Coste de la publicación en abierto de artículos de autoría española en cinco áreas de las ciencias sociales

Ferrer-Sapena, Antonia; Vidal-Cabo, Christian; Benavent, Rafael Aleixandre; Valderrama‐Zurián, Juan Carlos

doi:10.3989/arbor.2021.799005

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They estimated an average APC of €2321 and a total cost of around €68 million per year. Another study that focused on the cost of OA articles published via APCs by Spanish authors in five areas of the social sciences between 2012 and 2019 (Ferrer‐Sapena et al, 2021) estimated an average APC of €1129 with a total cost of €481,120. Smith et al (2017) calculated that the amount paid in APCs for global health research published between 2010 and 2014 was US $1.7 million for 627 papers, with authors paying on average US $2732 per publication and 94% of APCs charged by the 10 most prominent publishers.…”

Section: Prevalence Of Apcs Price Models Fees Charged and Expense Mon...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review

Borrego

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some open access (OA) publishers charge authors fees to make their articles freely available online. This paper reviews literature on article processing charges (APCs) that has been published since 2000. Despite praise for diamond OA journals, which charge no fees, most OA articles are published by commercial publishers that charge APCs. Publishers fix APCs depending on the reputation assigned to journals by peers. Evidence shows a relationship between high impact metrics and higher, faster rising APCs.Authors express reluctance about APCs, although this varies by discipline depending on previous experience of paying publication fees and the availability of research grants to cover them. Authors rely on a mix of research grants, library funds and personal assets to pay the charges. Two major concerns have been raised in relation to APCs: the inability of poorly funded authors to publish research and their impact on journal quality. Waivers have not solved the first issue. Research shows little extension of waiver use, unintended side effects on co-author networks and concerns regarding criteria to qualify for them. Bibliometric studies concur that journals that charge APCs have a similar citation impact to journals that rely on other income sources.

show abstract

Section: Prevalence Of Apcs Price Models Fees Charged and Expense Mon...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review

Borrego

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are also several studies relating to the management of research data [ 14 , 15 ] or to scientific policy [ 16 ]. A spotlight has also been shone on payment for Article Processing Charges [ 17 , 18 ], and the motivations of senior researchers in relation to open science [ 19 ], and as far as we know, no other article has compiled the opinions of such a large collective of researchers with regard to open science and all its aspects, although Ruiz-Perez’s [ 12 ] study is focused on researchers and open-access publishing. Finally, numerous studies have considered the ecosystem of Spanish scientific journals [ 20 , 21 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habits and perceptions regarding open science by researchers from Spanish institutions

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article describes the results of the online survey on open science (OS) carried out on researchers affiliated with universities and Spanish research centres and focused on open access to scientific publications, the publication process, the management of research data and the review of open articles. The main objective was to identify the perception and habits of researchers with regard to practices closely linked to open science and the scientific value added is that offers an in-depth picture of researchers as one of the main actors to whom this transformation and implementation of open science will fall. It focuses on the different aspects of OS: open access, open data, publication process and open review in order to identify habits and perceptions. This is to make possible an implementation of the OS movement. The survey was carried out among researchers who had published in the years 2020–2021, according to data obtained from WoS. It was emailed to a total of 8,188 researchers and obtained a total of 666 responses, of which 554 were complete, the rest being forms with some questions unanswered. The main results showed that open access still requires the diffusion of practices and services provided by the institution, as well as training (library or equivalent service) and institutional support from the competent authorities (vice rectors or equivalent) in specific aspects such as data management. In the case of data, around 50% of respondents stated they had stored data in a repository, and of all the options, the most frequently given was that of an institutional repository, followed by a discipline repository. Among the main reasons for doing this, we found transparency, visibility of data and the ability to validate results. For those who stated they had never stored data, the most frequent reasons for not having done so were privacy and confidentiality, the lack of a mandated data policy or a lack of knowledge of how to do it. In terms of open peer review, participants mentioned a certain reticence to the opening of evaluations due to potential conflicts of interest that may arise or because lower-quality content might be accepted in order to avoid conflicts. In addition, the hierarchical structure of senior researcher versus junior researcher might affect reviews. The main conclusions indicate a need for persuasion of OA to take place; APCs are an economic barrier rather than the main criterion for journal selection; OPR practices may seem innovative and emerging; scientific and evaluation policies seem to have a clear effect on the behaviour of researchers; researchers state that they share research data more for reasons of persuasion than out of obligation. Researchers do question the pathways or difficulties that may arise on a day-to-day basis and seem aware that we are undergoing change, where academic evaluation or policies related to open science, its implementation and habits among researchers may change. In this sense, more and better support is needed on the part of institutions and faculty support services.

show abstract