scholarly journals Open Access: An analysis of European publisher copyright and licensing policies today

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignasi Labastida i Juan
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
Scholarly Journal ◽  
First Principle ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
European Publisher ◽  
Academic Authors ◽  
Share Information ◽  
Over Time

The digital age has brought authors of publications many more opportunities to gain further impact and visibility by sharing their work online through websites, pre-print servers, repositories, publishing platforms or other digital venues as well as journals. Publisher copyright policies have not always been enablers of these new practices but change is underway. Europe has also seen a surge in international, national and local Open Access (OA) policies in recent years, a significant one being Plan S with its requirements related to rights retention and open licensing. How far are publishers in supporting authors in this change? In early 2020 SPARC Europe commissioned a report to gain a better understanding of current copyright and licensing practices amongst scholarly journal publishers based in Europe and how these are presented to academic authors. The key purpose of the study was to provide evidence on how publisher policies support OA and to see whether the complexity of the copyright and self-archiving landscape amongst publishers has simplified over time. We also explored how Plan S-ready publishers were with regards to the first principle of their policy related to authors or their institutions being required to retain copyright to their publications, calling for all publications to be published under an open license, preferably CC BY, immediately and under no embargo. Research was undertaken on various levels: the 2020 study reviewed the copyright, self-archiving and open licensing policies from 10 large legacy publisher websites and then asked these publishers to verify these findings. We also analysed the policies of pure open access journals in Europe from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). To limit the scope, Europe was taken as the focus of this research. This paper will firstly demonstrate how diversely publishers present and share information on their copyright, licensing and self-archiving policies and how challenging this can be for authors and the institutions that support them. We will also share findings on the specifics of publisher policies be they hybrid or pure OA. For example, examining how far large publishers currently allow authors to retain publishing rights for articles, to what extent they allow zero embargoes when self-archiving or how far pure OA journals use the CC BY license. This paper ends by making a number of recommendations to publishers, research funders, institutions and authors to ultimately support authors to more easily navigate this policy landscape and to be able to publish immediate OA.

scholarly journals Librarian Authors Appear to Favour Open Access Journals, while Academic Authors Appear to Favour Non-Open Access Journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 176-178
Author(s):  
Michelle DuBroy
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Common Type ◽  
Library Science ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Academic Authors

A Review of: Chang, Y.-W. (2017). Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 39(1), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002 Abstract Objective – To compare the characteristics of authors publishing in open access and non-open access library and information science (LIS) journals. Design – Comparative analysis of published journal articles. Setting – Academic journals. Subjects – Articles published in selected LIS journals between 2008-2013. Methods –  Journals included in the Library Science and Information Science category in the 2012 edition of Journal Citation Reports and those listed in the Library and Information Science category of the Directory of Open Access Journals as of May 2013 were included in the analysis. Articles were examined and coded for author occupation, academic rank, and type of collaboration. Main Results – The author analyzed 1,807 articles from 20 open access journals and 1,665 articles from 13 non-open access journals. An unknown number of articles were excluded because they lacked required author information. Over half (53.9%) of the authors who published in the open access journals were practitioners. Over half (58.1%) of the authors who published in the non-open access journals were academics. Librarian-librarian collaboration was the most common type (38.6%) of collaboration found in the open access journals. Academic-academic collaboration was the most common type (34.1%) of collaboration found in the non-open access journals. Collaboration between librarians and academics was seen in 20.5% of open access articles and 13.2% of non-open access articles. Conclusion – In general, librarian-authored research was found more often in open access journals, while the “latest research topics and ideas” (p. 14) were found most often in non-open access journals.

scholarly journals Do articles in open access journals have more frequent altmetric activity than articles in subscription-based journals? An investigation of the research output of Finnish universities

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
pp. 645-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Holmberg ◽  
Juha Hedman ◽  
Timothy D. Bowman ◽  
Fereshteh Didegah ◽  
Mikael Laakso
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Economic Geography ◽  
Comparative Research ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Research Focus ◽  
Online Platforms ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Methodological Approaches ◽  
Over Time

AbstractScientific articles available in Open Access (OA) have been found to attract more citations and online attention to the extent that it has become common to speak about OA Altmetrics Advantage. This research investigates how the OA Altmetrics Advantage holds for a specific case of research articles, namely the research outputs from universities in Finland. Furthermore, this research examines disciplinary and platform specific differences in that (dis)advantage. The new methodological approaches developed in this research focus on relative visibility, i.e. how often articles in OA journals receive at least one mention on the investigated online platforms, and relative receptivity, i.e. how frequently articles in OA journals gain mentions in comparison to articles in subscription-based journals. The results show significant disciplinary and platform specific differences in the OA advantage, with articles in OA journals within for instance veterinary sciences, social and economic geography and psychology receiving more citations and attention on social media platforms, while the opposite was found for articles in OA journals within medicine and health sciences. The results strongly support field- and platform-specific considerations when assessing the influence of journal OA status on altmetrics. The new methodological approaches used in this research will serve future comparative research into OA advantage of scientific articles over time and between countries.

scholarly journals The state of population health research performance in the Middle East and North Africa: a meta-research study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karima Chaabna ◽  
Sohaila Cheema ◽  
Amit Abraham ◽  
Patrick Maisonneuve ◽  
Albert B. Lowenfels ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
North Africa ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Western Country ◽  
Western Countries ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Background Population health (PH) research capacity and performance are essential pillars of evidence-based practice to help address health inequalities. Best evidence is provided by systematic reviews (SRs). None of the published bibliometric analysis specifically assess the production of SRs on PH in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The aim of our study is to investigate publication patterns and time trends of SRs reporting PH in the MENA region to evaluate the state of PH research performance in the region. Method The study protocol was developed a priori (protocol registration number: CRD42017076736). PubMed was searched. Two independent reviewers screened 5747 identified articles. We investigated author affiliation and collaboration, yearly citations of the SRs and journal information. Joinpoint regression was used to explore these characteristics overtime. Results Our meta-research included 387 SRs published between 2008 and 2016 which reported data on PH in 20 MENA countries. Publication of SRs increased over time in journals with impact factor < 4 and in the categories of yearly number of citations < 50 (p values ≤ 0.0024). Authors belonging to the region published increasingly (p value = 0.0001) over time. Thirty percent of the SRs were from authors solely from the region, while an additional 30% were from the region collaborating with Western country authors. Of these collaborative reviews, 79% were led by authors from the region. However, collaboration in the region (with the exclusion of collaboration with Western country authors) was rare (0.8%). These authors from the region published more in open-access journals while authors from Western countries collaborating or not with authors from the region published more in hybrid or non-open-access journals (p value < 0.0001). Collaboration between authors from MENA and Western countries led to published SRs in journals with impact factor ≥ 10. Systematic reviews with global coverage were published more by authors from Western countries, while SRs with country-level coverage were published by authors from the region (p value < 0.0001). Conclusion The incremental trend of PH SR publications on MENA likely reflects the ongoing improvement in research performance in the region. Authors from the region appear to be taking a lead role in conducting and disseminating MENA PH research. Open-access journals are a major contributor in facilitating MENA research dissemination. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42017076736

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.

An Expanded Approach to Evaluating Open Access Journals

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Ray
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Access Journals

scholarly journals Awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons – results from an online survey in Germany

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Maurer ◽  
Nike Walter ◽  
Tina Histing ◽  
Lydia Anastasopoulou ◽  
Thaqif El Khassawna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Trauma Surgery ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Trauma Surgeons

Abstract Background Along with emerging open access journals (OAJ) predatory journals increasingly appear. As they harm accurate and good scientific research, we aimed to examine the awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Methods In an online survey between August and December 2019 the knowledge on predatory journals and OAJ was tested with a hyperlink made available to the participants via the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) email distributor. Results Three hundred fifty orthopaedic and trauma surgeons participated, of which 291 complete responses (231 males (79.4%), 54 females (18.6%) and 5 N/A (2.0%)) were obtained. 39.9% were aware of predatory journals. However, 21.0% knew about the “Directory of Open Access Journals” (DOAJ) as a register for non-predatory open access journals. The level of profession (e.g. clinic director, consultant) (p = 0.018) influenced the awareness of predatory journals. Interestingly, participants aware of predatory journals had more often been listed as corresponding authors (p < 0.001) and were well published as first or last author (p < 0.001). Awareness of OAJ was masked when journal selection options did not to provide any information on the editorial board, the peer review process or the publication costs. Conclusion The impending hazard of predatory journals is unknown to many orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Early stage clinical researchers must be trained to differentiate between predatory and scientifically accurate journals.

scholarly journals Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e047107
Author(s):  
Mallory K. Ellingson ◽  
Xiaoting Shi ◽  
Joshua J. Skydel ◽  
Kate Nyhan ◽  
Richard Lehman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Senior Author ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Review Articles ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Medical Researchers

ObjectiveTo estimate the financial costs paid by individual medical researchers from meeting the article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals in 2019.DesignCross-sectional analysis.Data sourcesScopus was used to generate two random samples of researchers, the first with a senior author article indexed in the ‘Medicine’ subject area (general researchers) and the second with an article published in the ten highest-impact factor general clinical medicine journals (high-impact researchers) in 2019. For each researcher, Scopus was used to identify all first and senior author original research or review articles published in 2019. Data were obtained from Scopus, institutional profiles, Journal Citation Reports, publisher databases, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and individual journal websites.Main outcome measuresMedian APCs paid by general and high-impact researchers for all first and senior author research and review articles published in 2019.ResultsThere were 241 general and 246 high-impact researchers identified as eligible for our study. In 2019, the general and high-impact researchers published a total of 914 (median 2, IQR 1–5) and 1471 (4, 2–8) first or senior author research or review articles, respectively. 42% (384/914) of the articles from the general researchers and 29% (428/1471) of the articles from the high-impact medical researchers were published in fully open access journals. The median total APCs paid by general researchers in 2019 was US$191 (US$0–US$2500) and the median total paid by high-impact researchers was US$2900 (US$0–US$5465); the maximum paid by a single researcher in total APCs was US$30115 and US$34676, respectively.ConclusionsMedical researchers in 2019 were found to have paid between US$0 and US$34676 in total APCs. As journals with APCs become more common, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential cost to researchers, especially on individuals who may not have the funding or institutional resources to cover these costs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document