Search

This study examines the publication pattern of open access (OA) and paywalled scholarly works, determines the citations and views impact of publications published through the different forms of OA, and disaggregates the scholarly outputs and impact across the different types of OA in sub-Saharan African countries, in order to assess whether the types of OA matter in research impact in sub-Saharan Africa. Data from the SciVal database, utilising bibliographic, citation, and views data drawn from Scopus, formed the foundation of this study. The research scope encompassed documents published over a decade, from 2012 to 2021. Research output, quantified as the number of publications papers), constituted the primary focus, while citation-based and views-based metrics were utilised as proxies for measuring research impact. The findings underscore a steady rise in OA scholarly publications, indicating a growing inclination and uptake of OA scholarship within sub-Saharan African nations. Across most sub-Saharan African countries, OA publications comprised over 50% of the total publications. The study discerns a preference hierarchy for OA models: Green OA emerged as the foremost choice, trailed by Gold OA, and Bronze OA, while Hybrid-Gold OA registered as the least favoured model. Notably, publication counts exhibited robust associations with citation and viewing figures, displaying varying strengths in correlation with other citation and viewing metrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors assess the current status of scholarly publishing and reach the conclusion that the current situation is both in a state of flux and not sustainable. While such an assessment is becoming increasingly well understood, a solution to the problems seemingly does not exist. What even embodies an improvement to the current state of scholarly publishing depends on one's perspective. The authors approach the problem from the perspective of the main producers and consumers of scholarly knowledge—academic and governmental research institutions. From this perspective, they define a set of objectives for scholarly publishing and dissemination of published works, and they assess the challenges with current approaches to meeting these objectives for commercial publishers, professional organization publishers, and academic press publishers. Based on this analysis, the authors propose a new model for academic publishing that might help achieve the stated objectives. The academic research community alliance model suggested is based on the scholarly community taking on the responsibilities of peer review, article production, and knowledge dissemination while acting in an altruistic way of doing so. The proposed approach is described in detail, and both challenges and potential solutions to the impediments to implementing this model are explored. Finally, the authors report on initial efforts to build support for the proposed model, which suggests that meaningful progress on this difficult problem is possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While in the early days of the internet, there was great enthusiasm about the wealth of new possibilities for science, in recent years, awareness about the darker sides of digital technologies has been rising. It is known today that the leading academic publishers have tapped into the data analytics business. The resulting massive collection of user traces not only threatens privacy rights but also increases concerns about the consolidation of the oligopoly in the global academic publishing industry and large-scale corporate influence on science. This paper explores the consequences of this development for the constitutional protection of science. It argues that while classic accounts of constitutionalism are not entirely blind to constitutional challenges transcending the state-individual relationship, they struggle to capture the subtle yet systemic risks that the science system faces in the digital age. Societal constitutionalism is not only a useful lens to better understand these threats, but also to respond to them, providing valuable lessons for debates about digital constitutionalism and the effective protection of fundamental rights in the digital age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maschinelle Verfahren als Instrumente, um die Open-Access-Transformation in Form von Publikationsdaten abzubilden, erfordern aufgrund enormer Datenvolumen strukturierte Datensätze, die eindeutig identifizierbar sind und sich vergleichen lassen. Zur Identifikation wissenschaftlicher und praxisorientierter Publikationen haben sich digital object identifier (DOI) durchgesetzt, doch längst nicht alle Publikationen sind damit ausgestattet. Anhand eines Datensamples der Pädagogischen Hochschule Zürich werden in dieser Studie ausgewählte Datenquellen für Monitoring-Verfahren analysiert, um Quoten für nicht-repräsentierte Publikationen zu berechnen und unbeabsichtigte Leerstellen sichtbar zu machen. Das Verstehen dieser Leerstellen eröffnet Lösungsansätze, wie diese vermieden werden können, um ein belastbares Open-Access-Monitoring sicherzustellen. Due to the enormous data volumes, monitoring methods as tools for representing the Open Access transformation in terms of publications require structured data sets that can be uniquely identified and compared. Digital object identifiers (DOI) have been established for the identification of scientific and practice-oriented publications, but certainly not all publications are endowed with them. Using a reasonable data sample from the University of Teacher Education Zurich, this study analyzes selected data sources for monitoring routines to calculate quotas for non-represented publications and to make unintentional empty spaces visible. This understanding of empty spaces opens approaches on how to avoid them to ensure resilient open access monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1990s, journals have become increasingly online and open access. In fact, about 50% of articles published in 2021 were open access. The use of preprints (i.e., non‐peer‐reviewed articles) has also increased. However, there is limited awareness of these concepts among academics. Therefore, we conducted a questionnaire‐based survey among members of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan. The survey was conducted between September 2022 and October 2022, with 633 respondents, 500 of whom (79.0%) were faculty members. In total, 478 (76.6%) respondents had published articles as open access, and 571 (91.5%) wanted to publish their articles in open access. Although 540 (86.5%) respondents knew about preprints, only 183 (33.9%) had posted preprints before. In the open‐ended section of the questionnaire survey, several comments were made about the cost burdens associated with open access and the difficulty of how academic preprints are handled. Although open access is widespread, and recognition of preprints is increasing, some issues remain that need to be addressed. Academic and institutional support, and transformative agreement may help reduce the cost burden. Guidelines for handling preprints in academia are also important for responding to changes in the research environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open Access Repositories (OARs) are viewed as a new channel of scholarly communication and a way for scholars to disseminate their work faster to a broader audience. Finding a solution to low faculty participation in OARs is an intricate task that requires a deeper understanding of faculty perceptions of OARs. Previous studies have investigated the motivating and hindering factors using different forms of surveys that focussed on external factors, which were either social or technological in context. The goal of this qualitative study was to provide an understanding of the psychology of the faculty reluctance towards their participation in OARs. The results reveal that while close to half of the faculty support the OA principles and are willing to share their work in Open Access (OA), a little over half of faculty seem to be unfamiliar with the OA goals and the purpose of OARs. In addition, faculty comments reveal a wide range of perceived concerns regarding OARs, from submission process, plagiarism, and copyright concerns to the perception of OARs as low-quality publishing venues that can have a negative impact on their academic careers. Thus, to better address faculty needs and concerns, it is crucial for OAR staff to take a multifaceted approach, targeting each faculty concern independently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Libraries and institutions around the world are working with publishers to transform scholarly publishing into an open access ecosystem. To accomplish this goal, publisher contracts are being renegotiated and modified to include transformative elements which will move in this direction. With costs shifting from traditional subscriptions to fees which incorporate Read and Publish cost elements, tools are needed to provide underlying analytics both at the negotiating level but also for the ongoing implementation of new agreements. The ongoing workflow will be more complicated since institutions will need to more closely track authors and their associated article processing charge payments. A variety of open source and commercial tools and services are reviewed which have been developed to move to a new open access publishing environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This column reports on two panel sessions from the 2022 Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) Conference. Topics covered include discussions about how open access publishing can be more equitable and examples of values-based publishing models from the perspective of various noncommercial open access organizations and programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper provides empirical results on the part of grey literature in the French national open repository HAL. The results are based on a quantitative analysis of 973,968 deposits from 1,272 research laboratories affiliated the ten most important research universities in France (IDEX program). 35% of all deposits (documents and records) are grey literature. The main types of these items are conference papers (71%), PhD theses (11%) and preprints and working papers (8%). Their overall accessibility (degree of openness) is 37%, which is higher than commercial publications. Differences between document types, disciplines and institution are described. Further research is needed for a better understanding of how research laboratories are handling grey literature (licensing ...). A follow-up study in 2021 will provide this insight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global-scope scientific journals have played an important role in upholding a colonial legacy of north-south inequities in ornithology, and they now have a key role to play in increasing equity in scientific publishing. We explore common barriers faced by ornithologists in the Neotropics (Latin America and the Caribbean) and suggest priority actions that Ornithological Applications, Ornithology, and other global-scope ornithological journals can take to increase equity in publication and research uptake. Among the most important problems, we identified (1) restrictive (and north-biased) criteria for assessing research “importance” and “novelty,” (2) the high publication costs of the Author Pay (Gold) Open Access model, (3) language hegemony, (4) under-representation of ornithologists from the Neotropics on editorial boards and as lead authors on invited articles, and (5) lack of attention to ethics of collaboration and citation. We recommend that Ornithological Applications, Ornithology, and other global-scope ornithological journals (1) adjust their criteria for publication with the aim to publish all scientifically robust and ethically rigorous ornithology research submitted by first authors based in the Neotropics, including negative results and articles on basic biology; (2) maintain or create options for free or low-cost publication; (3) offer the option of a submission and review process in Spanish (and possibly other languages in the future); (4) increase the representation of ornithologists based in the Neotropics (especially women and those belonging to other marginalized groups) in core editorial teams and on editorial boards; and (5) introduce structured reflexivity statements, in which authors declare how local scientists were involved in the research and how equity was promoted in the collaboration that resulted in the manuscript. For these changes to be broadly effective in the long term, ornithologists across the Global South, and Indigenous, Brown, and Black ornithologists globally, should play lead roles in designing, implementing, and assessing the effectiveness of journal policies and programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This opinion piece argues that the time finally seems right to truly embrace innovation in the academic publishing market and review the role of large commercial publishers therein. It argues that many innovations already exist but have thus far failed to truly disrupt the status quo due to the omission of due consideration being given to the broader role of scholarly communications within the wider research ecosystem and an inability to compete with the least tangible of publishers' value propositions: prestige. It does this by conducting two analyses: a stakeholder power/impact matrix to ascertain all who have an interest in the scholarly publishing process and their primary motivations, and an exploration of the value conferred by commercial publishers to the publication process. It concludes with a call to bring together all impacted stakeholders to issue a declaration on fair publishing and a commitment to change. A collective approach, united by a common purpose, can lead to real change for a better, more equitable future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Essex Student Journal is a diamond open access journal that publishes the work of undergraduate and postgraduate taught students at the University of Essex. The journal editor and all peer reviewers are postgraduate research students at Essex. The Essex Student Journal therefore prides itself on being run by students, for students. As well as being a working academic journal, it is also used as an educational tool that introduces University of Essex students and postgraduate researchers to open access publishing. Furthermore, it enables advocacy for diamond open access across the University and beyond, demonstrating the benefits and viability of diamond open access publishing to academic staff and senior leaders. This case study explores how, for relatively small investments, library teams can make a big impact with their students and staff when it comes to diamond open access publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Faculty hold widely varying perspectives on the benefits and challenges afforded by open access (OA) publishing. In the United States, conversations on OA models and strategy have been dominated by scholars affiliated with Carnegie R1 institutions. This article reports findings from interviews conducted with faculty at a Carnegie R2 institution, highlighting disciplinary and individual perspectives on the high costs and rich rewards afforded by OA. The results reiterate the persistence of a high degree of skepticism regarding the quality of peer review and business models associated with OA publishing. By exploring scholars' perceptions of and experiences with OA publishing and their comfort using or sharing unpublished, publicly available content, the authors highlight the degree to which OA approaches must remain flexible, iterative and multifaceted - no single solution can begin to accommodate the rich and varying needs of individual stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The commercial control of academic publishing and research infrastructure by a few oligopolistic companies has crippled the development of the open access movement and interfered with the ethical principles of informa)tion access and privacy. In recent years, vertical integration of publishers and other service providers throughout the research cycle has led to plat)formisation, characterised by datafication and commodification similar to the practices on social media platforms. Scholarly publications are treated as user-generated contents for data tracking and surveillance, resulting in profitable data products and services for research assessment, benchmark)ing and reporting. Meanwhile, the bibliodiversity and equal open access are denied by the dominant gold open access model and the privacy of researchers is being compromised by spyware embedded in research infra)structure. This article proposes four actions to challenge the platformisation of scholarly information after a brief overview of the market of academic journals and research assessments and their implications for bibliodiversity, information access, and privacy: (1) Educate researchers about commercial publishers and APCs; (2) Allocate library budget to support scholar-led and library publishing; (3) Engage in the development of public research infra)structures and copyright reform; and (4) Advocate for research assessment reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the status of Open Access (OA) publishing in India and reviews it's academic, economic, and societal impact. The study adopted descriptive and review methods. Data was extracted from directories, online databases, and websites for analysing OA trends at the global level and in India. Studies related to the topic were also reviewed to examine the academic, economic, and societal impact of OA publishing on different stakeholders. The study's findings suggest that the number of OA journals indexed in Scopus, WoS, and DOAJ is consistently growing in India. A significant amount of research literature published in Scopus and WoS indexed journals is OA, making India one of the leading nations in the OA movement. Major funding bodies like CSIR, UGC, DST, DBT, and ICAR in India have formulated OA policies and mandated authors to make research outcomes of publicly funded research OA. The present study's results will aid policymakers in realising the difficulty associated with OA adoption, contributing to policy formulation and implementation nationwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What role do networks play during the digital transformation of the scholarly publishing system? This article depicts sociospatial practices and its strategic relevance for stakeholders being involved within the Open Access community. The aim is to explore networks of scholar-led publishing initiatives and to facilitate an extended understanding of the scholarly publishing system in transition by thinking it through with sociospatial theory from a Lefebvrian perspective. As a case study, the Radical Open Access Collective (ROAC) with more than 70 members is explored in a mixed methods research design. The focus of the qualitatively-driven research is the Collective's sociospatial strategies e.g. networking and multiscalar activities. A systematic literature research and interviews with experts in the field of scholar-led publishing provide the main data set, being triangulated with desk-based research on the ROAC. The results show networking processes on three different levels building on a social network analysis. Moreover, this article contributes to a deeper understanding of a network of scholar-led publishers indicating key sociospatial strategies considering dialectics of scalability. Concluding, this study emphasises the importance of sociospatial strategies for non-profit publishing initiatives in order to create a knowledge commons around open and equitable infrastructures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rise of open access (OA) publishing has been followed by the expansion of the Article Publishing Charges (APC) that moves the financial burden of scholarly journal publishing from libraries and readers to authors. We introduce the results of an international randomly selected sampled survey (N = 3,422) that explores attitudes towards this pay‐to‐publish or Gold OA model among scholars. We test the predictor role of age, professional position, discipline, and income‐level country in this regard. We found that APCs are perceived more as a global threat to Science than a deterrent to personal professional careers. Academics in low and lower‐middle income level countries hold the most unfavourable opinions about the APC system. The less experimental disciplines held more negative perceptions of APC compared to STEM and the Life Sciences. Age and access to external funding stood as negative predictors of refusal to pay to publish. Commitment to OA self‐archiving predicted the negative global perception of the APC. We conclude that access to external research funds influences the acceptance and the particular perception of the pay to publish model, remarking the economic dimension of the problem and warning about issues in the inequality between centre and periphery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wissenschaftliches Publizieren verändert sich in seiner Grundstruktur. Verlage, Bibliotheken und Forschungsfinanzierer sehen sich mit einem Prozess zunehmender Atomisierung ihrer Arbeits- und Entscheidungsprozesse konfrontiert, deren Abwicklung sie vor Herausforderungen stellt. Coopetition als eine neue Form des Wettbewerbs setzt sich dabei zunehmend durch, um das Ökosystem zu stabilisieren. The basic structure of academic publishing is shifting. Publishers, libraries and research funders are faced with a growing atomisation of their work and decision-making processes, the handling of which presents them with new complex challenges. Coopetition, a new form of competition, is increasingly gaining ground to stabilize the ecosystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is based on a presentation at the APE 2022 Conference and two blog posts published first on The Scholarly Kitchen. It explains how the scholarly community is currently in a liminal space; a place of transition to the end goal of open access (OA), open science, and open research. It argues that the publishing landscape is marked by two waves of consolidation: in the journal’s publisher space, and in the scholarly communication infrastructure. With respect to the first wave, Uncertainty, Transformative Agreements, and the required Technology and Reporting Burdens of Plan S led to an increased emphasis on publishing in quantity, smaller society publishers being dissolved, and bigger publishers shifting towards being workflow providers. The second wave of consolidation is happening around the technology and infrastructure of scholarly communication. This has seen a further shift for many companies away from being a publisher and toward being a workflow provider. The short-term outlook is that we are going to be in this liminal space for a while. Longer term we see two concurrent trends: a drive for low-cost, high-volume bulk publishing, and a shift for publishers to become paid service providers for most everything else. This is the path we are on. The question for the community is whether this is an acceptable long-term outcome to our end goal, or are there other routes we should be taking to drive a differently shaped future? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the decades after the Second World War, learned society publishers struggled to cope with the expanding output of scientific research and the increased involvement of commercial publishers in the business of publishing research journals. Could learned society journals survive economically in the postwar world, against this competition? Or was the emergence of a sales-based commercial model of publishing – in contrast to the traditional model of subsidized journal publishing – an opportunity to transform the often-fragile finances of learned societies? But there was also an existential threat: if commercial firms could successfully publish scientific journals, were learned society publishers no longer needed? This paper investigates how British learned society publishers adjusted to the new economic realities of the postwar world, through an investigation of the activities organized by the Royal Society of London and the Nuffield Foundation, culminating in the 1963 report Self-Help for Learned Journals. It reveals the postwar decades as the time when scientific research became something to be commodified and sold to libraries, rather than circulated as part of a scholarly mission. It will be essential reading for all those campaigning to transition academic publishing – including learned society publishing – away from the sales-based model once again. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The overall purposes of this study are to identify actions taken to counter predatory publishing practices as well as to propose an ICT-based model to detect such practices. The need to raise quantitative performance metrics to support career goals has created immense pressure on researchers to publish in the literature as frequently as possible. This “publish or perish” syndrome appears to be fueling a rise in scholarly journals and conferences that provide quicker and easier routes to publication. However, such avenues sometimes involve questionable academic practices with important ethical ramifications. One notable example is the proliferation of predatory publishing, including predatory journals and fake conferences. The widening impact of such activities is beginning to prompt academic societies, publishers, and institutions to take measures. This paper discusses the issues on predatory publishing practices, and some of the actions taken by various stakeholders to address these practices. In order to build a transparent and sustainable scholarly publishing ecosystem, this study highlights multidimensional and specific solutions, including reforms to research ethics codes, research management rules, and legal protection from exploitative practices. This paper proposes an ICTbased cooperative model for monitoring of predatory publishers as a potential solution to create a sustainable and transparent infrastructure for a scholarly publication system guarding against misconduct in publishing practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A survey of English language academic publishers in the UK, Europe and North America was undertaken in 2021. The objective was to gather data on the current landscape of academic monograph publishing in the arts, humanities, and social sciences and to identify trends. Respondents were asked about their monograph publishing activities, sales, distribution, and about the future direction of their programmes. The paper offers independent analysis of publisher information that may be helpful in informing the debate among stakeholders as to the future of the publication of long-form research in the arts, humanities and social sciences. The results offer key insights into the growth in output of titles, the level of print sales, the move towards open access, usage of monographs, and their pricing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pay to publish and open access have been studied extensively, but less so in disciplines such as philosophy and ethics. This study examines the habits and perceptions of researchers from these two fields in Spain. The study draws on data from a survey (completed by 201 out of 541 researchers), a public debate with 26 researchers, and 14 in‐depth interviews. Our results offer some interesting insights into the criteria researchers apply when selecting publishers and journals, notably the value they place on the absence of publication fees. However, habits differ for publishing an article or a book, since payment to publish books is more widespread. The study finds contrasting views on the market for publishing books and journals: some respondents perceived what they consider to be the commercialisation of publishing in academic journals, while others provide arguments to support the Spanish book industry. Sceptical views were also voiced on pay to publish as a funding model. Finally, the study finds broad agreement among the researchers surveyed that publicly funded research should be free to read. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Der Artikel stellt die Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrates zur Transformation des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens zu Open Access vor und versucht die Kernpunkte herauszuarbeiten. Anhand dieser Punkte wird erläutert, warum mit diesen Empfehlungen deutlich wird, dass auch knapp 20 Jahre nach Unterzeichnung der Berliner Erklärung noch keine echte Transformation stattgefunden hat und auch den mannigfaltigen Anstrengungen auf bibliothekarischer Seite zum Trotz noch nicht stattfinden konnte. Der Artikel greift außerdem die Punkte der Empfehlungen auf, die vielversprechend sind, aber womöglich eines längeren Atems bedürfen als es manchen Beteiligten recht sein kann. The paper introduces the recommendations of German Science and Humanities Council on the transformation of academic publishing towards Open Access, pinpointing core aspects. The key points will illustrate why, 20 years on, these recommendations are indicative of a lack of genuine transformation, and may explain why change has not happened despite the manifold efforts made by libraries. The article also outlines promising aspects that nonetheless may require a long-term view most of the parties involved might not be ready to take. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An attempt has been made to study the current state of transformative agreements around the globe, particularly in India. The drawbacks of transformative agreements, and their implications on open access are discussed. It is found that transformative agreements are largely undertaken in parts of Europe and USA. Further, they get discontinued in between and do not divulge all the terms and conditions of the agreements thus raising doubts of complete open access to journals and transparency. It concludes, such agreements may be able to raise only a small percentage of open access to published literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK Research and Innovation funding council announced its latest Open Access Policy on August 6, 2021. This policy applies to all UKRI funded research, and thus constitutes a significant move towards OA as an academic standard. For the first time in the UK, OA is to be mandated for academic books - this means that both monographs and edited chaptered books must be published Open Access from January 2024, though a 1 year embargo is permissible. As the infrastructures, business models and workflows supporting OA book publishing are currently lagging behind journals, especially in the Arts and Humanities, many researchers and institutions have responded to the policy with some consternation, even whilst supporting the aims and ethics of OA publishing. This article explores some of these apprehensions and questions raised by institutions, academics and by librarians regarding OA book publishing in a UK context, especially regarding funding and sustainability. It aims to dispel certain myths around OA book publishing in general, particularly the notion that Book Processing Charges are a necessary or even desirable element. The article then presents some of the varied models and systems currently in use and development, particularly the work of the UKRI/Research England funded COPIM project (Community-Led Open Access Infrastructures for Monographs), one of the aims of which is to build ways of delivering more sustainable revenue sources to OA publishers. It focuses in particular a key and soon to be launched output of the project: the Open Book Collective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In light of the ongoing transformation of scholarly publishing toward open access, libraries need data-based tools that enable them to make decisions that respond to the challenges posed by this shift. Tasks such as collection development, applications for funding, or consulting researchers on publication venues require a solid base of data, which is not always easily available to librarians. Funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the Open Access Monitor Germany (OAM) aims to provide libraries, funders, and researchers with a freely available tool that presents data on publications and citations for analysis. The OAM records the publication output of German academic institutions in scientific journals. Through analyses of subscription fees and (open access) publication fees, it helps to monitor and support the transition of the publishing system toward an open access system. To this end, data from existing sources are collated within an expanded database, made available to users in an open interface, and disseminated by means of scientific publications. The OAM draws on sources such as Unpaywall, Dimensions, Web of Science, Scopus, and OpenAPC. Unpaywall is used as a central data source for publication metadata including open access availability; this data is then matched with Crossref data for journal-level metadata and finally with Dimensions, Web of Science and Scopus data for affiliations and citation data. The connection to OpenAPC provides data on publication costs for each participating institution. The interface presents users with a wide range of filters that can be used to customize the underlying data in line with specific needs. Users can switch between Dimensions, Web of Science and Scopus affiliations and make use of different analysis types including publication analyses, cost analyses, and citation analyses. Results are presented as tables as well as charts and can be downloaded for further use. In the future, additional data sources including subscriptions to scientific journals and subscription payments will be integrated to allow the shift in payment flows in the changing publication market to be observed. The integration of data from the electronic resource management system LAS:eR has already been initiated and will soon be completed. Moreover, interfaces will be created to connect the Alma and FOLIO systems. Together with data on publication costs, this will provide participating institutions with easily accessible overview of their total costs, thus enabling them to calculate an integrated budget for subscriptions and publications. Institutions using the OAM are advised with regard to analyzing data and technically integrating the OAM into their own applications. Small and medium-sized publishers from German-speaking countries are supported in the negotiation of transformation contracts by means of data from the OAM. The OAM project team also conducts studies that address a number of scientific issues, for example the impact of open access on scientific networks and the role of open access in the field of monographs. The relationship between open access and the citation rates of published works is another possible research area that can be addressed with the help of the OAM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the study was to explore the factors that influence the adoption and use of open access scholarly publishing (OASP) by researchers in selected public universities in Kenya. Using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model as a study lens and the questionnaire as the data collection tool, the study collected data from academic researchers in three Kenyan public universities, namely the University of Nairobi (UoN), Kenyatta University (KU) and Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT). The findings of the study indicate that there are several factors associated with facilitating conditions (FC), performance expectancy (PE), internet skills, and social influence (SI) that influence there searchers' intention to adopt and use OASP in the selected universities. Consequently, we believe that addressing the inhibitors of the adoption of OASP in Kenyan universities would be key to the successful and effective use of OASP. Enablers such as ICT infrastructure, staff capacity and clear policies should be enhanced so as to optimise researchers' capabilities. Based on the findings, the study makes several recommendations to improve the adoption and use of OASP in Kenya's institutions of higher learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. This paper aims to present the results of a research on the sustainability of the crowdfunding model for scholarly Open Access (OA) books from the perspective of libraries. Librarians' motivations to financially support publishing of scholarly OA books via crowdfunding are examined, with the focus on identifying the challenges librarians are currently facing and any additional factors that contribute to their decisions to participate in crowdfunding initiatives. Methodology. The research was conducted through an anonymous online survey consisting of 9 questions. Two questions focused on the institutional role of librarians in the context of OA services and the disciplinary focus of their institution, while the other 7 questions focused on their reasons for participation/non-participation in crowdfunding initiatives and their perceptions of the challenges of publishing scholarly books OA. The questionnaire was constructed in the context of the main research question (What factors contribute to the sustainability of crowdfunding models?), which is further specified by several sub-questions (1. What are the main reasons for librarians' participation in crowdfunding models?; 2. What global and local factors do librarians consider crucial for the sustainability of the crowdfunding model for OA books?; 3. What are currently the biggest challenges with OA book publishing according to librarians?). Findings. This study revealed that librarians believe in OA as a fundamental principle, despite existing obstacles and challenges. The research sharpens the picture compared to previously published papers because it has identified the importance of the OA principle as a key factor in the decision to support OA in relation to a specific business model, i.e., when it comes to the crowdfunding model and when it comes to academic books. The research has also found that local data on the use of academic OA books are not crucial for deciding on the participation of libraries in crowdfunding initiatives, while the author's affiliation and disciplinary orientation of books published OA have a greater impact on librarians' propensity to support crowdfunding models. Limitations. The research instrument (online survey) could not check whether the respondents answered the questions exclusively in the context of OA books. It can be assumed that some respondents may have answered questions about OA books based on their experiences with OA business models in the context of OA journals, while the emphasis in this research is exclusively on OA books, and specifically on the crowdfunding model (this was clearly communicated to all participants). Originality/value. Although there is a lot of research on the impact of OA, especially on the impact and sustainability of scholarly journals published OA, very few studies focus on how scholarly OA books are funded, and particularly on innovative funding initiatives involving libraries and involving crowdfunding. This research deepens the understanding of the crowdfunding model in the context of scholarly books published OA and reveals the key factors contributing to its sustainability from librarians' perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This article reports results from a survey of faculty members with editorial responsibilities. The survey explored what publishing services and platform functionalities respondents found most valuable in their work as editors, how satisfied they were with the services provided by commercial publishers, and to what extent they were aware of alternative publishing practices. Method: The authors used data collected from a survey instrument that was distributed to a sample (n = 515) of faculty members with editorial responsibilities at their institution. Results: Collected data suggest that faculty editors value specific publishing services (e.g., coordination of peer review and copyediting) and platform functionality (e.g., submission and peer-review management) more than others, recognize several challenges facing academic publishing in their disciplines (including the transition to open access publishing models), and are mostly aware of common forms of open access research dissemination such as open access journals and institutional repositories. Discussion: The survey results may be helpful to library publishers in making decisions about what publishing services and platform functionalities to prioritize in the development of their publishing programs. In addition to utilizing the survey data to assess the needs of editors, the authors also identified a number of expanded uses of the survey related to marketing and outreach. Conclusion: Insofar as faculty editors are key stakeholders that library publishers seek to build partnerships with, it is important to understand their needs and preferences as editors. This article provides some insight into these questions that may prove helpful to library publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The status of published literature can change at any time in its history following publication, although existing structures in academic publishing for recording these changes, despite the existence of a number of robust tools—such as the digital object identifier (DOI)—appear to be insufficiently robust, or used too inconsistently or inefficiently, to deal with multiple corrections. In this article, an information storage method and corrective measure or tool is proposed—the 'publication history'—that considers the full history and background of an article's publication. The 'publication history' is adjusted to record changes to an article over time, and is thus a 'live' document, always open to modification and updating. The 'publication history' has the potential to accommodate, in a single document (in both PDF and HTML format), information about pre-publication (e.g., preprints) and post-publication events, including submission, resubmission, acceptance date, handling editors, peer-review format, corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions. The 'publication history' employs two DOIs, one for the article and one for any and all edits, to document these changes. Our proposal offers one possible solution for fortifying the integrity of peer review and the publication process pre- and post–peer review. The doubl DOI based 'publication history' can be applied to any document. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on the findings from semi-structured interviews with 21 academics in the humanities and social sciences (HSS) at Australian universities, this article explores how academic authors understand prestige in scholarly book publishing, and how the institutional pressures, and their personal and professional goals shape their publishing strategy. University presses in the Global North were regarded higher than global commercial publishers, which in turn were seen as more reputable than Australia-based university presses. The application of such HSS-wide hierarchies of publishers devoid of disciplinary nuance in performance assessments has been criticised as counterproductive and even harmful, with a detrimental impact on the scholar's autonomy and research agendas. Nevertheless, the need for academics to carefully choose the publisher is considered key in the current competitive institutional and publishing environment. The study develops a framework to guide academics' publishing strategy, which uses audience, quality and time as key elements that need to be taken into consideration when deciding where to publish their book-length work. The findings of the study will be useful to HSS academics who are interested in refining their book publishing strategy and staff in libraries and in research support roles who advise academics, especially early career researchers, on their publishing decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we study the diversity of users of open access articles on the Finnish Journal.fi platform. This platform hosts around hundred open access journals from Finland publishing in different fields and mainly Finnish and English languages. The study is based on an online survey, conducted on 48 journals during Spring 2020, in which visitors were asked to indicate their background and allow their location and download behaviour be tracked. Among 668 survey participants, the two largest groups were students (40%) and researchers (36%), followed by private citizens (8%), other experts (7%) and teachers (5%). Other identified user categories include journalists, civil servants, entrepreneurs and politicians. While new publications attract a considerable share of the views, there is still a relatively large interest, especially among students, in older materials. Our findings indicate that Finnish language publications are particularly important for reaching students, citizens, experts and politicians. Thus, open access to publications in national languages is vital for the local relevance and outreach of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Success in academic archaeology is strongly influenced by the publication of peer-reviewed articles. Despite the importance of such articles, minimal research has explicitly examined the factors influencing publishing decisions in archaeology. In order to better understand the landscape of archaeological publishing, we distributed a short survey that solicited basic professional and demographic information before asking respondents to (1) identify journals that publish important archaeological research, (2) identify journals that people who read archaeological academic CVs value most highly, and (3) rank the factors that affected their decisions about where to submit an article for publication. Our results from 274 respondents generated a list of 167 individual journal titles. Prestige was viewed as the most important factor that affected publishing decisions, followed by audience and open access considerations. There was no relationship between respondent-generated journal rankings and SCImago Journal Ranks (SJR), but there were significant differences in average SJR by gender and career stage. Responses showed consensus on only a small number of highly ranked archaeology and science-subject journals, with little agreement on the importance of most other journals. We conclude by highlighting the areas of disciplinary consensus and divergence revealed by the survey and by discussing how implicit prestige hierarchies permeate academic archaeology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional and open-access publication models have been increasingly scrutinized, particularly in light of the recent impasse regarding cost and access between Elsevier and the University of California. Peer-reviewed publications are the main source through which science is disseminated, yet the industry remains an enigma to most. Our aim was to determine radiology publisher market-share, access type, geographic distribution and relative research impact in order to better understand the traditionally opaque realm of academic publishing. During April 2020, Scopus was queried to extract all entries in the "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging" subcategory of "Medicine." Journal name, publisher, SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR) score, country and publication model were cataloged. Publishers were grouped by their ownership type and journals were grouped by their publication model. Overall trends were assessed across publisher type, publication model, and geographic location. Commercial publishers are used by 82% (239 of 293) of radiology journals. Elsevier and Springer Nature together published 40% (118/293) of journal titles within the category. Approximately one fourth (77/293) of radiology journals were open-access. On average, SJRs were highest for journals published commercially. Mean SJR across the top 10 publishers and publication model were similar (p = 0.06 and p = 0.48, respectively). Radiology journal publication is heavily consolidated amongst a few global commercial organizations. Most radiology journals were subscription-based, but their impact did not differ significantly from open-access counterparts. Further disputes between universities and publishers could influence future manuscript submission, review, and citation, which has the potential to destabilize traditional publication models. • Radiology journals are largely published by a few commercial entities according to the traditional subscription-based model. • Elsevier and Springer Nature publish 40% of journals in Radiology. • Open-access alternatives are available and appear to carry a similar scientific impact. • Publication model is likely to be central to future negotiations between universities and leading commercial publishers. • Future work to assess the impact of subscription cancelation on manuscrip submission, access, review & citation is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Read and Publish" deals represent a new paradigm in the Open Access scholarly publishing ecosystem. However, "Read and Publish" deals may introduce financial imbalances between institutions which choose to "Read" and those which choose to "Publish." At NASIG 2020, five presenters came together in a panel discussion to present their perspectives on "Read and Publish" from library, consortia, and publisher perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims at analyzing the importance of protection of intellectual property (IP) in biomedical scholarly publications, both for the author's reputation and the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The laws that regulate IP are very complex and differ from country to country. We shall focus on the Italian framework though many considerations could be applied to foreign contexts. IP is very articulated, yet often ignored, that is worth paying attention to a correct copyright management can help re- searchers promote their Work and the community to benefit from it. In the scholarly publishing field, there are two main areas: traditional publishers and open-access publishers. The first group requires a fee to access the content they publish and usually ask the authors for a complete transfer of copyright. The possibility to negotiate terms with such publishers is often overlooked: scholarly authors tend to think they do not have leverage in the publishing cycle. The so-called addendum and professional figures, like librarians and attorneys, can help manage the authors' intellectual property. On the other hand, open-access publishers give free access to published material, guaranteeing the protection of IP: thanks to the Creative Commons Licenses, the authors do not have to surrender their copyright to the publisher and can manage and control the use made out of their Work. Applying the principles put forth in this article implies enhancing research dissemination by increasing its impact and visibility. However, to achieve such a goal, it is necessary to protect intellectual property for the sake of authors, users, and scientific progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research seeks to expand the body of knowledge surrounding International Open Access Week (OA Week) practices among small to medium-sized U.S. institutions, examining the rationales guiding these, and creating a baseline activity inventory which may be elaborated upon as open access continues to evolve and as OA Week matures beyond its fifth (2013) anniversary. An electronic survey with closed- and open-ended questions was used to collect data, which were analyzed for recurring themes. Of respondents whose campuses did observe OA Week, the most reported reason for doing so was related to supporting the library's educational outreach program; fewer respondents cited the library's philosophical commitment to open access. Lack of time was the most frequently given reason for OA Week non-participation, however around one quarter of non-participating respondents reported that they were unaware of OA Week, and another quarter reported that it did not figure in their strategic plan. The conditions that were found to best support celebrating OA Week included a grasp of the principles guiding OA on the part of at least one librarian, reinforced by: the educational mission of the library; adequate personnel; and sufficient time for planning. This exploratory study yields points for library- and self-assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores PhD faculty members' current awareness of open access (OA) and perceptions of OA publishing, focusing on demographic characteristics to understand whether these variables correspond to specific perceptions and behaviors. The majority of respondents taught in Art, Humanities and Social Sciences disciplines. Results point to a growing trend in self reported knowledge of OA across all age groups but OA publishing activity is relatively limited. The younger age brackets reported higher percentages of publishing history than older age brackets, but these younger groups tended to also be tenured. Credibility of OA journals was the top concern of respondents. Results suggest that faculty authors cannot be prejudged by their age, seniority or rank as to their perception of, or experience with OA, because these indicators no longer appear to be strong predictors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to look at two particular aspects of open access megajournals, a new type of scholarly journals. Such journals only review for scientific soundness and leave the judgment of scientific impact to the readers. The two leading journals currently each publish more than 20,000 articles per year. The publishing speed of such journals and acceptance rates of such journals are the topics of the study. Design/methodology/approach: Submission, acceptance and publication dates for a sample of articles in 12 megajournals were manually extracted from the articles. Information about acceptance rates was obtained using web searches of journal home pages, editorials, blogs, etc. Findings: The time from submission to publication varies a lot, with engineering megajournals publishing much more rapidly. But on average it takes almost half a year to get published, particularly in the high-volume biomedical journals. As some of the journals have grown in publication volume, the average review time has increased by almost two months. Acceptance rates have slightly decreased over the past five years, and are now in the range of 50–55 percent. Originality/value: This is the first empirical study of how long it takes to get published in megajournals and it highlights a clear increase of around two months in publishing. Currently, the review process in the biomedical megajournals takes as long as in regular more selective journals in the same fields. Possible explanations could be increasing difficulties in finding willing and motivated reviewers and in a higher share of submissions from developing countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper provides empirical results on the part of grey literature in the French national open repository HAL. The results are based on a quantitative analysis of 973,968 deposits from 1,272 research laboratories affiliated the ten most important research universities in France (IDEX program). 35% of all deposits (documents and records) are grey literature. The main types of these items are conference papers (71%), PhD theses (11%) and preprints and working papers (8%). Their overall accessibility (degree of openness) is 37%, which is higher than commercial publications. Differences between document types, disciplines and institution are described. Further research is needed for a better understanding of how research laboratories are handling grey literature (licensing ...). A follow-up study in 2021 will provide this insight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Any research institution needs to analyze their research output in terms of journal articles in SCI or SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR) Indicator. It is also essential at the same time to understand the library subscription quality. In this article, an attempt has been made to map the faculty and research scholarly journal publications and the library E-journals subscription. The current year articles publications by the academic staff and research scholars indexed in the SCOPUS database have been analyzed based on the full-text availability. The sources from where the academic staff refer and cite would like to publish their research articles. It is vital from the library point of view to study bibliometric analysis on their users' needs from time to time by understanding the reading and referencing habits. It is effortless to subscribe to more resources, but it is challenging to use them for users' academic purposes. To know the usage pattern and develop a library subscription strategy where > 90% of the library budget was invested in subscribing to E-Journals, and online databases, the usage of these resources matters the most. Gone are the days when traditional methods like subscribe and wait for your user to use these resources. It is imperative to understand what they want instead of bombarding with what we have for them. The methodology used here is straightforward, the SCOPUS Indexed articles published by faculty members and research scholars of the institution were analyzed using full-text availability from the library subscriptions and from open access resources. The majority, 77% of the articles have full-text availability, of which 43% are from library resources and 24% are from Open Access journals. There are 23% of published articles indexed in SCOPUS do not available in full-text for and these sources are not part of the library subscriptions. Out of all types of documents, the majority, 69.70% published in the form of articles. Science Direct is the major source for academic staff to publish their articles, followed by Springer Nature, and the third-highest source of publication is Open Access resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Communicating new scientific discoveries is key to human progress. Yet, this endeavor has been increasingly hindered by monetary restrictions that restrain scientists from publishing their findings and accessing other scientists' reports. This process is further exacerbated by a large portion of publishing media owned by private companies that, in contrast with journals from scientific societies, do not reinject academic publishing benefits into the scientific community. As the academic world is not exempt from economic crises and funding restrictions, new alternatives are necessary to support a fair and economically sustainable publishing system for scientists and society as a whole. After summarizing major shortcomings of academic publishing today, we present several solutions that span the levels of the individual scientist, the scientific community, and the publisher to initiate a transformative change towards more sustainable scientific publishing. By providing a voice to the many scientists who are fundamental protagonists, yet often powerless witnesses, of the academic publishing system, as well as a roadmap for implementing solutions, we hope this initiative will go beyond sparking increased awareness and promote a shift towards more sustainable scientific publishing practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, the volume of scholarly literature worldwide has increased significantly, and open-access publishing has become commonplace. These changes are even more dominant in South Korea. Comparing the periods of 1981-2000 and 2001-2020, the number of medical articles produced in Korea increased by 16.8 times on the Web of Science platform (13,223 to 222,771 papers). Before 1990, almost no open-access articles were produced in South Korea, but in the last 10 years open-access publications came to account for almost 40% of all South Korean publications on Web of Science. Along with the expansion of literature and the development of open-access publishing, predatory journals that seek profit without conducting quality assurance have appeared and undermined the academic corpus. In this rapidly changing environment, medical researchers have begun contemplating publication standards. In this article, recent trends in academic publishing are examined from international and South Korean perspectives, and the significance of open-access publishing and recent changes are discussed. Practical methods that can be used to select legitimate publishers, including open-access journals, and identify predatory journals are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ambition of the Netherlands, laid down in the National Plan Open Science, is to achieve 100% open access for academic publications. The ambition was to be achieved by 2020. However, it is to be expected that for the year 2020 between 70% and 75% of the articles will be open access. Until recently, the focus of the Netherlands has been on the gold route - open access via journals and publishers' platforms. This is likely to be costly and it is also impossible to cover all articles and other publication types this way. Since 2015, Dutch Copyright Act has offered an alternative with the implementation of Article 25fa (also known as the 'Taverne Amendment'), facilitating the green route, i.e. open access via (trusted) repositories. This amendment allows researchers to share short scientific works (e.g. articles and book chapters in edited collections), regardless of any restrictive guidelines from publishers. From February 2019 until August 2019 all Dutch universities participated in the pilot 'You Share, We Take Care!' to test how this copyright amendment could be interpreted and implemented by institutions as a policy instrument to enhance green open access and "selfarchiving". In 2020 steps were taken to scale up further implementation of the amendment. This article describes the outcomes of this pilot and shares best practices on implementation and awareness activities in the period following the pilot until early 2021, in which libraries have played an instrumental role in building trust and working on effective implementations on an institutional level. It concludes with some possible next steps for alignment, for example on a European level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) requires authors who are submitting to subscription journals to inform publishers that the author accepted manuscript (AAM) will be made available under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. The laudable stated aim of the RRS is to achieve immediate open access to research outputs, while preserving journal choice for authors. However, proponents of the RRS overlook the significant administrative and legal burdens that the RRS places on authors and readers. Even though compliance with existing green open access (self-archiving) policies is poor at best, the RRS is likely to rely on authors to successfully execute the CC licensing of their work in the face of publisher resistance. The complexity of copyright law and CC licensing gives many reasons to doubt the legal validity of an RRS licence grant, which creates legal risk for authors and their institutions. The complexity of RRS CC BY licensing also creates legal risk for readers, who may not be able to fully rely on the reuse rights of a CC BY licence on the AAM. However, cOAlition S has released no legal advice that explains why the RRS is valid and legally binding. Publishers of legacy subscription journals have already begun implementing strategies that ensure they can protect their revenue streams. These actions may leave authors having to choose between paying publication fees and complying with their funding agreements. The result is that the RRS increases the complexity of the copyright and licensing landscape in academic publishing, creates legal risk and may not avoid author fees. Unless increased complexity and conflict between authors and publishers drives open access, the RRS is not fit for its stated purpose as an open access strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his opinion piece criticizing the open access (OA) policies at Harvard University, Patrick Alexander makes several factual errors about the policies themselves and Harvard's experience under them. In response, I discuss several relevant facts about Harvard OA policies, among them that the policies were adopted by faculty votes, not imposed by administrators; that under the policies, faculty only grant Harvard nonexclusive rights to new faculty articles, not exclusive rights or full copyright; that the policycreated Harvard OA license is merely a default that authors can easily waive for any given article; that the policies do not hinder Harvard faculty in publishing and do not limit their freedom to publish in the venues of their choice; and that the policies give Harvard faculty more rights, not fewer rights, over their own work than they typically get from their publishing contracts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the late 1990s chemists were among the early adopters of open access (OA) publishing. As also happened with preprints, the early successful adoption of OA publishing by chemists subsequently slowed down. In 2016 chemistry was found to be the discipline with the lowest proportion of OA articles in articles published between 2009 and 2015. To benefit from open science in terms of enhanced citations, collaboration, job and funding opportunities, chemistry scholars need updated information (and education) of practical relevance about open science. Suggesting avenues for quick uptake of OA publishing from chemists in both developed and developing countries, this article offers a critical perspective on academic publishing in the chemical sciences that will be useful to inform that education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]