Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations)

This paper is the first of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad‐scope, open access journals that take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. This model is often said to support the broader goals of the open science movement. Based on in‐depth interviews with 31 publishers and editors representing 16 different organizations (10 of which publish a megajournal), this paper reports how the term ‘megajournal’ is understood and publishers’ rationale and motivations for launching (or not launching) an OAMJ. We find that while there is general agreement on the common characteristics of megajournals, there is not yet a consensus on their relative importance. We also find seven motivating factors that were said to drive the launch of an OAMJ and link each of these factors to potential societal and business benefits. These results suggest that the often polarized debate surrounding OAMJs is a consequence of the extent to which observers perceive publishers to be motivated by these societal or business benefits.     

The resilience of scientific publication: From elite ancient academies to open access

• Scientific publication has been a key part of the scientific method since the inception of Philosophical Transactions in 1665.
• The scientific publications industry has grown exponentially along with science, incorporating technological innovations along the way, and adapting journal processes and practices to changing needs of science as it matured.
• Of all the technological innovations over more than 300 years, the move to online journals may be the most significant, making open access to content practical for the first time.
• The open‐access movement is disrupting the economics of journal publishing, which is hoped will make the industry more competitive: the ability of the publications industry to adapt to open access will be a measure of its resilience.
• The demand for articles published in reputable journals continues to grow as readers trust the credibility of peer reviewed journal articles, and good authors value the prestige of publishing in the best journals.
• It is difficult to predict what new functionalities may be included in articles of the future or what additional services publishers and editors will provide, but there is every reason to believe that scientific journal articles are here to stay.

     

And Deliver Us to Segmentation

Non-profit news publishers, a small but growing piece of the news media environment, often explicitly attempt to build strong ties with their audiences. Many assume this approach differs from that of legacy newsrooms, which have historically kept the audience at arm’s length. In this article, I argue that this distinction has blurred. In-depth interviews with reporters and editors at a daily newspaper (The Chicago Tribune) and a local news non-profit (City Bureau) reveal that: (1) both organizations are pursuing a more collaborative relationship with their audiences; and (2) this pursuit is ill-suited for the traditional mass audience approach to news production. I conclude that journalists aspiring to work more closely with the audience find greater success when that audience is narrow to begin with.     

Business Faculty's Attitudes: Open Access,Disciplinary Repositories,and Institutional Repositories

Business faculty were surveyed to determine their attitudes toward institutional repositories, disciplinary repositories, and open access journals. The majority of faculty was unaware of institutional repositories at their local institutions. However, approximately one third are using disciplinary repositories and are receiving encouragement from their departments to do so. Likewise, many faculty are unaware of open access journals. Open access journals are seen as lacking prestige and being lower quality publications in the business field due to the lack of prestigious publishers and editors. Many faculty believe their prestige would fall if they published in an open access journal.     

“为开放而订阅”(S2O):从订阅期刊转向OA期刊的新兴模型

[目的/意义] 期刊从订阅模式转向开放获取模式有多种途径,其中"为开放而订阅（S2O）"是一种新兴模型,正越来越受到向开放获取过渡的传统出版商的认可与接纳。[方法/过程] 运用文献调研法与内容分析法,梳理S2O模型的背景、发展,比较9家出版商采用S2O模型的75种期刊的情况。[结果/结论] 指出S2O模型的潜在问题包含订阅机构的流失、图书馆/文献中心的财政预算审查障碍、订阅费用透明度较差;解决措施包括经费补充机制及提供S2O模型期刊的使用数据。从为出版商提供开放获取转换的新途径、有利于保障非营利性出版商的发展两个方面提出S2O开放获取模式,为我国开放获取的理论与实践带来重要启示。     

The Macro and Micro Scale of Open Access Predation

Having found a business opportunity in exploiting the open access publishing model, predatory journals and publishers have been spamming authors with emails, inviting them to submit articles for publication. Authors may be misled by the names of prestigious authors and editors that predatory journals and publishers use to advertise their publishing services, either by claims that those scientists serve on the editorial boards or by sending invitations in their names. Given the fact that detailed knowledge of a journal is required to make an informed decision of whether the inviting journal is predatory or not, junior scientists are not likely to possess the knowledge or skill to make such decisions. In addition, analysis of the details of new suspicious journals and publishers can be a lengthy process or even a waste of time. Therefore, in this paper, we provide an analysis of a likely scenario that many authors are facing nowadays when they take on the difficult task of studying the details of suspicious journals as possible venues for the publication of their research findings. The analysis takes the form of an analysis of the Kenkyu Publishing Group, which is listed on Jeffrey Beall’s list of “predatory” open access publishers.     

Reveal Digital: an open access model empowering libraries to become publishers

• Digitizing cultural heritage, humanities, content is currently being undertaken with institutional or government support but there are opportunities for greater library collaboration.
• Using a crowdfunding model to support the creation of digitized collections empowers librarians but also challenges them to think like investors and publishers.
• The described model creates an open access collection for the benefit of all scholars and also provides additional benefits for the participating libraries.

     

Is research with qualitative data more prevalent and impactful now? Interviews,case studies,focus groups and ethnographies

With qualitative research apparently threatened by big data, researchers, editors, educators, librarians, and publishers need to understand the mix of research methods used in their field to guide decision making. In response, this study assesses the prevalence and citation impact of academic research between 1996 and 2019 that reports one of four common methods to gather qualitative data: interviews, focus groups, case studies, and ethnography. With minor exceptions, the prevalence of qualitative data has increased, often substantially, since 1996. In addition, all 27 broad fields (as classified by Scopus) now publish some qualitative research, with interviewing being by far the most common approach. The citation impact of interview and focus group research mostly decreased over time, whereas of case study citation impact increased, and ethnography was above average in its two core subject areas. This suggests that methods teachers, researchers, editors, librarians, and publishers should be increasingly open to the value of qualitative data.     

The Croatian national open access journal platform

Until recently, Croatian scientific journals were accessible only in print form and only to a relatively small audience. A national online journals platform was therefore planned to offer publishers a simple tool for building online versions of their journals and to make them open access. The platform, named Hr?ak, was launched in 2006, supported by governmental funds. It currently includes 170 open access (OA) journals. Most journals include backfiles from 2006 onwards; the average archived period is 6.3 years. 56.5% of the journals come from the fields of social sciences and humanities. Metadata from the Hr?ak platform are regularly harvested by OA repositories. To increase the number of Croatian journals covered by relevant bibliographic and full‐text databases, Hr?ak has forged links with Elsevier, Thomson Reuters and EBSCO. So far, the main achievements include assisting publishers in the process of electronic publishing, and improving accessibility to Croatian scientific output.     

The author-publisher relationships of Louisa May Alcott

Louisa May Alcott was one of the most popular authors of the nineteenth century. However, Alcott’s literary career would not have been so successful without the help and advice of various publishers and editors, such as W.W. Clapp, Frank Leslie, James Redpath, James Elliott, A.K. Loring, and most notably Thomas Niles of Roberts Brothers. All of these publishers or editors helped Alcott to develop from a writer of lurid, sensational tales to the accomplished professional author of American classics. In the nineteenth century, it was more than often the publisher who exerted great influence over the nature of a literary work, from its subject matter to its marketing. This article focuses on Alcott’s relationships with her many publishers and shows how they helped Alcott develop her own style and subjects into a rewarding career as a writer. Daniel Shealy, visiting assistant professor at Clemson University, is co-editor ofThe Selected Letters of Louisa May Alcott, scheduled for publication by Little, Brown in August 1987.     

Text recycling: Views of North American journal editors from an interview‐based study

Over the past decade, text recycling (TR; AKA ‘self‐plagiarism’) has become a visible and somewhat contentious practice, particularly in the realm of journal articles. While growing numbers of publishers are writing editorials and formulating guidelines on TR, little is known about how editors view the practice or how they respond to it. We present results from an interview‐based study of 21 North American journal editors from a broad range of academic disciplines. Our findings show that editors' beliefs and practices are quite individualized rather than being tied to disciplinary or other structural parameters. While none of our participants supported the use of large amounts of recycled material from one journal article to another, some editors were staunchly against any use of recycled material, while others were accepting of the practice in certain circumstances. Issues of originality, the challenges of rewriting text, the varied circulation of texts, and abiding by copyright law were prominent themes as editors discussed their approaches to TR. Overall, the interviews showed that many editors have not thought systematically about the practice of TR, and they sometimes have trouble aligning their beliefs and practices.     

The Public Knowledge Project and the Simon Fraser University Library: A Partnership in Open Source and Open Access

The Public Knowledge Project is an ongoing collaboration between academics, librarians, publishers, editors, and software developers, working together to build alternatives in scholarly publishing. The project has developed a suite of open source software that significantly reduces the time and expense required for producing academic journals and conferences, and facilitates making research results freely available through open access. This article examines the history of the project, provides an overview of its open source software, discusses the growing community participating in the project, and considers its future directions.     

OA2020倡议国际观测与政策建议

[目的/意义]为我国进一步推动落实已签署的OA2020倡议提供参考建议。[方法/过程]通过网络调查跟踪观测全球主要科技国家教育机构、研究机构、资助机构、图书馆和国际组织实施大规模学术期刊开放出版转换的行动，并梳理归纳国际主要出版商对转换所持的不同态度和行动，分析总结上述学术出版参与主体在转换中存在的问题和挑战，提出可能的应对策略。[结果/结论]通过分析，从承认国家差异性、转变图书馆角色、与出版商协商合作、解决开放出版目前问题、正视扣减和抵消制度不足5个方面提出进一步深化开放获取发展，实现OA2020倡议的可行性建议。     

We've failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach

Key points

• Sci‐Hub has made nearly all articles freely available using a black open access model, leaving green and gold models in its dust.
• Why, after 20 years of effort, have green and gold open access not achieved more? Do we need ‘tae think again’?
• If human nature is to postpone change for as long as possible, are green and gold open access fundamentally flawed?
• Open and closed publishing models depend on bundle pricing paid by one stakeholder, the others getting a free ride. Is unbundling a fairer model?
• If publishers changed course and unbundled their product, would this open a legal, fairer route to 100% open access and see off the pirates?

     

Hand Wringing in Paradise: Scholarly Communication and the Intimate Twinges of Conscience

ABSTRACT

Scholarly communication today is in the midst of a healthy and long running crisis that has been good for libraries, good for scholars and good for publishers. It is a reflection of a hypercompetitive academic environment and a ruthless academic winnowing and reward system. Large commercial publishers have successfully manipulated this system with the complicity of library consortia, which has led in turn to the birth of the expensive and at times counter-productive open access movement that later reached its nadir with the problematic SCOAP (Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics) episode. In our obsession with navel gazing we have forgotten the decisive role that China will play in future developments in scholarly communication.

This article originally published in Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 51, Issues 5–6, pages 415–431, 2011. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2011.589335.