Critical issues in the development of STM journal publishing

Hunter, Karen

doi:10.1087/0953151052801532

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Academic publishing is a business with long and strong traditions and, consequently, any change of traditional business models faces considerable status-quo preferences and, thus, skepticism (Collins 2005;Hunter 2005;Oppenheim 2008;Resnick and Belluz 2019;Suber 2003). Many of the journals from traditional publishers, which used to base their business model on the subscription model, are offering hybrid OA options to authors (Laakso et al 2011;Morrison et al 2015).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers of article processing charges in open access

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large publishing companies have been dominating scientific publishing for long, which leads to high subscription fees and inhibited access to scientific knowledge. At digital era, the opportunity of an unrestricted access appears feasible, because the cost of publishing should be low. It is no longer the readers and libraries to pay subscription fees, but scientific organizations and authors themselves who pay for the cost of having their article published. As the data shows, there is a tremendous variance of article processing charges (APC) across journals, which obviously cannot be explained by the costs. One of the explanatory variables could be reputation, but it only contributes less than 5% to the variance in average APC. This study is meant to shed light on the various determinants of APC. Based on the data from the OpenAPC Initiative, the Directory of Open Access Journals and three different datasets of Web of Science, we employ ANOVAs and multivariate regressions. The results show that market power plays an important role to explain APC, inter alia, through market concentration, market position of individual publishers (publisher size), and the choice of hybrid publishing model.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers of article processing charges in open access

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Academic publishing is a business with long and strong traditions and, consequently, any change of traditional business models faces considerable status-quo preferences and, thus, skepticism (Collins, 2005;Hunter, 2005;Oppenheim, 2008;Resnick & Belluz, 2019;Suber, 2003). Many of the journals from traditional publishers, which used to base their business model on the subscription model, are offering hybrid OA options to authors (Laakso et al, 2011;Morrison et al, 2015).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers of Article Processing Charges in Open Access

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large publishing companies have been dominating scientific publishing for long, which leads to high subscription fees and inhibited access to scientific knowledge. At digital era, the opportunity of an unrestricted access appears feasible, because the cost of publishing should be low. It is no longer the readers and libraries to pay subscription fees, but scientific organizations and authors themselves who pay for the cost of having their article published. As the data shows, there is a tremendous variance of article processing charges (APC) across journals, which obviously cannot be explained by the costs. One of the explanatory variables could be reputation, but it only contributes less than 5% to the variance in APC. This study is meant to shed light on the various determinants of APC. Based on data from the OpenAPC Initiative, the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Journal Impact Factor and the Essential Science Indicators of Web of Science, we employ ANOVA and multivariate regressions. The results show that market power plays an important role to explain APCs, inter alia, through market concentration, market position of individual publishers (publisher size), and the choice of hybrid publishing model.

show abstract

“…Critics of OA dispute this fact and argue that there is “no evidence that this will happen.” [ 4 ] Representatives of traditional publishers argue that the “established system of scientific/technical/medical publishing provides excellent levels of open access to scientists and the public alike,” implying that scientists have access to the literature anyway and that there would be little advantage to publish OA. [ 5 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open access (OA) to the research literature has the potential to accelerate recognition and dissemination of research findings, but its actual effects are controversial. This was a longitudinal bibliometric analysis of a cohort of OA and non-OA articles published between June 8, 2004, and December 20, 2004, in the same journal (PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). Article characteristics were extracted, and citation data were compared between the two groups at three different points in time: at “quasi-baseline” (December 2004, 0–6 mo after publication), in April 2005 (4–10 mo after publication), and in October 2005 (10–16 mo after publication). Potentially confounding variables, including number of authors, authors' lifetime publication count and impact, submission track, country of corresponding author, funding organization, and discipline, were adjusted for in logistic and linear multiple regression models. A total of 1,492 original research articles were analyzed: 212 (14.2% of all articles) were OA articles paid by the author, and 1,280 (85.8%) were non-OA articles. In April 2005 (mean 206 d after publication), 627 (49.0%) of the non-OA articles versus 78 (36.8%) of the OA articles were not cited (relative risk = 1.3 [95% Confidence Interval: 1.1–1.6]; p = 0.001). 6 mo later (mean 288 d after publication), non-OA articles were still more likely to be uncited (non-OA: 172 [13.6%], OA: 11 [5.2%]; relative risk = 2.6 [1.4–4.7]; p < 0.001). The average number of citations of OA articles was higher compared to non-OA articles (April 2005: 1.5 [SD = 2.5] versus 1.2 [SD = 2.0]; Z = 3.123; p = 0.002; October 2005: 6.4 [SD = 10.4] versus 4.5 [SD = 4.9]; Z = 4.058; p < 0.001). In a logistic regression model, controlling for potential confounders, OA articles compared to non-OA articles remained twice as likely to be cited (odds ratio = 2.1 [1.5–2.9]) in the first 4–10 mo after publication (April 2005), with the odds ratio increasing to 2.9 (1.5–5.5) 10–16 mo after publication (October 2005). Articles published as an immediate OA article on the journal site have higher impact than self-archived or otherwise openly accessible OA articles. We found strong evidence that, even in a journal that is widely available in research libraries, OA articles are more immediately recognized and cited by peers than non-OA articles published in the same journal. OA is likely to benefit science by accelerating dissemination and uptake of research findings.

show abstract

Critical issues in the development of STM journal publishing

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Drivers of article processing charges in open access

Drivers of article processing charges in open access

Drivers of Article Processing Charges in Open Access

Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About