Scholarly Management Publication and Open Access Funding Mandates: a Review of Publisher Policies

Abstract

The open access movement has been growing steadily over the past 20 years. Recently, many national funding agencies in North America have required recipients of grant funding to make their articles open access. On the surface this produces a potential conflict for management researchers; management faculty members are expected to publish in prestigious journals, but the discipline views open access journals as being of lower quality (Hahn & Wyatt, 2014, p.98). As such, the question arises: is it possible for management researchers to comply with open access policies while still publishing in highly-ranked journals? This article will compare publishing policies from top management journals to funding agencies' open access requirements in order to determine which journals meet these conditions. Journals will be drawn from several established journal lists such as the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) 24, the Financial Times Research Rankings, and Thomson Reuters' Web of Science Journal Citation Reports. Results show that 80% of journals in the sample set are compatible with open access funding mandates. Of the journals which are compatible, 48% require an article processing charge (APC) and 52% permit self-archiving in an acceptable time-frame. In addition to discussing open access publishing opportunities in management, this article will highlight opportunities for management librarians to develop their services and act as resources for faculty navigating this framework.

A comparison of title words for journal articles and Wikipedia pages: Coverage and stylistic differences?

“…For example, junior doctors may consult Wikipedia regularly (Hughes et al, 2009) and digital archives may link to Wikipedia for contextual information (Szajewski, 2013). Although institutions and research funders finance open access journal articles to make academic knowledge available to all (Lange, 2016;Pinfield;Salter;Bath, 2016), scholarly topics on Wikipedia may well be consulted by a wider section of the population than read journal articles. It is therefore important to understand how Wikipedia covers academic information and assess the comprehensiveness of its coverage (e.g., Rush; Tracy, 2010).…”

Some Issues on the Funding of the Scientific Publication in Open Access

“…The OA scholarly publication benefits from the establishment of several grant funding both public and private mandates/agencies to finance the publication, almost always in the OA model (Lange, 2016;Ross-Hellauer et al, 2018;Mathies, Kivistö, & Birnbaum, 2019;Besir Demir, 2018;Gamsby, 2019). Some examples of these supports are Plan S (2020) and Horizon 2020, among many others.…”

“…This takes place in a context in which Open Access (OA) has emerged and is consolidated in the scientific publication, in its advantages but also its limitations (Gamsby, 2019;Tennant et al, 2019;Lange, 2016). One of these limitations is "the money-making by predatory publishers" (Sorooshian, 2019, p. 1), which are increasing.…”

Checking Rights

“…Although, generally speaking, policies like the NIH's increase public access to research, they do not always allow authors to deposit the work in an IR. Lange (2016) noted that journals' author agreements in particular may have policies that comply with government funding requirements but still do not allow self-archiving by authors. As a result, IR managers should still carefully examine publishers' policies as well as the policies and mandates of funding agencies before depositing the results in their local institution's repository.…”