Plan S: take Latin America’s long experience on board

Debat, Humberto Julio; Babini, Dominique

doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02857-1

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While some smaller journals are independently operating or associated with non-profit organizations or professional societies, most journal have contracts with large publishing entities that jointly comprise the billion-dollar academic publishing industry, wherein profit margins run up to 30% ( 2 ) . Few OA or hybrid journals had no APCs and were most commonly covering or based in Latin America, where free-of-charge OA journals are commonplace and supported by both professional society and governmental support, a model that may be extended elsewhere ( 10 ) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Access and Article Processing Charges in Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Journals: a CrossSectional Analysis

Vervoort¹,

Luc²,

Etchill³

2021

Braz J Cardiovasc Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Open access (OA) publishing often requires article processing charges (APCs). While OA provides opportunities for broader readership, authors able to afford APCs are more commonly associated with well-funded, high-income country institutions, skewing knowledge dissemination. Here, we evaluate publishing models, OA practices, and APCs in cardiology and cardiac surgery. Methods The InCites Journal Citation Reports 2019 directory by Clarivate Analytics was searched for “Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems” journals. Sister journals of included journals were identified. All journals were categorized as predominantly cardiology or cardiac surgery. Publishing models, APCs, and APC waivers were defined for all journals. Results One hundred sixty-one journals were identified (139 cardiology, 22 cardiac surgery). APCs ranged from $244 to $5,000 ($244-5,000 cardiology; $383-3,300 cardiac surgery), with mean $2,911±891 and median $3,000 (interquartile range [IQR]: $2,500-3,425) across 139 journals with non-zero available APCs ($2,970±890, median $3,000, IQR: $2,573-3,450, cardiology; $2,491±799, median $2,740, IQR: $2,300-3,000, cardiac surgery). Average APCs were $3,307±566 and median $3,250 (IQR: $3,000-3,500) for hybrid journals ($3,344±583, median $3,260, IQR: $3,000-3,690, cardiology; $2,983±221, median $2,975, IQR: $2,780-3,149, cardiac surgery) and $1,997±832 and median $2,100 (IQR: $1,404-2,538) for fully OA journals ($2,039±843, median $2,100, IQR: $1,419-2,604, cardiology; $1,788±805, median $2,000, IQR: $1,475-2,345, cardiac surgery). Waivers were available for 51 (86.4%) fully OA and 37 (37.4%) hybrid journals. Seventeen journals were fully OA without APCs, one journal did not yet release APCs, and four journals were subscription-only. Conclusion OA publishing is common in cardiology and cardiac surgery with substantial APCs. Waivers remain limited, posing barriers for unfunded and lesser-funded researchers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Access and Article Processing Charges in Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Journals: a CrossSectional Analysis

Vervoort¹,

Luc²,

Etchill³

2021

Braz J Cardiovasc Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The UK's government's 2012 decision to clearly favour, "publication in open access or hybrid journals, funded by APCs, as the main vehicle for the publication of research" [86], can be seen as a watershed moment for APC Gold OA. More recently, the related funder-led initiatives OA2020 and "Plan S" 5 were initially accused of ignoring experiences and interests of developing nations and lacking support for "the advancement of non-commercial open-access initiatives" [87]. Although Plan S has arguably somewhat corrected course here [88,89], the overall impact of Plan S remains to be seen.…”

Section: Inequities In Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science - A Scoping Review

Ross-Hellauer¹,

Reichmann²,

Cole³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open Science holds the promise to make scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible, and re-usable for large audiences. However, making processes open will not per se drive wide re-use or participation unless also accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, financial resources, technological readiness and motivation) to do so. These capacities vary considerably across regions, institutions and demographics. Those advantaged by such factors will remain potentially privileged, putting Open Science’s agenda of inclusivity at risk of propagating conditions of “cumulative advantage”. With this paper, we systematically scope existing research addressing the question: “What evidence and discourse exists in the literature about the ways in which dynamics and structures of inequality could persist or be exacerbated in the transition to Open Science, across disciplines, regions and demographics?” Aiming to synthesise findings, identify gaps in the literature, and inform future research and policy, our results identify threats to equity associated with all aspects of Open Science, including Open Access, Open/FAIR Data, Open Methods, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science, as well as its interfaces with society, industry and policy. Key threats include: stratifications of publishing due to the exclusionary nature of the author-pays model of Open Access; potential widening of the digital divide due to the infrastructure-dependent, highly situated nature of open data practices; risks of diminishing qualitative methodologies as “reproducibility” becomes synonymous with quality; new risks of bias and exclusion in means of transparent evaluation; and crucial asymmetries in the Open Science relationships with industry and the public, which privileges the former and fails to fully include the latter.

show abstract

“…For more on uptake, see Archambault et al, 2014;Piwowar et al, 2018). The recent establishment of the global 'cOAlition S' group of funders and its ambitious accompanying Plan are only intensifying the pressure on traditional publishers to change their models to those conducive to OA, in the face of opposition from both likely and unexpected sources (cOAlition S, 2020(cOAlition S, , 2019Debat & Babini, 2019).…”

Section: What's the Problem?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other models have long existed. Indeed, the Global North's elite focus on maintaining its grip on prestige in the research dissemination world has led to accusations that initiatives such as Plan S are ignoring the many systems worldwide that are already built on communal, collective infrastructuresand that avoid APCs (Debat & Babini, 2019;Packer, 1998aPacker, , 1998bPacker, , 2020Siler, Haustein, Smith, Larivière, & Alperin, 2018). Even in the Global North, systems such as arXiv, the SCOAP3 purchasing consortium (to some extent), Knowledge Unlatched's book programme, and more recent membership schemes from punctum books and Open Book Publishers have all recognised the value of alternative models for OA that redress this problem of distribution (arXiv, 2013; Knowledge Unlatched, 2013; SCOAP3, 2014).…”

Section: What's the Problem?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons From the Open Library of Humanities

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Open Library of Humanities was launched almost half a decade ago with funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. In this article, we outline the problems we set out to address and the lessons we learned. Specifically, we note that, as we hypothesized, academic libraries are not necessarily classical economic actors; that implementing consortial funding models requires much marketing labour; that there are substantial governance and administrative overheads in our model; that there are complex tax and VAT considerations for consortial arrangements; and that diverse revenue sources remain critical to our success.

show abstract

Plan S: take Latin America’s long experience on board

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Open Access and Article Processing Charges in Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Journals: a CrossSectional Analysis

Open Access and Article Processing Charges in Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Journals: a CrossSectional Analysis

Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science - A Scoping Review

Lessons From the Open Library of Humanities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About