Scrutinising what Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities

Abstract

In the current article, we tested our hypothesis by which high-impact journals tend to have higher Article Processing Charges (APCs) by comparing journal IF metrics with the OA publishing fees they charge. Our study engaged with both journals in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields and the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) and included Hybrid, Diamond and No OA journals. The overall findings demonstrate a positive relationship between APCs and journals with high IF for two of the subject areas we examined but not for the third, which could be mediated by the characteristics and market environment of the publishers. We also found significant differences between the analysed research fields in terms of APC policies, as well as differences in the relationship between APCs and the IF across periodicals. The study and analysis conducted reinforces our concerns that Hybrid OA models are likely to perpetuate inequalities in knowledge production.

The International Development of Open Access Publishing: A Comparative Empirical Analysis Over Seven World Regions and Nine Academic Disciplines

“…According to the first, we assume that, since most Q1 journals are older than the newcomers in lower quartiles [18], their business models were developed before the historical period where open access became more important. Of course, these older journals usually offer hybrid, gold or green open access possibilities [13], but these are nothing more that the extensions of existing publication models [5,12]. By contrast, both diamond open access and gold open access are fundamentally new, and thus require totally different business models [3].…”

“…Second newer journals that typically still lack a scholarly reputation and prestige have to offer appealing possibilities that make themselves competitive alongside the older established journals in the field. As several studies demonstrate that open access publication can significantly increase both readership and impact [40,41], and given that author processing charges in non-diamond open access models can be extremely high [13], diamond open access can be a highly appealing feature in a new journal, and one that can attract the attention of both authors and readers. Thirdly, non-Western world regions, most typically Latin America, usually have pro-open access publishing systems, but since they are relative newcomers to international academia, their journals are still ranked lower than their Western counterparts.…”

“…The most important limitation of our research is a consequence of the fact that Scimago does not use different categories for diamond and gold open access journals. Accordingly, we could not make conclusive statements on the business models themselves, for although open access publication is mandatory in both cases, the diamond and gold open access models are based on fundamentally different business strategies [4,13]. Further research with a specific focus on the differences between the gold and diamond models should manually code a representative set of journals and apply different categories for each model.…”

Dynamics of Cumulative Advantage and Threats to Equity in Open Science - A Scoping Review

“…Given the problematised [107] but persistent association between journal prestige (often quantified via the journal impact factor) and publication quality, it is especially problematic, then, that publishers often charge more for high impact journal publications [95,99]. 6 In addition, APC rates are highly variable across disciplines [109] and regions [90], and are especially problematic in what Martin Eve has referred to as the "dry climate" of funding in the Social Sciences and Humanities [110].…”

‘Capacity for what? Capacity for whom?’ A decolonial deconstruction of research capacity development practices in the Global South and a proposal for a value-centred approach

“…We are also influenced by our experiences of working at two different UK institutions with salient colonial histories. These combined positionalities allow us to bring together decolonial critiques and insights from Science and Technology Studies to contribute an analysis of RCD that deconstructs its premises and reveals latent tensions between attempts to shift 1 As in Istratii & Demeter (2020) and Demeter & Istratii (2020), we define the Global South/North division according to their contribution to knowledge production. On the basis of scientometrics, the 'Global North' incorporates the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the UK, Western Europe, Israel and the Asian countries like Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan.…”