国外教育科研机构支持作者发表开放出版论文的政策研究

提出开放出版支持政策的多维分析框架,从受资助者范围、可支持期刊范围、受资助论文的权益要求、经费资助方式、论文处理费控制、履行政策的检查机制六个方面,对国外典型资助机构和典型科研教育机构的开放出版支持政策进行实证分析,指出是否支持复合出版期刊、如何保障开放出版经费、如何争取开放论文权益、如何支持传统出版社和图书馆平稳过渡等已经成为开放出版支持政策的挑战。     

Journals and repositories: an evolving relationship?

It is now widely accepted that there are two routes to open access (OA): OA repositories and OA journals. It is often assumed these are distinct alternative parallel tracks. However, it has recently become clear that there is potential for repositories and journals to interact with each other on an ongoing basis and between them to form a coherent OA scholarly communication system. This paper puts forward three possible models of interaction between repositories and journals; services such as arXiv and PubMed Central, and the work carried out by the RIOJA project, are working exemplars and pilot implementations of these models. The key issues associated with the widespread adoption of these models include repository infrastructure development; changing ideas of the ‘journal’, ‘article’, and ‘publication’; version management; quality assurance; business and funding models; developing value‐added features; content preservation; policy frameworks; and changing roles and cultures within the research community.     

我国开放存取（OA）资源建设政策研究

OA资源的可持续发展需要信息政策的指导与支持,OA资源建设政策包括国家层次的宏观OA资源建设政策、OA期刊及OA仓储创建机构的资源建设政策、传统出版商及科研资助机构的相关OA资源建设政策和图书馆等信息服务机构的OA资源建设政策。我国OA资源建设政策的制定在借鉴国外政策制定机制及已有的政策成果的基础上,应注意OA资源发展的阶段性特点,重视政策的宣传和透明度。     

强制性且带有激励措施的OA政策调研及实例分析

[目的/意义] 随着国际组织、国家和科研及基金资助机构对开放获取（OA）运动的支持力度进一步加强,开放获取政策不仅在数量上不断增加,其强制力度也在加深,促进了全球科研交流的发展。总结梳理强制性且带有激励措施的OA政策的实践进展,可为我国相关政策主体制定与改进相应的OA政策提供借鉴和参考。[方法/过程] 首先通过文献调研及网站调研强制性且带有激励措施的OA政策的制定现状,分别概括基金资助机构与科研机构的此类政策所包含的激励措施的特点;其次,以科研机构为例,利用机构WOS论文在机构指定的存储库中的存储情况来反映机构OA政策的执行效果,对比分析此类政策与未制定激励措施的强制性OA政策、鼓励性OA政策实施效果的差异。[结果/结论] 目前制定强制性且带有激励措施的OA政策的机构较少,基金资助机构主要采取削减项目资助资金或取消受资助者再次申请基金资格的惩罚性措施来督促科研人员遵守其OA政策,科研机构则将科研人员遵守OA政策的情况与其绩效评估相挂钩,借以激励机构成员实现研究产出的开放获取;实证分析发现强制性且带有激励措施的OA政策相比于另外两类OA政策执行力度更强、实施效果更好。     

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.     

Institutional policies for open access to the results of scientific research

This paper describes the principles of all the known institutional policies for open access (OA) to the results of scientific research for research organizations, publishing companies, and funding agencies, in addition to which we suggest developing OA policies for libraries. The paper proposes a structural-logical scheme for an institutional OA policy system. We recommend invigorating the work of Post-Soviet organizations for their integration into the international OA movement at seven levels: global-ideological, regional (transnational)-ideological, national-ideological, national-political, institutional-political, national-technological, and institutional-technological.     

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.     

Bibliometric Analysis of Gold Open Access in India

This study analyzes the current state of gold Open Access (OA) in India based on papers published in the Web of Science indexed journals. It specifically focuses on research output published in OA journals and examines the difference between gold OA and general research output for papers authored by Indian researchers. In order to analyze the Indian contribution of gold OA literature and compares with other countries, Web of Science?-Core Collection was used. There is an increasing trend of contributing research papers in OA journals by Indian researchers. Among the top 20 publishing countries India ranks 10th place in terms of the general research output, but secures 8th place in terms of gold OA papers. However, India's position in terms of share of gold OA publications is relatively higher than other leading countries of the world. Researchers in India mostly prefer to contribute their gold OA papers in Indian journals rather foreign journals and the proportion of gold OA research output in Clinical, Preclinical, Health, Life Sciences and Physicals Sciences is much higher than other disciplines such as Arts &; Humanities and Social Sciences. Since most of the research output in India is published in local journals, the study suggests further analyses of publications which are not published in Web of Science indexed journals.     

我国科研机构开放获取实践进展研究

文章以科研机构为调查对象,从图书馆对0A资源揭示、学术期刊实施开放获取及自建机构知识库三个不同角度,调查分析了科研机构开放获取实践进展现状。调查结果暴露出我国科研机构信息化建设滞后等问题,提出了解决对策,以尽快提升政府科研经费投入回报率和使用效率,加快科技创新步伐。     

开放获取学术信息资源：逼近“主流化”转折点

总结开放获取期刊和开放获取论文迅速增长的发展趋势,分析开放获取期刊影响力快速提升的原因,介绍SCOAP3和PLoS等出版商积极介入开放获取出版的情况及在开放出版模式上的创新及其影响,指出科研人员和资助者已采取更为积极的支持态度和措施,开放获取学术资源正成为主流学术信息资源,研究图书馆面对这一颠覆性发展趋势,应做好充分准备。     

Building a Successful Service: Developing Open Access Funding and Advocacy at University College London

The UK Research Councils (RCUK) introduced an open access policy, and accompanying funding for Article Processing Charges (APCs), in April 2013. This article describes University College London (UCL)’s experience of managing its institutional, RCUK, and Wellcome Trust open access funds, and highlights its success in exceeding the RCUK target in the first year of the policy. A large institution, processing around 1,770 APCs in 2013–2014, UCL has established a dedicated Open Access Funding Team. As well as advising authors on funders’ and publishers’ requirements, managing payments, and liaising with publishers, the Team delivers a comprehensive open access advocacy programme throughout the institution. Researchers who have used the Team’s services show astonishing levels of enthusiasm for open access, and for UCL’s approach to supporting them.     

Lay summaries of open access journal articles: engaging with the general public on medical research

This study investigates attitudes to ‘lay’ or ‘plain‐English’ summaries of open access (OA) journal articles in the context of engaging the public with medical research. It places lay summaries in the wider contexts of patients' information‐seeking behaviour and OA publishing activities. It reports the results of qualitative research involving two stakeholder groups: employees of organizations with a stake in communicating OA medical research to the public, and members of the public who have experience of accessing online medical research. It shows that patient access to the research literature is seen as one of a number of important sources of information that can help them manage their health conditions as ‘informed patients‘. However, accessing the literature was reported to be problematical, particularly because of paywalls, and there were also difficulties in using it, including language barriers. Lay summaries were seen to make a helpful contribution to improving patient access to information. There is, however, a clear need to gather more evidence about the costs and benefits of such an approach and also on the potential ways in which OA can create benefits for the general public.     

Sustainability in open access publishing: The ecancer case study

• Innovative business models to complement or replace traditional models of funding academic publishing are currently proliferating.
• Not relying solely on one source of funding is a key factor in sustainability.
• Pay what you can afford (PWYCA) is a new model for article processing charges (APCs) providing both a revenue stream and an opportunity to raise awareness of the cost of publishing amongst authors.
• Treating a journal as part of an overall enterprise rather than as a stand‐alone business contributes significantly to its sustainability.

     

The future of academic publishing: Revolution or evolution revisited

This article presents an analysis of key trends affecting the academic publishing industry. It reviews funding and sales, scholarly collaboration networks, developments in OA, and monograph publishing. These key areas were identified in an earlier article that asked whether academic publishing was evolving or going through a revolution. The review of funding and sales presented here shows a mixed market with growth being challenged as library funds and purchase choices affect expenditure. Scholarly collaboration networks were previously identified as a major threat to traditional publishing, and a review of this area demonstrates that greater sharing of content is empowering librarians and academics to take a stronger stand in publisher negotiations. OA continues to be debated, and a review of responses to Plan S (the most coordinated policy to date) demonstrates conflicting views within academia, funders, and publishers. OA has yet to revolutionize the existing business models. Similarly, monograph publishing remains slow to evolve, although there are increasing initiatives to adopt more open, and online, models. The conclusion of this review is that libraries are likely to be the key promoters of change in the publishing environment and are more influential than other players in forcing evolution.     

中国科协科技期刊OA政策状况调研与分析

文章通过对中国科协205种所谓“开放获取”的期刊所做的专门调查,反映了中国科协“开放获取”期刊近来在开放获取的认识和实践上的可喜变化,也反映了OA期刊的发展还存在着一些问题,特别是资助与收费政策、知识产权政策、开放获取期刊的质量保障等。各期刊关于开放获取的建议,也值得我们深思。