Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0337489 = product of:
  0.0674978 = sum of:
    0.0674978 = product of:
      0.1349956 = sum of:
        0.1349956 = weight(_text_:publishing in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1349956 = score(doc=448,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.53979236 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the growth of open access (OA), the financial flows in scholarly journal publishing have become increasingly complex, but comprehensive data on and transparency of these flows are still lacking. The opacity is especially concerning for hybrid OA, where subscription-based journals publish individual articles as OA if an optional fee is paid. This study addresses the lack of transparency by leveraging Elsevier article metadata and provides the first publisher-level study of hybrid OA uptake and invoicing. Our results show that Elsevier's hybrid OA uptake has grown steadily but slowly from 2015 to 2019, doubling the number of hybrid OA articles published per year and increasing the share of OA articles in Elsevier's hybrid journals from 2.6 to 3.7% of all articles. Further, we find that most hybrid OA articles were invoiced directly to authors, followed by articles invoiced through agreements with research funders, institutions, or consortia, with only a few funding bodies driving hybrid OA uptake. As such, our findings point to the role of publishing agreements and OA policies in hybrid OA publishing. Our results further demonstrate the value of publisher-provided metadata to improve the transparency in scholarly publishing.

0.023864077 = product of:
  0.047728155 = sum of:
    0.047728155 = product of:
      0.09545631 = sum of:
        0.09545631 = weight(_text_:publishing in 944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09545631 = score(doc=944,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 944, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=944)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Delayed open access (OA) refers to scholarly articles in subscription journals made available openly on the web directly through the publisher at the expiry of a set embargo period. Although a substantial number of journals have practiced delayed OA since they started publishing e-versions, empirical studies concerning OA have often overlooked this body of literature. This study provides comprehensive quantitative measurements by identifying delayed OA journals and collecting data concerning their publication volumes, embargo lengths, and citation rates. Altogether, 492 journals were identified, publishing a combined total of 111,312 articles in 2011; 77.8% of these articles were made OA within 12 months from publication, with 85.4% becoming available within 24 months. A journal impact factor analysis revealed that delayed OA journals have citation rates on average twice as high as those of closed subscription journals and three times as high as immediate OA journals. Overall, the results demonstrate that delayed OA journals constitute an important segment of the openly available scholarly journal literature, both by their sheer article volume and by including a substantial proportion of high-impact journals.

0.01687445 = product of:
  0.0337489 = sum of:
    0.0337489 = product of:
      0.0674978 = sum of:
        0.0674978 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1194) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0674978 = score(doc=1194,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 1194, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1194)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Open access (OA) is free, unrestricted access to electronic versions of scholarly publications. For peer-reviewed journal articles, there are two main routes to OA: publishing in OA journals (gold OA) or archiving of article copies or manuscripts at other web locations (green OA). This study focuses on summarizing and extending current knowledge about green OA. A synthesis of previous studies indicates that green OA coverage of all published journal articles is approximately 12%, with substantial disciplinary variation. Typically, green OA copies become available after considerable time delays, partly caused by publisher-imposed embargo periods, and partly by author tendencies to archive manuscripts only periodically. Although green OA copies should ideally be archived in proper repositories, a large share is stored on home pages and similar locations, with no assurance of long-term preservation. Often such locations contain exact copies of published articles, which may infringe on the publisher's exclusive rights. The technical foundation for green OA uploading is becoming increasingly solid largely due to the rapid increase in the number of institutional repositories. The number of articles within the scope of OA mandates, which strongly influence the self-archival rate of articles, is nevertheless still low.

0.01349956 = product of:
  0.02699912 = sum of:
    0.02699912 = product of:
      0.05399824 = sum of:
        0.05399824 = weight(_text_:publishing in 333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05399824 = score(doc=333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.21591695 = fieldWeight in 333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The preservation of the scholarly record has been a point of concern since the beginning of knowledge production. With print publications, the responsibility rested primarily with librarians, but the shift toward digital publishing and, in particular, the introduction of open access (OA) have caused ambiguity and complexity. Consequently, the long-term accessibility of journals is not always guaranteed, and they can even disappear from the web completely. The focus of this exploratory study is on the phenomenon of vanished journals, something that has not been carried out before. For the analysis, we consulted several major bibliographic indexes, such as Scopus, Ulrichsweb, and the Directory of Open Access Journals, and traced the journals through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. We found 174 OA journals that, through lack of comprehensive and open archives, vanished from the web between 2000 and 2019, spanning all major research disciplines and geographic regions of the world. Our results raise vital concern for the integrity of the scholarly record and highlight the urgency to take collaborative action to ensure continued access and prevent the loss of more scholarly knowledge. We encourage those interested in the phenomenon of vanished journals to use the public dataset for their own research.