Search

This study aims to estimate the total amount of article processing charges (APCs) paid to publish open access (OA) in journals controlled by the five large commercial publishers Elsevier, Sage, Springer-Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley between 2015 and 2018. Using publication data from Web of Science, OA status from Unpaywall and annual APC prices from open datasets and historical fees retrieved via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, we estimate that globally authors paid $1.06 billion in publication fees to these publishers from 2015-2018. Revenue from gold OA amounted to $612.5 million, while $448.3 million was obtained for publishing OA in hybrid journals. Among the five publishers, Springer-Nature made the most revenue from OA ($589.7 million), followed by Elsevier ($221.4 million), Wiley ($114.3 million), Taylor & Francis ($76.8 million) and Sage ($31.6 million). With Elsevier and Wiley making most of APC revenue from hybrid fees and others focusing on gold, different OA strategies could be observed between publishers., Version 3 of the preprint is a revised version of the manuscript submitted to the journal Quantitative Science Studies.

Traditional citations are links between publications that lack context. In-text citations measure how many times a publication was cited in text providing additional context on how much that publication was used. How would ranking change if in-text citations were used?

The findings of our study suggest that the doctoral mentorship relationship may play a significant role in student research performance in terms of both output and impact. The models explain 5% of the variance in productivity and 23% of the variance in impact, which indicates that while choosing the right advisor may positively influence one’s academic achievements, that decision alone does not tend to make or break one’s research career. The doctoral experience cannot be reduced to the advisor-advisee relationship. Additional factors, such as evolving in an intellectually stimulating environment, affect performance – more in fact than the quality and frequency of one-to-one interactions with advisors. These different degrees of mentorship relationships, such as coordination, cooperation, and collaboration, are not captured in our data. The results also suggest that providing co-authorship opportunities may be a good way for advisors to support their advisees, as it helps increase their research output and impact. Collaboration may be facilitated by students sharing research interests with their advisors, as suggested by the positive relationship between productivity and the similarity of the PhD dissertation and the advisor’s past work. The benefits of working closely with one’s advisor can conflict with the importance of establishing one’s independence as a researcher. Giving students the liberty to diversify their research interests may ultimately provide greater career advantages as they evolve in their careers.

It is widely recognized that open science has widespread benefits not only for science and society, but also for individual researchers (McKiernan et al., 2016). A study by Drachen et al. (2016) suggested that papers get more citations when the underlying data is made available. But when data is re-used, are the datasets themselves being cited, and if so, by whom? Past studies that investigated citations to datasets found that formal data citations are generally rare (Peters et al., 2016; Robinson-García et al., 2016), and observed field differences in data citation practices (Peters et al., 2016). There have also been attempts to link data creators to researchers in order to capture data sharing practices and incorporate them into the reward system of science (Mongeon et al., 2017). Dudek, Mongeon and Bergmans (2019) performed a small study in which they analyzed citations to datasets from the IFREMER and found that most of those citations came from researchers affiliated with the organization, and that 75% of the citing papers had at least one author in common with the dataset. Our work aims to scale-up the work of Dudek, Mongeon, and Bergmans (2019) by analyzing citations to 474,609 datasets, and the relationship between the citing authors and the creators of the 30,582 datasets with at least one citation. More specifically, our research questions are: 1. How many datasets in OpenAlex have been cited at least once? 2. How concentrated is the distribution of citations to datasets? 3. What share of data citations are self-citations? This is, to our knowledge, the first analysis to provide large-scale empirical insights on data re-use with a focus on data self-citations.

This study aims to estimate the total amount of article processing charges (APCs) paid to publish open access (OA) in journals controlled by the large commercial publishers Elsevier, Sage, Springer-Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley, the so-called oligopoly of academic publishing. Since the early 2010s, these five academic publishers control more than half of peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in the Web of Science (WoS), expanding their market power through acquisitions and mergers. While traditionally their business model focused on charging subscriptions to read articles, they have now shifted to OA, charging authors fees for publishing. These APCs often amount to several thousand dollars, excluding many from publishing on economic grounds. This study computes an estimate of the total amounts of APCs paid to oligopoly publishers between 2015 and 2018, using publication data from WoS, OA status from Unpaywall and annual APC prices from open datasets and historical fees retrieved via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. We estimate that globally authors paid the oligopoly of academic publishers $1.06 billion in publication fees in the 4-year period analyzed. Of the 505,903 OA articles analyzed, 60.9% were published in gold OA journals, 8.6% in diamond (gold with APC=$0) and 30.5% in hybrid journals. Revenue from gold OA amounted to $612.5 million, while $448.3 million was obtained for publishing OA in hybrid journals, for which publishers already charge subscription fees. Among the five publishers, Springer-Nature made the largest revenue from OA ($589.7 million), followed by Elsevier ($221.4 million), Wiley ($114.3 million), Taylor & Francis ($76.8 million) and Sage ($31.6 million). With Elsevier and Wiley making the majority of APC revenue from hybrid fees and others focusing on gold, different OA strategies could be observed between publishers.

This presentation sharesfindings from a study thatestimates fees paid for gold and hybrid open access articles in journals published by the oligopoly of academic publishers, which acknowledge funding from the Canadian Tri-Agency. It employs bibliometric methods using data from Web of Science, Unpaywall, open datasets of article processing charges list prices as well as historical fees retrieved via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine for journals published by Elsevier, Springer-Nature, Wiley, Sage and Taylor & Francis to estimate article processing charges for open access articles published between 2015 and 2018 that acknowledge funding from the Canadian Federal funding agencies CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC, as well as grants jointly administered by the Tri-Agency. During the four-year period analyzed, a total of 6,892 gold and 4,097 hybrid articles that acknowledge Tri-Agency funding were identified, for which the total list prices amount to $US 27.6 million.

Our results illustrate that there is a higher incidence of supporting and contrasting citations given to industry publications. This finding is a leading indicator of how novelty and risk are both at play with industry funded research. Disagreement is not uncommon and is even desirable in research. Supported publications tend to be sufficiently novel in their ideas, resulting in other researchers supporting their ideas or even finding the same results. This is a common process in academic discourse, with researchers aiming for competing results with different methods and results as a means of publishing rivalrous discourse. Opposing positions and viewpoints in industrial findings further emphasize Tannen’s (2002) argument that “ritualized adversativeness” in academic research promotes disagreement and opposition through agonism. Nonetheless, critical citations, especially arising in aggregate from a group, can indicate that the group is engaging in riskier research because they are making more tentative statements that can be disputed. Novelty and risk seem to be more present in industrial work than publicly funded work, with the latter being more conservative in the citations it makes and receives. Our observations show that industrial work is more supported (and self-supported) and criticized (and self-criticized) than publicly funded research. This may be because often industrial research and publicly funded research on the same topics tend to have different research objectives, resulting in different outcomes. There are also significant risks and criticism that come with taking industry funding, as it can fuel tension and animosity from their peers regarding researcher's capabilities as well as their integrity as an academic. Industry funding functions as a double-edged sword for researchers – as Hottenrott and Thorwarth (2011) found that large amounts of funding from industry reduces research output for academics, but industry funded research is also more likely to improve both quality of research and patent citation impact. Industry funding is also an integral source for knowledge creation and sharing, as many industries are not only responsible for funding research, but also conferences, research labs and institutions, lectures, and journals. We should emphasize the importance of concentration of industry funding, and how it affects engagement and impact based on distribution. Partnerships with industries for research funding are not meant to fund all research – therefore it makes sense that industrial funding is concentrated in certain disciplines. Industrial distribution is often selective, with a general focus on the epistemic effects of funded research such as productivity, research potential, and ground-breaking innovation. Although these are the motives behind funding concentration, that does not necessarily mean that this will be the given outcome, as many heavily funded and well-established researchers have proven to have minimal positive research impacts. However, there is still a lot that is unknown when it comes to industrial research concentration and impact in the food science discipline. Future research could examine disagreement at the community level to understand how researchers in specific disciplines interact with industry funded research. In addition, the consolidation of novelty and risk in food science is an interesting finding that could be further pursued in other research areas that are heavily influenced by industrial research, such as gambling, medicine, and pharmacy. This research could provide valuable insight into whether criticism and support within groups are self-supported or self-criticized, or if they are indicative of dynamics within publicly funded and industrial research groups such as competition between labs or individual researchers. Based on our findings, further work may seek to better understand the citation behaviour between funded and non-funded research in food science. Can we observe citation differences in industry and publicly funded research on the same topics? Examination at this level could detect visible competition patterns from researchers with different types of institutional funding and help us to better understand potential topical preference biases based on industrial funding, and topics that are understudied due to lack of support and funding restraints

Building on the preliminary findings presented here, this work will be developed further by including additional cleaning of location names to improve country assignation. Further analysis of the results by specific country, discipline, and evolution over time, will allow a deeper understanding of the extent to which researchers around the globe engage in local research and geo-contextualize their work in their titles and abstracts. For now, our study found that a small portion of research can be identified as geo-contextualized or local and that, in most fields, publications from the global South make up the larger share of the geo-contextualized work, which also comes with a citation disadvantage. Our results will hopefully contribute to discussions about the growing importance given to local research by funders and other research governance entities and the challenges that this may bring to researchers who must adapt to such a local context while competing in a global research system. &nbsp