Author disincentives and open access

Abstract

All parties in the scholarly-information marketplace agree that any Open Access (OA) system will have to account for the costs of disseminating scholarly information and of editing, publishing and distributing it. There has been less discussion of the fact that for an OA forum to succeed, it will have to be accepted and supported by authors. Author charges, a relative lack of prestige, and the required abdication of copyright are three characteristics of many currently emerging OA models that may pose significant barriers to author acceptance. These will have to be addressed if OA providers wish to be competitive with non-OA providers.     

The “Green” and “Gold” Roads to Open Access: The Case for Mixing and Matching

Recent discussions on Open Access (OA) have tended to treat OA journals and self-archiving as two distinct routes. Some supporters of self-archiving even suggest that it alone can bring about full Open Access to the world's scientific literature. In this paper, it is argued that each route actually corresponds to a phase in the movement toward Open Access; that the mere fact of self-archiving is not enough; that providing some branding ability to the repositories is needed. However, doing so will eventually bring about the creation of overlay (or database) journals. The two roads, therefore, will merge to create a mature OA landscape.     

The “Green” and “Gold” Roads to Open Access: The Case for Mixing and Matching

Abstract

Recent discussions on Open Access (OA) have tended to treat OA journals and self-archiving as two distinct routes. Some supporters of self-archiving even suggest that it alone can bring about full Open Access to the world's scientific literature. In this paper, it is argued that each route actually corresponds to a phase in the movement toward Open Access; that the mere fact of self-archiving is not enough; that providing some branding ability to the repositories is needed. However, doing so will eventually bring about the creation of overlay (or database) journals. The two roads, therefore, will merge to create a mature OA landscape.     

The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access

The research access/impact problem arises because journal articles are not accessible to all of their would-be users; hence, they are losing potential research impact. The solution is to make all articles Open Access (OA; i.e., accessible online, free for all). OA articles have significantly higher citation impact than non-OA articles. There are two roads to OA: the “golden” road (publish your article in an OA journal) and the “green” road (publish your article in a non-OA journal but also self-archive it in an OA archive). Only 5% of journals are gold, but over 90% are already green (i.e., they have given their authors the green light to self-archive); yet only about 10–20% of articles have been self-archived. To reach 100% OA, self-archiving needs to be mandated by researchers' employers and funders, as the United Kingdom and the United States have recently recommended, and universities need to implement that mandate.     

The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access

Abstract

The research access/impact problem arises because journal articles are not accessible to all of their would-be users; hence, they are losing potential research impact. The solution is to make all articles Open Access (OA; i.e., accessible online, free for all). OA articles have significantly higher citation impact than non-OA articles. There are two roads to OA: the “golden” road (publish your article in an OA journal) and the “green” road (publish your article in a non-OA journal but also self-archive it in an OA archive). Only 5% of journals are gold, but over 90% are already green (i.e., they have given their authors the green light to self-archive); yet only about 10–20% of articles have been self-archived. To reach 100% OA, self-archiving needs to be mandated by researchers' employers and funders, as the United Kingdom and the United States have recently recommended, and universities need to implement that mandate.     

The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access: An Update

The research access/impact problem arises because journal articles are not accessible to all of their would-be users; hence, they are losing potential research impact. The solution is to make all articles open access (OA, i.e., accessible online, free for all). OA articles have significantly higher citation impact than non-OA articles. There are two roads to OA: the “golden” road (publish your article in an OA journal) and the “green” road (publish your article in a non-OA journal but also self-archive it in an OA archive). About 10% of journals are gold, but over 90% are already green (i.e., they have given their authors the green light to self-archive); yet only about 10–20% of articles have been self-archived. To reach 100% OA, self-archiving needs to be mandated by researchers’ employers and funders, as they are now increasingly beginning to do.     

Developing a Freely Accessible/Open Access Resource Management Policy at Duke University Libraries: A Case Study

Abstract

Freely accessible and open access resources present unique challenges for librarians working with electronic resources. Due to the fact that many of these resources lack high-quality metadata or the technical support provided by traditional publishers, making them discoverable and maintaining access over time can be tricky. Creating a policy allows for a systematic approach to the management of freely accessible/open access (OA) resources, alleviating problems surrounding lack of staff time or expertise. Many of these resources are already important parts of collections and will only continue to grow in importance. Freely accessible/OA resources allow for a more diverse representation of content, both by subject and format type, and allow a wider array of authors to have their work appear in library collections. This case study will provide a review of freely accessible/OA policies in other libraries, describe why these resources are important to add to our collections, discuss challenges libraries face with managing these resources, and explain how Duke University Libraries is addressing some of these challenges through the development of a policy.     

Measuring Usage: A Comprehensive Analysis of a Social Work Journal Collection

Abstract

This study examines what can be learned about a library’s electronic social work journal collection from usage statistics, survey data, faculty publications, and an examination of open access (OA) availability. A collections analysis was completed using data from two sources: a custom report by 1Science and results of a faculty survey on top journals for teaching. After creating a list of journals important to social work, top journals were identified by article downloads, faculty-authored publications, and references to faculty-authored papers. A publications analysis using faculty websites and author searches in Web of Science was also completed, to provide local, contextual data. SHERPA/RoMEO was used to determine the journals’ OA level and archiving policy. Library coverage for the journals was also included in the analysis. Results show that the McGill University Library has access to almost all of the journals identified as important to social work. Nearly one-third of publications authored by the McGill University School of Social Work since 2006 are OA, and more than half of the faculty in the school have at least one article published in an OA journal. While this is a good start for librarians who want to help faculty and students understand OA publishing and access, there is room for outreach in this area. While these results will aid librarians supporting faculty, students, and practitioners in the field of social work, a secondary aim of the study is to demonstrate a method that can be used by librarians undertaking similar analyses in other fields.     

Open Access: How Are Publishers Reacting?

Abstract

Open Access (OA)—defined simply as “free, unrestricted access (to primary research articles) for everyone”—exists in various forms. Authors can achieve OA either by self-archiving their articles on the Web or by publishing in an OA journal. OA journals themselves may adopt a model of delayed OA, partial (or hybrid) OA, or full, immediate OA. But for any of these alternative models of cost recovery to work, it is necessary to know what the real costs are. More research is needed to begin to evaluate the financial and nonfinancial effects of Open Access on all those involved.     

Open Access: How Are Publishers Reacting?

Open Access (OA)—defined simply as “free, unrestricted access (to primary research articles) for everyone”—exists in various forms. Authors can achieve OA either by self-archiving their articles on the Web or by publishing in an OA journal. OA journals themselves may adopt a model of delayed OA, partial (or hybrid) OA, or full, immediate OA. But for any of these alternative models of cost recovery to work, it is necessary to know what the real costs are. More research is needed to begin to evaluate the financial and nonfinancial effects of Open Access on all those involved.     

The Identification of “Unusual” Health-Care Providers From a Hierarchical Model

It has become common to adopt a hierarchical model structure when comparing the performance of multiple health-care providers. This structure allows some variation in such measures, beyond that explained by sampling variation, to be “normal,” in recognition of the fact that risk-adjustment is never perfect. The shrinkage estimates arising from such a model structure also have appealing properties.

It is not immediately clear, however, how “unusual” providers, that is, any with particularly high or low rates, can be identified based on such a model. Given that some variation in underlying rates is assumed to be the norm, we argue that it is not generally appropriate to identify a provider as interesting based only on evidence of it lying above or below the population mean. We note with concern, however, that this practice is not uncommon.

We examine in detail three possible strategies for identifying unusual providers, carefully distinguishing between statistical “outliers” and “extremes.” A two-level normal model is used for mathematical simplicity, but we note that much of the discussion also applies to alternative data structures. Further, we emphasize throughout that each approach can be viewed as resulting from a Bayesian or a classical perspective. Three worked examples provide additional insight.     

Open Access Mandates and Policies: The Basics

Abstract

Universities can afford to subscribe to only a small percentage of available scholarly journals. Consequently, researchers do not have access to all articles in journals pertinent to their fields of study. The Open Access (OA) movement began in response to wanting to find a solution to this “serials crisis” and the availability of the Internet to disseminate scholarly research in new and innovative ways to a larger, worldwide audience. OA mandates are policies adopted by research institutions, universities, or funders that require researchers to provide free, unrestricted access to their published research by publishing in OA journals, depositing their articles in an OA repository or both. This edition of “In Lay Terms” provides basic information about OA mandates and policies, gives an overview of university and funder OA mandates, discusses geographic differences in policies and compliance rates, and reviews United States federal funding agencies’ OA policies and Plan S.     

The Criteria for Open Access

Abstract

Each proposal for Open Access (OA) has its unique combination of features; each argument for or against OA focuses on particular features or criteria. This article is intended to discuss these criteria, both individually and also as each of them contributes to the different proposals for OA. Evaluation of the proposals themselves is not attempted. This discussion is intended to be of value to the supporters of OA, in choosing which plan to adopt, and to those opposed to OA, in showing where the weaknesses do and do not lie. In other words, this article intends to improve the level of factual understanding in the ongoing discussions.     

Exploring Accessibility in DOAJ: A Case Study

Abstract

This study explores the accessibility of HTML articles indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The researchers tested a random sample of journals that possessed the DOAJ seal of approval, added content in 2019, were published in English and had 50 or more indexed articles. From this sample, HTML full-text articles were randomly selected for accessibility testing, using the W3C Easy Checks. 131 journals on 22 platforms were reviewed. All content reviewed provided unique web page titles. The majority of articles reviewed allowed for increases in text size and had meaningful heading structure. The application of alternative text tags for images and form labels was inconsistent, as was the ability to use keyboard controls for page navigation. Further, most content did not clearly indicate cursor location. The most egregious accessibility issues came from design choices, which generated a variety of contrast errors. More in-depth studies of DOAJ and other OA indexes and content providers are recommended, as is requiring adherence to WCAG 2.0 accessibility criteria as a condition of article submission.     

Orthogonal-array composite design for the third-order models

In many industrial trials, the second-order models may not be enough to fit the non linearity of the underlying model, and the third-order models may be considered. In this article, the orthogonal-array composite design (OACD), combined with two-level OA and four-level OA and denoted by OACD₄, is proposed to estimate the second-order and third-order models. It is shown that OACD₄ has good properties and has higher efficiency than other types of designs for the third-order models, and OACD₄ can perform multiple analysis for cross-validation. The usefulness of OACD₄ is also shown by a case study for polymer synthesis experiment.     

Classification of three-level strength-3 arrays

Generalized aberration (GA) is one of the most frequently used criteria to quantify the suitability of an orthogonal array (OA) to be used as an experimental design. The two main motivations for GA are that it quantifies bias in a main-effects only model and that it is a good surrogate for estimation efficiencies of models with all the main effects and some two-factor interaction components. We demonstrate that these motivations are not appropriate for three-level OAs of strength 3 and we propose a direct classification with other criteria instead. To illustrate, we classified complete series of three-level strength-3 OAs with 27, 54 and 81 runs using the GA criterion, the rank of the matrix with two-factor interaction contrasts, the estimation efficiency of two-factor interactions, the projection estimation capacity, and a new model robustness criterion. For all of the series, we provide a list of admissible designs according to these criteria.