Search

Open access (OA) publishing has created new academic and economic niches in contemporary science. OA journals offer numerous publication outlets with varying editorial philosophies and business models. This article analyzes the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) ( n = 12,127) to identify characteristics of OA academic journals related to the adoption of article processing charge (APC)-based business models, as well as the price points of journals that charge APCs. Journal impact factor (JIF), language, publisher mission, DOAJ Seal, economic and geographic regions of publishers, peer review duration, and journal discipline are all significantly related to the adoption and pricing of journal APCs. Even after accounting for other journal characteristics (prestige, discipline, publisher country), journals published by for-profit publishers charge the highest APCs. Journals with status endowments (JIF, DOAJ Seal) and articles written in English, published in wealthier regions, and in medical or science-based disciplines are also relatively costlier. The OA publishing market reveals insights into forces that create economic and academic value in contemporary science. Political and institutional inequalities manifest in the varying niches occupied by different OA journals and publishers.

Drawing on an original methodology using citations, downloads, and survey data, this paper analyzes journal usage patterns across 28 Canadian universities. Results show that usage levels vary across disciplines and that different academic platforms varied in their importance to different institutions, with for-profit platforms generally exhibiting lower usage. These results suggest economic inefficiencies exist in "big deal" academic journal subscriptions for universities, as most journals in such bundles are seldom or never used. We recommend that universities coordinate resource sharing and negotiate strategies with academic journal expenditures based on shared interests and usage trends.

To thwart publishing rackets that undermine scholars and scholarly publishing, legitimate journals should show their workings. To thwart publishing rackets that undermine scholars and scholarly publishing, legitimate journals should show their workings., Author(s): Kyle Siler, Vincent Larivière, Philippe Vincent-Lamarre, Cassidy R. Sugimoto Author Affiliations: Illustration by David Parkins Cartoon of four researchers attacking a many headed hydra with swords Predatory publishers' latest [...]

Commercial scholarly publishers promote and sell bundles of journals--known as big deals--that provide access to entire collections rather than individual journals. Following this new model, size of serial collections in academic libraries increased almost fivefold from 1986 to 2011. Using data on library subscriptions and references made for a sample of North American universities, this study provides evidence that, while big deal bundles do decrease the mean price per subscribed journal, academic libraries receive less value for their investment. We find that university researchers cite only a fraction of journals purchased by their libraries, that this fraction is decreasing, and that the cost per cited journal has increased. These findings reveal how academic publishers use product differentiation and price strategies to increase sales and profits in the digital era, often at the expense of university and scientific stakeholders. (A list of notes is included.)

Many early career researchers (ECRs) currently face long odds of attaining a full-time or tenure-track research position. Populations of graduate and postdoctoral researchers have continually increased, without concomitant increases in tenure-track jobs or stable research careers. The current hypercompetitive academic labor market is societally inefficient and often inhumane to ECRs, commonly characterized by precarious, exploitative, and/or uncertain employment terms. Compounding generational disadvantages endured by many ECRs at work, analysis of worldwide data on housing rental costs reveals that escalating costs of living are an especially acute problem for ECRs, since major research universities tend to be located in expensive cities. The unfavorable plight of today's ECRs can be partly attributed to the disproportionate zero-sum distribution of resources to senior academics, particularly of the baby boomer generation. The uncertainty, precariousness, and hypercompetitiveness of ECR academic labor markets undermine the quantity and quality of scientific innovations, both in the present and in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open Access (OA) publishing has progressed from an initial fringe idea to a still‐growing, major component of modern academic communication. The proliferation of OA publishing presents a context to examine how new innovations and institutions develop. Based on analyses of 1,296,304 articles published in 83 OA journals, we analyze changes in the institutional status, gender, age, citedness, and geographical locations of authors over time. Generally, OA journals tended towards core‐to‐periphery diffusion patterns. Specifically, journal authors tended to decrease in high‐status institutional affiliations, male and highly cited authors over time. Despite these general tendencies, there was substantial variation in the diffusion patterns of OA journals. Some journals exhibited no significant demographic changes, and a few exhibited periphery‐to‐core diffusion patterns. We find that although both highly and less‐legitimate journals generally exhibit core‐to‐periphery diffusion patterns, there are still demographic differences between such journals. Institutional and cultural legitimacy—or lack thereof—affects the social and intellectual diffusion of new OA journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stacking—the tendency of playing positions to be racially segregated in sports—remains prominent in gridiron football. This raises questions of how stacking persists and how opportunities arise for athletes of different races to assume different roles. Demographic data on 41,484 NCAA football players reveal differences in opportunities and playing roles for student-athletes of different races. In concert with previous racial stacking studies, white players continue to be overrepresented in central, leadership positions. Racial minorities are overrepresented in peripheral "skill" positions. Stacking at each playing position is affected differently by the demographics of player high schools and college teams. Players assuming non-stereotypical roles are much more likely to come from a racially homogenous high school or college team. Even though racially homogenous schools provide stereotype-defying opportunities, they also exhibit intense racial stacking. The few white (or black) players on such teams are overwhelmingly slotted into stereotypical positions. Since stereotype-defying opportunities tend to emerge in racially homogenous schools, blacks playing typically white positions come from relatively poor schools. In contrast, whites playing typically black positions are relatively affluent, since such opportunities tend to emerge in whiter, wealthier schools. Implications for student opportunities and talent inculcation beyond the football field are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the publishing and citation records of Canada Research Chairs (CRCs) in sociology, political science, and economics over the first 5 years of the program. Publication and citation records of CRCs are compared with random samples of non-CRCs in their respective disciplines as empirical tests of professional strength. The data and analyses suggest that CRCs are a heterogeneous population with a few obvious 'stars' and many with publishing and citation records similar or inferior to their non-CRC peers. Institutional flatness, institutional appropriation, and Canadian peripherality and disciplinary organization are explored as possible explanations for these results. Les auteurs analysent les comptes rendus des publications et des citations des Chaires de recherche du Canada en sociologie, en science politique et en economie au cours des cinq annees pendant lesquelles le programme s'est poursuivi. Ils les comparent a des echantillons aleatoires de comptes rendus de publications et de citations qui ne sont pas le fruit des Chaires de recherche du Canada dans leur discipline respective pour tester leur qualite professionnelle. Les donnees et les analyses demontrent que les membres de ces Chaires de recherche constituent une population heterogene ayant peu de << vedettes >> authentiques et dont plusieurs personnes presentent des comptes rendus de publications et de citations semblables ou inferieurs a ceux de leurs collegues qui ne sont pas membres des Chaires de recherche du Canada. Les auteurs explorent la monotonie institutionnelle, l'appropriation institutionnelle ainsi que la periphericite et l'organisation disciplinaire canadiennes en tant qu'explications possibles de ces resultats., FOLLOWING A DECADE OF SUBSTANTIAL FUNDING cutbacks in universities throughout the 1990s, the Canadian government introduced the Canada Research Chairs (CRCs) program in 1999. After being fully implemented in 2006, [...]

Over the past decade, megajournals have expanded in popularity and established a legitimate niche in academic publishing. Leveraging advantages of digital publishing, megajournals are characterized by large publication volume, broad interdisciplinary scope, and peer‐review filters that select primarily for scientific soundness as opposed to novelty or originality. These publishing innovations are complementary and competitive vis‐à‐vis traditional journals. We analyze how megajournals (PLOS One, Scientific Reports) are represented in different fields relative to prominent generalist journals (Nature, PNAS, Science) and "quasi‐megajournals" (Nature Communications, PeerJ). Our results show that both megajournals and prominent traditional journals have distinctive niches, despite the similar interdisciplinary scopes of such journals. These niches—defined by publishing volume and disciplinary diversity—are dynamic and varied over the relatively brief histories of the analyzed megajournals. Although the life sciences are the predominant contributor to megajournals, there is variation in the disciplinary composition of different megajournals. The growth trajectories and disciplinary composition of generalist journals—including megajournals—reflect changing knowledge dissemination and reward structures in science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]