Can I afford to publish? A dilemma for African scholars

Mekonnen, Addisu; Downs, Colleen T.; Effiom, Edu O.; Kibaja, Mohamed; Lawes, Michael J.; Omeja, Patrick A.; Ratsoavina, Fanomezana M.; Razafindratsima, Onja H.; Sarkar, Dipto; Stenseth, Nils Chr.; Chapman, Colin A.

doi:10.1111/ele.13949

Cited by 36 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Waivers are only applied on request, yet such discount policies are not well communicated (i.e., authors are often unaware). Hybrid journals do not usually offer waivers for OA in their journals, and where waivers are in place often do not mitigate costs enough to encourage OA authorship (Lawson, 2015;Mekonnen et al, 2022;Rouhi et al, 2022). Most damagingly, however, in our view waivers support rather than challenge the status quo.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The APC-Effect: Stratification in Open Access Publishing

Klebel¹,

Ross-Hellauer²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current implementations of Open Access (OA) publishing frequently involve Article Publishing Charges (APCs). Increasing evidence emerges that APCs impede researchers with fewer resources in publishing their research OA. We analysed 1.5 million scientific articles from journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals to assess average APCs and their determinants for a comprehensive set of journal publications, across scientific disciplines, world regions and through time. Levels of APCs were strongly stratified by scientific fields and the institutions’ countries, corroborating previous findings on publishing cultures and the impact of mandates of research funders. After controlling for country and scientific field with a multilevel mixture model, however, we found small to moderate effects of levels of institutional resourcing on the level of APCs. This is what we call the APC-Effect. Effects were largest in countries with low GDP, suggesting decreasing marginal effects of institutional resources when general levels of funding are high. Our findings provide further evidence on how APCs stratify OA publishing and highlight the need for alternative publishing models.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The APC-Effect: Stratification in Open Access Publishing

Klebel¹,

Ross-Hellauer²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Along with rising APCs, publishers have increased restrictions on the conditions of self-archiving one’s work, particularly by adding embargoes on green OA deposits [Gadd and Troll Covey, 2019]. Beyond putting authors in the difficult position of having to choose between allocating funds to new research or publishing their existing work gold OA, these new barriers threaten to drive further inequality between the Global North and South, which has spurred a growing movement to eliminate APCs altogether [Alperin, 2022, Peterson et al, 2019, Alizon, 2018, Mekonnen et al, 2022].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in Biology

Clark

Myers

Steury

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize impact or minimize costs when publishing the results of their research. For example, to potentially improve impact via increased accessibility, many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying a fee to publish open access (i.e., hybrid journals), but this solution excludes authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, journal impact, year of publication, and subject area, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p < 0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p < 0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p = 0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in most cases, paying for access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.

show abstract

“…Language can present a substantial barrier to sharing and obtaining scientific knowledge ( 48 – 50 ). To help lower this barrier, investigators can translate their research results into national and local language(s) and include it in the supplementary material of open-access publications or on other forums such as ResearchGate, preprint servers, trip reports, etc., when publishing via open-access journals is not affordable ( 51 , 52 ). Resources such as DeepL or Google Translate can facilitate translations for some languages.…”

Section: Core Principles For Equitable Fieldworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A set of principles and practical suggestions for equitable fieldwork in biology

Ramírez‐Castañeda

Westeen

Frederick

et al. 2022

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field biology is an area of research that involves working directly with living organisms in situ through a practice known as “fieldwork.” Conducting fieldwork often requires complex logistical planning within multiregional or multinational teams, interacting with local communities at field sites, and collaborative research led by one or a few of the core team members. However, existing power imbalances stemming from geopolitical history, discrimination, and professional position, among other factors, perpetuate inequities when conducting these research endeavors. After reflecting on our own research programs, we propose four general principles to guide equitable, inclusive, ethical, and safe practices in field biology: be collaborative, be respectful, be legal, and be safe. Although many biologists already structure their field programs around these principles or similar values, executing equitable research practices can prove challenging and requires careful consideration, especially by those in positions with relatively greater privilege. Based on experiences and input from a diverse group of global collaborators, we provide suggestions for action-oriented approaches to make field biology more equitable, with particular attention to how those with greater privilege can contribute. While we acknowledge that not all suggestions will be applicable to every institution or program, we hope that they will generate discussions and provide a baseline for training in proactive, equitable fieldwork practices.

show abstract

Can I afford to publish? A dilemma for African scholars

Cited by 36 publications

References 24 publications

The APC-Effect: Stratification in Open Access Publishing

The APC-Effect: Stratification in Open Access Publishing

Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in Biology

A set of principles and practical suggestions for equitable fieldwork in biology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About