"Indeed, African Journal of Herpetology APC is set by its publisher, Taylor & Francis, and is beyond the control of the Herpetological Association of Africa. The APC makes this the most expensive herpetology subject journal globally, resulting in potential authors seeking other venues for their work."
New study: "We found that publishing #OpenAccess in #hybrid journals…confers an avg citation advantage…of 17.8 #citations…After taking [several variables] into account…we still found that OA generated significantly more citations than closed access…We found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates…For authors with limited budgets, we recommend OA alternatives that do not require paying a fee [#DiamondOA]." https://peerj.com/articles/16824/
These journals still compete for authors. But for authors submitting to #Elsevier journals, impact metrics matter more than price. For authors submitting to #Hindawi journals, turnaround time matters more than price.
New study: When the journal, Neuropsychopharmacology, studied its own articles (a mix of #GreenOA, #GoldOA, #BronzeOA, and non-OA or #paywalled), it found that "easily accessible article content is most often cited by readers, but that the higher #APCs of #Hybrid tier publishing may not guarantee increased scholarly or social impact." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-024-01796-4
New study: A survey of journal editors in the field of #LIS shows that most journals that do not publish #DiamondOA (either they charge #APCs or they do not publish OA at all) "have not discussed transitioning to a no-publishing fee OA model, and that finances are the main barrier. Most also indicated a lack of awareness of their journal’s budget. The most popular no-publishing fee OA model was #SubscribeToOpen." https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/26170
"For-profit publishers have co-opted the concept of OA as a name for charging authors exorbitant fees…Our model has proven…that it does not cost $2,500 in [#APCs] to copyedit, publish, & preserve…[an] article & that great financial & epistemic benefits to universities arise from ditching the middleman."
The new system "will no longer consider only the impact factor [#JIF] of the journals in which scientists publish…And in an attempt to reduce the level of public funds being spent on publication costs, assessors will take into account papers published on noncommercial, #OpenAccess publishing platforms that don’t charge author fees [#APCs], such as Open Research Europe."
At the same time, most (90%) are seeing an increase in #OpenAccess revenues.
The report says nothing about where these revenues are coming from. It doesn't mention #APCs, fees, or charges. (PS: I'm guessing that these revenues are from APCs & the report didn't mention that bc it assumed that all OA journals charge APCs.)
In celebration of #OpenAccessWeek, we're excited to present our latest blog: 'How Committed is China to Open Access and Open Science?' authored by our SVP of Product Management, Tony Alves.
Tony delves into the #ALPSP2023 session featuring Nicko Goncharoff & Lei Shi, experts with contrasting views on Open Access (OA) in China.
"This year we’re celebrating the 15th anniversary of unanimous votes by faculty in Harvard’s Faculty of Arts & Sciences and the Harvard Law School to adopt [#RightsRetention#OpenAccess policies]…#Repositories are also at the foundation of collaborative non-APC scholarly journal publishing models, as core infrastructure."
PS: As far as I can tell, the authors didn't distinguish #APCs paid by authors out of pocket from APCs paid by their employers or funders. The $17m is the total from all sources. I'd love to see a breakdown. https://suber.pubpub.org/pub/j1jk6hu9
We can hope that the journal corrects these errors during review. There are two: (1) the false assumption that all or most OA journals charge #APCs, and (2) the false assumption that all paid APCs are paid by authors.
As in so many other cases, there are two errors here: (1) the false assumption that all or most OA journals charge #APCs, and (2) the false assumption that all paid APCs are paid by authors.
It's an editorial and didn't go through peer review.
Note the two common errors: (1) the false assumption that all or most OA journals charge #APCs and (2) the false assumption that all paid APCs are paid by authors.
Like so many similar pieces, it's an editorial that did not undergo #PeerReview.
It's wrong that all OA journals charge APCs, wrong that all paid APCs are paid by authors, and wrong that the #NelsonMemo requires journal-based or #GoldOA. It requires repository-based or #GreenOA.
Three common errors here: (1) the false assumption that all or most OA journals charge #APCs, (2) the false assumption that all paid APCs are paid by authors, (3) the false assumption that there's just one OA journal business model.
PS: This claim is unargued. I think it's shorthand for this longer one: All or most OA journals charge #APCs, creating an incentive to accept low-quality work. The premise on APCs is false. But if restated to speak precisely about APC-based journals (not all or most OA journals), it would be worth confronting.
Unfortunately it also repeats two common errors: (1) the false claim that all or most OA journals charge APCs and (2) the false claim that all paid APCs are paid by authors.
PS: These authors recognize that not all OA journals charge APCs (#DiamondOA). On the one hand, their data only show a decline in submissions from the south for APC-based OA journals. But their imprecise writing attributes it to OA as such.
Update. This new study concludes (in effect) that authors with less funding to pay #APCs are less likely to publish in APC-based #OpenAccess journals. But it words the conclusion this way: "Open access [without qualification] may become a barrier to the dissemination of work for researchers who have financial difficulty choosing open access."
"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12109-024-09978-0
PS: This is careless and misleading. APCs are the barrier, not OA. The article doesn't mention no-fee #GreenOA or #DiamondOA.