Étiquette : open access publishing

Catégories
FR

Saisir l’objet mouvant de la prédation dans la communication scientifique

Auteur : Innocent Azilan

Cet article examine la prédation dans la communication scientifique comme un phénomène complexe et mouvant qui dépasse la simple dichotomie entre revues « légitime » et « prédatrices ». Je propose une analyse nuancée qui identifie trois formes principales de prédation : par opportunisme (éditeurs frauduleux exploitant le modèle des frais de publication), par immaturité (revues périphériques aux capacités éditoriales limitées), et par avidité (dérives des grands éditeurs commerciaux sous pression de croissance). Je montre que la prédation n’est pas cantonnée aux marges du système scientifique mais touche également des acteurs établis.

HAL : https://hal.science/hal-05344926v1

Catégories
EN

No Fees, No Barriers—But What Standards? Considerations on the DIAMAS Diamond OA Standard Applied to a Public Health Journal

Authors : Annarita Barbaro, Maria Cristina Barbaro, Federica Napolitani

The Diamond Open Access (OA) model—characterized by the absence of fees for both authors and readers—has gained increasing attention in recent years. A wide range of scholarly journals are using this model, as emerged while mapping the Diamond OA landscape worldwide; however, some still depend on hybrid revenue streams such as print sales, subscriptions, and marginal APCs.

A number of recent initiatives underlined the need to increase quality assurance, sustainability, and cooperation within the Diamond OA ecosystem. Among them, the Diamond OA Standard (DOAS), a framework comprising detailed guidelines and a self-assessment tool to facilitate Diamond OA publishing practices, was created by the DIAMAS project, sponsored by the European Commission.

Annali dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità, the official journal of the Italian leading public health research institution, is a Diamond OA journal. To improve transparency and quality, the editorial team used the DOAS self-assessment tool to evaluate its compliance with the standards proposed by DIAMAS and to identify potential areas for improvement.

This article presents the process and findings of the DOAS self-assessment tool conducted on Annali ISS, with the aim of sharing insights and support with other journals seeking to align with the DOAS framework.

URL : No Fees, No Barriers—But What Standards? Considerations on the DIAMAS Diamond OA Standard Applied to a Public Health Journal

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040053

Catégories
EN

Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts

Authors : Alexander Pohlman, Ayham M. Odeh, Shawn M. Purnell, Layan Alrahmani, Shanda H Blackmon, Julia M Coughlin, Zaid M Abdelsattar

Background

Many traditional journals have launched companion open access (cOA) journals with similar scope and aims. These journals seek better article dissemination through removal of the paywall and use of article processing charges (APCs). Traditional journals often suggest transfer to their cOA journal, leaving authors with a decision to accept transfer and pay an APC or resubmit elsewhere. We aim to compare costs and impact of these journals to better inform authors.

Methods

The top 15 U.S.-based traditional journals within medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and OB/GYN were identified based on 2023 impact factor. Those with cOA journals were included, and all publication data between 2011 and 2023 were extracted. Citation counts were compared using Poisson regression; author demographics were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

Results

There were 14 traditional journals with cOA counterparts, constituting 52,232 publications from 36,577 authors. cOA articles had half the citations of traditional publications (9.4 vs 18.2) and collected an estimated $35 million in APCs. Female and low/middle income country (LMIC) authors were more likely to publish in cOA journals (aOR = 1.23, 1.14, respectively).

URL : Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2575211

Catégories
EN

APC waivers and Ukraine’s publishing output in Gold OA journals: Evidence from five commercial publishers

Author : Serhii Nazarovets

This study examines the effect of article processing charge (APC) waivers on the participation of Ukrainian researchers in fully Gold Open Access (Gold OA) journals published by the five largest academic publishers – Elsevier, SAGE, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley – during the period 2019-2024.

These publishers were selected because, in response to the full-scale war launched against Ukraine in 2022, all five introduced emergency 100% APC-waiver policies for Ukrainian authors. Using bibliometric data from the Web of Science Core Collection, the study analyses publication trends in Ukrainian-authored articles in fully Gold OA journals of these publishers before and after 2022.

The results show a marked post-2022 increase in Ukraine’s Gold OA output, particularly in journals published by Springer Nature and Elsevier. Disciplinary and publisher-specific patterns are evident, with especially strong growth in the medical and applied sciences. The findings underscore the potential of targeted support measures during times of crisis, while also illustrating the inherent limitations of APC-based publishing models in fostering equitable scholarly communication.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.12134

Catégories
EN

Collective funding models for open access books: Librarians’ experiences and barriers to participation across six European contexts

Authors : Judith Fathallah, Joe Deville, Izabella Penier, Francesca Corazza

This report seeks to understand librarians’ experiences of collective funding models for open access books, especially barriers to joining organisations like the Open Book Collective (OBC).

The OBC is one of an increasing number of organisations that are using a collective ‘Diamond’ funding model for open access, wherein libraries commit to financially support open access book publishers, and/or open infrastructure providers for a set period of time to fund their work.

The report aims to learn from differing experiences in countries with different open access policies and institutional contexts. It focuses its research on six countries in continental Europe: Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. The research includes interviews with 20 participants. Most are librarians, alongside a selection of publishers and open access experts.

It provides particular insight into how librarians understand collective funding models and their ability to become involved in them, within their national and institutional settings. This is supplemented by an analysis of existing research on collective funding models and a profile of each country’s current open access publishing context, based on an extensive literature review.

The report will be of interest to librarians seeking to build further capacity to support collective Diamond open access funding models within their institutions, as well as publishers, infrastructure providers and collaborative endeavours seeking to build collective support for the development of open access programmes.

URL : Collective funding models for open access books: Librarians’ experiences and barriers to participation across six European contexts

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17339946

Catégories
EN

Scientific publishing without gatekeeping: an empirical investigation of eLife’s new peer review process

Authors : Rüdiger Mutz, Lutz Bornmann, Hans‑Dieter Daniel

At the end of January 2023, eLife introduced a new publishing model (alongside the old-traditional-publishing model): all manuscripts submitted as preprints are peer-reviewed and published if they are deemed worthy of review by the editorial team (“editorial triage”). The model abandons the gatekeeping function and retains the previous “consultative approach to peer review”.

Even under the changed conditions, the question of the quality of judgements in the peer review process remains. In this study, the reviewers’ ratings of manuscripts submitted to eLife were examined in terms of both descriptive comparisons of peer review models, and the following selected quality criteria of peer review: interrater agreement and interrater reliability. eLife provided us with the data on all manuscripts submitted in 2023 according to the new publishing model (group 3, N = 3,846), as well as manuscripts submitted according to the old publishing model (group 1: N = 6,592 submissions from 2019; group 2: N = 364 submissions from 2023).

The interrater agreement and interrater reliability for the criteria “significance of findings” and “strength of support” were similarly low, as previous empirical studies for gatekeeping journals have shown.

The fairness of peer review is not or only slightly compromised. We used the empirical results of our study to recommend several improvements to the new publishing model introduced by eLife as for example, increasing transparency, masking author identity or increasing the number of expert reviewers.

URL : Scientific publishing without gatekeeping: an empirical investigation of eLife’s new peer review process

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05422-y

Catégories
EN

Inequity, precarity, and disparity: Exploring systemic and institutional barriers in open access publishing

Authors : Philips Ayeni, Vincent Larivière

Despite increasing advocacy for open access (OA), its uptake in some disciplines has remained low. Existing studies have linked the low uptake of OA in the humanities and social sciences (HSS) to disciplinary norms, limited funding for article processing charges (APCs), and researchers’ preferences.

However, there is a growing concern about inequity in the scholarly communication landscape, as OA publishing has remained unaffordable to many researchers. This study investigates systemic and institutional barriers to OA publishing in Canada, as well as strategies for improving the uptake of and equity in OA publishing.

Using semi-structured interviews, qualitative data was collected from 20 professors from the HSS disciplines of research-intensive universities in the country. Data was analyzed using the NVivo software, following the reflexive thematic analysis approach.

Findings revealed five systemic and institutional barriers to OA publishing: (1) unaffordable APCs; (2) precarious career stage and tenure requirements; (3) unequal privileges; (4) gender; and (5) conflicting and unsupportive institutional OA policies.

We conclude that there needs to be a concerted effort in promoting and funding viable and sustainable OA models, which removes the financial burden of OA publishing from researchers.

There is also an increasing need to promote OA culture within academia and provide institutional support for OA publishing. Notably, the model of academic scholarship that places prominence on journal metrics for tenure and promotion needs to be reformed. Some recommendations for reducing systemic and institutional barriers to OA publishing are provided.

URL : Inequity, precarity, and disparity: Exploring systemic and institutional barriers in open access publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006251353385