Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research

Abstract

Using a database of recent articles published in the field of Global Health research, we examine institutional sources of stratification in publishing access outcomes. Traditionally, the focus on inequality in scientific publishing has focused on prestige hierarchies in established print journals. This project examines stratification in contemporary publishing with a particular focus on subscription vs. various Open Access (OA) publishing options. Findings show that authors working at lower-ranked universities are more likely to publish in closed/paywalled outlets, and less likely to choose outlets that involve some sort of Article Processing Charge (APCs; gold or hybrid OA). We also analyze institutional differences and stratification in the APC costs paid in various journals. Authors affiliated with higher-ranked institutions, as well as hospitals and non-profit organizations pay relatively higher APCs for gold and hybrid OA publications. Results suggest that authors affiliated with high-ranked universities and well-funded institutions tend to have more resources to choose pay options with publishing. Our research suggests new professional hierarchies developing in contemporary publishing, where various OA publishing options are becoming increasingly prominent. Just as there is stratification in institutional representation between different types of publishing access, there is also inequality within access types.

Understanding Open Knowledge in China: A Chinese Approach to Openness?

“…The Open Scholarship Ranking (Fan and Liu 2016) identifies a significant correlation between the Open Scholarship achievements of Chinese Universities and the results of existing comprehensive university rankings. This is consistent with recent work on stratification within OA the literature relating to global health research, which finds that authors working at lower-ranked universities are less likely to choose journals that involve an Article Processing Charge and more likely to publish in closed or paywalled journals (Siler et al 2018). This may be because comprehensive university rankings relate closely to the resources available within an institution.…”

Sorry, we’re open: Golden Open Access and inequality in the natural sciences

“…Unfortunately, the irregular distribution of resources throughout the world, and correspondingly in 111 academia, creates a bubble where higher ranking institutions have more access to expensive, higher impact 112 journals, while lower ranking institutions are forced to publish in less expensive or closed access journals 113 (Siler, et al 2018). The alternative is that authors from developing countries have to pay the prices of 114 developed countries in order to have access to higher impact journals (Ellers, 2017).…”

“…This is increasingly more problematic for 118 scientific output, as independent researchers with no institutional affiliation have been on the rise over the 119 past decade (ElSabry, 2017). However, evidence suggests that the researchers being put on the backburner, 120 are no less reliable than the privileged few institutions which have the advantages to publish in high impact, 121 high APC journals (Brembs, 2018;Brembs, 2013;ElSabry, 2017;Siler, et al 2018).…”

“…in the natural sciences, shows trends in inequality in global research output. Inequality amongst institutions, 150 publishers, journals, and researchers is likely to prevent adequate exposure of potentially important 151 research, while promoting the false ideology that prestige and costliness of journal publications are the 152 equivalent of reliable science (Brembs, 2018;Brembs, 2013;ElSabry, 2017;Siler, et al 2018). In our 153 current age of technology, most journals have flipped the publication model from print to digital and online 154 (Beall, 2013; Fitzpatrick, 2011), and even with a decrease in hardcopy production, publication fees are still 155 increasing (Morrison, 2018).…”

Evaluating institutional open access performance: Methodology, challenges and assessment

“…This provides evidence of national or regional effects on publication cultures that lead to open access. Meanwhile, Siler et al (2018) showed that, for the field of Global Health, lower-ranked institutions are more likely to publish in closed outlets. They suggest this is due to the cost of article processing charges showing the importance of considering institutional context when examining open access performance.…”