Philosophers' perceptions of pay to publish and open access in Spain: Books versus journals, more than a financial dilemma

Feenstra, Ramón A.; López-Cózar, Emilio Delgado

doi:10.1002/leap.1426

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Half of these authors covered APCs with research funds. A subsequent study among a sample of philosophers (Feenstra & Delgado L opez-C ozar, 2022) concluded that they were reluctant to pay APCs since author fees raised doubts and suspicions about the potentially distorting effects on two issues reviewed below: equality of opportunity for authors and the integrity and quality of manuscript evaluation systems.…”

Section: Authors' Views and Behaviour Regarding Apcsmentioning

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: Authors' Views and Behaviour Regarding Apcsmentioning

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

“…Regarding relevant studies related to Spain, there are articles analysing open access editorial practices (Melero et al, 2017), perceptions towards open access (Ruiz‐Pérez & Delgado‐López‐Cózar, 2017), to open access and peer review (Segado‐Boj et al, 2018), towards open science (Rodríguez‐Bravo & Nicholas, 2021), and recently with a focus on philosophy (Feenstra & López‐Cózar, 2022) and drivers and barriers in the transition to open science (González‐Teruel et al, 2022). The aim of this paper is to examine and analyse perceptions and editorial practices related to open access, preprints, underlying data and open peer review, from the perspective of editors of scientific journals published in Spain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pillars of open science are often included within the editorial policies of scholarly journals, including policies on open access publication, availability of underlying research data, preprints and open peer review. The aim of this paper is to examine and analyse perceptions and editorial practices related to open access, preprints, open research data and open peer review, from the perspective of editors of scientific journals published in Spain, to gain an insight into editorial policies related to open science. Results and data were obtained by a combined method of online interviews and an online questionnaire. The online survey was sent to editors from journals indexed in the Dulcinea directory, which at the time of the study included 1875 academic journals. A total of 420 responses (22.4%) were obtained. The results indicated that 92% of the journals were open access journals, 2% of the journals conducted open peer review, 15% of the journals had instructions to allow archiving preprints, and out of 375 responses, only 59 journals (16%) reported having a policy on underlying research data. Based on these results, there is a trend in favour of open access, but the perceived barriers to open peer review outweighed the advantages.There is also some reluctance to allow preprints to be made available. This concern might be because editors want authors and readers to read and cite the contents published in their journals, rather than their preprint versions.

show abstract

“…For instance, OAI , which had an increasing main effect on the negativity, showed reducing effects in the interaction with gender and tweeter roles (except for Academicians and Scholars ). This is in line with our existing knowledge about the OAI as a double-edged sword in OA issues: while the citation advantage is considered one of the OA benefits (Ciriminna et al ., 2021), there exist concerns about the impact and prestige of OA journals (Feenstra and López-Cózar, 2021; Nagaraj and Bhandi, 2017; Togia and Korobili, 2014). This is also true for OAM .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How social are open-access debates: a follow-up study of tweeters' sentiments

Sotudeh

2023

OIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeDespite the widespread studies on the attitudes about OA, there exists little comparative evidence about the opinions of author and non-author parties at a global level in a social context. To bridge the gap, this study first investigated the opinions of the users who posted at least one tweet about OA in 2019. Then, it zoomed in to explore the views of the OA-interested tweeters, i.e. the users who have posted five or more tweets about OA.Design/methodology/approachUsing a content analysis method, with an opinion-mining approach, this study examined a sample of 9,268 OA-related tweets posted by 5,227 tweeters in 2019. The sentiments were analyzed using SentiStrength. A threshold of at least five tweets was set to identify the OA-interested tweeters.FindingsAcademics and scholars, library and information professionals, and journals and publishers were the main OA-interested tweeters, implying that OA debates have not been widely propagated from its traditional audience to the general public. Despite an overall positive attitude, the tweeters showed negative perspectives about the gold and hybrid models, validity and quality, and costs and funds. The negativity depended on the OA features tweeted, the tweeters' occupations and gender, as well as the trends.Research limitations/implicationsThe low societal impact of the OA debates calls for solutions to attract the public's attention and to exploit their potential to achieve the OA ideals. The OA stakeholders' divergence necessitates finding solutions to remedy the pitfalls. It also underlines the need for scrutiny into social layers when studying society's opinions and behaviors in a social network.Originality/valueThis is the first study in estimating the extent of the societal impact of OA debates, comparing the social OA stakeholders' opinions and their dependence on the OA features tweeted, the tweeter roles and gender and the tweet trending status.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0502

show abstract

Philosophers' perceptions of pay to publish and open access in Spain: Books versus journals, more than a financial dilemma

Cited by 9 publications

References 52 publications

Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review

Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review

Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain

How social are open-access debates: a follow-up study of tweeters' sentiments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About