Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029227406 = product of:
  0.05845481 = sum of:
    0.05845481 = product of:
      0.11690962 = sum of:
        0.11690962 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11690962 = score(doc=3016,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.46747392 = fieldWeight in 3016, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3016)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As open-access (OA) publishing funded by article-processing charges (APCs) becomes more widely accepted, academic institutions need to be aware of the "total cost of publication" (TCP), comprising subscription costs plus APCs and additional administration costs. This study analyzes data from 23 UK institutions covering the period 2007-2014 modeling the TCP. It shows a clear rise in centrally managed APC payments from 2012 onward, with payments projected to increase further. As well as evidencing the growing availability and acceptance of OA publishing, these trends reflect particular UK policy developments and funding arrangements intended to accelerate the move toward OA publishing ("Gold" OA). Although the mean value of APCs has been relatively stable, there was considerable variation in APC prices paid by institutions since 2007. In particular, "hybrid" subscription/OA journals were consistently more expensive than fully OA journals. Most APCs were paid to large "traditional" commercial publishers who also received considerable subscription income. New administrative costs reported by institutions varied considerably. The total cost of publication modeling shows that APCs are now a significant part of the TCP for academic institutions, in 2013 already constituting an average of 10% of the TCP (excluding administrative costs).

0.023864077 = product of:
  0.047728155 = sum of:
    0.047728155 = product of:
      0.09545631 = sum of:
        0.09545631 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09545631 = score(doc=3548,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 3548, 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=3548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific "soundness" and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

0.023864077 = product of:
  0.047728155 = sum of:
    0.047728155 = product of:
      0.09545631 = sum of:
        0.09545631 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09545631 = score(doc=3797,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 3797, 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=3797)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports analysis of data from higher education institutions in the UK on their experience of the open-access (OA) publishing market working within a policy environment favoring "Gold" OA (OA publishing in journals). It models the "total cost of publication"-comprising costs of journal subscriptions, OA article-processing charges (APCs), and new administrative costs-for a sample of 24 institutions. APCs are shown to constitute 12% of the "total cost of publication," APC administration, 1%, and subscriptions, 87% (for a sample of seven publishers). APC expenditure in institutions rose between 2012 and 2014 at the same time as rising subscription costs. There was disproportionately high take up of Gold options for Health and Life Sciences articles. APC prices paid varied widely, with a mean APC of £1,586 in 2014. "Hybrid" options (subscription journals also offering OA for individual articles on payment of an APC) were considerably more expensive than fully OA titles, but the data indicate a correlation between APC price and journal quality (as reflected in the citation rates of journals). The policy implications of these developments are explored, particularly in relation to hybrid OA and potential of offsetting subscription and APC costs.

0.01687445 = product of:
  0.0337489 = sum of:
    0.0337489 = product of:
      0.0674978 = sum of:
        0.0674978 = weight(_text_:publishing in 1226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0674978 = score(doc=1226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.250088 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 1226, 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=1226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It has been suggested that institutional e-print services will become an important way of achieving the wide availability of e-prints across a broad range of subject disciplines. However, as yet there are few exemplars of this sort of service. This paper describes how physicists make use of an established centralized subject-based e-prints service, arXiv (formerly known as the Los Alamos XXX service), and discusses the possible implications of this use for institutional multidisciplinary e-print archives. A number of key points are identified, including technical issues (such as file formats and user interface design), management issues (such as submission procedures and administrative staff support), economic issues (such as installation and support costs), quality issues (such as peer review and quality control criteria), policy issues (such as digital preservation and collection development standards), academic issues (such as scholarly communication cultures and publishing trends), and legal issues (such as copyright and intellectual property rights). These are discussed with reference to the project to set up a pilot institutional e-print service at the University of Nottingham, UK. This project is being used as a pragmatic way of investigating the issues surrounding institutional e-print services, particularly in seeing how flexible the e-prints model actually is and how easily it can adapt itself to disciplines other than physics.

0.0086691445 = product of:
  0.017338289 = sum of:
    0.017338289 = product of:
      0.034676578 = sum of:
        0.034676578 = weight(_text_:22 in 2551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034676578 = score(doc=2551,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1792529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051188353 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2551, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2551)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22