共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
The article processing charge (APC) is currently the primary method of funding professionally published open access (OA) peer‐reviewed journals. The pricing principles of 77 OA publishers publishing over 1,000 journals using APCs were studied and classified. The most commonly used pricing method is a single fixed fee, which can either be the same for all of a publisher's journals or individually determined for each journal. Fees are usually only levied for publication of accepted papers, but there are some journals that also charge submission fees. Instead of fixed prices, many publishers charge by the page or have multi‐tiered fees depending on the length of articles. The country of origin of the author can also influence the pricing, in order to facilitate publishing for authors from developing countries. 相似文献
2.
3.
4.
5.
国外学术期刊OA出版论文处理费(APC)调查 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
调查了国际知名出版商Elsevier、Springer、Taylor & Francis、Wiley-Blackwell、NPG和国际知名OA期刊社BMC、PLoS、Hindawi、MDPI等OA期刊的论文处理费(APC)的收费标准.2015年度主要商业性出版社完全OA期刊的APC主要分布在1 000 ～5 000美元之间,混合型OA期刊的APC相对高些,分布较窄,基本在3 000美元左右.以瑞士MDPI公司为案例,分析该公司OA期刊的创办、期刊载文量、期刊经营、APC收取策略等.还简要讨论APC和OA出版机制,以期为我国的科研管理部门和期刊管理部门提供参考. 相似文献
6.
Toby Green 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):13-25
Progress to open access (OA) has stalled, with perhaps 20% of new papers ‘born‐free’, and half of all versions of record pay‐walled; why? In this paper, I review the last 12 months: librarians showing muscle in negotiations, publishers’ Read and Publish deals, and funders determined to force change with initiatives like Plan S. I conclude that these efforts will not work. For example, flipping to supply‐side business models, such as article processing charges, simply flips the pay‐wall to a ‘play‐wall’ to the disadvantage of authors without financial support. I argue that the focus on OA makes us miss the bigger problem: today’s scholarly communications is unaffordable with today’s budgets. OA is not the problem, the publishing process is the problem. To solve it, I propose using the principles of digital transformation to reinvent publishing as a two‐step process where articles are published first as preprints, and then, journal editors invite authors to submit only papers that ‘succeed’ to peer review. This would reduce costs significantly, opening a sustainable pathway for scholarly publishing and OA. The catalyst for this change is for the reputation economy to accept preprints as it does articles in minor journals today. 相似文献
7.
8.
传统出版社正大规模参与开放出版,这是各方博弈的必然。为把握传统出版社参与开放出版的模式与政策,指出传统出版社初步的多维度分析框架,并通过实例分析传统出版社全开放出版模式和复合出版模式,提出传统出版社在如何推进开放出版、如何调整权益关系、如何处理论文处理费等方面所面对的挑战。 相似文献
9.
Francis Dodds 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(4):345-354
This article presents an analysis of key trends affecting the academic publishing industry. It reviews funding and sales, scholarly collaboration networks, developments in OA, and monograph publishing. These key areas were identified in an earlier article that asked whether academic publishing was evolving or going through a revolution. The review of funding and sales presented here shows a mixed market with growth being challenged as library funds and purchase choices affect expenditure. Scholarly collaboration networks were previously identified as a major threat to traditional publishing, and a review of this area demonstrates that greater sharing of content is empowering librarians and academics to take a stronger stand in publisher negotiations. OA continues to be debated, and a review of responses to Plan S (the most coordinated policy to date) demonstrates conflicting views within academia, funders, and publishers. OA has yet to revolutionize the existing business models. Similarly, monograph publishing remains slow to evolve, although there are increasing initiatives to adopt more open, and online, models. The conclusion of this review is that libraries are likely to be the key promoters of change in the publishing environment and are more influential than other players in forcing evolution. 相似文献
10.
欧美出版社开放存取期刊论文处理费研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
论文处理费伴随着开放存取期刊的出现而进入公众视野。20世纪末,开放存取期刊由于没有成熟的商业盈利模式,国际上知名的出版社均对这种新型数字出版方式表示过疑虑。而现今,传统出版集团相继发行各自的开放存取平台,这主要得益于论文处理费的推行。本文介绍欧美各大知名出版社旗下开放存取期刊论文处理费的相关收费情况,分析论文处理费收取的完整体系,以期为国内学术期刊开放存取平台的发展提供策略建议。 相似文献
11.
12.
- Innovative business models to complement or replace traditional models of funding academic publishing are currently proliferating.
- Not relying solely on one source of funding is a key factor in sustainability.
- Pay what you can afford (PWYCA) is a new model for article processing charges (APCs) providing both a revenue stream and an opportunity to raise awareness of the cost of publishing amongst authors.
- Treating a journal as part of an overall enterprise rather than as a stand‐alone business contributes significantly to its sustainability.
13.
掠夺性科技期刊与科技期刊中掠夺性现象的特征研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
近年来,由于开放存取(OA)出版模式的兴起,掠夺性科技期刊的出现也引起国内外学者的关注。国内科技期刊中也存在着类似的管理和学术信誉差、商业利益至上的现象,并对正常的科研成果和出版资源形成了干扰和掠夺。本文将这些存在于国内外科技期刊中的掠夺现象一并回顾和总结,认为一方面国内科技期刊从业者,应重视和适应新兴OA期刊的发展趋势,另一方面相关科研管理部门也应逐步建立措施,完善掠夺性期刊预警制度。 相似文献
14.
Jingfeng XIA 《Learned Publishing》2015,28(1):69-74
This study examines the payment policies of a list of standalone predatory open access journals available on scholarlyoa.com . It is found that 72% do charge article publication fees (APCs), which is a higher percentage than found in DOAJ journals. The mean number of articles published during 2013 was 227, but ranged from 4 to 2,286 articles. The majority of journals charge low APCs and can be assumed to have modest annual incomes. There was no correlation between the amount of APC charged and the number of articles published. Comparing the number of journals charging APCs compared to the percentage from DOAJ, the findings suggest a connection between predatory practices and charging author fees. However, a comprehensive assessment of the dynamics of open access journal publishing beyond author charges should be done to avoid using APCs alone as a measure of whether a journal is predatory or not. 相似文献
15.
在开放存取(OA)的期刊出版时代,学术期刊的出版、发行和运营会遇到哪些问题,近些年国外学术期刊的积极探索和实践已初步给出了一些提示。首先,学术期刊面临经费问题,尽管期刊可以有多种经费来源,但审稿和制作费用、邮寄费用、在线提交和审稿系统的费用等均需覆盖,采取何种OA模式以及何种运营策略,对打造高品质的学术期刊至关重要。其次,传统期刊的门槛和影响力也将受到一定冲击从而发生改变,把握OA出版模式对现有期刊、学术传播和科研等方面可能的冲击和影响,以及给新生期刊带来的机遇和空间,对打造有影响力的学术期刊非常关键。 相似文献
16.
While many agree that society as a whole, the progress of science, education, health care, patients, and policy makers would benefit tremendously from making access to research publications and data freely available to students, researchers, physicians and even the public, particularly in the case of publicly funded research, many questions regarding the future of the author-pays journal model to publish in open access journals remain unanswered, especially since article processing charges (APCs) fund peer review and publishing costs. Unlike the subscriber-pays traditional publishing model, the inherent interest in charging authors APCs as publication costs to have their work peer reviewed by experts in their field raises many concerns including the potential abuse by predatory publishers who may spot opportunities for profit, the objectivity and credibility of peer review, and the viability of this model in the light of rapidly evolving publishing practices and venues. In this piece, we discuss some challenges that may threaten the survival of the author-pays journal publishing model, evolving the “publish or perish” into a “pay to publish or perish” model. 相似文献
17.
Stephen PINFIELD 《Learned Publishing》2013,26(4):285-302
This paper provides an analysis of the attitudes and activities of UK medical research charities in relation to open access (OA). Both quantitative and qualitative data are presented derived from a recent survey of charities covering areas such as policy development, funding arrangements, and business process design for OA. Positions on key issues including green and gold OA, funding article‐processing charges (APCs), and publication licences are assessed. Modelling of potential APCs as a percentage of overall annual research spend is undertaken to show possible costs of a charged‐for gold system. Medical research charities clearly regard OA as important and some see it as an opportunity to further their mission. However, many expressed significant concerns particularly about the costs and expertise required to support OA. Further co‐ordination of policy development and action across the sector and with other stakeholders is recommended in order to help ensure optimal implementation of OA. 相似文献
18.
19.
The author‐pays model (open access publishing funded through author charges) is dependent on authors having access to financial support at the time their research papers are accepted. We conducted an author survey to determine the availability of external funding for publication charges at different points in the research process. Of the 377/524 (72%) who responded, 62% (233/377) received external funding to support their study, but with notable differences between journals. Only 25% (95/377) could withdraw funds from a grant at the time of paper acceptance. The grant was closed at this time for almost half (105/233, 45%) of those who were externally funded. Non‐externally funded research was largely supported through departmental resources (56%, 80/144) or carrying out research in own time (63%, 91/144). To conclude, a large proportion of published research is not externally funded, and many funded researchers do not have access to financial support at the time their paper is accepted for publication. 相似文献
20.
Hajar Sotudeh Hakimeh Arabzadeh Mahdieh Mirzabeigi 《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2019,45(4):377-385
Hybrid open access journals generally authorize self-archiving along with Author-pays model. Given the dependence of the Author-pays model on APCs paid by authors, it is expected to have a negative association with the free-of-charge Green model. By exploring a sample of 52,150 papers published in 47 Elsevier's hybrid journals, the study compares the OA models' citation performances to non-open access (NOA) model's and investigates the relationship between the quantities of their papers.Three OA groups are identified, including Green-only, APC-only and Green-APC. The OA papers show a citation advantage over the NOA articles, despite their lower number. The mixed APC-Green, gains the highest citation compared to the three other access models. However, the number of Green and APC-funded papers are revealed to have a negative association. Although, the combination of the Green and APC models magnifies the impact of OA papers, the inverse association between the quantities of their papers signifies that the lower number of the latter can be partially explained by the prevalence of the former. The results help academic librarians involved in advocating and managing OA to better understand authors' behaviors towards OA models and adopt a more supportive role for OA according to their preferences. 相似文献