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.     

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.     

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.     

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 Shifting Sands of Open Access Publishing,a Publisher's View

Abstract

This paper sets Open Access (OA) publishing in the context of today's scientific, technical, and medical (STM) publishing trends. Four areas are covered: (a) a brief overview of STM publishing and its value today; (b) OA's place in the industry; (c) the underlying economics of OA, particularly its author-pays model; and (d) directions in moving towards “universal access” to STM information, where both researchers and the public have access to the scientific information they need.     

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.     

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.     

SCOAP3 and Open Access

Abstract

SCOAP3 is an innovative Open Access initiative for publishing in high-energy physics. The model is viewed by many as a potential solution to multiple issues related to the financial crisis, the peer review system, scholarly communication, and the need to support institutional repositories. This installment of “The Balance Point” presents articles written by three Open Access advocates, outlining the SCOAP3 proposal, benefits of participation, and some of the roles libraries, publishers and scientists can play in making important changes to scholarly communication. Contributors discuss scalability and transferability issues of SCOAP3, as well as other matters of concern.     

Beall’s List and Cabell’s Blacklist: A Comparison of Two Lists of Predatory OA Journals

Abstract

This study uses systematic random sampling to compare the content of “Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers” and “Cabell’s Blacklist” of journals. The Beall’s List data was generated from its new site that maintains a new list besides the original list. It found that 28.5% Beall’s List sample publishers are out of business, some Cabell’s Blacklist journals have become ceased. The main takeaway is that among the Beall’s List sample publishers with a working website for journal publishing, only 31.8% can be found on Cabell’s Blacklist.     

Author disincentives and open access

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.     

Smithsonian

Abstract

To provide bibliometric evidence for Chinese medical journals to be considered for the evaluation system of core journals, the authors have undertaken a comparative study on bibliometric characteristics between Chinese core journals and common journals (journals not included in A Guide to the Core Journals of China). There are 203 Chinese medical core journals and 440 Chinese common journals. Impact factor, ratio of articles supported with funding sources (foundation), total yearly pages and average article length of core journals are significantly higher than those of common journals in China. Medical editors can take effective measures to improve academic levels and journal impact by considering factors from this study, such as having a proper and short publication cycle, increasing the impact factor, concentrating on articles with foundation support, publishing more high-impact papers, increasing substantive content and publishing more articles with abstracts.     

The Potential Impact of ‘Public Access’ Legislation on Access to Forestry Literature

There have been increasing calls for the United States (U.S.) government’s implementation of broad public access policies mandating free online access to federally funded research. This study examines the potential impact of such a policy on peer-reviewed forestry literature. The authors analyze information about federal government authorship, federal government funding, and U.S. authorship indicated in articles published in five core forestry journals in 2006. The results of the analysis provide evidence that federal public access legislation would have a significant impact on the accessibility of forestry literature published in leading journals in the field.     

The World of Research Has Gone Berserk: Modeling the Consequences of Requiring “Greater Statistical Stringency” for Scientific Publication

ABSTRACT

In response to growing concern about the reliability and reproducibility of published science, researchers have proposed adopting measures of “greater statistical stringency,” including suggestions to require larger sample sizes and to lower the highly criticized “p?<?0.05” significance threshold. While pros and cons are vigorously debated, there has been little to no modeling of how adopting these measures might affect what type of science is published. In this article, we develop a novel optimality model that, given current incentives to publish, predicts a researcher’s most rational use of resources in terms of the number of studies to undertake, the statistical power to devote to each study, and the desirable prestudy odds to pursue. We then develop a methodology that allows one to estimate the reliability of published research by considering a distribution of preferred research strategies. Using this approach, we investigate the merits of adopting measures of “greater statistical stringency” with the goal of informing the ongoing debate.     

The Potential Impact of ‘Public Access’ Legislation on Access to Forestry Literature

There have been increasing calls for the United States (U.S.) government’s implementation of broad public access policies mandating free online access to federally funded research. This study examines the potential impact of such a policy on peer-reviewed forestry literature. The authors analyze information about federal government authorship, federal government funding, and U.S. authorship indicated in articles published in five core forestry journals in 2006. The results of the analysis provide evidence that federal public access legislation would have a significant impact on the accessibility of forestry literature published in leading journals in the field.     

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.     

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.