Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Pinfield, S."
  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  1. Wakeling, S.; Creaser, C.; Pinfield, S.; Fry, J.; Spezi, V.; Willett, P.; Paramita, M.: Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors : results of a large-scale survey (2019) 0.00
    3.149623E-4 = product of:
      0.0072441325 = sum of:
        0.0072441325 = product of:
          0.014488265 = sum of:
            0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014488265 = score(doc=5317,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    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.
  2. Pinfield, S.; Salter, J.; Bath, P.A.: ¬A "Gold-centric" implementation of open access : hybrid journals, the "Total cost of publication," and policy development in the UK and beyond (2017) 0.00
    1.707938E-4 = product of:
      0.0039282576 = sum of:
        0.0039282576 = product of:
          0.007856515 = sum of:
            0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3797) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007856515 = score(doc=3797,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3797, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3797)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    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.
  3. Wakeling, S.; Spezi, V.; Fry, J.; Creaser, C.; Pinfield, S.; Willett, P.: Academic communities : the role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication (2019) 0.00
    1.707938E-4 = product of:
      0.0039282576 = sum of:
        0.0039282576 = product of:
          0.007856515 = sum of:
            0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007856515 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 75(2019) no.1, S.120-139