Open Access Article Processing Charges Research Articles

Weighing the Cost: Open Access Article Processing Charges, Waivers, and Society Membership

Weighing the Cost: Open Access Article Processing Charges, Waivers, and Society Membership

Factors Associated With Open Access Publishing Costs in Oncology Journals: Cross-sectional Observational Study.

Open access (OA) publishing represents an exciting opportunity to facilitate the dissemination of scientific information to global audiences. However, OA publishing is often associated with significant article processing charges (APCs) for authors, which may thus serve as a barrier to publication. In this observational cohort study, we aimed to characterize the landscape of OA publishing in oncology and, further, identify characteristics of oncology journals that are predictive of APCs. We identified oncology journals using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database. All journals with an OA publication option and APC data openly available were included. We searched journal websites and tabulated journal characteristics, including APC amount (in US dollars), OA model (hybrid vs full), 2-year impact factor (IF), H-index, number of citable documents, modality/treatment specific (if applicable), and continent of origin. All APCs were converted to US-dollar equivalents for final analyses. Selecting variables with significant associations in the univariable analysis, we generated a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics independently associated with OA APC amount. An audit of a random 10% sample of the data was independently performed by 2 authors to ensure data accuracy, precision, and reproducibility. Of 367 oncology journals screened, 251 met the final inclusion criteria. The median APC was US $2957 (IQR 1958-3450). The majority of journals (n=156, 62%) adopted the hybrid OA publication model and were based in Europe (n=119, 47%) or North America (n=87, 35%). The median (IQR) APC for all journals was US $2957 (1958-3540). Twenty-five (10%) journals had APCs greater than US $4000. There were 10 (4%) journals that offered OA publication with no publication charge. Univariable testing showed that journals with a greater number of citable documents (P<.001), higher 2-year IF (P<.001), higher H-index (P<.001), and those using the hybrid OA model (P<.001), or originating in Europe or North America (P<.001) tended to have higher APCs. In our multivariable model, the number of citable documents (β=US $367, SD US $133; P=.006), 2-year IF (US $1144, SD US $177; P<.001), hybrid OA publishing model (US $991, SD US $189; P<.001), and North American origin (US $838, SD US $186; P<.001) persisted as significant predictors of processing charges. OA publication costs are greater in oncology journals that publish more citable articles, use the hybrid OA model, have a higher IF, and are based in North America or Europe. These findings may inform targeted action to help the oncology community fully appreciate the benefits of open science.

Access.

Access.

Change and growth in open access journal publishing and charging trends 2011–2021

AbstractThis study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 to 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon and Björk. Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data are drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data. Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per‐journal APC increased slightly, from 906 to 958 USD, while the per‐article average increased from 904 to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC, and pricing trends. Half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de‐listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation. The university sector may be the most promising approach to economically sustainable no‐fee OA journals. Universities publish many OA journals, nearly half of OA articles, tend not to charge APCs and when APCs are charged, the prices are very low on average.

Assessing the quality of pharmacy journals accessible to community pharmacists.

Low-quality journals are problematic for the scientific community. They may not provide thorough editorial and peer review services, and may spread low-quality information. Community pharmacists are limited in research time and resources, and are particularly at risk to access low-quality information published in some journals. This may negatively impact their professional decision-making and patient care. This study aimed to assess pharmaceutical journals readily accessible to community pharmacists and classify those journals using multiple quality criteria. A Google search was performed using defined English and German keywords. The following quality indicators were utilized: (i) whether the journal was listed on a blacklist or whitelist, (ii) whether the journal or its publisher was a member of a publishing organization, (iii) evaluation of details on the journal's website, (iv) indexation of the journal, and (v) use of journal metrics. Three hundred and eight journals were analysed; 105 (34%) were classified as "high-quality" and 203 (66%) were classified as "other". Forty-six journals (15%) were listed on a blacklist and 152 journals (49%) were listed on a whitelist. Most journals were headquartered in India (39%), followed by the USA (24%) and Europe (20%). Journals classified as "high-quality" charged higher open access article processing charges (APCs) (median APC: USD $960; interquartile range (IQR): USD $27 to USD $3,000) than journals classified as "other" (USD $100, IQR: USD $13 to USD $547), p = 0.003. Similarly, journals indexed in established databases (MEDICUS, MEDLINE, PUBMED, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, or SCOPUS) charged higher APCs (median APC: USD $600, IQR: USD $4 to USD $2,500) than journals indexed in non-standard databases (median APC: USD $100, IQR: USD $41 to USD $581), p = 0.001. The results indicate that community pharmacists are at risk of accessing journals of questionable quality. Patient care may be negatively impacted by community pharmacists basing their professional decisions on evidence gained from some sources of lower quality. Community pharmacists and other pharmacists and researchers can use the tools and quality indicators provided in this study to preliminarily determine the quality and reliability of a journal to assist their professional decision-making and patient care.

Factors associated with open access publishing costs in oncology journals.

11032 Background: The open access (OA) publishing model represents an exciting opportunity to facilitate dissemination of scientific information to global audiences. In contrast to many traditional models, which require readers to pay subscription fees or rely upon institutional subscriptions for article access, the OA model grants free access to all consumers. However, OA publication is often associated with significant article processing charges (APCs) for authors, which may thus serve as a barrier to publication. In this investigation, we aimed to identify journal-level factors associated with OA publication costs in oncology journals. Methods: We identified oncology journals using the SCImago Journal &amp; Country Rank database. All journals under the “Oncology” category that offer an OA publishing option with APC data openly available were included. For all journals, we searched journal websites and tabulated journal characteristics, including APC amount (USD), OA model (hybrid vs full), journal 2-year impact factor (IF), H-index, number of citable documents, primary treatment modality (surgery, radiation, medical, non-specific), treatment site (e.g. breast, etc), and continent of origin. Pearson correlation was used to evaluate univariate linear relationships between variables; for variables with significant correlation, we generated a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics independently associated with OA APC amount. Results: Of 367 oncology journals screened, 266 met final inclusion criteria. The median APC was 2810 USD (range 0 – 5200). On univariate linear correlation regression testing, journals with the full OA model (p &lt; 0.001), higher journal IF (p &lt; 0.001), higher H-index (p &lt; 0.001), greater number of published articles (p &lt; 0.001), and those from North America or Europe (p &lt; 0.001) tended to have higher OA publishing costs. When these co-variates were analyzed in a multiple regression model, only full OA status (p &lt; 0.001), higher IF (p &lt; 0.001), and North American or European origin (p &lt; 0.001) persisted as independently associated with greater OA APC. Conclusions: Large APCs may serve as a barrier to OA publication and therefore create or exacerbate disparities among scientific investigators seeking to share their research. In this investigation, we find that OA publication costs are greater in oncology journals that utilize the hybrid OA model, have higher IF, and are based in North America or Europe. These findings may inform targeted action to help the oncology community fully appreciate the benefits of open science.

A Paywall Coming Down, Another Being Erected: Open Access Article Processing Charges (APC) may Prevent Some Researchers from Publishing in Leading Journals

A Paywall Coming Down, Another Being Erected: Open Access Article Processing Charges (APC) may Prevent Some Researchers from Publishing in Leading Journals

Three new suggested guidelines for increased transparency regarding open access article processing charges (APCs)

The article processing charge (APC) lies at the heart of the gold open access (GOA) business model. Small and larger society-based, as well as commercial publishers, rely – to different extents – on the APC and the GOA model to thrive. There is wide debate regarding what amount of APC is considered to be exploitative, and the issue of low APCs is often erroneously associated with “predatory” OA publishing. Independent of this debate, there is still, surprisingly, considerable opacity related to the APC used to cover the cost of GOA. In a bid to increase transparency, a simple 3-point plan at increasing academic and financial transparency of authors and journals/publishers regarding APCs is proposed: 1) indicate which author paid the APC in multi-author papers; 2) indicate the value of the APC paid; 3) provide online proof or certification of APC payment, including the indication of any discounts or waivers.

Funding Sources for Open Access Article Processing Charges in the Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities in the United States

Article processing charges (APCs) are one method of many to ensure open access to research literature, but studies that explore the funding sources for such payments, especially as related to open access publications in the arts, humanities, and social sciences, have been limited. This study seeks to understand the range of funding sources that are available and used by faculties in these disciplines to pay for APCs associated with publishing in open access journals, as well as attitudes towards and awareness of available institutional funds that may inflect future engagement with open access publishing. The authors distributed a survey to faculty who had an open access journal article published in 2017 from three doctoral granting, high research activity universities in the United States. Twenty-two scholars participated in the final survey, ten of whom indicated that they paid an APC for their publication. While the results cannot make generalizations about funding sources, they do suggest that both the prevalence of APCs as well as attitudes about open access engagement may be influenced by disciplinary self-identification. This research contributes to discussions around the future of open access funding models as well as to disciplinary outreach regarding APC funding for journal publications.

The Potential of a Cost-Per-Use Analysis to Assess the Value of Library Open-Access Funds

A Review of:&#x0D; Hampson, C., &amp; Stregger, E. (2017). Measuring cost per use of library-funded open access article processing charges: Examination and implications of one method. Journal of Librarianship &amp; Scholarly Communication, 5(1), eP2182. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2182 &#x0D; Abstract&#x0D; Objective – To determine the feasibility and potential effects of a cost-per-use analysis of library funds dedicated to open access.&#x0D; Design – Cost-per-use analysis, case study.&#x0D; Setting – PLOS and BioMed Central.&#x0D; Subjects – 591 articles published in PLOS ONE, 165 articles published in PLOS Biology, and 17 articles published in BioMed Central.&#x0D; Methods – Three specific examples are provided of how academic libraries can employ a cost-per-use analysis in order to determine the impact of library-based open access (OA) funds. This method is modeled after the traditional cost-per-use method of analyzing a library collection, and facilitates comparison to other non-OA items. The first example consisted of using a formula dividing the total library-funded article processing charges (APCs) by the total global use of the specific PLOS journal articles that were funded. The second and third examples demonstrated what a library-funded OA membership to BioMed Central would cost alone, and then with APCs that cost could be divided by the total usage of the funded articles to determine cost-per-use.&#x0D; Main Results – The authors found both of the examples described in the article to be potential ways of determining cost-per-use of OA articles, with some limitations. For instance, counting article usage through the publisher’s website may not capture the true usage of an article, as it does not take altmetrics into consideration. In addition, article-level data is not always readily available. In addition, the cost-per-use of OA articles was found to be very low, ranging from $0.01 to $1.51 after the first three years of publication based on the cost of library-funded APCs. The second and third methods revealed a cost-per-use of $0.10 using membership-only payments, while using the cost of membership plus APCs resulted in a cost-per-use of $0.41.&#x0D; Conclusion – Libraries may wish to consider using these methods for demonstrating the value of OA funds in terms of return on investment, as these techniques allow for direct comparison to the usage of traditional journals. However, several barriers need to be overcome in how article-level usage is obtained in order for these methods to be more accurate and efficient. In addition, while the authors report that "The specific examples in this study suggest that OA APCs may compare favorably to traditional publishing when considering value for money based on cost per use," they also caution that the study was not designed to answer the question if the ROI is greater for OA publications than for traditional articles, stating that "...the data in this study should not be interpreted as a verification of such an argument, as this study was not designed to answer that question, nor can it do so given the limitations on the data. This paper was designed to present and illustrate a method. Further study would be necessary to verify or refute this possibility" (p. 15).

Measuring Cost per Use of Library-Funded Open Access Article Processing Charges: Examination and Implications of One Method

INTRODUCTION Libraries frequently support their open access (OA) fund using money from their collections budget. Interest in assessment of OA funds is arising. Cost per use is a common method to assess library collections expenditures. OA article processing charges (APCs) are a one-time cost for global, perpetual use. Article level metrics provide data on global, cumulative article level usage. This article examines a method and discusses the limitations and implications of using article level metrics to calculate cost per use for OA APCs. METHODS Using different APC models from two publishers, PLOS and BioMed Central, this article presents a cost per use formula for each model. RESULTS The formula for each model is demonstrated with available data. The examples suggest a very low cost per use for OA APCs after only three years. DISCUSSION Several limitations exist to obtaining article level data currently, including the nature of open access and accessibility of the data. OA articles’ usage levels are high and include use from altruistic access. Cost per use comparison with traditional publishing models is possible; however, comparison between different OA expenditures with very low costs per use may not be helpful. CONCLUSION Article level metrics can provide a means to measure cost per use of OA APCs. Libraries need increased access to article level usage data. They will also need to develop new benchmarks and expectations to evaluate APC payments, given higher usage levels for OA articles and considering altruistic access.

Open Access Article Processing Charges (OA APC) Longitudinal Study 2016 Dataset

This article documents Open access article processing charges (OA APC) Main 2016. This dataset was developed as part of a longitudinal study of the minority (about a third) of the fully open access journals that use the APC business model. APC data for 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013 are primarily obtained from publishers’ websites, a process that requires analytic skill as many publishers offer a diverse range of pricing options, including multiple currencies and/or differential pricing by article type, length or work involved and/or discounts for author contributions to editing or the society publisher or based on perceived ability to pay. This version of the dataset draws heavily from the work of Walt Crawford, and includes his entire 2011–2015 dataset; in particular Crawford’s work has made it possible to confirm “no publication fee” status for a large number of journals. DOAJ metadata for 2016 and 2014 and a 2010 APC sample provided by Solomon and Björk are part of the dataset. Inclusion of DOAJ metadata and article counts by Crawford and Solomon and Björk provide a basis for studies of factors such as journal size, subject, or country of publication that might be worth testing for correlation with business model and/or APC size.

Open Access Article Processing Charges (OA APC) Longitudinal Study 2015 Preliminary Dataset

This article documents Open access article processing charges (OA APC) longitudinal study 2015 preliminary dataset available for download from the OA APC dataverse [1]. This dataset was gathered as part of Sustaining the Knowledge Commons (SKC), a research program funded by Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The overall goal of SKC is to advance our collective knowledge about how to transition scholarly publishing from a system dependent on subscriptions and purchase to one that is fully open access. The OA APC preliminary data 2015 Version 12 dataset was developed as one of the lines of research of SKC, a longitudinal study of the minority (about a third) of the fully open access journals that use this business model. The original idea was to gather data during an annual two-week census period. The volume of data and growth in this area makes this an impractical goal. For this reason, we are posting this preliminary dataset in case it might be helpful to others working in this area. Future data gathering and analyses will be conducted on an ongoing basis. We encourage others to share their data as well. In order to merge datasets, note that the two most critical elements for matching data and merging datasets are the journal title and ISSN.

Why an open access publishing cooperative can work

Why an open access publishing cooperative can work

Establecimiento de un mercado justo de pagos por publicar en acceso abierto

Resena del informe: Bjork, Bo-Christer ; Solomon, David J. (2014). Developing an effective market for open access article processing charges. Final report to a consortium of research funders comprising Jisc, Research Libraries UK, Research Councils UK, Wellcome Trust, Austrian Science Fund, Luxembourg National Research Fund and Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics. http://goo.gl/k2oeqX

Open Access Article Processing Charges: DOAJ Survey May 2014

As of May 2014, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) listed close to ten thousand fully open access, peer reviewed, scholarly journals. Most of these journals do not charge article processing charges (APCs). This article reports the results of a survey of the 2567 journals, or 26% of journals listed in DOAJ, that do have APCs based on a sample of 1432 of these journals. Results indicate a volatile sector that would make future APCs difficult to predict for budgeting purposes. DOAJ and publisher title lists often did not closely match. A number of journals were found on examination not to have APCs. A wide range of publication costs was found for every publisher type. The average (mean) APC of $964 contrasts with a mode of $0. At least 61% of publishers using APCs are commercial in nature, while many publishers are of unknown types. The vast majority of journals charging APCs (80%) were found to offer one or more variations on pricing, such as discounts for authors from mid to low income countries, differential pricing based on article type, institutional or society membership, and/or optional charges for extras such as English language editing services or fast track of articles. The complexity and volatility of this publishing landscape is discussed.