共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 205 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.
Hybrid Journals: Ensuring Systematic and Standard Discoverability of the Latest Open Access Articles
An important current challenge for research information providers is ensuring the automated discovery of Open Access (OA) content in hybrid journals. We found no evidence of discovery services that are able to systematically identify the crucially important free full-text availability of OA articles regardless of where and how such articles have been published (i.e., in fully OA journals or in hybrid journals). A solution is important because hybrid journals are proliferating and consequently the chances of missing OA articles is real and is happening. Nearly all of the major publishers now provide such journals in order to take advantage of recent changes in research funder requirements, and to be competitive in the new OA business model. By working with a group of scholarly publisher partners and by using standard metadata elements that publishers are already familiar with, we show a systematic and standardized manner to identify OA at the article level. Our proposal is to embed OA-related elements in the metadata freely exposed by publishers for aggregators and discovery services. For example, in the Table of Content (TOC) Really Simple Syndication feeds the publishers use to announce new journal issues and content. Based on the initial results obtained, we discuss the capabilities of our solution, and evaluate the impact produced by our application in the systematic discoverability of OA content from the participating hybrid journals, using an implementation done with the freely available journal current awareness service—JournalTOCs. 相似文献
3.
Jennifer Huffman 《期刊图书馆员》2017,73(3-4):248-268
Similar to a study by Nelson and Huffman on the presence of predatory journals in aggregator databases, this study presents the results of a comparison between Jeffrey Beall’s List of Standalone Journals and a group of six commercial publisher and open access journal packages. A subject analysis of the predatory journals listed on Beall’s standalone journal list was also conducted along with an analysis of the trend in predatory publisher and journal growth. In the end, only a small number of predatory journals were found to exist within the publisher packages. The subject analysis of the journals on Beall’s standalone journal list revealed that most of the journals on his list were either multidisciplinary in nature or allied with science, medicine/health, and technology subjects. However, because the number of predatory journals discovered in the publisher packages was too small, a meaningful statement about the predominant subject areas of the predatory content found in the publisher packages could not be made. Finally, within the context of the publishing world at large, based on the historical development of predatory publishers and their journals, a dramatic increase in their growth is forecast. Because Beall’s lists of predatory publishers and standalone journals were often used by authors for guidance but are no longer available, several tools for evaluation of publisher and journal quality are summarized. 相似文献
4.
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
5.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2022,48(3):102418
Jeffrey Beall, a US librarian, coined the term “predatory publishing” specifically to describe a movement or phenomenon of open access (OA) journals and publishers that he and others believed displayed exploitative and unscholarly principles. Using a blog to transmit those ideas, and profiling specific cases using blacklists, one of the most polemic aspects of Beall's blog was its tendency to attract and incite academic radicalism. Beall targeted both publishers and standalone journals, but how he precisely determined that an OA journal or a publisher was predatory was in many cases an ambiguity. Beall's deficient and highly subjective criteria, as well as those blacklists' incapacity to clearly distinguish low quality OA publishers from predatory ones, may have negatively impacted the operations of several Beall-blacklisted OA journals and publishers. Freedom of speech that embraces prejudice, via Beall's blog, and the establishment of “predatory” blacklists, are enhanced discriminatory ideologies that continue to be carried downstream from Beall to and by other like-minded individuals and groups who proliferate academic divisiveness and may also be formalizing and institutionalizing a culture of discriminative philosophies by cloning Beall's blacklists and encouraging their continued use. 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
外文电子期刊数据库捆绑纸本订购模式分析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
随着期刊市场纸本与电子共同出版模式的形成,以及期刊出版业的垄断集团化,为了获取高额利润,一些出版商采取纸本与电子版捆绑销售模式来销售电子期刊数据库,其捆绑模式有保留现有纸本订购、规定一个最低订购额以及提供E-only和纸本+电子捆绑三种形式。随着图书馆馆藏数字化,出版商的纸本捆绑销售出现了一些转变,有的出版商允许用户将纸本刊转成电子刊,有的允许用户取消纸本载体转而支付电子内容费,有的取消纸本捆绑启用E-only模式,但这些转变并没有给用户节省多少费用,并没有在真正意义上取消纸本捆绑,只是出版商换了一种销售方式而已。 相似文献
9.
10.
11.
S计划的提出将开放获取(Open Access, OA)提升到一个新的高度,对于中文学术期刊的OA必须深入思考。在OA2020的推进过程中,学术出版不同环节经历着长期的博弈和努力,而绝大多数中文学术期刊由于存在着主观和客观上的障碍,只在自建网站上实施了OA。为了推进高质量中文学术期刊金色OA并达到知识普惠社会发展的要求,笔者认为应该允许相关期刊收取合理的文章处理费,充分利用现有的OA平台,并探索在期刊集成平台上的OA。 相似文献
12.
13.
14.
This article describes a program session that focused on publishers’ experiences launching Open Access (OA) journals and lessons learned. The speakers discussed the current journal marketplace, current journal business models, and the possible shape of the OA landscape and marketplace in the future. 相似文献
15.
随着开放科学运动轰轰烈烈地开展,旨在将支付给学术期刊出版社的费用由订阅费转为出版费的转换协议成为关注的焦点。文章首先从电子期刊价格问题、开放获取的进展状况两个方面梳理开放获取转换协议兴起的背景、转换协议的类型,在此基础上阐述为推动开放获取转换协议的签署,各国所采取的措施及签约实例。研究表明,依靠APC实现完全即时的开放获取很难实现,国家层面可以考虑加入S计划,并采取措施在与出版商的谈判中占据主导地位。 相似文献
16.
17.
This study examines the role of learned societies as publishers in Finland based on bibliographic information from two Finnish databases. We studied the share of learned societies' peer‐reviewed publication channels (serials with ISSNs and book publishers with distinct ISBN roots) and outputs (journal articles, conference articles, book articles, and monographs) in Finland. We also studied the share of learned societies' open access (OA) publications. In 2018, there were 402 peer‐reviewed publication channels in Finland. In 2011–2017, the number of peer‐reviewed publications from scholars working in Finnish universities and published in Finland was 17,724. Learned societies publish around 70% of these channels and publications, mostly in the fields of humanities and social sciences. Learned societies in Finland focus on journal publishing, whereas university presses and commercial publishers focus on book publishing. In 2016–2017, 38.4% of the learned societies' outputs were OA. This study concludes that Finnish learned societies play an integral part in national scholarly publishing. They play an especially important role in journal publishing, as commercial publishers produce only 2.6% of Finnish journals and book series, and only 1.4% of the journal articles from scholars working in Finnish universities. 相似文献
18.
Metrics on open access (OA) availability of content published in scholarly journals (i.e. content licences, copyright ownership, and publisher‐stipulated self‐archiving permissions) are still scarce. This study implements the four core variables of the recently published Open Access Spectrum (OAS) (reader rights, reuse rights, copyright, and author posting rights) to measure the level of openness in all 1,728 Spanish scholarly journals listed in the Spanish national DULCINEA database at the end of 2015. Data exported from the database and used as variables for the analysis were: journal research area, type of publisher, type of access, self‐archiving and reuse policy, and type of Creative Commons (CC) licence used. Out of the total number of journals (1,728), 1,285 (74.5%) published their articles OA immediately after initial publication and thus received the maximum OAS score for reader rights; 37.5% of all journals used CC licences, and 79.5% allowed self‐archiving in some form. In 72% of journals, authors retained or publishers granted broad rights, which included author reuse and authorization rights (for others to reuse), whilst 13.5% did not specify any terms for copyright transfer. Similar studies could be carried out on other countries as this would enable comparisons of the general adoption and form of openness in different parts of the world. 相似文献
19.
20.
In recent years academic journal publishers have explored a variety of new business models. The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress), founded by professors in 1999, now publishes 39 electronic‐only journals. bepress's own model rests on three principles: improve, but do not break, the traditional journal; allow non‐subscribers to read articles as guests; and offer reasonable and sustainable prices to libraries. This model has resulted in steady growth. Even in the shifting landscape of open access, there remains a place for professional journal publishers who offer innovative improvements, traditionally qualified content, and reasonable prices. 相似文献