Heather, Personally, I think that any statement that says that most OA journals do not charge an APC needs to be set alongside the following blog post by Hilda Bastian:
http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2018/04/02/a-reality-check-on-author-access-to-open-access-publishing/ Extract: 'Technically, the “most journals don’t charge authors” statement could well be true. Most open access journals may not charge authors. The source that’s used to support the claim is generally DOAJ – the Directory of Open Access Journals. One of the pieces of meta-data for journals in DOAJ is whether or not the journal levies an APC – an author processing charge for an open access (OA) publication. But I think this is a data framing that’s deeply misleading. And it does harm. As long as people can argue that there are just *so many* options for fee-free publishing, then there will be less of a sense of urgency about eliminating, or at least drastically reducing, APCs. As Kyle Siler and colleagues show in the field of global health research, the APC is adding a new stratification of researchers globally, between those who can afford open publishing in highly regarded journals, and those who can’t.' Richard On 25 April 2018 at 15:16, Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > Correction: Chris, you have the proportion of OA journals with APCs in > reverse. Data and calculations follow. > > 73% of fully OA journals (about three quarters) do not charge APCs. > > To calculate go to DOAJ Advanced Search, select journals / articles select > journals, and click on Article Processing Charges. As of today, April 25, > 2108, the response to the DOAJ question of whether a journal has an APC is: > > 8,250: no (73%) > 2,979 yes (26%) > 65: no information (.5%) > > Total # of journals in DOAJ: 11,294 > (Note rounding error) > > OA journals with no APCs have a variety of business models. Direct and > indirect sponsorship appears to be common. For example in Canada our Social > Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) has an Aid to Scholarly > Journals Program. Journals can apply for grants; these applications go > through a journal-level peer review process. This program has been in place > for many years. Originally all supported journals were subscription-based. > The trend is towards open access, with many journals now fully OA and all > or almost all have free access after an embargo period. > > I recommend this model as a means of support for open access journals that > also ensure high-level academic quality control. Regions with no existing > program in place would probably find it easier to start with an OA > requirement than those with legacy programs like SSHRC. > > Local journals are important to ensure publishing venues are available for > research of local significance. Canadian law, politics, culture, history, > local environmental and social conditions are important matters to study, > but not high priority for readers outside Canada. Articles on these topics > risk rejection from international journal due to selection based on reader > interest rather than the quality or importance of the work. > > Local publishing does not exclude global scholarly engagement. Canada has > a large francophone population; our researchers in language, culture, and > history often work with scholars in West Africa, France, Haiti, Belgium, > etc. > > For Canada's arctic researchers, "local" has geographic rather than local > significance. > > This is reflected in authorship and editorial boards. A journal hosted and > with editorial leadership in Canada will often include international > content and reviewers. Journals produced locally can be read anywhere, > especially if they are open access. > > best, > > Heather Morrison > Associate Professor, University of Ottawa School of Information Studies > Sustaining the Knowledge Commons - a SSHRC Insight Project > Sustainingknowledgecommons.org > -------- Original message -------- > From: Chris Zielinski <ch...@chriszielinski.com> > Date: 2018-04-25 6:38 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: richard.poyn...@cantab.net > Cc: goal@eprints.org > Subject: Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from Egypt > with Mahmoud Khalifa > > Richard, > > In this context, you may be interested in a post I recently submitted to > the Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) list in the context of a HIFA > discussion of this topic: > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > To: HIFA - Healthcare Information For All <h...@dgroups.org> > Date: 18 April 2018 at 19:33 > Subject: Re: [hifa] Open Access Author Processing Charges (3) > > In the bad old days before Open Access (OA), a developing country author > wrote a paper and submitted it to a journal and, if the paper was good > enough, the generous people at the journal organized peer review, > redid/redesigned the tables and most of the graphics, and maybe even did > some language editing - at no cost to the author. Then they published the > journal, charging for access to the paper version and pay-walling any > online version. From the author's perspective, thus, there was no barrier > to publication, although there were cost barriers to reading the paper > subsequently, which was particularly onerous in poorer countries. So the > situation in developing countries was good for authors - who simply had to > write well - and bad for librarians and readers, who had to find the money > to buy the content. > > Now that Open Access is making serious inroads, we are finding the > situation reversed - librarians and readers bask in an avalanche of > cost-free online papers, while authors are scrambling to find the resources > to pay for publication.From the commentary on this list it is clear that > authors in developing countries are being restrained from publishing by the > "Article Processing Charge" (APC). > > Zoe Mullan, Editor of The Lancet Global Health makes the point that "we > assume that this cost will be borne by the funding body". This seems to be > rather more likely in industrialized countries than in developing ones. > > Basic research is much more frequently carried out in industrialized > countries and supported by the sort of international funding that pays for > papers. But the kind of health research that is essential in developing > countries - health services and health systems research - is generally > undertaken by local institutions and universities. This is a reason for > serious concern, as the economic model of OA appears to be blocking the > most important local research. I would add that this research needs to be > published internationally, not just locally, in order to attract opinions, > input and (in some cases) validation and consensus from the global health > community. > > Many OA journals have special rates, flexibilities and waivers for writers > from developing countries. It is also true that about a quarter of the OA > journals do not charge an APC at all - I presume they pay for their work by > sales of their print editions in industrialized countries, thus enabling > those in other countries free access to the online version. > > Incidentally, this is not just an issue for developing country writers - I > am a non-institutional writer in an industrialized country, writing papers > which are not based on funded research, and it is a real hardship to find > APC money to pay for my papers. > > Best, > > Chris > > Chris Zielinski > ch...@chriszielinski.com > Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and > http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com > Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net > > On 25 April 2018 at 08:47 Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net> > wrote: > > To try and get a sense of how open access looks from different parts of > the world, particularly as the strategy of engineering a global “flip” of > subscription journals to a pay-to-publish gold OA model gains more > traction, I am interested in talking to open access advocates in different > parts of the world, ideally by means of matched interviews. > > > > Earlier this month, for instance, I published a Q&A with Jeff > MacKie-Mason, UC Berkeley’s University Librarian and Chief Digital > Scholarship Officer. (https://poynder.blogspot.co. > uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-from.html). > > > > Yesterday, I published a matched Q&A covering the same themes with Mahmoud > Khalifa, a librarian at the Library of Congress Cairo Office, and DOAJ > Ambassador for the Middle East and Persian Gulf. This interview can be read > here: https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and- > open-access-view-from_24.html > > > > I have also been asking those I interview to comment on the answers given > by their matched interviewee. Mahmoud Khalifa’s response to the > MacKie-Mason Q&A is incorporated in this post: > https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and- > open-access-mahmoud.html > > > > I am open to suggestions for further matched interviews. > > > > Richard Poynder > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Richard Poynder www.richardpoynder.co.uk
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
