Search

Importance: Publishing in health professions education (HPE) journals is an integral component of academic discourse and career progression. Research in this field is shifting to an open access (OA) publishing model., Objective: To identify the characteristics and publishing models of HPE journals and explore potential associations between publication costs and journal metrics., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted between September 20, 2023, and February 14, 2024, using the World Bank purchasing power parity (PPP) index to analyze relative costs of article processing charges (APCs). Data on journal characteristics, impact metrics, APCs, and waiver or discount were extracted from the National Library of Medicine, Scimago, Scopus, journal websites, and email correspondence with editorial staff of journals. All HPE journals indexed in PubMed, written in or translated into English, and with HPE as a core component of their mission were included in the analysis., Main Outcomes and Measures: Two-year impact factor, H-index, cite score, Scientific Journal Ranking, and APC., Results: Among the 51 journals included, 27 (53%) adopted OA-only and 24 (47%) adopted hybrid publishing models. The median (IQR) APC for all journals was $2820.00 ($928.00-$3300.00). Associations were observed between impact factor and APC (β coefficient, $386.84; 95% CI, $226.84-$546.84; P < .001) and between cite score and APC (β coefficient, $282.40; 95% CI, $148.12-$416.61; P < .001). Of 20 journal websites with information regarding fee waivers or discounts, 7 journals (35%) confirmed fee waiver or discount. The PPP index analysis of the top 39 countries publishing HPE research showed that the financial burden of meeting the median APC for publication was 1.94 to 10.26 times higher for authors from lower-income countries than for authors from the US., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that adoption by HPE journals of an OA publishing model was high but access to APC waivers or discounts was limited. These factors create barriers to equitable OA practices, necessitating concerted efforts, such as increasing transparency of publishing costs, implementing economic impact analysis, expanding waivers to eligible authors, and applying holistic impact factor scoring.

The Open Access movement has transformed the landscape of medical publishing. Federal regulations regarding Open Access have expanded in the USA, and journals have adapted by offering a variety of Open Access models that range widely in cost and accessibility. For junior faculty with little to no funding, navigating this ever-changing landscape while simultaneously balancing the pressures of publication and promotion may present a particular challenge. Open Access provides the opportunity to amplify the reach and impact of scientific research, yet it often comes at a cost that may not be universally affordable. In this perspective, we discuss the impact of Open Access through the lens of junior faculty in general internal medicine. We describe the potential benefits and pitfalls of Open Access on junior faculty with a focus on research dissemination and cost. Finally, we propose sustainable solutions at the individual and systems-level to help navigate the world of Open Access to promote career growth and development., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Open access (OA) publishing provides free online access to research articles without subscription fees. In Brazil, absence of financial support from academic institutions and limited government policies pose challenges to OA publication. Here, we used data from the Web of Science and Scopus to compare with global trends in journal accessibility and scientific quality metrics. Brazilian authors publish more OA articles, particularly in Global South journals. While OA correlates with quality for global authors, it had no impact on Brazilian science. To maximize impact, Brazilian authors should prioritize Q1 journals regardless of OA status. High-impact or Global North journal publication seems more relevant for Brazilian science than OA. Our findings indicate that the present open access policy has been ineffective to improve the impact of Brazilian science, providing insights to guide the formulation of scientific public policies.

Background: As publishing with open access is becoming increasingly popular within orthopaedics, understanding the types of publishing options available and what each may deliver is critically important. Hybrid articles require a high article processing charge. Open journal articles have a lower fee, while closed license articles are freely accessible at no charge. Open repository articles are peer-reviewed manuscripts posted freely online. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between article type and resulting citations, social media attention, and readership in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) literature., Methods: Open access TKA journal articles published since 2016 were found using the Altmetric Explorer Database. Data gathered included the Altmetric Attention Score (attention), Mendeley Readership Score (readership), and citations per article. Articles were grouped by type: open journal, hybrid, closed license, and open repository. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Tukey's analysis; α = 0.05., Results: A total of 9,606 publications were included. The open repository had the greatest mean citations (14.40), while open journal (9.55) had fewer than all other categories (P < .001). Hybrid had the greatest mean attention (10.35), and open journal (6.16) had a lower mean attention than all other categories (P ≤ .002). Open repository had the greatest mean readership (44.68), and open journal (34.00) had a lower mean readership than all other categories (P ≤ .012). The mean publication fee for paid publication options was $1,792 United States dollars., Conclusions: In open access TKA literature, free-to-publish open repositories had the greatest mean citations and readership. Free publication options, open repositories and closed licenses, had greater readership compared to paid publication options., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Dissemination of the scientific literature is as paramount as scientific studies. Scientific publishing has come a long way from localized distribution of few physical copies of journal to widespread and rapid distribution via internet in the 21st century. The evolution of open excess (OA) publishing which has rapidly evolved in last two decades has its heart at the right place with the ultimate goal being timely, and rapid distribution of published scientific work to a wider scientific community around the world and thus ultimately promoting scientific knowledge in global sense. However, quality OA publishing of cancer research involve an average publishing fee of around 1,500 USD which poses a challenge for Low middle income countries (LMICs), where per capita income is low. This has led to deterioration of science in LMICs in the form of publication in Cheap OA predatory journals for sake of securing academic promotions as well as authors ending up paying exorbitant publishing charges out of pocket to get their quality scientific work published. In countries like India and other LMICs, the funding agencies and institution have so far not addressed this problem. Here we assess the framework of open access publishing in LMICs like India and what are the steps which can be taken to facilitate open access publishing in LMICs.

This paper provides an institutional and empirical analysis of the highly concentrated market of academic publishing, characterized by over proportionally high profit margins for publishing companies. The availability of latest research findings is an important issue for researchers, universities and politicians alike. Open access (OA) publication provides a promising but also costly solution to overcome this problem. However, in this paper we argue that OA publication costs are an important, but by far not the only way for academic publishers to gain access to public funding. In contrast, our study provides a comprehensive overview of the channels through which public expenditure benefits big academic publishing companies. Furthermore, we offer the results of an explorative case study, where we estimate the annual financial flows of public expenditures in Austria for the field of social sciences. In all, these expenditures add up to about 66.55 to 103.2 million € a year, which amounts to a fourth of total public funding for this field. Against this background, we contribute to the debate whether and to what extent public subsidies are justified for economically successful companies., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Recent concerns about the reproducibility of science have led to several calls for more open and transparent research practices and for the monitoring of potential improvements over time. However, with tens of thousands of new biomedical articles published per week, manually mapping and monitoring changes in transparency is unrealistic. We present an open-source, automated approach to identify 5 indicators of transparency (data sharing, code sharing, conflicts of interest disclosures, funding disclosures, and protocol registration) and apply it across the entire open access biomedical literature of 2.75 million articles on PubMed Central (PMC). Our results indicate remarkable improvements in some (e.g., conflict of interest [COI] disclosures and funding disclosures), but not other (e.g., protocol registration and code sharing) areas of transparency over time, and map transparency across fields of science, countries, journals, and publishers. This work has enabled the creation of a large, integrated, and openly available database to expedite further efforts to monitor, understand, and promote transparency and reproducibility in science., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

For decades, universities, researchers, and libraries have sought a systemwide transition of scholarly publishing to open access (OA), but progress has been slow. There is now a potential for more rapid and impactful change, as new collaborative OA publishing models have taken shape. Cooperative publishing arrangements represent a viable path forward for society publishers to transition to OA as the default standard for disseminating research. The traditional article processing charge OA model has introduced sometimes unnavigable financial roadblocks, but cooperative arrangements premised on collective action principles can help to secure long-term stability and prevent the risk of free riding. Investment in cooperative arrangements does not require that cash-strapped libraries discover a new influx of money as their collection budgets continue to shrink, but rather that they purposefully redirect traditional subscription funds toward publishing support. These cooperative arrangements will require a two-way demonstration of trust: On one hand, libraries working together to provide assurances of sustained financial support, and on the other, societies' willingness to experiment with discarding subscriptions. Organizations such as Society Publishers Coalition and Transitioning Society Publications to Open Access are committed to education about and further development of scalable and cooperative OA publishing models.

Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and we have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The essential role of journals as registries of scientific activity in all areas of knowledge justifies concern about their ownership and type of access. The purpose of this research is to analyze the main characteristics of publishers with journals that have received the DOAJ Seal. The specific objectives are a) to identify publishers and journals registered with the DOAJ Seal; b) to characterize those publishers; and c) to analyze their article processing fees. The research method involved the use of the DOAJ database, the Seal option and the following indicators: publisher, title, country, number of articles, knowledge area, article processing charges in USD, time for publication in weeks, and year of indexing in DOAJ. The results reveal a fast-rising oligopoly, dominated by Springer with 35% of the titles and PLOS with more than 20% of the articles. We've identified three models of expansion: a) a few titles with hundreds of articles; b) a high number of titles with a mix of big and small journals; and c) a high number of titles with medium-size journals. We identify a high number of titles without APCs (27%) in all areas while medicine was found to be the most expensive area. Commercial publishers clearly exercise control over the scope of journals and the creation of new titles, according to the interests of their companies, which are not necessarily the same as those of the scientific community or of society in general., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: The recent report of The World Health Organization on diabetes has stressed on the burden of diabetes on low/middle income countries. Recent studies advocated the importance of funding more research on diabetes and insulin in these countries. Recently, the European Research Council advocated the importance of gold Open Access (OA) publishing, where the funded research should be immediately accessible. In this study, we aim to assess funding for insulin research, where we will compare the OA status between funded and unfunded research., Methods: We used Scopus database to assess insulin research published from January 1st, 1999 to December 31st, 2018. Our bibliometric analysis consisted of three main sections: analysis of all publications on insulin, analysis of funded insulin publications, and analysis of unfunded insulin publications., Results: We found a total of 388,202 publications, of which only 83,180 (21.4%) were funded. USA produced around 30.1% of the total publications, and the National Institute of Health (NIH) was the major funder with 18.6% of all publications. Of the funded publications, 29,143 (35%) were OA publications, compared to 97,347 (31.9%) of the unfunded publications. We didn't find a significant difference in OA status between funded and unfunded research., Conclusion: In concordance with the European Research Council's decision to support gold OA publishing model, we found that only 35% of the funded and 31.9% of the unfunded insulin research were OA. Although the funded research is increasing in China, most of it is produced in high income countries. This highlights the importance of allocating more funds to low/middle income countries., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

The United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) imposed a public access policy on all publications for which the research was supported by their grants; the policy was drafted in 2004 and took effect in 2008. The policy is now 11 years old, yet no analysis has been presented to assess whether in fact this largest-scale US-based public access policy affected the vitality of the scholarly publishing enterprise, as manifested in changed mortality or natality rates of biomedical journals. We show here that implementation of the NIH policy was associated with slightly elevated mortality rates and mildly depressed natality rates of biomedical journals, but that birth rates so exceeded death rates that numbers of biomedical journals continued to rise, even in the face of the implementation of such a sweeping public access policy., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Citation data have remained hidden behind proprietary, restrictive licensing agreements, which raises barriers to entry for analysts wishing to use the data, increases the expense of performing large-scale analyses, and reduces the robustness and reproducibility of the conclusions. For the past several years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Portfolio Analysis (OPA) has been aggregating and enhancing citation data that can be shared publicly. Here, we describe the NIH Open Citation Collection (NIH-OCC), a public access database for biomedical research that is made freely available to the community. This dataset, which has been carefully generated from unrestricted data sources such as MedLine, PubMed Central (PMC), and CrossRef, now underlies the citation statistics delivered in the NIH iCite analytic platform. We have also included data from a machine learning pipeline that identifies, extracts, resolves, and disambiguates references from full-text articles available on the internet. Open citation links are available to the public in a major update of iCite (https://icite.od.nih.gov)., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction: Unrestricted access to journal publications speeds research progress, productivity, and knowledge translation, which in turn develops and promotes the efficient dissemination of content. We describe access to the 500 most-cited emergency medicine (EM) articles (published between 2012 and 2016) in terms of publisher-based access (open access or subscription), alternate access routes (self-archived or author provided), and relative cost of access., Methods: We used the Scopus database to identify the 500 most-cited EM articles published between 2012 and 2016. Access status was collected from the journal publisher. For studies not available via open access, we searched on Google, Google Scholar, Researchgate, Academia.edu, and the Unpaywall and Open Access Button browser plugins to locate self-archived copies. We contacted corresponding authors of the remaining inaccessible studies for a copy of each of their articles. We collected article processing and access costs from the journal publishers, and then calculated relative cost differences using the World Bank purchasing power parity index for the United States (U.S.), Germany, Turkey, China, Brazil, South Africa, and Australia. This allows costs to be understood relative to the economic context of the countries from which they originated., Results: We identified 500 articles for inclusion in the study. Of these, 167 (33%) were published in an open access format. Of the remaining 333 (67%), 204 (61%) were available elsewhere on the internet, 18 (4%) were provided by the authors, and 111 (22%) were accessible by subscription only. The mean article processing and access charges were $2,518.62 and $44.78, respectively. These costs were 2.24, 1.75, 2.28 and 1.56 times more expensive for South African, Chinese, Turkish, and Brazilian authors, respectively, than for U.S. authors (p<0.001 all)., Conclusion: Despite the advantage of open access publication for knowledge translation, social responsibility, and increased citation, one in five of the 500 EM articles were accessible only via subscription. Access for scientists from upper-middle income countries was significantly hampered by cost. It is important to acknowledge the value this has for authors from low- and middle-income countries. Authors should also consider the citation advantage afforded by open access publishing when deciding where to publish., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. No author has professional or financial relationships with any companies that are relevant to this study. There are no conflicts of interest or sources of funding to declare.