Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.055339787 = sum of:
  0.036700074 = product of:
    0.1468003 = sum of:
      0.1468003 = weight(_text_:authors in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1468003 = score(doc=5317,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.61688256 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.018639714 = product of:
    0.037279427 = sum of:
      0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037279427 = score(doc=5317,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052200247 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) are characterized by their large scale, wide scope, open-access (OA) business model, and "soundness-only" peer review. The last of these controversially discounts the novelty, significance, and relevance of submitted articles and assesses only their "soundness." This article reports the results of an international survey of authors (n = 11,883), comparing the responses of OAMJ authors with those of other OA and subscription journals, and drawing comparisons between different OAMJs. Strikingly, OAMJ authors showed a low understanding of soundness-only peer review: two-thirds believed OAMJs took into account novelty, significance, and relevance, although there were marked geographical variations. Author satisfaction with OAMJs, however, was high, with more than 80% of OAMJ authors saying they would publish again in the same journal, although there were variations by title, and levels were slightly lower than subscription journals (over 90%). Their reasons for choosing to publish in OAMJs included a wide variety of factors, not significantly different from reasons given by authors of other journals, with the most important including the quality of the journal and quality of peer review. About half of OAMJ articles had been submitted elsewhere before submission to the OAMJ with some evidence of a "cascade" of articles between journals from the same publisher.

0.009319857 = product of:
  0.018639714 = sum of:
    0.018639714 = product of:
      0.037279427 = sum of:
        0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 1542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037279427 = score(doc=1542,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 1542, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1542)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009319857 = product of:
  0.018639714 = sum of:
    0.018639714 = product of:
      0.037279427 = sum of:
        0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037279427 = score(doc=3548,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.009319857 = product of:
  0.018639714 = sum of:
    0.018639714 = product of:
      0.037279427 = sum of:
        0.037279427 = weight(_text_:p in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037279427 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18768665 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007491372 = product of:
  0.014982744 = sum of:
    0.014982744 = product of:
      0.059930976 = sum of:
        0.059930976 = weight(_text_:authors in 3096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059930976 = score(doc=3096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23797122 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052200247 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3096)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As open access (OA) publication of research outputs becomes increasingly common and is mandated by institutions and research funders, it is important to understand different aspects of the costs involved. This paper provides an early review of administrative costs incurred by universities in making research outputs OA, either via publication in journals ("Gold" OA), involving payment of article-processing charges (APCs), or via deposit in repositories ("Green" OA). Using data from 29 UK institutions, it finds that the administrative time, as well as the cost incurred by universities, to make an article OA using the Gold route is over 2.5 times higher than Green. Costs are then modeled at a national level using recent UK policy initiatives from Research Councils UK and the Higher Education Funding Councils' Research Excellence Framework as case studies. The study also demonstrates that the costs of complying with research funders' OA policies are considerably higher than where an OA publication is left entirely to authors' discretion. Key target areas for future efficiencies in the business processes are identified and potential cost savings calculated. The analysis is designed to inform ongoing policy development at the institutional and national levels.