The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review

Access to evidence-based care: a systematic review of trauma and surgical literature costs across resource settings

Background

Evidence-based medicine has become the foundation for surgeons around the world to provide the most effective surgical care. However, the article processing charges (APCs) and subscription fees for surgical journals may be a barrier, particularly for those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Objectives

The objective of this study was to define the current options for producers and consumers of surgical literature, inclusive of trauma, across resource settings.

Data sources

The Web of Science Core Collection database.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

A complete list of journals publishing surgical content between 2019 and 2020 was compiled. The most frequently indexed journals were reviewed using the individual journal websites to extract the type of access (ie, open, closed, hybrid), impact factors, publication languages, APCs, subscription pricing, and any discounts listed.

Results

The literature search revealed 4759 unique journals. The 500 most frequently indexed were reviewed. The mean APC for a fully open access surgical journal was US$1574 and for a hybrid surgical journal was US$3338. The average costs for a 1-year subscription in a hybrid surgical journal were US$434 and US$1878 for an individual and institution, respectively. When considering purchasing power parity, APCs and subscription costs ranged from 2 to 15 times more expensive in LMICs when compared with those in the USA.

Limitations

Primary search term was in English only, and only peer-reviewed journal articles were reviewed.

Conclusions or implications of key findings

Although initiatives exist to support peer-reviewed journals in LMICs, there is an exorbitant cost for authors in these countries, as well as those in high-income countries that are not affiliated with a large institution, to either publish in, or access, a majority of surgical journals. Efforts to lower the overall cost of publishing must be made to provide greater access to medical literature.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD4202140227.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Up Front and Open? Shrouded in Secrecy? Or Somewhere in Between? A Meta-Research Systematic Review of Open Science Practices in Sport Medicine Research

OBJECTIVE: To investigate open science practices in research published in the top 5 sports medicine journals from May 1, 2022, and October 1, 2022. DESIGN: A meta-research systematic review. LITERATURE SEARCH: Open science practices were searched in MEDLINE. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included original scientific research published in one of the identified top 5 sports medicine journals in 2022 as ranked by Clarivate: (1) British Journal of Sports Medicine, (2) Journal of Sport and Health Science, (3) American Journal of Sports Medicine, (4) Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, and (5) Sports Medicine-Open. Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, qualitative research, gray literature, or animal or cadaver models. DATA SYNTHESIS: Open science practices were extracted in accordance with the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines and patient and public involvement. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-three studies were included. The median number of open science practices in each study was 2, out of a maximum of 12 (range: 0-8; interquartile range: 2). Two hundred thirty-four studies (96%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 94%-99%) provided an author conflict-of-interest statement and 163 (67%, 95% CI: 62%-73%) reported funding. Twenty-one studies (9%, 95% CI: 5%-12%) provided open-access data. Fifty-four studies (22%, 95% CI: 17%-27%) included a data availability statement and 3 (1%, 95% CI: 0%-3%) made code available. Seventy-six studies (32%, 95% CI: 25%-37%) had transparent materials and 30 (12%, 95% CI: 8%-16%) used a reporting guideline. Twenty-eight studies (12%, 95% CI: 8%-16%) were preregistered. Six studies (3%, 95% CI: 1%-4%) published a protocol. Four studies (2%, 95% CI: 0%-3%) reported an analysis plan a priori. Seven studies (3%, 95% CI: 1%-5%) reported patient and public involvement. CONCLUSION: Open science practices in the sports medicine field are extremely limited. The least followed practices were sharing code, data, and analysis plans. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12):1-13. Epub 20 October 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12016.

The impact of open access mandates on scientific research and technological development in the U.S

Getting to a net-zero emissions economy requires faster development and diffusion of novel clean energy technologies. We exploit a rare natural experiment to study the impact of an open-access mandate on the diffusion of scientific research into patented technologies. From 2014 onwards, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) required its 17 National Laboratories (NLs) to publish all peer-reviewed scientific articles without a paywall. Using data from more than 300,000 scientific publications between 2012 and 2018, we show that scientific articles subject to the mandate were used on average 42% more in patents, despite embargo periods of up to 12 months. We also show that articles subject to the mandate were not cited more frequently by other academic articles. Our findings suggest that the mandate primarily contributed to technological development but has not led to additional academic research. Lastly, we show that small firms were the primary beneficiaries of the increased diffusion of scientific knowledge.

Citation pattern of open access and toll-based research articles in the field of biological and physical sciences: a comparative study

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to determine the relationship between the access mode of research articles [Open Access (OA) and Toll-Access (TA)] and their subsequent citation counts in Biological and Physical Sciences in three Impact factor zones (High, Medium and Low).

Design/methodology/approach

Three subjects each from Biological Sciences (Biochemistry, Cell Biology and Genetics) and Physical Sciences (Astronomy, Oceanography and Optics) were selected for the study. A comprehensive list of journals (TA and OA) in select subjects of Biological and Physical Sciences was prepared by consulting Journal Citation Report’s Master Journal List (for the compilation of both Open Access and Toll Access journal list) and Directory of Open Access Journals (for the compilation of Open Access journal list). For each journal, essential details like content language, format, year of publication, access mode (Open Access or Toll Access), etc. were obtained from Ulrich’s Periodical Directory. Web of Science (WoS) was used as citations indexing tool in this study. The data set was run on the WoS to collect the citation data.

Findings

The results of the study indicate that open mode of access is not a prerequisite for higher citation boost as in the majority of the cases in this study, TA articles have garnered a greater number of citations as compared to open access articles in different Impact factor zones in Biological and Physical Sciences.

Originality/value

A novel approach has been adopted to understand and compare the research impact of open access (OA) and toll access (TA) journal articles in the field of Biological and Physical Sciences at three Impact factor zone levels to reveal the citation metrics encompassing three parameters, i.e. citedness, average citation count and year wise distribution of citations in select subjects of Biological and Physical Sciences.

Peer review

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/[DOI]/10.1108/OIR-01-2021-0029

Factors Associated With Open Access Publishing Costs in Oncology Journals: Cross-sectional Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Open access (OA) publishing represents an exciting opportunity to facilitate the dissemination of scientific information to global audiences. However, OA publishing is often associated with significant article processing charges (APCs) for authors, which may thus serve as a barrier to publication.

OBJECTIVE

In this observational cohort study, we aimed to characterize the landscape of OA publishing in oncology and, further, identify characteristics of oncology journals that are predictive of APCs.

METHODS

We identified oncology journals using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database. All journals with an OA publication option and APC data openly available were included. We searched journal websites and tabulated journal characteristics, including APC amount (in US dollars), OA model (hybrid vs full), 2-year impact factor (IF), H-index, number of citable documents, modality/treatment specific (if applicable), and continent of origin. All APCs were converted to US-dollar equivalents for final analyses. Selecting variables with significant associations in the univariable analysis, we generated a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics independently associated with OA APC amount. An audit of a random 10% sample of the data was independently performed by 2 authors to ensure data accuracy, precision, and reproducibility.

RESULTS

Of 367 oncology journals screened, 251 met the final inclusion criteria. The median APC was US $2957 (IQR 1958-3450). The majority of journals (n=156, 62%) adopted the hybrid OA publication model and were based in Europe (n=119, 47%) or North America (n=87, 35%). The median (IQR) APC for all journals was US $2957 (1958-3540). Twenty-five (10%) journals had APCs greater than US $4000. There were 10 (4%) journals that offered OA publication with no publication charge. Univariable testing showed that journals with a greater number of citable documents (P<.001), higher 2-year IF (P<.001), higher H-index (P<.001), and those using the hybrid OA model (P<.001), or originating in Europe or North America (P<.001) tended to have higher APCs. In our multivariable model, the number of citable documents (β=US $367, SD US $133; P=.006), 2-year IF (US $1144, SD US $177; P<.001), hybrid OA publishing model (US $991, SD US $189; P<.001), and North American origin (US $838, SD US $186; P<.001) persisted as significant predictors of processing charges.

CONCLUSIONS

OA publication costs are greater in oncology journals that publish more citable articles, use the hybrid OA model, have a higher IF, and are based in North America or Europe. These findings may inform targeted action to help the oncology community fully appreciate the benefits of open science.

The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols

BACKGROUND

With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

osf.io/9kj7r/.

Role of Disease Progression Models in Drug Development

The use of Disease progression models (DPMs) in Drug Development has been widely adopted across therapeutic areas as a method for integrating previously obtained disease knowledge to elucidate the impact of novel therapeutics or vaccines on disease course, thus quantifying the potential clinical benefit at different stages of drug development programs. This paper provides a brief overview of DPMs and the evolution in data types, analytic methods, and applications that have occurred in their use by Quantitive Clinical Pharmacologists. It also provides examples of how these models have informed decisions and clinical trial design across several therapeutic areas and at various stages of development. It briefly describes potential new applications of DPMs utilizing emerging data sources, and utilizing new analytic techniques, and discuss new challenges faced such as requiring description of multiple endpoints, rapid model development, application of machine learning-based analytics, and use of high dimensional and real-world data. Considerations for the continued evolution future of DPMs to serve as community-maintained expert systems are also provided.

Open science at the science-policy interface: bringing in the evidence?

Part of the current enthusiasm about open science stems from its promises to reform scientific practice in service of the common good, to ensure that scientific outputs will be found and reused more easily, and to enhance scientific impact on policy and society. With this article, we question this optimism by analysing the potential for open science practices to enhance research uptake at the science–policy interface. Science advice is critical to help policy-makers make informed decisions. Likewise, some interpretations of open science hold that making research processes and outputs more transparent and accessible will also enhance the uptake of results by policy and society at large. However, we argue that this hope is based on an unjustifiably simplistic understanding of the science–policy interface that leaves key terms (“impact”, “uptake”) undefined. We show that this understanding—based upon linear models of research uptake—likewise grounds the influential “evidence–policy gap” diagnosis which holds that to improve research uptake, communication and interaction between researchers and policy-makers need to be improved. The overall normative stance of both discussions has sidelined empirical description of the science–policy interface, ignoring questions about the underlying differences between the policy domain and academia. Importantly, both open science and literature on closing the evidence–policy gap recommend improving communication (in terms of either the content or the means) as a viable strategy. To correct some of these views, we combine insights from policy theory with a narrative review of the literature on the evidence–policy gap in the health domain and find that removing barriers to access by itself will not be enough to foster research uptake.

The Academic, Societal and Animal Welfare Benefits of Open Science for Animal Science

Animal science researchers have the obligation to reduce, refine, and replace the usage of animals in research (3R principles). Adherence to these principles can be improved by transparently publishing research findings, data and protocols. Open Science (OS) can help to increase the transparency of many parts of the research process, and its implementation should thus be considered by animal science researchers as a valuable opportunity that can contribute to the adherence to these 3R-principles. With this article, we want to encourage animal science researchers to implement a diverse set of OS practices, such as Open Access publishing, preprinting, and the pre-registration of test protocols, in their workflows.

What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide

Increasingly, policies are being introduced to reward and recognise open research practices, while the adoption of such practices into research routines is being facilitated by many grassroots initiatives. However, despite this widespread endorsement and support, as well as various efforts led by early career researchers, open research is yet to be widely adopted. For open research to become the norm, initiatives should engage academics from all career stages, particularly senior academics (namely senior lecturers, readers, professors) given their routine involvement in determining the quality of research. Senior academics, however, face unique challenges in implementing policy changes and supporting grassroots initiatives. Given that—like all researchers—senior academics are motivated by self-interest, this paper lays out three feasible steps that senior academics can take to improve the quality and productivity of their research, that also serve to engender open research. These steps include changing (a) hiring criteria, (b) how scholarly outputs are credited, and (c) how we fund and publish in line with open research principles. The guidance we provide is accompanied by material for further reading.

Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science

The field of prevention science aims to understand societal problems, identify effective interventions, and translate scientific evidence into policy and practice. There is growing interest among prevention scientists in the potential for transparency, openness, and reproducibility to facilitate this mission by providing opportunities to align scientific practice with scientific ideals, accelerate scientific discovery, and broaden access to scientific knowledge. The overarching goal of this manuscript is to serve as a primer introducing and providing an overview of open science for prevention researchers. In this paper, we discuss factors motivating interest in transparency and reproducibility, research practices associated with open science, and stakeholders engaged in and impacted by open science reform efforts. In addition, we discuss how and why different types of prevention research could incorporate open science practices, as well as ways that prevention science tools and methods could be leveraged to advance the wider open science movement. To promote further discussion, we conclude with potential reservations and challenges for the field of prevention science to address as it transitions to greater transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Throughout, we identify activities that aim to strengthen the reliability and efficiency of prevention science, facilitate access to its products and outputs, and promote collaborative and inclusive participation in research activities. By embracing principles of transparency, openness, and reproducibility, prevention science can better achieve its mission to advance evidence-based solutions to promote individual and collective well-being.

Open Sesame? Open access priorities, incentives, and policies among higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates

Higher education institutions (HEIs) have an instrumental role in the move towards Open Access (OA) by shaping the national strategies, policies, and agendas. This study sets out to explore the role of HEIs in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) OA uptake and reflect on the ongoing international initiatives pushing for universal OA to research. The study is based on an online survey targeted at UAE higher education institutions research management units. In order to measure the institutional views, only one response was solicited from each institution. A total of 19 valid responses were received, making up 47% of HEIs included in the population of organisations. Our results suggest that there is low commitment to OA among UAE HEIs as attested by the low number of OA policies, scarce OA funding, limited proliferation of institutional repositories, perceived lack of urgency to migrate from current access models, and little consideration of OA for promotion purposes. The study is the first of its kind in the UAE, Arab and Middle Eastern countries, providing rare insight into a growing phenomenon that is global, yet most vocally discussed from a western perspective and context. The study contributes to the debate on the role of HEIs in the transition to OA and in shaping national and regional OA policies, as well as informing international initiatives about the current status of OA in the region.

Data-Driven Materials Science: Status, Challenges, and Perspectives

Data-driven science is heralded as a new paradigm in materials science. In this field, data is the new resource, and knowledge is extracted from materials datasets that are too big or complex for traditional human reasoning-typically with the intent to discover new or improved materials or materials phenomena. Multiple factors, including the open science movement, national funding, and progress in information technology, have fueled its development. Such related tools as materials databases, machine learning, and high-throughput methods are now established as parts of the materials research toolset. However, there are a variety of challenges that impede progress in data-driven materials science: data veracity, integration of experimental and computational data, data longevity, standardization, and the gap between industrial interests and academic efforts. In this perspective article, the historical development and current state of data-driven materials science, building from the early evolution of open science to the rapid expansion of materials data infrastructures are discussed. Key successes and challenges so far are also reviewed, providing a perspective on the future development of the field.

A cross-sectional description of open access publication costs, policies and impact in emergency medicine and critical care journals

Introduction

Finding journal open access information alongside its global impact requires access to multiple databases. We describe a single, searchable database of all emergency medicine and critical care journals that include their open access policies, publication costs, and impact metrics.

Methods

A list of emergency medicine and critical care journals (including citation metrics) was created using Scopus (Citescore) and the Web of Science (Impact Factor). Cost of gold/hybrid open access and article process charges (open access fees) were collected from journal websites. Self-archiving policies were collected from the Sherpa/RoMEO database. Relative cost of access in different regions were calculated using the World Bank Purchasing Power Parity index for authors from the United States, Germany, Turkey, China, Brazil, South Africa and Australia.

Results

We identified 78 emergency medicine and 82 critical care journals. Median Citescore for emergency medicine was 0.73 (interquartile range, IQR 0.32–1.27). Median impact factor was 1.68 (IQR 1.00–2.39). Median Citescore for critical care was 0.95 (IQR 0.25–2.06). Median impact factor was 2.18 (IQR 1.73–3.50). Mean article process charge for emergency medicine was $2243.04, SD = $1136.16 and for critical care $2201.64, SD = $1174.38. Article process charges were 2.24, 1.75, 2.28 and 1.56 times more expensive for South African, Chinese, Turkish and Brazilian authors respectively than United States authors, but neutral for German and Australian authors (1.02 and 0.81 respectively). The database can be accessed here: http://www.emct.info/publication-search.html.

Conclusions

We present a single database that captures emergency medicine and critical care journal impact rankings alongside its respective open access cost and green open access policies.

Low income countries have the highest percentages of open access publication: A systematic computational analysis of the biomedical literature

Open access publication rates have been steadily increasing over time. In spite of this growth, academics in low income settings struggle to gain access to the full canon of research literature. While the vast majority of open access repositories and funding organizations with open access policies are based in high income countries, the geographic patterns of open access publication itself are not well characterized. In this study, we developed a computational approach to better understand the topical and geographical landscape of open access publications in the biomedical research literature. Surprisingly, we found a strong negative correlation between country per capita income and the percentage of open access publication. Open access publication rates were particularly high in sub-Saharan Africa, but vastly lower in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, and East Asia and the Pacific. These effects persisted when considering papers only bearing authors from within each region and income group. However, papers resulting from international collaborations did have a higher percentage of OA than single-country papers, and inter-regional collaboration increased OA publication for all world regions. There was no clear relationship between the number of open access policies in a region and the percentage of open access publications in that region. To understand the distribution of open access across topics of biomedical research, we examined keywords that were most enriched and depleted in open access papers. Keywords related to genomics, computational biology, animal models, and infectious disease were enriched in open access publications, while keywords related to the environment, nursing, and surgery were depleted in open access publications. This work identifies geographic regions and fields of research that could be priority areas for open access advocacy. The finding that open access publication rates are highest in sub-Saharan Africa and low income countries suggests that factors other than open access policy strongly influence authors' decisions to make their work openly accessible. The high proportion of OA resulting from international collaborations indicates yet another benefit of collaborative research. Certain applied fields of medical research, notably nursing, surgery, and environmental fields, appear to have a greater proportion of fee-for-access publications, which presumably creates barriers that prevent researchers and practitioners in low income settings from accessing the literature in those fields.

The Economic Impacts of Open Science: A Rapid Evidence Assessment

A common motivation for increasing open access to research findings and data is the potential to create economic benefits—but evidence is patchy and diverse. This study systematically reviewed the evidence on what kinds of economic impacts (positive and negative) open science can have, how these comes about, and how benefits could be maximized. Use of open science outputs often leaves no obvious trace, so most evidence of impacts is based on interviews, surveys, inference based on existing costs, and modelling approaches. There is indicative evidence that open access to findings/data can lead to savings in access costs, labour costs and transaction costs. There are examples of open science enabling new products, services, companies, research and collaborations. Modelling studies suggest higher returns to R&D if open access permits greater accessibility and efficiency of use of findings. Barriers include lack of skills capacity in search, interpretation and text mining, and lack of clarity around where benefits accrue. There are also contextual considerations around who benefits most from open science (e.g., sectors, small vs. larger companies, types of dataset). Recommendations captured in the review include more research, monitoring and evaluation (including developing metrics), promoting benefits, capacity building and making outputs more audience-friendly.

AccessLab: Workshops to broaden access to scientific research

AccessLabs are workshops with two simultaneous motivations, achieved through direct citizen-scientist pairings: (1) to decentralise research skills so that a broader range of people are able to access/use scientific research, and (2) to expose science researchers to the difficulties of using their research as an outsider, creating new open access advocates. Five trial AccessLabs have taken place for policy makers, media/journalists, marine sector participants, community groups, and artists. The act of pairing science academics with local community members helps build understanding and trust between groups at a time when this relationship appears to be under increasing threat from different political and economic currents in society. Here, we outline the workshop motivations, format, and evaluation, with the aim that others can build on the methods developed.

This Community Page article describes AccessLabs: workshops involving direct citizen-scientist pairings, with the aims of decentralising research skills to a broader range of people and exposing science researchers to the difficulties of using their research as an outsider, creating new open access advocates.

Access to Top-Cited Emergency Care Articles (Published Between 2012 and 2016) Without Subscription

Introduction

Unrestricted access to journal publications speeds research progress, productivity, and knowledge translation, which in turn develops and promotes the efficient dissemination of content. We describe access to the 500 most-cited emergency medicine (EM) articles (published between 2012 and 2016) in terms of publisher-based access (open access or subscription), alternate access routes (self-archived or author provided), and relative cost of access.

Methods

We used the Scopus database to identify the 500 most-cited EM articles published between 2012 and 2016. Access status was collected from the journal publisher. For studies not available via open access, we searched on Google, Google Scholar, Researchgate, Academia.edu, and the Unpaywall and Open Access Button browser plugins to locate self-archived copies. We contacted corresponding authors of the remaining inaccessible studies for a copy of each of their articles. We collected article processing and access costs from the journal publishers, and then calculated relative cost differences using the World Bank purchasing power parity index for the United States (U.S.), Germany, Turkey, China, Brazil, South Africa, and Australia. This allows costs to be understood relative to the economic context of the countries from which they originated.

Results

We identified 500 articles for inclusion in the study. Of these, 167 (33%) were published in an open access format. Of the remaining 333 (67%), 204 (61%) were available elsewhere on the internet, 18 (4%) were provided by the authors, and 111 (22%) were accessible by subscription only. The mean article processing and access charges were $2,518.62 and $44.78, respectively. These costs were 2.24, 1.75, 2.28 and 1.56 times more expensive for South African, Chinese, Turkish, and Brazilian authors, respectively, than for U.S. authors (p<0.001 all).

Conclusion

Despite the advantage of open access publication for knowledge translation, social responsibility, and increased citation, one in five of the 500 EM articles were accessible only via subscription. Access for scientists from upper-middle income countries was significantly hampered by cost. It is important to acknowledge the value this has for authors from low- and middle-income countries. Authors should also consider the citation advantage afforded by open access publishing when deciding where to publish.

Few Open Access Journals Are Compliant with Plan S

Much of the debate on Plan S seems to concentrate on how to make toll-access journals open access, taking for granted that existing open access journals are Plan S-compliant. We suspected this was not so and set out to explore this using Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) metadata. We conclude that a large majority of open access journals are not Plan S-compliant, and that it is small publishers in the humanities and social sciences (HSS) not charging article processing charges (APC) that will face the largest challenge with becoming compliant. Plan S needs to give special considerations to smaller publishers and/or non-APC based journals.

Write a Scientific Paper (WASP): Which journal to target and why?

Publishing scholarly work is a requisite in academia. Identifying a suitable journal for a particular paper can be difficult. Authors need to initially establish whether they want to publish in a subscription-based or an open access journal, which requires a clear understanding of the pros and cons of both options as well as issues relating to copyright licences. Establishing specific journal selection criteria ranging from whether to publish in a general or a specialised journal to the publication frequency of the journal is essential. A number of web-based tools are available that can facilitate this selection process.

Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures

Digital scholarship and electronic publishing within scholarly communities change when metrics and open infrastructures take center stage for measuring research impact. In scholarly communication, the growth of preprint repositories as a new model of scholarly publishing over the last three decades has been one of the major developments. As it unfolds, the landscape of scholarly communication is transitioning—with much being privatized as it is made open—and turning towards alternative metrics, such as social media attention, author-level, and article-level metrics. Moreover, the granularity of evaluating research impact through new metrics and social media changes the objective standards of evaluating research performance. Using preprint repositories as a case study, this article situates them in a scholarly web, examining their salient features, benefits, and futures. Moves towards scholarly web development and publishing on the semantic and social web with open infrastructures, citations, and alternative metrics—how preprints advance building the web as data—is discussed. We determine that this will viably demonstrate new metrics and, by enhancing research publishing tools in the scholarly commons, facilitate various communities of practice. However, for preprint repositories to be sustainable, scholarly communities and funding agencies should support continued investment in open knowledge, alternative metrics development, and open infrastructures in scholarly publishing.

WASP: Is open access publishing the way forward? A review of the different ways in which research papers can be published

Academics have a duty towards peers and scholars alike to engage in research work and to publish their findings. This also assists in establishing personal academic success as well as the attainment of research grants. In the past, authors used to publish their research articles for free but access to these articles was restricted to subscription users only. Recently, open access publishing has gained momentum, whereby such articles are made freely accessible online. However open access publishing comes with a price tag for the author through article processing charges. Open access may also question a journal's credibility within the academic world if improperly implemented. This is particularly so following the unsolicited bombardment of researchers' email accounts with invitations for submissions to predatory open access journals. For these reasons, authors needs to rigorously weigh the pros and cons of whether to choose a subscription based or an open access journal for publication.