The NIH public access policy did not harm biomedical journals

Peterson, A. Townsend; Johnson, Paul E.; Barve, Narayani; Emmett, Ada; Greenberg, Marc L.; Bolick, Josh; Qiao, Huijie

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000352

“…, Suber, 2008 ), and so-called “green” open access, in which individual researchers make versions of their research open and available. This opening of access absent financial return to the journals, regardless of annual subscription prices or APCs, was originally feared to bankrupt academic journals; however, in the case of the largest funder mandate to date in the United States, it did not result in noticeable changes in viability and survival of journals in the fields that were most affected ( Peterson et al, 2019b ). Indeed, in some cases, changes forced on journals by commercial publishing enterprises have led to mass resignations of editorial boards, exemplifying the priority contrasts between the different stakeholders in the academic publishing world ( Peterson et al, 2019a ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, journal “membership”; Binfield, 2013 ; Else, 2018 ). More recently, many journals have shifted from subscription-based access, with publishing in most cases free to authors, to open access publishing with funding coming from article processing charges (APCs) to authors ( Peterson et al, 2019b ). These latter changes have indeed broadened reading access to journal-published papers around the world, but have simultaneously closed publishing access to potential authors who often cannot afford APCs ( Larios et al, 2020 ; Mekonnen et al, 2022 ; Nabyonga-Orem et al, 2020 ; Peterson, Emmett & Greenberg, 2013 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationships among cost, citation, and access in journal publishing by an ecology and evolutionary biology department at a U.S. university

Peterson,

Cobos,

Sikes

et al. 2024

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Optimizing access to high-quality scientific journals has become an important priority for academic departments, including the ability to read the scientific literature and the ability to afford to publish papers in those journals. In this contribution, we assess the question of whether institutional investment in scientific journals aligns with the journals where researchers send their papers for publication, and where they serve as unpaid reviewers and editors. Methods We assembled a unique suite of information about the publishing habits of our Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, including summaries of 3,540 journal publications by 35 faculty members. These data include economic costs of journals to institutions and to authors, benefits to authors in terms of journal prestige and citation rates, and considerations of ease of reading access for individuals both inside and outside the university. This dataset included data on institutional costs, including subscription pricing (rarely visible to scholars), and “investment” by scholars in supporting journals, such as time spent as editors and reviewers. Results Our results highlighted the complex set of relationships between these factors, and showed that institutional costs often do not match well with payoffs in terms of benefits to researchers (e.g., citation rate, prestige of journal, ease of access). Overall, we advocate for greater cost-benefit transparency to help compare different journals and different journal business models; such transparency would help both researchers and their institutions in investing wisely the limited resources available to academics.

show abstract

“…We did not seek verification on policies from funders. Data were collected at a time when publishing activities, particularly open access, was rapidly changing, in part in response to funded research being published in predatory journals 45 , 47 . We are aware that the NIH issued a notice on their Public Access Policy in November 2017 (outside of our sampling and data collection period) with recommendations to publish funded research in journals with ‘credible practices’ 48 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top health research funders’ guidance on selecting journals for funded research

Shamseer

¹

,

Cobey

²

,

Page

³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Funded health research is being published in journals that many regard as “predatory”, deceptive, and non-credible. We do not currently know whether funders provide guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded health research. Methods: We identified the largest 46 philanthropic, public, development assistance, public-private partnership, and multilateral funders of health research by expenditure, globally as well as four public funders from lower-middle income countries, from the list at https://healthresearchfunders.org. One of us identified guidance on disseminating funded research from each funders’ website (August/September 2017), then extracted information about selecting journals, which was verified by another assessor. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Results were summarized descriptively. This research used publicly available information; we did not seek verification with funding bodies. Results: The majority (44/50) of sampled funders indicated funding health research. 38 (of 44, 86%) had publicly available information about disseminating funded research, typically called “policies” (29, 76%). Of these 38, 36 (95%) mentioned journal publication for dissemination of which 13 (36.11%) offer variable guidance on selecting a journal, all of which relate to the funder’s open access mandate. Six funders (17%) outlined publisher requirements or features by which to select a journal. One funder linked to a document providing features of journals to look for (e.g. listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals) and to be wary of (e.g., no journal scope statement, uses direct and unsolicited marketing). Conclusions: Few funders provided guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded research. Funders have a duty to ensure that the research they fund is discoverable by others. This research is a benchmark for funder guidance on journal selection prior to the January 2021 implementation of Plan S (a global, funder-led initiative to ensure immediate, open access to funded, published research).

show abstract

“…Six funders in our sample did not provide any relevant public information. We did not seek verification on policies from funders since data collection took place at a time when the publishing activities, particularly open access, was (and still is) rapidly changing, somewhat in response to the rise of predatory journals 41,43 . We are aware that the NIH issued a notice on their Public Access Policy in November 2017 (outside of our sampling and data collection period) with recommendations to publish funded research in journals with 'credible practices' 44 .…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top health research funders’ guidance on selecting journals for funded research

Shamseer¹,

Cobey²,

Page³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Funded health research is being published in journals that many regard as “predatory”, deceptive, and non-credible. We do not currently know whether funders provide guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded health research. Methods: We identified the largest 46 philanthropic, public, development assistance, public-private partnership, and multilateral funders of health research by expenditure, globally as well as four public funders from lower-middle income countries, from the list at https://healthresearchfunders.org. One of us identified guidance on disseminating funded research from each funders’ website (August/September 2017), then extracted information about selecting journals, which was verified by another assessor. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Results were summarized descriptively. This research used publicly available information; we did not seek verification with funding bodies. Results: The majority (44/50) of sampled funders indicated funding health research. 38 (of 44, 86%) had publicly available information about disseminating funded research, typically called “policies” (29, 76%). Of these 38, 36 (95%) mentioned journal publication for dissemination of which 13 (36.11%) offer variable guidance on selecting a journal, all of which relate to the funder’s open access mandate. Six funders (17%) outlined publisher requirements or features by which to select a journal. One funder linked to a document providing features of journals to look for (e.g. listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals) and to be wary of (e.g., no journal scope statement, uses direct and unsolicited marketing). Conclusions: Few funders provided guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded research. Funders have a duty to ensure that the research they fund is discoverable by others. This research is a benchmark for funder guidance on journal selection prior to the January 2021 implementation of Plan S (a global, funder-led initiative to ensure immediate, open access to funded, published research).

show abstract

The NIH public access policy did not harm biomedical journals

Cited by 4 publications

References 17 publications

Relationships among cost, citation, and access in journal publishing by an ecology and evolutionary biology department at a U.S. university

Relationships among cost, citation, and access in journal publishing by an ecology and evolutionary biology department at a U.S. university

Top health research funders’ guidance on selecting journals for funded research

Top health research funders’ guidance on selecting journals for funded research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About