Mots-clefs: open access publishing Afficher/masquer les discussions | Raccourcis clavier

  • Hans Dillaerts le 22 April 2014 à 16 h 04 min Permalien | Connectez-vous pour laisser un commentaire
    Mots-clefs: , , open access publishing, , ,   

    A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals :

    « Aim. To determine the characteristics of megajournal authors, the nature of the manuscripts they are submitting to these journals, factors influencing their decision to publish in a megajournal, sources of funding for article processing charges (APCs) or other fees and their likelihood of submitting to a megajournal in the future.

    Methods. Web-based survey of 2,128 authors who recently published in BMJ Open, PeerJ, PLOS ONE or SAGE Open.

    Results. The response rate ranged from 26% for BMJ Open to 47% for SAGE Open. The authors were international, largely academics who had recently published in both subscription and Open Access (OA) journals. Across journals about 25% of the articles were preliminary findings and just under half were resubmissions of manuscripts rejected by other journals. Editors from other BMJ journals and perhaps to a lesser extent SAGE and PLOS journals appear to be encouraging authors to submit manuscripts that were rejected by the editor’s journals to a megajournal published by the same publisher. Quality of the journal and speed of the review process were important factors across all four journals. Impact factor was important for PLOS ONE authors but less so for BMJ Open authors, which also has an impact factor. The review criteria and the fact the journal was OA were other significant factors particularly important for PeerJ authors. The reputation of the publisher was an important factor for SAGE Open and BMJ Open. About half of PLOS ONE and around a third of BMJ Open and PeerJ authors used grant funding for publishing charges while only about 10% of SAGE Open used grant funding for publication charges. Around 60% of SAGE Open and 32% of PeerJ authors self-funded their publication fees however the fees are modest for these journals. The majority of authors from all 4 journals were pleased with their experience and indicated they were likely to submit to the same or similar journal in the future.

    Conclusions. Megajournals are drawing an international group of authors who tend to be experienced academics. They are choosing to publish in megajournals for a variety of reasons but most seem to value the quality of the journal and the speed of the review/publication process. Having a broad scope was not a key factor for most authors though being OA was important for PeerJ and SAGE Open authors. Most authors appeared pleased with the experience and indicated they are likely to submit future manuscripts to the same or similar megajournal which seems to suggest these journals will continue to grow in popularity. »

    URL : A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals
    Alternative URL : https://peerj.com/articles/365/

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 17 April 2014 à 16 h 59 min Permalien | Connectez-vous pour laisser un commentaire
    Mots-clefs: , , , open access publishing, ,   

    Open access journals in Humanities and Social Science :

    « This British Academy research project on the effects of current UK open access policies was funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and was overseen by a Steering Committee set up by the Academy to manage the project. The project was led by Professor Chris Wickham, FBA (British Academy Vice-President, Publications), with support and co-writing from Dr Rebecca Darley and Dr Daniel Reynolds. It investigates some of the issues involved in open access publishing, seeking to examine various practical issues and difficulties that may arise, using the example of twelve disciplines across the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS). The key issues investigated were:
    • the degree to which non-UK journals are ‘compliant’ with current UK open-access policies, particularly ‘green’ open-access policies;
    • the differences between journal half-lives across the same disciplines;
    • library acquisition policies and the degree to which these are affected by embargoes before articles are openly available. »

    URL : Open access journals in humanities and social science

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 14 April 2014 à 17 h 48 min Permalien | Connectez-vous pour laisser un commentaire
    Mots-clefs: , , , open access publishing   

    How research funders can finance APCs in full OA and hybrid journals :

    « Open access (OA) publishing is steadily growing in both full OA journals and hybrid journals where authors can pay to open up individual articles. Funding for article processing charges (APCs) is still a strong barrier for many authors, particularly for subscription journals where the hybrid option is expensive and an added extra feature after an article is accepted for publication. Many research funders in Europe have started or are considering mechanisms for paying APCs with earmarked funding in order to increase the uptake of OA. At the same time they are well aware that their actions may influence the way the OA market will develop in the near future. This article discusses a number of scenarios for ways in which funders could cover the cost of APCs, while encouraging the development of a competitive and transparent market for APC-funded OA scholarly publishing. We provide evidence that the current APC-funded full OA market is sensitive to journal prestige/impact. We present a value-based cap funding scheme which could help maintain transparency, bringing hybrid market pricing in line with the full OA market. We also consider a scenario that addresses hybrid ‘double dipping’ while limiting the cost of transitioning to full OA for research-intensive universities as well as costsharing as a mechanism for providing authors with an incentive for considering cost as well as value in choosing where to publish. »

    URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20140203

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 12 March 2014 à 12 h 38 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , , , , open access publishing,   

    Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges :

    « This report was commissioned by a consortium of European research funding organizations led by the Wellcome Trust. The study was undertaken to stimulate thinking among research funders who have set up, or are considering setting up, mechanisms for direct “earmarked” funding of article processing charges (APCs) in open access (OA) journals. The report covers both full OA journals (referred to in the report as “full OA”, such as those published by Biomed Central and PLOS) and subscription journals which offer authors the possibility of making their individual articles OA by paying an APC. This latter category is known as “hybrid OA”. There are many full OA journals that are funded by means other than APCs and the term “gold OA” also includes these journals. When they are included in the discussion this will be make clear, the focus of the report is however on the segment of gold OA funded by APCs. »

    URL : Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges

    Alternative URL : http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp055910.pdf

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 22 January 2014 à 17 h 28 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , , open access publishing, , ,   

    Open Access Publishing: A Literature Review :

    « Within the context of the Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy (CREATe) research scope, this literature review investigates the current trends, advantages, disadvantages, problems and solutions, opportunities and barriers in Open Access Publishing (OAP), and in particular Open Access (OA) academic publishing. This study is intended to scope and evaluate current theory and practice concerning models for OAP and engage with intellectual, legal and economic perspectives on OAP. It is also aimed at mapping the field of academic publishing in the UK and abroad, drawing specifically upon the experiences of CREATe industry partners as well as other initiatives such as SSRN, open source software, and Creative Commons. As a final critical goal, this scoping study will identify any meaningful gaps in the relevant literature with a view to developing further research questions. The results of this scoping exercise will then be presented to relevant industry and academic partners at a workshop intended to assist in further developing the critical research questions pertinent to OAP. »

    URL : http://www.create.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/CREATe-Working-Paper-2014-01.pdf

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 14 January 2014 à 18 h 16 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , , , , open access publishing,   

    Open Access Scholarly Publishing in India: A Scientometric Perspective of DOAJ :

    « The present study attempts to evaluate the initiatives taken by India to make its intellectual output accessible for all by publishing in Open Access resources like Open Access journals. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is the most accepted and authoritative list of scholarly, peer-reviewed, fully Open Access journals. It also highlights various facets related to open access publishing in India on the bases of data collected from DOAJ. The position of India in terms of number of journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is fourth well ahead of countries such as Germany, Spain, Canada. Most of the Indian open access journals listed in DOAJ were started in the beginning of 21st century. »

    URL : http://eprints.rclis.org/21169/

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 13 December 2013 à 14 h 41 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , open access publishing,   

    The Diamond Model of Open Access Publishing: Why Policy Makers, Scholars, Universities, Libraries, Labour Unions and the Publishing World Need to Take Non-Commercial, Non-Profit Open Access :

    « This reflection introduces a new term to the debate on open access publishing: diamond open access (DOA) publishing. The debate on open access is a debate about the future of academia. We discuss the problems of for-profit academic publishing, such as monopoly prices and access inequalities and point at the limits of contemporary perspectives on open access as they are frequently advanced by the publishing industry, policy makers and labour unions.

    The article introduces a public service and commons perspective that stresses the importance of fostering and publicly supporting what we term the model of diamond open access. It is a non-profit academic publishing model that makes academic knowledge a common good, reclaims the common character of the academic system and entails the possibility for fostering job security by creating public service publishing jobs. Existing concepts such as “gold open access” have serious conceptual limits that can be overcome by introducing the new term of diamond open access. The debate on open access lacks visions and requires social innovations.

    This article is a policy intervention and reflection on current issues related to open access (OA) publishing. It reflects on the following questions:

    • What should the role of open access be in the future of academic publishing and academia?
    • How should the future of academic publishing and academia look like?
    • Which reforms of academic policy making are needed in relation to open access publishing?

    We want to trigger a new level of the open access debate. We invite further reflections on these questions by academics, policy makers, publishers, publishing workers, labour unions, open access publishing associations, editors and librarians. »

    URL : http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/502
    Un résumé français de l’article est accessible sur http://oadesk.hypotheses.org/298 (ce résumé a été rédigé par Benjamin Caraco)

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 6 December 2013 à 22 h 09 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , , open access publishing, , PLOS ONE   

    Multidimensional Journal Evaluation of PLOS ONE :

    « PLOS ONE (formerly PLoS ONE) is an international open access online journal published by the Public Library of Science. The periodical covers all science and medicine categories and has published as many as 28,852 documents from 2007 to 2011. PLOS ONE will be used to show the range of journal metrics and informetric methods regarding validity, practicability and informative value. To assess this data as specifically as possible and to address all relevant factors, the evaluation is split into five dimensions, each of which involves distinct metrics. The five dimensions are journal output, journal content, journal perception, journal citations and journal management. Each of them is pointed out in the process of the analyses, and all significant evaluation results are presented. The results show that PLOS ONE has experienced an enormous development. Because of a relatively low rejection rate of 31%, its openness towards a multitude of different research areas, an internationally large peer review community, and its open access, a plurality of documents can be published in comparison with a print-journal or other online periodicals. The results of the evaluation indicate that PLOS ONE should be assessed from numerous perspectives because there are a variety of indicators beyond the impact factor that can be made use of in order to evaluate exhaustively the standing of the journal as well as its prestige and impact. »

    URL : http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/libr.2013.63.issue-4/libri-2013-0021/libri-2013-0021.xml?format=INT

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 4 December 2013 à 12 h 58 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , , open access publishing, , ,   

    Starting Scholarly Conversations: A Scholarly Communication Outreach Program :

    « As the scholarly communication system continues to evolve, academic librarians should take an active role in both developing their own knowledge and educating their campus communities about emergent topics. At Furman University, librarians developed an outreach program, aimed primarily at faculty, to increase awareness of current scholarly communication issues. Expert speakers were recruited to present throughout the year on open access, altmetrics, author’s rights, and other relevant topics. This program addressed a number of needs simultaneously—outreach to faculty; education for Furman librarians; and education for the greater library community—and affirmed the importance of providing opportunities to discuss these issues beyond the libraries. The program also further established Furman University Libraries’ role in educating and guiding its campus community through changes in scholarly communication models and practices. »

    URL : http://jlsc-pub.org/jlsc/vol2/iss1/2/

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
  • Hans Dillaerts le 27 November 2013 à 17 h 59 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , open access publishing, ,   

    Just Roll with It? Rolling Volumes vs. Discrete Issues in Open Access Library and Information Science Journals :

    « INTRODUCTION : Articles in open access (OA) journals can be published on a rolling basis, as they become ready, or in complete, discrete issues. This study examines the prevalence of and reasons for rolling volumes vs. discrete issues among scholarly OA library and information science (LIS) journals based in the United States.
    METHODS : A survey was distributed to journal editors, asking them about their publication model and their reasons for and satisfaction with that model. RESULTS Of the 21 responding journals, 12 publish in discrete issues, eight publish in rolling volumes, and one publishes in rolling volumes with an occasional special issue. Almost all editors, regardless of model, cited ease of workflow as a justification for their chosen publication model, suggesting that there is no single best workflow for all journals. However, while all rolling-volume editors reported being satisfied with their model, satisfaction was less universal among discrete-issue editors.
    DISCUSSION : The unexpectedly high number of rolling-volume journals suggests that LIS journal editors are making forward-looking choices about publication models even though the topic has not been much addressed in the library literature. Further research is warranted; possibilities include expanding the study’s geographic scope, broadening the study to other disciplines, and investigating publication model trends across the entire scholarly OA universe.
    CONCLUSION : Both because satisfaction is high among editors of rolling-volume journals and because readers and authors appreciate quick publication times, the rolling-volume model will likely become even more prevalent in coming years. »

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

     
c
Écrire un nouvel article
j
Prochain article/commentaire
k
Article/commentaire précédent
r
répondre
e
modifier
o
Afficher/masquer les commentaires
t
haut de page
l
se connecter
h
Afficher/masquer l'aide
shift + esc
Annuler