipka, 2020). Also, the suspension of the journals published by FON was a legitimate action aimed at protecting SCIndeks from a publisher who turned out to be untrustworthy, as demonstrated by the act of concealing the blatant plagiarism in the PhD thesis of the current Minister of Finance in the Serbian Government. The decision was reinforced by the discovery of a history of publishing in predatory journals by many members of the journals' editorial boards, the Dean's Collegium, and the Faculty Council. The author of the criticism is unmasked as lacking not only the basic knowledge on scientometrics, but also research and ethic integrity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document