学术期刊编辑对开放获取认识的调查与分析

为了了解学术期刊的网络出版现状以及实现开放获取(OA)的程度,预测国际OA对我国学术文献出版和传播的影响,采用问卷法调查全国学术期刊编辑对OA的认识.结果表明,编辑人员对OA持积极、肯定的态度,但在对OA是否会降低发行量,OA采取作者支付模式的可行性以及OA论文的质量控制问题等方面存在一定的疑虑.文章针对这些问题进行了分析.     

Counterpoints about predatory open access and knowledge publishing in Africa

The promise of open access (OA) as a replacement for existing scientific information dissemination ethos and practice has been contentious, with the interests of different stakeholders – countries, publishers, and OA activists, among others – clashing on an unprecedented scale. This paper examines some of the challenges that have been triggered by the OA movement, particularly at the Africa regional level. Basically, OA is technology heavy and its economic arrangements benefit mainly the developed world. There is evidence of OA initiatives in Africa, but these initiatives are mainly individually based, defragmented, and largely underdeveloped, and sometimes predatory. This author argues that policy‐makers in Africa need to embrace OA and establish useful policies – for regional journals and regional repositories and for academic reward, and support this with technical investment to enable quality online publishing.     

我国科研人员对科技信息开放获取的态度————以中国科学院科研人员为例

文章以对中国科学院部分科研人员的访谈和问卷调查为基础,调查我国科研人员对科技信息开放获取的态度及意愿,并从开放获取资源、科研机构和科研人员自身特点等角度分析了科研人员参与科技信息开放获取的影响因素,建议政府、科研机构和科研资助机构要积极扶持开放获取期刊的发展,将开放获取期刊纳入科研评价体系之中,支持学术论文的自存储。     

我国科技期刊OA现状和发展策略研究

文章通过调研我国科技期刊开放存取（Open Access,简称OA）的发展现状,对我国科技期刊OA的数量、分布以及开放全文的特征进行了分析,找出目前我国科技期刊OA存在的主要问题,并对影响开放存取发展的各类因素进行了探析,最后从提升影响力、营造良好的宏观环境等方面对我国的科技期刊OA的发展提出有效的策略及建议。     

Evolution of open access publishing in Chinese scientific journals

Based on the 1,608 journals covered by the Chinese Science & Technology Journal Citation Reports (2005 edition), we analyzed the open access (OA) publishing situation of Chinese scientific journals. From this database we identified 91 journals offering full OA; a further 139 journals offered delayed OA. Data collected at three different time points (January 2006, July 2006, and January 2007) showed that the OA status of these journals is not stable; some OA journals subsequently became non‐OA. Most of the Chinese OA journals are not part of a larger aggregation, but are published independently. Relatively more OA journals are published in the fields of medicine and biology. Citation indicators of OA journals were found to be higher than those of non‐OA journals.     

关于中文学术期刊开放获取的再思考

S计划的提出将开放获取(Open Access, OA)提升到一个新的高度,对于中文学术期刊的OA必须深入思考。在OA2020的推进过程中,学术出版不同环节经历着长期的博弈和努力,而绝大多数中文学术期刊由于存在着主观和客观上的障碍,只在自建网站上实施了OA。为了推进高质量中文学术期刊金色OA并达到知识普惠社会发展的要求,笔者认为应该允许相关期刊收取合理的文章处理费,充分利用现有的OA平台,并探索在期刊集成平台上的OA。     

Pricing principles used by scholarly open access publishers

The article processing charge (APC) is currently the primary method of funding professionally published open access (OA) peer‐reviewed journals. The pricing principles of 77 OA publishers publishing over 1,000 journals using APCs were studied and classified. The most commonly used pricing method is a single fixed fee, which can either be the same for all of a publisher's journals or individually determined for each journal. Fees are usually only levied for publication of accepted papers, but there are some journals that also charge submission fees. Instead of fixed prices, many publishers charge by the page or have multi‐tiered fees depending on the length of articles. The country of origin of the author can also influence the pricing, in order to facilitate publishing for authors from developing countries.     

国外学术期刊OA出版论文处理费(APC)调查

调查了国际知名出版商Elsevier、Springer、Taylor & Francis、Wiley-Blackwell、NPG和国际知名OA期刊社BMC、PLoS、Hindawi、MDPI等OA期刊的论文处理费(APC)的收费标准.2015年度主要商业性出版社完全OA期刊的APC主要分布在1 000 ～5 000美元之间,混合型OA期刊的APC相对高些,分布较窄,基本在3 000美元左右.以瑞士MDPI公司为案例,分析该公司OA期刊的创办、期刊载文量、期刊经营、APC收取策略等.还简要讨论APC和OA出版机制,以期为我国的科研管理部门和期刊管理部门提供参考.     

掠夺性科技期刊与科技期刊中掠夺性现象的特征研究

近年来,由于开放存取(OA)出版模式的兴起,掠夺性科技期刊的出现也引起国内外学者的关注。国内科技期刊中也存在着类似的管理和学术信誉差、商业利益至上的现象,并对正常的科研成果和出版资源形成了干扰和掠夺。本文将这些存在于国内外科技期刊中的掠夺现象一并回顾和总结,认为一方面国内科技期刊从业者,应重视和适应新兴OA期刊的发展趋势,另一方面相关科研管理部门也应逐步建立措施,完善掠夺性期刊预警制度。     

Predatory journals and their article publishing charges

This study examines the payment policies of a list of standalone predatory open access journals available on scholarlyoa.com . It is found that 72% do charge article publication fees (APCs), which is a higher percentage than found in DOAJ journals. The mean number of articles published during 2013 was 227, but ranged from 4 to 2,286 articles. The majority of journals charge low APCs and can be assumed to have modest annual incomes. There was no correlation between the amount of APC charged and the number of articles published. Comparing the number of journals charging APCs compared to the percentage from DOAJ, the findings suggest a connection between predatory practices and charging author fees. However, a comprehensive assessment of the dynamics of open access journal publishing beyond author charges should be done to avoid using APCs alone as a measure of whether a journal is predatory or not.     

学术期刊开放获取出版定量研究探析

当前学术期刊开放获取（OA）出版定量研究主要集中在增长趋势、影响力和被引优势、成本和效益以及学者的认知、态度和行为四个方面,主要用到文献计量、数学模型估计、问卷调查等方法进行研究。研究表明,OA出版是一种有益于科研领域、社会公共利益和学者个人的出版模式。其可持续发展面临着开放获取期刊（OAJ）供稿量不足、发文量低,OA模式不稳定,存续能力差,学者对其质量存在忧虑且缺乏经费等问题。在OA出版规模不断扩大、商业出版机构参与度高涨的趋势下,要加大对OA发表的费用资助和豁免力度,建立有效的经费补偿和分配机制,要扶持高质量OAJ的发展。未来的研究方向包括：非营利性OAJ运营、OA出版经费解决机制、影响力跟踪评价、社会效益评估、作者OA发表体验。表1。参考文献56。     

高校学报主动应对开放获取模式的策略

通过对开放获取(OA)发展背景、国内外发展趋势及案例分析,认为高校学报要主动转变观念,积极抓住OA的发展机遇,探索和运用开放获取平台及互联网手段改善学报经营现状,并从网络期刊、网络推广、编辑能力等角度提出策略建议。     

科技学术期刊开放获取大有可为——以中国科学院金属研究所的“联合期刊”为例

根据中国科学院金属研究所的"联合期刊"实际发展状况,介绍"联合期刊"开放获取出版现状,通过分析开放获取对期刊影响力的促进作用,认为科技期刊应积极投入到开放获取出版运动中,最终实现期刊的可持续发展。     

Scholarly communication and open access: Perspectives from Korea

This article reports on scholarly communication and open access (OA) in Korea. Drawing on a range of databases, articles, and reference sources, it provides unique insights. In contrast to the UK/US model of scholarly communication, in Korea, most scholarly journals are published by discipline‐based scholarly societies and research institutes affiliated to universities. Payment for publication is the norm, and typically features article processing charges and scholarly society membership fees for both OA and toll access (TA) journals. Online access to journals in Korea is provided by commercial vendors who enter into contracts with the scholarly societies for exclusive use. Three online access models apply – TA, gold OA, and dual access – with the use of these models varying between disciplines. In parallel with this access provided by commercial vendors, there are a number of government‐funded open access repositories (OARs) to which university researchers are requested to deposit their research outputs, as well as OARs run by universities and other research institutes.     

开放存取期刊的影响力分析

从著名期刊影响力分析工具（JCR）、OA期刊目录、OA期刊出版者和著名的图书情报学OA期刊D-Lib Magazine的质量这四个角度分析开放存取期刊的影响力。具体来说,首先以JCR数据为依据绘制2004-2006年来ISI收录的生物学OA期刊的影响因子等指标随时间变化图。其次,利用著名OA期刊目录Open Science Directory统计最新版ISI收录的生物学期刊中OA期刊的种数。再次,根据著名生物医学OA期刊出版机构BioMed Central的统计数据分析其出版的OA期刊影响力。最后,以图书情报学领域著名的OA期刊D-Lib Magazine为例进行具体阐述。     

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.     

中国科技期刊开放存取出版现状

基于《2005年版中国科技期刊引证报告》所收录的1608种我国科技期刊,搜索并统计分析了我国科技期刊的开放存取出版(open access publishing,OAP)现状.结果表明:我国OA期刊已具有一定的数量规模(143种),但部分期刊OA出版的持续性较差,且大都为单刊OA,难以形成信息集成的优势;医学、生物学、农业科学和化学领域中OA期刊的数量相对较多,并且,在同领域中OA期刊的引证影响明显高于非OA期刊.认为我国的相关部门不仅要致力于组建稳定可靠的、有较大信息量的OA期刊网站,而且要关注学术论文的开放存档(open archive).