Étiquette : open access

Catégories
EN

The Economic Impact of Open Science: A Scoping Review

Authors : Lena Tsipouri, Sofia Liarti, Silvia Vignetti, Izabella Martins-Grapengiesser

This paper summarised a comprehensive scoping review of the economic impact of Open Science (OS), examining empirical evidence from 2000 to 2023. It focuses on Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Source Software (OSS), and Open Methods, assessing their contributions to efficiency gains in research production, innovation enhancement, and economic growth.

Evidence, although limited, indicates that OS accelerates research processes, reduces the related costs, fosters innovation by improving access to data and resources and this ultimately generates economic growth. Specific sectors, such as life sciences, are researched more and the literature exhibits substantial gains, mainly thanks to OFD and OA.

OSS supports productivity, while the very limited studies on Open Methods indicate benefits in terms of productivity gains and innovation enhancement. However, gaps persist in the literature, particularly in fields like Citizen Science and Open Evaluation, for which no empirical findings on economic impact could be detected.

Despite limitations, empirical evidence on specific cases highlight economic benefits. This review underscores the need for further metrics and studies across diverse sectors and regions to fully capture OS’s economic potential.

URL : The Economic Impact of Open Science: A Scoping Review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/kqse5_v1

Catégories
EN

Academic Quality or Commercial Concern? The Role of APCs in Open-Access Communication Studies Journals

Author : Burak Ili

Despite the positive effects of the open access (OA) movement on academic publishing, commercial publishers’ profit-driven policies continue to prevail, making the publishing process increasingly difficult for many researchers, particularly those from developing countries. T

his study critically examines open-access Q1 and Q2 journals listed in the Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) within the field of Media and Communication Studies.

Despite the OA movement’s goal of increasing access to information, the capitalist academic publishing model transforms knowledge production into a commercial activity through article processing charges (APCs). The research reveals that high APCs demanded by high-impact journals represent a significant barrier, especially for researchers with limited financial and institutional support.

This situation underscores the urgent need for institutional reform in the structure of academic publishing, particularly within the field of Media and Communication Studies.

The proposed reforms should focus on critical areas such as increased support for OA models, freeing journals and editorial boards from Western monopolies, fairly compensating the labour of reviewers and editors, and offering greater language support.

Steps taken in this direction will contribute to the creation of a more transparent, fair, and inclusive structure for academic production and sharing processes.

URL : Academic Quality or Commercial Concern? The Role of APCs in Open-Access Communication Studies Journals

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v23i1.1547

Catégories
EN

The business of transformative agreement

Author : Reece Steinberg

What can transformative agreements (TA) tell us about the future of Open Access (OA)? To investigate and analyze the business model of big publishers driving these agreements, this article uses a case study of the publisher Wiley, a business model canvas, and a decision matrix. The study uncovers motivations for moving to this model and effects to libraries and research spread unequally among institutions and globally.

This has implications for the work of liaison librarians – the frontline with researchers, as well as library leadership, university leadership and others concerned with equitable access to publishing, and diversity of research.

URL : The business of transformative agreement

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103020

Catégories
EN

DeepGreen—A Data Hub for the Distribution of Scholarly Articles From Publishers to Open Access Repositories in Germany

Authors: Tomasz Stompor, Heinz Pampel, Julia Boltze-Fütterer, Beate Rusch

  • DeepGreen is an automated delivery service for open access articles. Originally conceived to take advantage of the so-called open access component—a secondary publication right in Alliance and National licences in Germany to promote green open access—it aims to streamline open access processes by automating the distribution of full-text articles and metadata from publishers to repositories.
  • The service, developed by a consortium and funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) in its initial phase, has successfully established itself as a national service, facilitating open access content distribution and contributing to Germany’s open access infrastructure.
  • As of December 2024, DeepGreen distributes articles from 14 publishers to 84 institutional repositories and 6 subject-specific repositories.
  • This article describes the role of the DeepGreen service in Germany, its collaboration with publishers and the potential of automated processes for storing articles in open access repositories, which, as publicly owned institutional infrastructures, ensure sustainable access and provide secure, redundant storage.

URL : DeepGreen—A Data Hub for the Distribution of Scholarly Articles From Publishers to Open Access Repositories in Germany

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.70000

Catégories
EN

Moving Open Repositories out of the Blind Spot of Initiatives to Correct the Scholarly Record

Author : Frédérique Bordignon

Open repositories were created to enhance access and visibility of scholarly publications, driven by open science ideals emphasising transparency and accessibility. However, they lack mechanisms to update the status of corrected or retracted publications, posing a threat to the integrity of the scholarly record. To explore the scope of the problem, a manually verified corpus was examined: we extracted all the entries in the Crossref × Retraction Watch database for which the publication date of the corrected or retracted document ranged from 2013 to 2023.

This corresponded to 24,430 entries with a DOI, which we use to query Unpaywall and identify their possible indexing in HAL, an open repository (second largest institutional repository worldwide). In most cases (91%), HAL does not mention corrections. While the study needs broader scope, it highlights the necessity of improving the role of open repositories in correction processes with better curation practices.

We discuss how harvesting operations and the interoperability of platforms can maintain the integrity of the entire scholarly record. Not only will the open repositories avoid damaging its reliability through ambiguous reporting, but on the contrary, they will also strengthen it.

URL : Moving Open Repositories out of the Blind Spot of Initiatives to Correct the Scholarly Record

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1655

Catégories
EN

Open But Hidden: Open Access Gaps in the National Science Foundation Public Access Repository

Authors : Kimberly R. Powell, Jenny Townes, Fred Rascoe

Introduction

In 2022, the U.S. government released new guidelines for making publicly funded research open and available. For the National Science Foundation (NSF), these policies reinforce requirements in place since 2016 for supported research to be submitted to the Public Access Repository (PAR).

Methods

To evaluate the public access compliance of research articles submitted to the NSF-PAR, this study searched for NSF-PAR records published between 2017 and 2021 from two research intensive institutions. Records were reviewed to determine whether the PAR held a deposited copy, as required by the 2016 policies, or provided a link out to publisher-held version(s).

Results

A total of 841 unique records were identified, all with publicly accessible versions. Yet only 42% had a deposited PDF version available in the repository as required by the NSF 2016 Public Access Policy. The remaining 58% directed instead to publisher-held versions. In total, only 55% of record links labeled “Full Text Available” directed users to a publicly accessible version with a single click.

Discussion

Records within PAR do not clearly direct users to the publicly accessible full text. In almost half of records, the most prominently displayed link directed users to a paywall version, even when a publicly available version existed. Records accessible only through the CHORUS (Clearing House for the Open Research of the United States) initiative were further obscured by requiring specialized navigation of publisher-owned sites.

Conclusion:

Despite having a repository mandate since 2016, NSF compliance rates remain low. Additional support and/or oversight is needed to address the additional requirements introduced under the 2022 memo.

URL : Open But Hidden: Open Access Gaps in the National Science Foundation Public Access Repository

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.17767

 

Catégories
EN

The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS): Bringing Open-Source Software Practices to the Scholarly Publishing Community for Authors, Reviewers, Editors, and Publishers

Authors : Patrick Diehl, Charlotte Soneson, Rachel C. Kurchin, Ross Mounce, Daniel S. Katz

Introduction

Open-source software (OSS) is a critical component of open science, but contributions to the OSS ecosystem are systematically undervalued in the current academic system. The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS) contributes to addressing this by providing a venue (that is itself free, diamond open access, and all open-source, built in a layered structure using widely available elements/services of the scholarly publishing ecosystem) for publishing OSS, run in the style of OSS itself.

A particularly distinctive element of JOSS is that it uses open peer review in a collaborative, iterative format, unlike most publishers. Additionally, all the components of the process—from the reviews to the papers to the software that is the subject of the papers to the software that the journal runs—are open.

Background

We describe JOSS’s history and its peer review process using an editorial bot, and we present statistics gathered from JOSS’s public review history on GitHub showing an increasing number of peer reviewed papers each year. We discuss the new JOSSCast and use it as a data source to understand reasons why interviewed authors decided to publish in JOSS.

Discussion and Outlook

JOSS’s process differs significantly from traditional journals, which has impeded JOSS’s inclusion in indexing services such as Web of Science. In turn, this discourages researchers within certain academic systems, such as Italy’s, which emphasize the importance of Web of Science and/or Scopus indexing for grant applications and promotions. JOSS is a fully diamond open-access journal with a cost of around US$5 per paper for the 401 papers published in 2023. The scalability of running JOSS with volunteers and financing JOSS with grants and donations is discussed.

URL : The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS): Bringing Open-Source Software Practices to the Scholarly Publishing Community for Authors, Reviewers, Editors, and Publishers

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18285