scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of the article-processing-charge-funded model across countries in different scientific blocks: the case of Elsevier's hybrid open access journals

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zohreh Estakhr ◽  
Hajar Sotudeh ◽  
Javad Abbaspour ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Scientific Development ◽  
Article Processing Charge ◽  
Publishing Article ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Article Processing Charges ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Citation Advantage

Introduction. The present study investigated the cost-effectiveness of article-processing-charge-funded model across the world countries in terms of its citation value proportional to the article processing charges. Method. Using a comparative citation analysis method at the macro level, it explored a sample of articles in forty-seven Elsevier hybrid open access journals that had been following the model since 2007. Analysis. The contributing countries' open access citation advantages were calculated based on the percentage of their open access citation surplus proportional to that of their non-open access articles. Their relative open access citation cost-effectiveness was obtained based on their open access citation counts proportional to the article processing charges, normalised by those of non-open access papers. The countries were categorised into four scientific blocks using Rand's categorization of countries' scientific development. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the data in SPSS. Results. The results supported the citation advantage of the article-processing-charge-funded papers, encompassing the majority of the contributing countries in the four scientific development blocks. The articles showed relative cost-effectiveness over the years and for most countries in all the scientific development blocks. Conclusions. Publishing article-processing-charge-funded papers is relatively cost-effective, implying higher visibility and influence in exchange for the money paid.

The citation advantage for open access science journals with and without article processing charges

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-130
Author(s):  
Mohammad Reza Ghane ◽  
Mohammad Reza Niazmand ◽  
Ameneh Sabet Sarvestani
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Human Anatomy ◽  
Science Class ◽  
H Index ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Thomson Reuters ◽  
Article Processing Charges ◽  
Citation Metrics ◽  
Citation Advantage

In this study of access models, we compared citation performance in journals that do and do not levy article processing charges (APCs) as part of their business model. We used a sample of journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) science class and its 13 subclasses and recorded four citation metrics: JIF, H-index, citations per publication (CPP) and quartile rank. We examined 1881 science journals indexed in DOAJ. Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports and Web of Science were used to extract JIF, H-index, CPP and quartile category. Overall, the JIF, H-index and CPP indicated that APC and non-APC open access (OA) journals had equal impact. Quartile category ranking indicated a difference in favour of APC journals. In each science subclass, we found significant differences between APC and non-APC journals in all citation metrics except for quartile rank. Discipline-related variations were observed in non-APC journals. Differences in the rank positions of scores in different groups identified citation advantages for non-APC journals in physiology, zoology, microbiology and geology, followed by botany, astronomy and general biology. Impact ranged from moderate to low in physics, chemistry, human anatomy, mathematics, general science and natural history. The results suggest that authors should consider field- and discipline-related differences in the OA citation advantage, especially when they are considering non-APC OA journals categorised in two or more subjects. This may encourage OA publishing at least in the science class.

scholarly journals Three new suggested guidelines for increased transparency regarding open access article processing charges (APCs)

2020 ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Business Model ◽  
Article Processing Charge ◽  
Wide Debate ◽  
Financial Transparency ◽  
Article Processing Charges ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Gold Open Access ◽  
Open Access Article

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.

scholarly journals Only two out of five articles by New Zealand researchers are free-to-access: a multiple API study of access, its impact on open citation advantage, cost of Article Processing Charges (APC), and the potential to increase the proportion of open access

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Kenneth Alistair White ◽  
Anton Angelo ◽  
Deborah Jane Fitchett ◽  
Moira Fraser ◽  
Luqman Hayes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Average Citation ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Harvest Data ◽  
Article Processing Charges ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Citation Advantage ◽  
Sample Set

AbstractWe studied journal articles published by researchers at all eight of New Zealand universities in 2017 to determine how many were freely accessible on the web. We wrote software code to harvest data from multiple sources, code that we now share to enable others to reproduce our work on their own sample set. In May 2019, we ran our code to determine which of the 2017 articles were open at that time and by what method; where those articles would have incurred an Article Processing Charge (APC) we calculated the cost if those charges had been paid. Where articles were not freely available we determined whether the policies of publishers in each case would have allowed deposit in a non-commercial repository (Green open access). We also examined average citation rates for different types of access. We found that, of our 2017 sample set, about two out of every five articles were freely accessible without payment or subscription (41%). Where research was explicitly said to be funded by New Zealand’s major research funding agencies, the proportion was slightly higher at 49%. Where open articles would have incurred an APC we estimated an average cost per article of USD1,682 (for publications where all articles require an APC, that is, Gold open access) and USD2,558 (where APC payment is optional, Hybrid open access) at a total estimated cost of USD1.45m. Of the paid options, Gold is by far more common for New Zealand researchers (82% Gold, 18% Hybrid). Where articles were not freely accessible we found that a very large majority of them (88%) could have been legally deposited in an institutional repository. In terms of average citation rates, we found Green and Hybrid open access to achieve the highest rates, higher than other forms of open access and higher still than research that is only available via payment. Given that most New Zealand researchers support research being open, there is clearly a large gap between belief and practice in New Zealand’s research ecosystem, despite a clear citation advantage for open access over research that is not freely accessible.

scholarly journals Comparison of Article Processing Fees on Open Access Journals with a 4.5-Year History of Publishing

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. 176-185
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Maxillofacial Surgery ◽  
Public Library ◽  
Oral And Maxillofacial Surgery ◽  
Article Processing Charge ◽  
Open Access Publication ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Article Processing Charges

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.

Massive Open Access Publications

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matheus Pereira Lobo
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Substantial Reduction ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Culture ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Article Processing Charges

A huge collaborative open science model is proposed. Many authors collaborating in a paper leads to a substantial reduction for the Article Processing Charges (APCs) in the Open Access Journals. This can significantly stimulate research within a healthier citizen and open science culture.

PEDAGOGY AND MODERN EDUCATION (ICPME) September 2019: сб.науч.тр./ RELF Group & OEAPS Inc.; редкол.: Каапо Кумпулайнен (отв.ред.) [и др.]. - Варшава, Польша : OEAPS Inc., 09. 2019. - 114 С. ISBN: 978-1697070392

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Гульдар Фанисовна Ибрагимова ◽  
Ольга Алексеевна Ковалевич ◽  
Раиса Николаевна Афонина ◽  
Елена Алексеевна Лесных ◽  
Яна Игоревна Ряполова ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
European Academy ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Authorship Credit ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Publishing Ethics ◽  
Article Processing Charges

Conference paper Covered by Leading Indexing DatabasesOpen European Academy of Public Sciences aims to have all of its journals covered by the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Scopus and Web of Science indexing systems. Several journals have already been covered by SCIE for several years and have received official Impact Factors. Some life sciencerelated journals are also covered by PubMed/MEDLINE and archived through PubMed Central (PMC). All of our journals are archived with the Spanish and Germany National Library.All Content is Open Access and Free for Readers Journals published by Open European Academy of Public Sciences are fully open access: research articles, reviews or any other content on this platform is available to everyone free of charge. To be able to provide open access journals, we finance publication through article processing charges (APC); these are usually covered by the authors’ institutes or research funding bodies. We offer access to science and the latest research to readers for free. All of our content is published in open access and distributed under a Creative Commons License, which means published articles can be freely shared and the content reused, upon proper attribution.Open European Academy of Public Sciences Publication Ethics StatementOpen European Academy of Public Sciences is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Open European Academy of Public Sciences takes the responsibility to enforce a rigorous peerreview together with strict ethical policies and standards to ensure to add high quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication. Unfortunately, cases of plagiarism, data falsification, inappropriate authorship credit, and the like, do arise. Open European Academy of Public Sciences takes such publishing ethics issues very seriously and our editors are trained to proceed in such cases with a zero tolerance policy. To verify the originality of content submitted to our journals, we use iThenticate to check submissions against previous publications.Mission and ValuesAs a pioneer of academic open access publishing, we serve the scientific community since 2009. Our aim is to foster scientific exchange in all forms, across all disciplines. In addition to being at the root of Open European Academy of Public Sciences and a key theme in our journals, we support sustainability by ensuring the longterm preservation of published papers, and the future of science through partnerships, sponsorships and awards.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of BCG Vaccination against Tuberculosis in Indonesia: A Model-Based Study

Vaccines ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 707
Author(s):  
Afifah Machlaurin ◽  
Franklin Christiaan Karel Dolk ◽  
Didik Setiawan ◽  
Tjipke Sytse van der Werf ◽  
Maarten J. Postma
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Epidemiological Data ◽  
Control Programme ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Bcg Vaccination ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG), the only available vaccine for tuberculosis (TB), has been applied for decades. The Indonesian government recently introduced a national TB disease control programme that includes several action plans, notably enhanced vaccination coverage, which can be strengthened through underpinning its favourable cost-effectiveness. We designed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of Indonesia’s current BCG vaccination programme. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated from the perspectives of both society and healthcare. The robustness of the analysis was confirmed through univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Using epidemiological data compiled for Indonesia, BCG vaccination at a price US$14 was estimated to be a cost-effective strategy in controlling TB disease. From societal and healthcare perspectives, ICERs were US$104 and US$112 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. The results were robust for variations of most variables in the univariate analysis. Notably, the vaccine’s effectiveness regarding disease protection, vaccination costs, and case detection rates were key drivers for cost-effectiveness. The PSA results indicated that vaccination was cost-effective even at US$175 threshold in 95% of cases, approximating the monthly GDP per capita. Our findings suggest that this strategy was highly cost-effective and merits prioritization and extension within the national TB programme. Our results may be relevant for other high endemic low- and middle-income countries.

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness of Transbronchial Needle Aspiration

1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 332-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A Crocket ◽  
Eric YL Wong ◽  
Dale C Lien ◽  
Khanh Gia Nguyen ◽  
Michelle R Chaput ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Diagnostic Procedures ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Benign Disease ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
High Yield ◽  
Transbronchial Needle Aspiration ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
The Cost

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the yield and cost effectiveness of transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) in the assessment of mediastinal and/or hilar lymphadenopathy.DESIGN: Retrospective study.SETTING: A university hospital.POPULATION STUDIED: Ninety-six patients referred for bronchoscopy with computed tomographic evidence of significant mediastinal or hilar adenopathy.RESULTS: Ninety-nine patient records were reviewed. Three patients had two separate bronchoscopy procedures. TBNA was positive in 42 patients (44%) and negative in 54 patients. Of the 42 patients with a positive aspirate, 40 had malignant cytology and two had cells consistent with benign disease. The positive TBNA result altered management in 22 of 40 patients with malignant disease and one of two patients with benign disease, thereby avoiding further diagnostic procedures. The cost of these subsequent procedures was estimated at $27,335. No complications related to TBNA were documented.CONCLUSIONS: TBNA is a high-yield, safe and cost effective procedure for the diagnosis and staging of bronchogenic cancer.

The cost-effectiveness of insulin analogs and regular insulin for diabetes control: a case study in Iran

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (4/5) ◽  
pp. 323-331
Author(s):  
Mohsen pakdaman ◽  
Raheleh akbari ◽  
Hamid reza Dehghan ◽  
Asra Asgharzadeh ◽  
Mahdieh Namayandeh
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Regular Insulin ◽  
Diabetes Control ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Insulin Analogs ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Cost

PurposeFor years, traditional techniques have been used for diabetes treatment. There are two major types of insulin: insulin analogs and regular insulin. Insulin analogs are similar to regular insulin and lead to changes in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. The purpose of the present research was to determine the cost-effectiveness of insulin analogs versus regular insulin for diabetes control in Yazd Diabetes Center in 2017.Design/methodology/approachIn this descriptive–analytical research, the cost-effectiveness index was used to compare insulin analogs and regular insulin (pen/vial) for treatment of diabetes. Data were analyzed in the TreeAge Software and a decision tree was constructed. A 10% discount rate was used for ICER sensitivity analysis. Cost-effectiveness was examined from a provider's perspective.FindingsQALY was calculated to be 0.2 for diabetic patients using insulin analogs and 0.05 for those using regular insulin. The average cost was $3.228 for analog users and $1.826 for regular insulin users. An ICER of $0.093506/QALY was obtained. The present findings suggest that insulin analogs are more cost-effective than regular insulin.Originality/valueThis study was conducted using a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate insulin analogs versus regular insulin in controlling diabetes. The results of study are helpful to the government to allocate more resources to apply the cost-effective method of the treatment and to protect patients with diabetes from the high cost of treatment.

scholarly journals Screening for Melanoma by Primary Health Care Physicians: A Cost—Effectiveness Analysis

1996 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afaf Girgis ◽  
Philip Clarke ◽  
Robert C Burton ◽  
Rob W Sanson—Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Assessment ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Family Practitioners ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Primary Health Care Physicians ◽  
Melanoma Screening

Background and design— Australia has the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, and the incidence is estimated to be doubling every 10 years. Despite advances in the early detection and treatment of melanoma about 800 people still die nationally of the disease each year. A possible strategy for further reducing the mortality from melanoma is an organised programme of population screening for unsuspected lesions in asymptomatic people. Arguments against introducing melanoma screening have been based on cost and the lack of reliable data on the efficacy of any screening tests. To date, however, there has been no systematic economic assessment of the cost effectiveness of melanoma screening. The purpose of this research was to determine whether screening may be potentially cost effective and, therefore, warrants further investigation. A computer was used to simulate the effects of a hypothetical melanoma screening programme that was in operation for 20 years, using cohorts of Australians aged 50 at the start of the programme. Based on this simulation, cost—effectiveness estimates of melanoma screening were calculated. Results— Under the standard assumptions used in the model, and setting the sensitivity of the screening test (visual inspection of the skin) at 60%, cost effectiveness ranged from Aust$6853 per life year saved for men if screening was undertaken five yearly to $12137 if screening was two yearly. For women, it ranged from $11 102 for five yearly screening to $20 877 for two yearly screening. Conclusion— The analysis suggests that a melanoma screening programme could be cost effective, particularly if five yearly screening is implemented by family practitioners for men over the age of 50.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document