OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 2: Recommendations

Becerril, Arianna; Bjørnshauge, Lars; Bosman, Jeroen; Frantsvåg, Jan Erik; Krämer, Bianca; Langlais, Pierre-Carl; Mounier, Pierre; Proudman, Vanessa; Redhead, Claire; Torny, Didier

doi:10.5281/zenodo.4562790

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although university journals tend to be smaller, collectively this sector publishes the most articles. This evidence complements the findings of Bosman et al ( 2021) and the recommendations of Becerril et al (2021) based on a major survey of 1,619 "diamond" or no-fee OA journals that are financially supported by Research Performing Organizations (primarily universities; p. 117), 40% of which are owned by universities (p. 79).…”

Section: In 2011supporting

confidence: 85%

Change and growth in open access journal publishing and charging trends 2011–2021

Morrison

Borges

Zhang

et al. 2022

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 -2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon & Björk (2012). Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data is drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data . Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 USD to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 USD to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC, and pricing trends. Half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation. The university sector may be the most promising approach to economically sustainable no-fee OA journals. Universities publish many OA journals, nearly half of OA articles, tend not to charge APCs and when APCs are charged, the prices are very low on average. 1. How does DOAJ in 2020 compare with 2011 in terms of number of journals overall, number of APC charging journals and central tendencies of APC pricing? (Method 1).

show abstract

Section: In 2011supporting

confidence: 85%

Change and growth in open access journal publishing and charging trends 2011–2021

Morrison

Borges

Zhang

et al. 2022

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The adoption of the current OA model is certainly beneficial to readers that can access science publications without any costs. But the adopted OA model increases the financial gap between the few richest countries on the planet that can afford paying exorbitant fees and all the other countries that can no longer afford publishing their science Luckly, several journals around the world offer alternatives where both publishing and reading are free of charge (Becerril et al, 2021;Dufour et al, 2023;. To name one, there is the society-driven Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia, which is published by the Brazilian Limnology Association with zero costs for both readers and authors.…”

Section: Publishing Science Well Should Not Be Costlymentioning

confidence: 99%

Advocating for free-to-read and free-to-publish science journals amid a need to change a broken evaluation system

Frainer

2023

Acta Limnol. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publishing is an important step for the work of any scientist. Unfortunately, academia has been using publication metrics, particularly the journal impact factor, as one of the main criteria for assessing researchers CVs when hiring and promoting researchers and evaluating grant proposals, among others. This goes against the advice of several researchers and institutions who notice a harmful effect of focusing on such publication-based metrics for the development of science itself. In addition, most journals with high impact factor have been moving to a highly commercialized form of open access publication, where readers do not pay to access those papers, but the authors do. Journals ranked high in those publication-based metrics also charge very high publications fees. Thus, those journals have become too expensive for most scientists, creating a too-large financial gap between those who can afford publishing in high-ranked journals and those who cannot. Science ranking based on publication metrics is thus no longer a question of science quality, impact, or relevance, but of the researchers’ financial conditions to publish their science. Luckly, there are thousands of journals that offer the so-called diamond (or platinum) alternative that do not charge any fees from readers and writers alike. Here, I advocate that scientists should focus on those non-commercialized forms of science publication while working to change the criteria for evaluating science production currently at place in academia.

show abstract

“…A notable example of a successful diamond open access initiative is Redalyc (https://www.redalyc.org), which has existed since 2003 and supports >1400 journals in Latin America. In total, an estimated 29,000 diamond open access journals exist (Science Europe, 2021 ).…”

Section: Open Access Publishingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science

Roche

Kerr

Rytwinski

et al. 2021

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners,to interpret, and/or difficult to use. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We consider the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and (re)use potential of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation professionals (scientists and practitioners) to acquire the skills needed to make use of research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practiceswould help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently, in addition to reducing inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge to overcome. Finally, we caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate for a proactive stance towards transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science.

show abstract

OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 2: Recommendations

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Change and growth in open access journal publishing and charging trends 2011–2021

Change and growth in open access journal publishing and charging trends 2011–2021

Advocating for free-to-read and free-to-publish science journals amid a need to change a broken evaluation system

Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About