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

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Open Access publishing around the globe. A two-tier study on the perspectives of international medical informatics researchers on a barrier-free communication of science

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15847/obsobs16120221877

2022-03-28

Observatorio (OBS*)

Abstract:It is considered important or even necessary for a continuous exchange of scientific information that all relevant stakeholders can access the inner-scientific communication. The traditional publication model, however, does not provide an inclusive flow of communication but rather favours researchers affiliated with resource-strong institutions, oftentimes located in the Global North. Hence, there are increased efforts to establish an alternative, open access (OA) publication model. Since such a model can only be successful if scientists themselves support and use it, this paper presents a two-tier study examining the factors that might shape scientists’ decision (not) to choose an OA option for disseminating their own work. Based on (semi-)standardized surveys of scientific organizations and individual researchers in the field of biomedical and health informatics, it provides an overview of individual and institutional frame conditions that influence the dissemination and reception of scientific knowledge. In order to account for regional differences, it draws on a global sample, comprising respondents from Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, Latin America, Middle East and North America. Overall, the findings provide a heterogeneous picture of how OA is perceived and practiced. Respondents appreciate the convenient way to access OA articles as readers and the opportunity to reach broader (non-academic) audiences as authors. However, due to high publication fees and concerns regarding quality and reputation, a positive attitude towards OA does not necessarily translate into willingness to choose this publication model. Especially researchers from low-income countries benefit from a barrier-free communication mainly in their role as readers and much less in their role as authors of scientific information. This is also evident at the institutional level, as OA policies or financial support through funding bodies are most prevalent in Europe and North America. These findings call for more attention to inner-scientific communication as part of (science) communication research.
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.
Investing in Open Science: Key Considerations for Funders

Dana E Cobb-Lewis,Devin Snyder,Sonya Dumanis,Robert Thibault,Barbara Marebwa,Elisia Clark,Lara St.Clair,Leslie Kirsch,Michelle Durborow,Ekemini A. U. Riley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.09.627554

2024-12-10

Abstract:The open science movement aims to transform the research landscape by promoting research transparency in order to enable reproducibility and replicability, lower the barriers for collaboration, and reduce unnecessary duplication. Recently, in recognition of the value of open science, funding agencies have begun to mandate open science policies as a condition in grantee awards. However, operationalization and implementation of an open science policy can have unanticipated costs and logistical barriers, which can impact both the funder, as well as the grantee. These factors should be considered when implementing an open science policy. The Aligning Science Across Parkinson's (ASAP) Initiative utilizes a comprehensive open science policy, which, in addition to requiring immediate free online access to all publications, also requires all newly-generated datasets, protocols, code, and key lab materials be shared by the time of publication. Moreover, preprints must be posted to a preprint repository by the time of manuscript submission to a journal for review. Here, we outline the potential costs associated with implementing and enforcing this open science policy. We recommend that funders take these considerations into account when investing in open science policies within the biomedical research ecosystem.

Scientific Communication and Education
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.
Promoting an open research culture

B. A. Nosek,G. Alter,G. C. Banks,D. Borsboom,S. D. Bowman,S. J. Breckler,S. Buck,C. D. Chambers,G. Chin,G. Christensen,M. Contestabile,A. Dafoe,E. Eich,J. Freese,R. Glennerster,D. Goroff,D. P. Green,B. Hesse,M. Humphreys,J. Ishiyama,D. Karlan,A. Kraut,A. Lupia,P. Mabry,T. Madon,N. Malhotra,E. Mayo-Wilson,M. McNutt,E. Miguel,E. Levy Paluck,U. Simonsohn,C. Soderberg,B. A. Spellman,J. Turitto,G. VandenBos,S. Vazire,E. J. Wagenmakers,R. Wilson,T. Yarkoni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374

IF: 56.9

2015-06-26

Science

Abstract:Author guidelines for journals could help to promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility

multidisciplinary sciences
Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

Christopher Allen,David M. A. Mehler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246

IF: 9.8

2019-05-01

PLoS Biology

Abstract:The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect those who carry out the research, usually early career researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits, including reputational gains, increased chances of publication, and a broader increase in the reliability of research. The increased chances of publication are supported by exploratory analyses indicating null findings are substantially more likely to be published via open registered reports in comparison to more conventional methods. These benefits are balanced by challenges that we have encountered and that involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time, and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality of research. We review 3 benefits and 3 challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices, which we believe scientists and institutions at all levels would do well to consider.

biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
Journal Open Access and Plan S: Solving Problems or Shifting Burdens?

E. Derat,D. Allen,H. Urdal,Shina Caroline Lynn Kamerlin,B. Bruin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/DECH.12635

2021-01-29

Development and Change

Abstract:This academic thought piece provides an overview of the history of, and current trends in, publishing practices in the scientiﬁc ﬁelds known to the authors (chemical sciences, social sciences and humanities), as well as a discussion of how open access mandates such as Plan S from cOAlition S will affect these practices. It begins by summarizing the evolution of sci-entiﬁc publishing, in particular how it was shaped by the learned societies, and highlights how important quality assurance and scientiﬁc management mechanisms are being challenged by the recent introduction of ever more stringent open access mandates. The authors then discuss the various reactions of the researcher community to the introduction of Plan S, and elucidate a number of concerns: that it will push researchers towards a pay-to-publish system which will inevitably create new divisions between those who can afford to get their research published and those who cannot; that it will disrupt collaboration between researchers on the different sides of cOAlition S funding; and that it will have an impact on academic freedom of research and publishing. The authors analyse the dissemination of, and responses to, an open letter distributed and signed in reaction to the introduction of Plan S, before concluding with some thoughts on the potential for evolution of open access in scientiﬁc publishing.

Chemistry,Political Science
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
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 policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study

Tim S Ellison,Tim Koder,Laura Schmidt,Amy Williams,Christopher C Winchester

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028655

IF: 3.006

2019-06-20

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives: Academical and not-for-profit research funders are increasingly requiring that the research they fund must be published open access, with some insisting on publishing with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to allow the broadest possible use. We aimed to clarify the open access variants provided by leading medical journals and record the availability of the CC BY licence for commercially funded research. Methods: We identified medical journals with a 2015 impact factor of ≥15.0 on 24 May 2017, then excluded from the analysis journals that only publish review articles. Between 29 June 2017 and 26 July 2017, we collected information about each journal's open access policies from their websites and/or by email contact. We contacted the journals by email again between 6 December 2017 and 2 January 2018 to confirm our findings. Results: Thirty-five medical journals publishing original research from 13 publishers were included in the analysis. All 35 journals offered some form of open access allowing articles to be free-to-read, either immediately on publication or after a delay of up to 12 months. Of these journals, 21 (60%) provided immediate open access with a CC BY licence under certain circumstances (eg, to specific research funders). Of these 21, 20 only offered a CC BY licence to authors funded by non-commercial organisations and one offered this option to any funder who required it. Conclusions: Most leading medical journals do not offer to authors reporting commercially funded research an open access licence that allows unrestricted sharing and adaptation of the published material. The journals' policies are therefore not aligned with open access declarations and guidelines. Commercial research funders lag behind academical funders in the development of mandatory open access policies, and it is time for them to work with publishers to advance the dissemination of the research they fund.
How open science helps researchers succeed

Erin C McKiernan,Philip E Bourne,C Titus Brown,Stuart Buck,Amye Kenall,Jennifer Lin,Damon McDougall,Brian A Nosek,Karthik Ram,Courtney K Soderberg,Jeffrey R Spies,Kaitlin Thaney,Andrew Updegrove,Kara H Woo,Tal Yarkoni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.16800

IF: 7.7

2016-07-07

eLife

Abstract:Open access, open data, open source and other open scholarship practices are growing in popularity and necessity. However, widespread adoption of these practices has not yet been achieved. One reason is that researchers are uncertain about how sharing their work will affect their careers. We review literature demonstrating that open research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. These findings are evidence that open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers relative to more traditional closed practices.

biology
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
Subscribe to Open: Modeling an open access transformation

Allison Langham-Putrow,Sunshine J. Carter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.81.1.18

2020-01-06

Abstract:The introduction of Plan S, an initiative for open access launched by a group of primarily European national funding agencies and two foundations in late 2018, prompted discussion about how publishers will transition to full open access. Many current open access models involve article processing charge (APC) payments. Here we describe an alternative model, Subscribe to Open (S2O).
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'.
Open science practices among authors published in complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine journals: An international, cross-sectional survey

Jeremy Y. Ng,Brenda X. Lin,Liliane Kreuder,Holger Cramer,David Moher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000040259

IF: 1.6

2024-11-06

Medicine

Abstract:In an era where knowledge is abundant but not necessarily available, the emerging open science movement is a critical step towards accessible and transparent science. Open science aims to increase research availability and reach across different audiences through open data, open access platforms, transparent peer review methods, and public access. [ 1–6 ] Specifically, the movement seeks to increase the amount of science research that is accurately being disseminated to the public as well as trust in science. Prior to the open science movement, access to research data was more limited, had inadequate reporting guidelines, and lacked reproducibility. [ 7 , 8 ] Many measures have been taken to increase study data availability, allowing for improved data assessment and transparency. [ 8–10 ] For example, tools such as the Open Science Framework (OSF) have been created for use as a centralized platform for open workflow throughout the research process. [ 2 , 11 ] These measures allow researchers to better understand, modify, verify, and replicate study data. [ 2 , 12 , 13 ] In addition, open data encourages the reuse of existing data to avoid redundancy in scientific literature. [ 14 ] A crucial part of open science includes open access publishing, which enables research to be more freely communicated with the public. The term "open access" encompasses different materials such as preprints, open access journals, and post-prints, all of which allow more equitable access to scientific information. [ 9 , 10 , 15 ] Although "closed access" journals still exist, many have now adapted to varying degrees of open access publishing models. [ 10 ]

medicine, general & internal
Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions

Chun-Kai Karl Huang,Cameron Neylon,Richard Hosking,Lucy Montgomery,Katie S Wilson,Alkim Ozaygen,Chloe Brookes-Kenworthy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.57067

IF: 7.7

2020-09-14

eLife

Abstract:The proportion of research outputs published in open access journals or made available on other freely-accessible platforms has increased over the past two decades, driven largely by funder mandates, institutional policies, grass-roots advocacy, and changing attitudes in the research community. However, the relative effectiveness of these different interventions has remained largely unexplored. Here we present a robust, transparent and updateable method for analysing how these interventions affect the open access performance of individual institutes. We studied 1,207 institutions from across the world, and found that, in 2017, the top-performing universities published around 80-90% of their research open access. The analysis also showed that publisher-mediated (gold) open access was popular in Latin American and African universities, whereas the growth of open access in Europe and North America has mostly been driven by repositories.
Cost of Open access publishing in the light of global developments in scholarly publishing: Springer’s Open access initiative

Megan Friedman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7557/5.3224

2014-12-08

Septentrio Conference Series

Abstract:>> See video of presentation (25 min.)BioMed Central is the open access publisher who pioneered this publishing model and has been part of Springer since 2008. We launched our first journal in the year 2000, and have since seen several positive global developments which have helped establish open access as an important trend in the evolvement of scholarly communication. We have consequently observed a steady increase in awareness of open access and specifically, of our wide range of specialist as well as broad interest titles which is reflected in our growing submission numbers.BioMed Central as one of the main open access publishers has helped to establish open access as a new way of making academic research available to researchers and the public, and to introduce a change of the subscription business model in academic publishing and libraries. While BioMed Central also offers a solution for the Green Route of open access (“Open Repository”) the main part of our publishing activity is centred around our fully or “gold” open access journals. BioMed Central and SpringerOpen practise the “author pays” model, whereby the author is asked to pay a fee to cover the publisher’s cost of publishing and distributing the article. While the awareness of open access is growing among the academics, there is still uncertainty among many of how open access works and why they are asked to pay a fee. To cover that fee can still be a major obstacle for a researcher attempting to publish an article in an open access journal, as the SOAP report stated in 2011.I will present an analysis of the most recent open access developments and studies globally; as well as the effect that this has had on a number of factors that play a role in scholarly publishing, such as Impact Factors, citations and awareness of open access among academics. I will give an update on BioMed Central and Springer’s own development in the arena of open access and visibility of research, including experimenting with alternative methods of evaluating research such as Altmetric and the SCImago Journal & Country Rank. I will conclude with an overview of how we are working with research organisations and universities to offer financial support to their researchers in order to cover the fee for publishing in BioMed Central and SpringerOpen journals in the context of our institutional membership program.
Chinese Scientists’ Awareness Of, Attitudes to and Involvement in Open-Access Publishing

Yangxu Lu,Yandong Zhao,Lei Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20966083221084807

2021-01-01

Cultures of Science

Abstract:‘Open access’ is an important part of the open science movement and a significant change to the existing model of academic publication. Based on data from a large-scale survey of Chinese scientists, this paper describes their awareness of, attitudes to and involvement in open access. Policy recommendations on promoting open access in China are proposed at the end of the paper.
Adoption of the open access business model in scientific journal publishing: A cross-disciplinary study

Bo-Christer Bjork,Timo Korkeamaki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.01008

2020-05-03

Digital Libraries

Abstract:Scientific journal publishers have over the past twenty-five years rapidly converted to predominantly electronic dissemination, but the reader-pays business model continues to dominate the market. Open Access (OA) publishing, where the articles are freely readable on the net, has slowly increased its market share to near 20%, but has failed to fulfill the visions of rapid proliferation predicted by many early proponents. The growth of OA has also been very uneven across fields of science. We report market shares of open access in eighteen Scopus-indexed disciplines ranging from 27% (agriculture) to 7% (business). The differences become far more pronounced for journals published in the four countries, which dominate commercial scholarly publishing (US, UK, Germany and the Netherlands). We present contrasting developments within six academic disciplines. Availability of funding to pay publication charges, pressure from research funding agencies, and the diversity of discipline-specific research communication cultures arise as potential explanations for the observed differences.
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

Open access is shaping scientific communication

Open Access publishing around the globe. A two-tier study on the perspectives of international medical informatics researchers on a barrier-free communication of science

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

Investing in Open Science: Key Considerations for Funders

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

Promoting an open research culture

Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

Journal Open Access and Plan S: Solving Problems or Shifting Burdens?

On the Fast Track to Full Gold Open Access

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

Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study

How open science helps researchers succeed

In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough

Subscribe to Open: Modeling an open access transformation

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

Open science practices among authors published in complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine journals: An international, cross-sectional survey

Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions

Cost of Open access publishing in the light of global developments in scholarly publishing: Springer’s Open access initiative

Chinese Scientists’ Awareness Of, Attitudes to and Involvement in Open-Access Publishing

Adoption of the open access business model in scientific journal publishing: A cross-disciplinary study

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