In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough

Claudio Aspesi,Amy Brand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3763

IF: 56.9

2020-05-08

Science

Abstract:Preventing monopolies in knowledge infrastructure is the next battleground for publishers and research institutions

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The oligopoly of open access publishing

Fei Shu,Vincent Larivière

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04876-2

IF: 3.801

2023-12-14

Scientometrics

Abstract:Open access (OA) publishing is often viewed as a promising solution for the future of scholarly publishing, as it has the potential to reduce global inequalities in access to scientific literature by removing paywalls. However, the adoption of OA publishing may not necessarily lead to a decrease in the overall cost of knowledge dissemination, as Article Processing Charges (APCs) can create an additional financial burden for scholars, particularly those from developing countries. Despite being intended as a way to disrupt the scholarly publishing oligopoly, OA publishing has faced challenges in achieving this goal. These challenges were revealed through a comprehensive analysis of OA publishing from 2008 to 2020, as detailed in this study.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Can scientists and their institutions become their own open access publishers?

Karen Shashok

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1701.02461

2017-01-10

Abstract:This article offers a personal perspective on the current state of academic publishing, and posits that the scientific community is beset with journals that contribute little valuable knowledge, overload the community's capacity for high-quality peer review, and waste resources. Open access publishing can offer solutions that benefit researchers and other information users, as well as institutions and funders, but commercial journal publishers have influenced open access policies and practices in ways that favor their economic interests over those of other stakeholders in knowledge creation and sharing. One way to free research from constraints on access is the diamond route of open access publishing, in which institutions and funders that produce new knowledge reclaim responsibility for publication via institutional journals or other open platforms. I argue that research journals (especially those published for profit) may no longer be fit for purpose, and hope that readers will consider whether the time has come to put responsibility for publishing back into the hands of researchers and their institutions. The potential advantages and challenges involved in a shift away from for-profit journals in favor of institutional open access publishing are explored.

Digital Libraries,Computers and Society
Open access is shaping scientific communication

Mark J. McCabe,Frank Mueller-Langer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp8882

IF: 56.9

2024-09-14

Science

Abstract:Funders and publishers should roll out policies in ways to support their evaluation

multidisciplinary sciences
The academic ethics of open access to research and scholarship

John Willinsky,Juan Pablo Alperin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2011.632716

2011-10-01

Ethics and Education

Abstract:In this article, we present the case for regarding the principles by which scholarly publications are disseminated and shared as a matter of academic ethics. The ethics of access have to do with recognizing people's right to know what is known, as well as the value to humanity of having one of its best forms of arriving at knowledge as widely shared as possible. The level of access is often reduced by the financial interests of publishers in a market in which there is little sense of a rational order, given huge discrepancies in prices for similar products. At the same time, there are risks to limiting researchers’ access to scholarly resources, both for the quality of the knowledge that is not entirely open to review and for the production of new knowledge that it might inspire. Then, there are issues of access beyond the academy for professional practice and out of human interest, for both of which undue limitations raise what are, for us, more than academic ethical questions.
The oligopoly of academic publishers persists in exclusive database

Simon van Bellen,Juan Pablo Alperin,Vincent Larivière

2024-06-26

Abstract:Global scholarly publishing has been dominated by a small number of publishers for several decades. We aimed to revisit the debate on corporate control of scholarly publishing by analyzing the relative shares of major publishers and smaller, independent publishers. Using the Web of Science, Dimensions and OpenAlex, we managed to retrieve twice as many articles indexed in Dimensions and OpenAlex, compared to the rather selective Web of Science. As a result of excluding smaller publishers, the 'oligopoly' of scholarly publishers persists, at least in appearance, according to the Web of Science. However, both Dimensions' and OpenAlex' inclusive indexing revealed the share of smaller publishers has been growing rapidly, especially since the onset of large-scale online publishing around 2000, resulting in a current cumulative dominance of smaller publishers. While the expansion of small publishers was most pronounced in the social sciences and humanities, the natural and medical sciences showed a similar trend. A major geographical divergence is also revealed, with some countries, mostly Anglo-Saxon and/or located in northwestern Europe, relying heavily on major publishers for the dissemination of their research, while others being relatively independent of the oligopoly, such as those in Latin America, northern Africa, eastern Europe and parts of Asia. The emergence of digital publishing, the reduction of expenses for printing and distribution and open-source journal management tools may have contributed to the emergence of small publishers, while the development of inclusive bibliometric databases has allowed for the effective indexing of journals and articles. We conclude that enhanced visibility to recently created, independent journals may favour their growth and stimulate global scholarly bibliodiversity.

Digital Libraries
Two scholarly publishing cultures? Open access drives a divergence in European academic publishing practices

Leon Kopitar,Nejc Plohl,Mojca Tancer Verboten,Gregor Štiglic,Roger Watson,Dean Korošak

2024-11-10

Abstract:The current system of scholarly publishing is often criticized for being slow, expensive, and not transparent. The rise of open access publishing as part of open science tenets, promoting transparency and collaboration, together with calls for research assesment reforms are the results of these criticisms. The emergence of new open access publishers presents a unique opportunity to empirically test how universities and countries respond to shifts in the academic publishing landscape. These new actors challenge traditional publishing models, offering faster review times and broader accessibility, which could influence strategic publishing decisions. Our findings reveal a clear division in European publishing practices, with countries clustering into two groups distinguished by the ratio of publications in new open access journals with accelerated review times versus legacy journals. This divide underscores a broader shift in academic culture, highlighting new open access publishing venues as a strategic factor influencing national and institutional publishing practices, with significant implications for research accessibility and collaboration across Europe.

Digital Libraries,Computers and Society,Physics and Society
On the Fast Track to Full Gold Open Access

Robert Kudelić

2024-06-27

Abstract:The world of scientific publishing is changing; the days of an old type of subscription-based earnings for publishers seem over, and we are entering a new era. It seems as if an ever-increasing number of journals from disparate publishers are going Gold, Open Access that is, yet have we rigorously ascertained the issue in its entirety, or are we touting the strengths and forgetting about constructive criticism and careful weighing of evidence? We will therefore present the current state of the art, in a compact review/bibliometrics style, of this more relevant than ever hot topic, including challenges and potential solutions that are most likely to be acceptable to all parties. Suggested solutions, as per the performed analysis, at least for the time being, represent an inclusive publishing environment where multiple publishing models are competing for a piece of the pie and thus inhibiting each other's flaws. The performed analysis also shows that there seems to be a link between trends in scientific publishing and tumultuous world events, which in turn has a special significance for the publishing environment in the current world stage -- implying that academy publishing has potentially now found itself at a tipping point of change.

Digital Libraries
The rent's too high: Self-archive for fair online publication costs

Robert T. Thibault,Amanda MacPherson,Stevan Harnad,Amir Raza

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.06130

2018-08-19

Abstract:The main contributors of scientific knowledge, researchers, generally aim to disseminate their findings far and wide. And yet, publishing companies have largely kept these findings behind a paywall. With digital publication technology markedly reducing cost, this enduring wall seems disproportionate and unjustified; moreover, it has sparked a topical exchange concerning how to modernize academic publishing. This discussion, however, seems to focus on how to compensate major publishers for providing open access through a "pay to publish" model, in turn transferring financial burdens from libraries to authors and their funders. Large publishing companies, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, PLoS, and Frontiers, continue to earn exorbitant revenues each year, hundreds of millions of dollars of which now come from processing charges for open-access articles. A less expensive and equally accessible alternative exists: widespread self-archiving of peer-reviewed articles. All we need is awareness of this alternative and the will to employ it

Digital Libraries
Publish, Don’t Perish: Recommendations for Mitigating Impacts of the New Federal Open Access Policy

Alexander B. Belles,Karen E. Beatty,Claire H. Rodman,Charles J. Connolly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.38126/jspg220101

2023-03-06

Journal of Science Policy & Governance

Abstract:In August, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a new policy requiring that all federally funded scholarly research be accessible to the public immediately upon publication. While this open access policy will ultimately benefit society by increasing the availability of data and research outputs, it could place a heavy burden on researchers due to the relatively high cost of open access alongside an academic culture that tends to favor publishing in high impact subscription journals. We examine the complexities of the traditional publishing landscape and offer recommendations for agencies, universities, and publishers to mitigate the impacts on researchers. Specifically, we recommend a short-term increase in funding to cover higher publishing costs, but contributions from all stakeholders are needed to facilitate a long-term solution.
On the culture of open access: the Sci-hub paradox

Abdelghani Maddi,David Sapinho

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04792-5

2023-08-30

Abstract:Shadow libraries, also known as ''pirate libraries'', are online collections of copyrighted publications that have been made available for free without the permission of the copyright holders. They have gradually become key players of scientific knowledge dissemination, despite their illegality in most countries of the world. Many publishers and scientist-editors decry such libraries for their copyright infringement and loss of publication usage information, while some scholars and institutions support them, sometimes in a roundabout way, for their role in reducing inequalities of access to knowledge, particularly in low-income countries. Although there is a wealth of literature on shadow libraries, none of this have focused on its potential role in knowledge dissemination, through the open access movement. Here we analyze how shadow libraries can affect researchers' citation practices, highlighting some counter-intuitive findings about their impact on the Open Access Citation Advantage (OACA). Based on a large randomized sample, this study first shows that OA publications, including those in fully OA journals, receive more citations than their subscription-based counterparts do. However, the OACA has slightly decreased over the seven last years. The introduction of a distinction between those accessible or not via the Scihub platform among subscription-based suggest that the generalization of its use cancels the positive effect of OA publishing. The results show that publications in fully OA journals are victims of the success of Sci-hub. Thus, paradoxically, although Sci-hub may seem to facilitate access to scientific knowledge, it negatively affects the OA movement as a whole, by reducing the comparative advantage of OA publications in terms of visibility for researchers. The democratization of the use of Sci-hub may therefore lead to a vicious cycle, hindering efforts to develop full OA strategies without proposing a credible and sustainable alternative model for the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

Computers and Society
Game theory and scholarly publishing: premises for an agreement around open access

Abdelghani Maddi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.13321

2021-12-08

Abstract:Stakeholders in research and scientific publishing are gradually joining the Open-Access (OA) movement, which is gaining momentum to become nowadays at the heart of scientific policies in high-income countries. The rise of OA generates profound changes in the chain of production and dissemination of knowledge. Free access to peer-reviewed research methods and results has contributed to the dynamics of science observed in recent years. The modes of publication and access have also evolved; the classic model, based on journal subscriptions is gradually giving way to new economic models that have appeared with the arrival of OA. The objective of this article is twofold. First, propose a model for the publishing market based on the literature as well as on changes in open science policies. Second, analyze publishing strategies of publishers and institutions. To do so, we relied on game theory in economics. Results show that in the short term, the publisher's equilibrium strategy is to adopt a hybridpublishing model, while the institutions' equilibrium strategy is to publish in OA. This equilibrium is not stable and that in the medium/long term, the two players will converge on an OA publishing strategy. The analysis of the equilibrium in mixed-strategies confirms this result.

General Economics,Digital Libraries
Innovation in the public sphere:* reimagining law and economics to solve the National Institutes of Health publishing controversy

Charlotte A. Tschider

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsu025

IF: 3.4

2014-09-01

Journal of Law and the Biosciences

Abstract:The National Institutes of Health (NIH) are responsible for the largest proportion of biological science funding in the United States. To protect the public interest in access to publicly funded scientific research, the NIH amended terms and conditions in funding agreements after 2009, requiring funded Principal Investigators to deposit published copies of research in PubMed, an Open Access repository. Principal Investigators have partially complied with this depository requirement, and the NIH have signaled an intent to enforce grant agreement terms and conditions by stopping funding deposits and engaging in legal action. The global economic value of accessible knowledge offers a unique opportunity for courts to evaluate the impact of enforcing 'openness' contract terms and conditions within domestic and international economies for public and economic benefit. Through judicial enforcement of Open Access terms and conditions, the United States can increase economic efficiency for university libraries, academic participants, and public consumers, while accelerating global innovation, improving financial returns on science funding investments, and advancing more efficient scientific publishing models.

ethics,law,medicine, legal,medical ethics
The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review

Jonathan P. Tennant,François Waldner,Damien C. Jacques,Paola Masuzzo,Lauren B. Collister,Chris. H. J. Hartgerink

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3

2016-09-21

F1000Research

Abstract:Ongoing debates surrounding Open Access to the scholarly literature are multifaceted and complicated by disparate and often polarised viewpoints from engaged stakeholders. At the current stage, Open Access has become such a global issue that it is critical for all involved in scholarly publishing, including policymakers, publishers, research funders, governments, learned societies, librarians, and academic communities, to be well-informed on the history, benefits, and pitfalls of Open Access. In spite of this, there is a general lack of consensus regarding the potential pros and cons of Open Access at multiple levels. This review aims to be a resource for current knowledge on the impacts of Open Access by synthesizing important research in three major areas: academic, economic and societal. While there is clearly much scope for additional research, several key trends are identified, including a broad citation advantage for researchers who publish openly, as well as additional benefits to the non-academic dissemination of their work. The economic impact of Open Access is less well-understood, although it is clear that access to the research literature is key for innovative enterprises, and a range of governmental and non-governmental services. Furthermore, Open Access has the potential to save both publishers and research funders considerable amounts of financial resources, and can provide some economic benefits to traditionally subscription-based journals. The societal impact of Open Access is strong, in particular for advancing citizen science initiatives, and leveling the playing field for researchers in developing countries. Open Access supersedes all potential alternative modes of access to the scholarly literature through enabling unrestricted re-use, and long-term stability independent of financial constraints of traditional publishers that impede knowledge sharing. However, Open Access has the potential to become unsustainable for research communities if high-cost options are allowed to continue to prevail in a widely unregulated scholarly publishing market. Open Access remains only one of the multiple challenges that the scholarly publishing system is currently facing. Yet, it provides one foundation for increasing engagement with researchers regarding ethical standards of publishing and the broader implications of 'Open Research'.
Publishing in the Open Access and Open Science era

Masanori Arita,Bernd Pulverer,Tadashi Uemura,Chisako Sakuma,Shigeo Hayashi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gtc.13100

2024-02-15

Genes to Cells

Abstract:In this article, current issues in research publication—increasing journal subscription cost and APC, and the hypercompetitive situation of researchers and publishers—are presented and the future of open science is discussed. Our research activities would be better served if they were communicated in a manner that is openly accessible to the public and all researchers. The research we share is often limited to representative data included in research papers—science would be much more efficient if all reproducible research data were shared alongside detailed methods and protocols, in the paradigm called Open Science. On the other hand, one primary function of research journals is to select manuscripts of good quality, verify the authenticity of the data and its impact, and deliver to the appropriate audience for critical evaluation and verification. In the current paradigm, where publication in a subset of journals is intimately linked to research evaluation, a hypercompetitive "market" has emerged where authors compete to access a limited number of top‐tier journals, leading to high rejection rates. Competition among publishers and scientific journals for market dominance resulted in an increase in both the number of journals and the cost of publishing and accessing scientific papers. Here we summarize the current problems and potential solutions from the development of AI technology discussed in the seminar at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan.

cell biology,genetics & heredity
Accelerating the open research agenda to solve global challenges

Zuzanna B. Zagrodzka,Thomas F. Johnson,Andrew P. Beckerman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10887

IF: 3.167

2024-02-02

Ecology and Evolution

Abstract:Open research principles underpin the effective science‐based policy key to tackling global challenges; however, the uptake of these principles is likely constrained by the politicisation, commoditisation and conflicting motives of stakeholders in the research landscape. Here, using the mission and vision statements from 129 stakeholders from across the research landscape, we explore alignment in open research principles. We find that poor alignment between different stakeholders stifles knowledge flow within the research landscape, ultimately limiting the mobilisation of impactful science‐based policy. Harnessing science‐based policy is key to addressing global challenges like the biodiversity and climate crises. Open research principles underpin effective science‐based policy, but the uptake of these principles is likely constrained by the politicisation, commoditisation and conflicting motives of stakeholders in the research landscape. Here, using the mission and vision statements from 129 stakeholders from across the research landscape, we explore alignment in open research principles between stakeholders. We find poor alignment between stakeholders, largely focussed around journals, societies and funders, all of which have low open research language‐use. We argue that this poor alignment stifles knowledge flow within the research landscape, ultimately limiting the mobilisation of impactful science‐based policy. We offer recommendations on how the research landscape could embrace open research principles to accelerate societies' ability to solve global challenges.

ecology,evolutionary biology
The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing: Can Open Access Publishing Make the Scholarly World More Equitable and Productive?

Richard G. Dudley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2345

2021-02-21

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

Abstract:Almost 50% of scholarly articles are now open access in some form. This greatly benefits scholars at most institutions and is especially helpful to independent scholars and those without access to libraries. It also furthers the long-standing idea of knowledge as a public good. The changing dynamics of open access (OA) threaten this positive development by solidifying the pay-to-publish OA model which further marginalizes peripheral scholars and incentivizes the development of sub-standard and predatory journals. Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are used to illustrate these interactions.
Drivers and Obstacles of Open Access Publishing. A Qualitative Investigation of Individual and Institutional Factors

Esther Greussing,Stefanie Kuballa,Monika Taddicken,Mareike Schulze,Corinna Mielke,Reinhold Haux

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.587465

2020-10-26

Frontiers in Communication

Abstract:Open Access (OA) is an evolving publication model that is heavily supported by politics and science organizations aiming to make scientific knowledge more accessible to a wider audience. Whether it will indeed alter scholarly communication, however, depends on researchers' underlying attitudes, motivations, and needs. Drawing on group discussions and interviews (n = 42), this study explores the perceptions, attitudes and behaviours of researchers towards OA publishing. We focus on researchers in the field of biomedical and health informatics located in different global regions and from different seniority levels. Overall, the results show that whilst most researchers support the idea of making scientific knowledge freely accessible to everyone, they are hesitant about actually living this practice by choosing OA journals to publish their own work. Article processing charges and quality issues are perceived as the main obstacles in this respect, revealing a two-sided evaluation of OA models, reflecting the different viewpoints of researchers as authors or readers. The results further highlight hitherto underexplored influencing factors regarding institutional frame conditions, located on the level of the scientific system, the publication service providers or the national/international OA policies.
Should open access lead to closed research? The trends towards paying to perform research

Lin Zhang,Yahui Wei,Ying Huang,Gunnar Sivertsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04407-5

IF: 3.801

2022-05-29

Scientometrics

Abstract:Open Access (OA) emerged as an important transition in scholarly publishing worldwide during the past two decades. So far, this transition is increasingly based on article processing charges (APC), which create a new paywall on the researchers' side. Publishing is part of the research process and thereby necessary to perform research. This study analyses the global trends towards paying to perform research by combing observed trends in publishing from 2015 to 2020 with an APC price list. APC expenses have sharply increased among six countries with different OA policies: the USA, China, the UK, France, the Netherlands, and Norway. The estimated global revenues from APC among major publishers now exceed 2 billion US dollars annually. Mergers and takeovers show that the industry is moving towards APC-based OA as the more profitable business model. Research publishing will be closed to those who cannot make an institution or project money payment. Our results lead to a discussion of whether APC is the best way to promote OA.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Plan S the Present and Future of Open Access Publishing

Vladimir Trajkovski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26407/jrtdd2021.1.49

2022-05-28

Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities

Abstract:Introduction:This editorial is based on a concise introduction to the basics of open access, describing what it is and showing that it is easy, fast, inexpensive, legal, and a beneficial form of academic publishing. The Internet lets us share perfect copies of our workwith a worldwide audience at virtually no cost. Working in “open access”means: digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. The purposeof this paper is to provide an overview about Plan S and its significance for open access publishing. Methods: An analysis of relevant literature, sources from the internet and published literature, personal experience and observations of the author. Findings: Formerly, scholars have written peer-reviewed journal articles for impact, not for money, and are free to consent to open access without losing revenue.Open access is beneficialforauthors and readers of research.PlanSis an initiative to drive wider adoption of open access publishing whichwas launched in 2018 by cOAlitionS, an inter-national consortium of organisations who fund or carry out research. The first and main objective was to require that, from 2021, publicly funded research must only be published in journals or on platforms on an open access basis without embargo. Conclusions: There are10 principles of PlanScovering the way in which all stakeholders should work together to-wards an optimal open access future, drive service standards, promote greater transparency around costs and charges, and more fairly assess the merits of research outputs.
Intellectual property protection for scholarly publishing in the Italian framework: a globally open approach for medical and life sciences authors

Valentina Bozzato,Marianna Gnoato,Antonia Vilia,Mauro Apostolico

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/itjm.2021.1473

2021-06-30

Italian Journal of Medicine

Abstract: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 researchers 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.

In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough

The oligopoly of open access publishing

Can scientists and their institutions become their own open access publishers?

Open access is shaping scientific communication

The academic ethics of open access to research and scholarship

The oligopoly of academic publishers persists in exclusive database

Two scholarly publishing cultures? Open access drives a divergence in European academic publishing practices

On the Fast Track to Full Gold Open Access

The rent's too high: Self-archive for fair online publication costs

Publish, Don’t Perish: Recommendations for Mitigating Impacts of the New Federal Open Access Policy

On the culture of open access: the Sci-hub paradox

Game theory and scholarly publishing: premises for an agreement around open access

Innovation in the public sphere:* reimagining law and economics to solve the National Institutes of Health publishing controversy

The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review

Publishing in the Open Access and Open Science era

Accelerating the open research agenda to solve global challenges

The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing: Can Open Access Publishing Make the Scholarly World More Equitable and Productive?

Drivers and Obstacles of Open Access Publishing. A Qualitative Investigation of Individual and Institutional Factors

Should open access lead to closed research? The trends towards paying to perform research

Plan S the Present and Future of Open Access Publishing

Intellectual property protection for scholarly publishing in the Italian framework: a globally open approach for medical and life sciences authors