Open Access Publishing Practices in a Complex Environment: Conditions,
                        Barriers, and Bases of Power

Background: Many of the discussions surrounding Open Access (OA) revolve around how it affects publishing practices across different academic disciplines. It was a long-held view that it would be only a matter of time for all disciplines to fully and relatively homogeneously implement OA. Recent large-scale bibliometric studies show however that the uptake of OA differs substantially across disciplines. This study investigates the underlying mechanisms that cause disciplines to vary in their OA publishing practices. We aimed to answer two questions: First, how do different disciplines adopt and shape OA publishing practices? Second, what discipline-specific barriers to and potentials for OA can be identified? Methods: In a first step, we identified and synthesized relevant bibliometric studies that assessed OA prevalence and publishing patterns across disciplines. In a second step, and adopting a social shaping of technology perspective, we studied evidence on the socio-technical forces that shape OA publishing practices. We examined a variety of data sources, including, but not limited to, publisher policies and guidelines, OA mandates and policies and author surveys. Results: Over the last three decades, scholarly publishing has experienced a shift from “closed” access to OA as the proportion of scholarly literature that is openly accessible has increased continuously. The shift towards OA is however uneven across disciplines in two respects: first, the growth of OA has been uneven across disciplines, which manifests itself in varying OA prevalence levels. Second, disciplines use different OA publishing channels to make research outputs OA. Conclusions: We conclude that historically grown publishing practices differ in terms of their compatibility with OA, which is the reason why OA can be assumed to be a natural continuation of publishing cultures in some disciplines, whereas in other disciplines, the implementation of OA faces major barriers and would require a change of research culture.

Download Full-text

Prevent Betrayal by Predatory Publishers: Trust But Verify

Nursing Science Quarterly ◽

10.1177/0894318417741100 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 31 (1) ◽

pp. 11-14

Author(s):

Kristine L. Florczak

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Predatory Publishing ◽

Predatory Publishers ◽

Definition Of ◽

The Cost ◽

Publishing Practices

In this column, the concept of betrayal is considered as it relates to publishing. The definition of betrayal is discussed, followed by information regarding the cost of publishing and why this led to the formation of open access publishing as a remedy. The Gold and Green Open Access models are examined along with why they may have inadvertently set the stage for predatory publishing practices. Finally, information will be provided on how to spot and avoid betrayal on the part of predatory publishers.

Download Full-text

Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.17328.2 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 ◽

pp. 1925 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Anna Severin ◽

Matthias Egger ◽

Martin Paul Eve ◽

Daniel Hürlimann

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Large Scale ◽

Academic Disciplines ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Social Shaping Of Technology ◽

Barriers To Change ◽

Social Shaping ◽

Bibliometric Studies ◽

Specific Barriers ◽

Publishing Practices

Background: Many of the discussions surrounding Open Access (OA) revolve around how it affects publishing practices across different academic disciplines. It was a long-held view that it would be only a matter of time before all disciplines fully and relatively homogeneously implemented OA. Recent large-scale bibliometric studies show, however, that the uptake of OA differs substantially across disciplines. We aimed to answer two questions: First, how do different disciplines adopt and shape OA publishing practices? Second, what discipline-specific barriers to and potentials for OA can be identified? Methods: In a first step, we identified and synthesized relevant bibliometric studies that assessed OA prevalence and publishing patterns across disciplines. In a second step, and adopting a social shaping of technology perspective, we studied evidence on the socio-technical forces that shape OA publishing practices. We examined a variety of data sources, including, but not limited to, publisher policies and guidelines, OA mandates and policies and author surveys. Results: Over the last three decades, scholarly publishing has experienced a shift from “closed” access to OA as the proportion of scholarly literature that is openly accessible has increased continuously. Estimated OA levels for publication years after 2010 varied between 29.4% and 66%. The shift towards OA is uneven across disciplines in two respects: first, the growth of OA has been uneven across disciplines, which manifests itself in varying OA prevalence levels. Second, disciplines use different OA publishing channels to make research outputs OA. Conclusions: We conclude that historically rooted publishing practices differ in terms of their compatibility with OA, which is the reason why OA can be assumed to be a natural continuation of publishing cultures in some disciplines, whereas in other disciplines, the implementation of OA faces major barriers and would require a change of research culture.

Download Full-text

ATTITUDE TO OPEN ACCESS IN RUSSIAN SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY: 2018. SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Scholarly Research and Information ◽

10.24108/2658-3143-2018-1-1-6-21 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 6-21 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

I. K. Razumova ◽

N. N. Litvinova ◽

M. E. Shvartsman ◽

A. Yu. Kuznetsov

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Scholarly Community ◽

Research Areas ◽

Survey Results ◽

The Difference ◽

Policies And Programs ◽

The Uk ◽

High Level ◽

Access Policies

Introduction. The paper presents survey results on the awareness towards and practice of Open Access scholarly publishing among Russian academics.Materials and Methods. We employed methods of statistical analysis of survey results. Materials comprise results of data processing of Russian survey conducted in 2018 and published results of the latest international surveys. The survey comprised 1383 respondents from 182 organizations. We performed comparative studies of the responses from academics and research institutions as well as different research areas. The study compares results obtained in Russia with the recently published results of surveys conducted in the United Kingdom and Europe.Results. Our findings show that 95% of Russian respondents support open access, 94% agree to post their publications in open repositories and 75% have experience in open access publishing. We did not find any difference in the awareness and attitude towards open access among seven reference groups. Our analysis revealed the difference in the structure of open access publications of the authors from universities and research institutes. Discussion andConclusions. Results reveal a high level of awareness and support to open access and succeful practice in the open access publications in the Russian scholarly community. The results for Russia demonstrate close similarity with the results of the UK academics. The governmental open access policies and programs would foster the practical realization of the open access in Russia.

Download Full-text

THE STATE OF OPEN ACCESS ADOPTION IN LEGAL SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION: AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED OPEN ACCESS RESOURCES

Mousaion ◽

10.25159/0027-2639/703 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 34 (1) ◽

pp. 83-100

Author(s):

Solomon Bopape

Keyword(s):

South Africa ◽

Open Access ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

The Internet ◽

Free Access ◽

Access To Information ◽

Legal Information ◽

Scholarly Literature ◽

Open Access Resources ◽

The Right

The study of law focuses, among other aspects, on important issues relating to equality, fairness and justice in as far as free access to information and knowledgeis concerned. The launching of the Open Access to Law Movement in 1992, the promulgation of the Durham Statement on Open Access to Legal Scholarshipin 2009, and the formation of national and regional Legal Information Institutes (LIIs) should serve as an indication of how well the legal world is committed to freely publishing and distributing legal information and knowledge through the Internet to legal practitioners, legal scholars and the public at large aroundthe world. In order to establish the amount of legal scholarly content which is accessible through open access publishing innovations and initiatives, this studyanalysed the contents of websites for selected open access resources on the Internet internationally and in South Africa. The results of the study showed that there has been a steady developing trend towards the adoption of open access for legal scholarly literature internationally, while in South Africa legal scholarly literature is under the control of commercial publishers. This should be an issue for the legal scholarship which, among its focus, is to impart knowledge about the right of access to information and knowledge.

Download Full-text

Faculty Attitudes Towards Open Access Publishing, E-Print Servers and Institutional Repositories

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l'ACSI ◽

10.29173/cais252 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Markus Wust

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Qualitative Study ◽

Peer Review ◽

Scholarly Communication ◽

Faculty Attitudes ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Impact Factors ◽

Teaching And Research ◽

Institutional Repositories ◽

Etude Qualitative

This qualitative study investigates how faculty gather information for teaching and research and their opinions on open access approaches to scholarly communication. Despite generally favorable reactions, a perceived lack of peer review and impact factors were among the most common reasons for not publishing through open-access forums.Cette étude qualitative examine comment les membres du corps professoral recueillent l’information pour l’enseignement et la recherche, et leurs opinions envers les approches de la communication scientifique à libre accès. Malgré des réactions généralement favorables, le manque perçu de révision par les pairs et les facteurs d’impact comptent parmi les motifs habituellement évoqués pour ne pas publier sur ces tribunes à libre accès.

Download Full-text

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

10.31219/osf.io/myzjf ◽

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.

Download Full-text