scholarly journals Publishing Without Exclusive Rights

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Suber
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Review Copy

Journal publishers don’t need exclusive rights. Or, they don’t need them for publishing. They don’t need them to make a work public or to add value in the form of peer review, copy editing, metadata, formatting, discoverability, or preservation. Nor do they need them to make enough money to pay their bills and grow. Publishers only need exclusive rights for monopoly control over the published work and any revenue it might yield. Publishers who say they need exclusive rights are saying they need this monopoly control. The best evidence that journal publishers don’t need exclusive rights is that so many peer-reviewed journals do without them, for example, open access journals using CC-BY. 

scholarly journals Reforming Science Publishing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Moustafa
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
The Past ◽  
Open Access Journals

Over the past few years, different changes have been introduced into the science publishing industry. However, important reforms are still required at both the content and form levels. First, the peer review process needs to be open, fair and transparent. Second, author-paid fees in open access journals need to either be removed or reconsidered toward more affordability. Third, the categorization of papers should include all types of scientific contributions that can be of higher interest to the scientific community than many mere quantitative and observable measures, or simply removed from publications. Forth, word counts and reference numbers in online open access journal should be nuanced or replaced by recommended ranges rather than to be a proxy of acceptance or rejection. Finally, all the coauthors of a manuscript should be considered corresponding authors and responsible for their mutual manuscript rather than only one or two.

Evolving landscape of scholarly journals in open access environment

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (6/7) ◽  
pp. 550-567
Author(s):  
Sumeer Gul ◽  
Sangita Gupta ◽  
Tariq Ahmad Shah ◽  
Nahida Tun Nisa ◽  
Shazia Manzoor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Time Lag ◽  
High Income ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Finnish Meteorological Institute ◽  
Open Access Journals

Purpose Open access journals (OAJs) offer immediate, free and unrestricted online access to the scholarly literature. The purpose of this study is to trace the status and characteristics of OAJs published across the globe. Various trends that have evolved in OAJ market have been studied. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on data collected from one of the largest OA journal directory – Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The data were downloaded on 02 January 2018 and details of OAJs added to DOAJ till 31 December 2018 were harvested, codified and further analyzed in SPSS software. A Microsoft-Excel template application – MAKESENS – developed by Finnish Meteorological Institute (Finland) in 2002, was explored to perform Mann–Kendall Test and Sen’s Slope Estimates. Findings A less score of OAJs offer access to their archival content. An increasing trend is witnessed in the OAJ publishing with Elsevier, Sciendo and BioMed Central (BMC) as the top publishers. Majority of publishers are from high-income zone countries, followed by upper-middle and lower-middle zone countries. Majority of OA publishers are from the UK, Indonesia and Brazil. A lesser score of journals offer article processing charges and/or author submission charges. Majority of OAJs from high- and lower-middle-income zone countries levy submission/processing charge to authors compared to OA journals from upper-middle- and lower-income zone countries (p < 0.01). OJS stays a prioritized platform for hosting OA journal content. Portico and CLOCKSS/LOCKSS are mostly used for long-term preservation purposes. Majority of OAJs from high-income zone countries participate in digital arching initiatives compared to ones from other income zones. Majority of the journals adopt a peer review (double-blind peer review, blind peer review, peer review and open peer review) process for validation of their scholarly content. The time lag between submission and publication ranges from one to 53 weeks, with majority of OAJs having a time lag of 11-20 weeks. Creative Commons Licenses are mainly adopted by OAJs. Research limitations/implications As the study is based on the data offered by DOAJ, any gaps in the DOAJ data will also get reflected in the study. Further, there might be other OAJs also that have yet to show compliance with DOAJ standards and get indexed with it. Originality/value The study tries to showcase the current status and characteristics of OAJs.

scholarly journals ‘No comment’? A study of commenting on PLOS articles

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-100
Author(s):  
Simon Wakeling ◽  
Peter Willett ◽  
Claire Creaser ◽  
Jenny Fry ◽  
Stephen Pinfield ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Public Library ◽  
Community Perceptions ◽  
Substantial Variation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Broad Scope ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Academic Discussion

Article–commenting functionality allows users to add publicly visible comments to an article on a publisher’s website. As well as facilitating forms of post-publication peer review, for publishers of open-access mega-journals (large, broad scope, open-access journals that seek to publish all technically or scientifically sound research) comments are also thought to serve as a means for the community to discuss and communicate the significance and novelty of the research, factors which are not assessed during peer review. In this article we present the results of an analysis of commenting on articles published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), publisher of the first and best-known mega-journal PLOS ONE, between 2003 and 2016. We find that while overall commenting rates are low, and have declined since 2010, there is substantial variation across different PLOS titles. Using a typology of comments developed for this research, we also find that only around half of comments engage in an academic discussion of the article and that these discussions are most likely to focus on the paper’s technical soundness. Our results suggest that publishers are yet to encourage significant numbers of readers to leave comments, with implications for the effectiveness of commenting as a means of collecting and communicating community perceptions of an article’s importance.

scholarly journals How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Christer Björk ◽  
Sari Kanto-Karvonen ◽  
J. Tuomas Harviainen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Citation Statistics

Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations. We conclude that articles published in predatory journals have little scientific impact.

scholarly journals Revisão por pares aberta

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisca Clotilde de Andrade Maia ◽  
Maria Giovanna Guedes Farias
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomed Central ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Article Processing Charges ◽  
E Mail

Objetivo: A revisão por pares aberta é um dos modelos de avaliação vem sendo discutido na literatura científica, por estar em consonância com os princípios da ciência aberta. Diante disso, este estudo objetiva identificar o modelo de revisão adotado pelos periódicos científicos indexados no filtro open peer review do Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), a fim de analisar se essas revistas contemplam as setes características apontadas por Ross-Hellauer (2017a). Método: Baseou-se na abordagem quanti-qualitativa, com uso do método exploratório e das técnicas de coleta de dados: pesquisa documental e entrevista não-estruturada. No DOAJ procedeu-se com o download de metadados e visitas aos websites de cada periódico a ser analisado. Já a entrevista não-estruturada foi efetivada por e-mail e mídia social dos editores. Para a análise dos dados adotou-se a análise de conteúdo, com o estabelecimento de categorias. Resultados: Apontam que a maior parte da amostra dos periódicos é oriunda do Reino Unido, está sob responsabilidade da editora BioMed Central (BMC), publicam em inglês, cobram o pagamento de taxa Article Processing Charges (APC) e cobrem a área Ciências da Saúde. As características identidades abertas e pareceres abertos são as mais adotadas pelos periódicos científicos da amostra. Além disso, de acordo com os editores, as revisões abertas são mais justas e atuam como um tutorial de ensino sobre como realizar um parecer científico. Os resultados demonstram ainda que a revisão aberta impacta na qualidade do manuscrito, resulta em avaliações melhores, mais construtivas, menos negativas e atua como uma alternativa para valorizar o trabalho voluntário dos avaliadores. Conclusões: Conclui-se que o modelo de revisão aberta mostra-se ser uma alternativa viável e que, com base nos resultados, pode-se considerá-lo como um modelo eficaz e que proporciona diversas contribuições para o processo de revisão por pares, em especial, para torná-lo mais transparente e justo.  

Open-Access and Pay-to-Publish Journals

2021 ◽  
pp. 491-504
Author(s):  
Seth J. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Open Access Journals

This chapter introduces readers to the open-access movement and to journals that charge authors to publish. Differences between open-access journals and traditional subscription journals are outlined in terms of sources of publisher revenue, peer-review processes, and editorial approaches. The chapter suggests that open- access journals may be best suited for papers from “hot” fields or for papers focusing on urgent social or health issues, whereas subscription journals are likely better suited for theoretical and literature-review papers. Authors are cautioned regarding “predatory” open-access journals that advance dubious claims regarding the speed of peer review and that misrepresent the qualifications of the editor or editorial board. The chapter provides guidance for authors considering submitting their work to legitimate open-access journals.

scholarly journals Say ‘Yes!’ to peer review: Open Access publishing and the need for mutual aid in academia

2017 ◽  
Vol 195 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Springer ◽  
Myriam Houssay-Holzschuch ◽  
Claudia Villegas ◽  
Levi Gahman
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Corporate Control ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Mutual Aid ◽  
Open Access Journals

Scholars are increasingly declining to offer their services in the peer review process. There are myriad reasons for this refusal, most notably the ever-increasing pressure placed on academics to publish within the neoliberal university. Yet if you are publishing yourself then you necessarily expect someone else to review your work, which begs the question as to why this service is not being reciprocated. There is something to be said about withholding one’s labour when journals are under corporate control, but when it comes to Open Access journals such denial is effectively unacceptable. Make time for it, as others have made time for you. As editors of the independent, Open Access, non-corporate journal ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, we reflect on the struggles facing our daily operations, where scholars declining to participate in peer review is the biggest obstacle we face. We argue that peer review should be considered as a form of mutual aid, which is rooted in an ethics of cooperation. The system only works if you say ‘Yes’!

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document