Article Processing Charges Research Articles

Article-Processing Fees and Subsidies: The Colonial Entanglement of Knowledge Production in South Africa—The Case of Gender-Based Violence Research

In this article, we studied the contribution of the current South African publishing ecosystem to the hierarchisation, elitism and monopolisation of knowledge production in social-justice studies, taking as an example the research area of gender-based violence (GBV). We examined the Sabinet database of articles published in South African journals on GBV between 2018 and 2022, and reviewed the pre- and post-production value chain related to the publication of these articles (especially the article page-fee structure and the governmental subsidy system). In addition, we couched this discussion in feminist decolonial critique. We conclude that the current publishing ecosystem—with the more or less active involvement and/or support of the government, journals and academics—greatly limits the diversity of voices able to contribute to the production of knowledge on GBV. This ecosystem hampers, minimises or even excludes the first-hand knowledge and experiences of those located outside of academic institutions (particularly, local researchers unaffiliated with South African universities, grassroot activists and members of non-governmental organisations). It conversely renders academics and the tertiary educational institutions which employ them as the only actors capable of benefiting financially from or contributing to the knowledge-production chain and, in return, feeding it. This cycle seems to propel the creation of an echo chamber of views, perspectives and opinions with academics and their tertiary educational institutions de facto acting as the only knowledge producers in the country. We propose that the solution to such an unjust situation is a radical decolonisation of the deeply epi-colonial South African publishing ecosystem.

K-Means clustering of dermatology journals: comparing the distribution of "free-to-publish" and "pay-to-publish" models.

This study investigates the impact of Free-to-Publish (F2P) versus Pay-to-Publish (P2P) models in dermatology journals, focusing on their differences in terms of journal metrics, Article Processing Charges (APCs), and Open Access (OA) status. Utilizing k-means clustering, the research evaluates dermatology journals based on SCImago Journal Rankings (SJR), H-Index, and Impact Factor (IF), and examines the correlation between these metrics, APCs, and OA status (Full or Hybrid). Data from the SCImago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report databases were used, and metrics from 106 journals were normalized and grouped into three tiers.The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.Conclusively, the study highlights the disparities in dermatology journals between F2P and P2P models and underscores the need for further research into authorship demographics and institutional affiliations in these journals. It also establishes the effectiveness of k-means clustering as a standardized method for assessing journal quality, which can reduce reliance on potentially biased individual metrics.

Article processing charges suppress the scholarship of doctoral students

The open access movement has drastically reconfigured the financial burdens of scholarly publishing. Yet, the influence of a marketized scholarly publishing system on doctoral education remains unexplored. I reflect on my own PhD candidature to illustrate how article processing charges disempower doctoral candidates. I argue that the current open access publishing model unfairly advantages candidates with personal, familial and/or institutional wealth. The inequalities imposed on doctoral students by our sectors’ current publishing habits ultimately bias who will be paid to produce and safeguard knowledge in the future. Doctoral students can no longer be ignored in debates over open access publishing.

Evaluating the Efficiency of Indonesian Library and Information Science Journals: A Data Envelopment and Bibliometric Analysis

This study evaluates the efficiency of Indonesian Library and Information Science journals indexed by SINTA by applying Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) using a Variable Return to Scale (VRS) model. The primary aim is to assess the performance of these journals to identify areas of strength and inefficiency. The study encompasses twenty-one journals, which served as decision-making units (DMUs). The input variables considered include Article Processing Charges (APC), Editorial Team, Number of Authors, and Number of Publications, while the output variables were Number of Citations and H5-Index. Data were collected from journal websites and the Sinta database covering 2018 to 2022. The analysis was conducted using MaxDEA software. An efficiency score of 1 indicated an efficient journal, whereas scores below 1 denoted inefficiency. The study reveals six journals as efficient: Jurnal Kajian Informasi & Perpustakaan, Khizanah Al-Hikmah: Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan, Informasi, dan Kearsipan, IQRA': Jurnal Perpustakaan dan Informasi, Bibliotech: Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan dan Informasi, PUBLIS (Publication Library and Information Science), and Imam Bonjol Journal: Kajian Ilmu Informasi dan Perpustakaan. However, most journals were found to be inefficient, with an average efficiency score of 0.809. These findings are significant as they provide valuable insights for journal editors and policymakers. The results offer guidance on optimizing resource allocation and developing strategies to enhance the quality and impact of scholarly publications within the Library and Information Science field.

Global Landscape of the Attack of Predatory Journals in Oncology.

Open-access publishing expanded opportunities to give visibility to research results but was accompanied by the proliferation of predatory journals (PJos) that offer expedited publishing but potentially compromise the integrity of research and peer review. To our knowledge, to date, there is no comprehensive global study on the impact of PJos in the field of oncology. A 29 question-based cross-sectional survey was developed to explore knowledge and practices of predatory publishing and analyzed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. Four hundred and twenty-six complete responses to the survey were reported. Almost half of the responders reported feeling pressure to publish from supervisors, institutions, and funding and regulatory agencies. The majority of authors were contacted by PJos through email solicitations (67.8%), with fewer using social networks (31%). In total, 13.4% of the responders confirmed past publications on PJo, convinced by fast editorial decision time, low article-processing charges, limited peer review, and for the promise of academic boost in short time. Over half of the participants were not aware of PJo detection tools. We developed a multivariable model to understand the determinants to publish in PJos, showing a significant correlation of practicing oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and predatory publishing (odds ratio [OR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 4.03]; P = .04). Having previous experience in academic publishing was not protective (OR, 3.81 [95% CI, 1.06 to 13.62]; P = .03). Suggestions for interventions included educational workshops, increasing awareness through social networks, enhanced research funding in LMICs, surveillance by supervisors, and implementation of institutional actions against responsible parties. The prevalence of predatory publishing poses an alarming problem in the field of oncology, globally. Our survey identified actionable risk factors that may contribute to vulnerability to PJos and inform guidance to enhance research capacity broadly.

A narrative review of the phenomenon of predatory journals to create awareness among researchers in veterinary medicine.

In recent years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of predatory journals has increased significantly. Predatory journals exploit the "open-access model" by engaging in deceptive practices such as charging high publication fees without providing the expected quality and performing insufficient or no peer review. Such behaviors undermine the integrity of scientific research and can result in researchers having trouble identifying reputable publication opportunities, particularly early-career researchers who struggle to understand and establish the correct criteria for publication in reputable journals. Publishing in journals that do not fully cover the criteria for scientific publication is also an ethical issue. This review aimed to describe the characteristics of predatory journals, differentiate between reliable and predatory journals, investigate the reasons that lead researchers to publish in predatory journals, evaluate the negative impact of predatory publications on the scientific community, and explore future perspectives. The authors also provide some considerations for researchers (particularly early-career researchers) when selecting journals for publication, explaining the role of metrics, databases, and artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation, with a specific focus on and relevance to publication in veterinary medicine.

Preprints to foster open Science

At ACI Avances en Ciencias e Ingenierias, we care deeply about open science. After all, we are an open access journal that does not charge an article processing charge, and all editors are volunteers who support open science practices. Our hosting and administrative costs are funded by Universidad San Francisco de Quito.
 In a new effort to strengthen our open science practices, we have launched a Preprints server, named Preprints ACI. Authors who send an article to ACI Avances en Ciencias e Ingenierias are encouraged to deposit their article as a preprint on the server. Authors from within and outside the community of Universidad San Francisco de Quito are also welcome to use our preprint server.

Impact of Open Access status on journal metrics in infectious diseases and clinical microbiology – A cross-sectional study

IntroductionWhile Open Access (OA) journals provide free access to articles, they entail high article processing charges (APC), limiting opportunities for young researchers and those from low-middle income countries to publish OA. MethodsCross-sectional study, evaluating APC and academic impact of full OA (FOA) journals in infectious diseases (ID) and clinical microbiology (CM) compared to hybrid journals. Data were collected from Journal Citation Reports and journals’ websites. ResultsAmong 255 journals, median APC was 2850 (interquartile range [IQR] 1325–3654$). Median APC for 120 FOA journals was significantly lower than for 119 hybrid journals (2000, IQR 648–2767$ versus 3550, IQR 2948–4120$, p < 0.001). FOA journals had lower citation numbers and impact metrics compared to hybrid journals. ConclusionWhile FOA ID/CM journals have lower APCs, they also lower academic impact compared to hybrid journals. These findings highlight the need for reforms in the publication process in view of achieving equitable data dissemination.

Researchers Expectations Towards Library Research Support Services (LRSS)

This cross-sectional study is aimed to identify the expectations and problems faced by faculty members and research scholars at Maharshi Dayanand University regarding library research support services (LRSS) under seven service dimensions. The research outcome reveals that the service most anticipated by the participants was ‘Database Services’ having the highest mean score, followed by ‘Infrastructure Facilities’ and ‘Institutional Repositories’. The least expected service was ‘Scholarly Communication Services’ which had the lowest mean score. The only service with significant differences between gender and qualifications was ‘Infrastructure Facilities’. In terms of challenges faced, the most noteworthy problems identified included inadequate funding for Article Processing Charges and limited access to computers in the library. Other problems included a lack of training in research support tools and ICT skills, lack of accessibility to library services from home, poor Internet connectivity, and lack of training/ consultation to use services. The library staff was reported to be helpful and supportive. The study provides insights into the expectations and problems of users in the context of LRSS. The study also highlights the imperative need for adequate funding for APCs and improved computer facilities, alongside targeted training initiatives for optimum use of research support tools and enhancing ICT skills to improve the efficacy of LRSS.

Dissemination of scientific information through open access by research scientists in a developing country

This study investigated the perceptions and factors that researchers had about Open Access (OA) publishing, specifically how it affected their decision to publish or not. The Diffusion of Innovation Theory by Rogers served as the study's main guide, and 15 research scientists from Ghana's Council of Scientific and Industrial Research's Crop Research Institute provided qualitative data for the study through semi-structured interviews and the interpretivist research paradigm. Convenience sampling was used to choose the participants, and thematic analysis was used to analyse and present the research results in themes. The study's conclusions showed that all of the participants benefited from OA and that they were all aware of its application for disseminating scientific information. High Article Processing Charges (APC) and credibility issues were also mentioned in the study as significant obstacles to using OA for the dissemination of scientific information. The study suggests that in order for scientists to use Open Access (OA) for the sharing of scientific information, they must be given the means to distinguish trustworthy journals from predatory ones.

Plan S and Open Access (OA) in Quebec: What Does the Revised FRQ OA Policy Mean for Researchers?

Objective – Our article examines the effects of Quebec’s provincial funding agency (FRQ)’s revised 2022 OA policy on researchers. Following FRQ’s participation as a cOAlition S funding agency, which involves endorsing Plan S principles, we provide an overview of the OA options for researchers. We examine these options under the FRQ 2019 and FRQ 2022 policy years, account for the effect of transformative agreements (TA) on OA publishing options, as well as the financial implications for researchers under the revised policy. Methods – The researchers extracted a list of FRQ-funded publications from years 2020 to 2022 using the DOI registration agency Crossref. Using this sample set, the researchers quantitatively analyzed OA options under the previous policy and the revised one, comparing the two. To determine the effect of transformative agreements (TAs)s, we reviewed current agreements offered through Canada’s national licensing agency Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN). Results ­– We found that the self-archiving method for open access (OA) is reduced under the revised 2022 policy. Our results lead us to anticipate the pressure felt by authors who will be required to pay article processing charges (APCs) to meet grant requirements. Conclusion – The current publishing patterns of FRQ-funded researchers are primarily concentrated in hybrid journals not covered by transformative agreements. As such, researchers will face additional financial costs should these publishing patterns continue. Concerted efforts among all stakeholders (researchers, universities, libraries, and funders) are needed to sustainably transition to immediate OA. French version – https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/id/eprint/993806/

Impact Evaluations of Articles in Current Drug Delivery based on Web of Science.

A total of 1534 and 308 articles were published in the journal Current Drug Delivery (CDD), from 2004 and 2019 to 2021, respectively. In this commentary, their impacts were analyzed based on search data about citation times in the Web of Science. These publications were categorized from different standpoints and evaluated in terms of their citations, particularly in the year 2021. The thematic, contemporary, and local features of these articles, as well as the article types and publication formats, were interpreted. Results demonstrated that CDD should be loyal to the contents about drug delivery, particularly nano-drug delivery systems and nano-pharmaceutical technologies. Publications from the developing and developed countries and regions showed no remarkable differences; therefore, submissions are similarly welcomed. Research articles and review articles are the main stream of CDD. The ratio of review papers is about 30%, which is reasonable but should not be further extended. Moreover, open publications with an article processing charge always have a high impact than those with subscription.

The Hybrid Model has more Article Processing Charges than Open-Access: An Analysis of Top 50 Psychiatry Journals

The Hybrid Model has more Article Processing Charges than Open-Access: An Analysis of Top 50 Psychiatry Journals

Are open access fees a good use of taxpayers’ money?

Abstract Butler et al. (2023) reported that five large commercial publishers (Elsevier, Sage, Springer-Nature, Taylor &amp; Francis and Wiley) received $1.06 billion in publication fees between 2015 and 2018. Another three publishers were mentioned (Frontiers, MDPI and PLOS), but were not analyzed. The revenue was underestimated and the number of open access (OA) articles increased over the period of study. The five publishers analyzed charged (on average) $1,989 for gold OA articles and $2,905 for hybrid articles. Peer Review https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_c_00305

Choice of Open Access in Elsevier Hybrid Journals

Open access articles in hybrid journals have recently increased despite high article processing charges. This study investigated the impacts of grants and transformative agreements on authors’ choice of open and non-open access articles by comparing two article types. The samples were hybrid journals launched independently by Elsevier. The results revealed that the authors who received more grants in countries with transformative agreements were more likely to choose open access articles. By contrast, authors in developing countries were likely to publish non-open access articles. These findings imply that authors’ choices depend on the funding systems and open access policies in individual countries. Consequently, open access may become a barrier to the dissemination of work for researchers who have financial difficulty choosing open access, although it enables everyone to access articles free of charge.

Does it pay to pay? A comparison of the benefits of open-access publishing across various sub-fields in biology.

Authors are often faced with the decision of whether to maximize traditional impact metrics or minimize costs when choosing where to publish the results of their research. Many subscription-based journals now offer the option of paying an article processing charge (APC) to make their work open. Though such "hybrid" journals make research more accessible to readers, their APCs often come with high price tags and can exclude authors who lack the capacity to pay to make their research accessible. Here, we tested if paying to publish open access in a subscription-based journal benefited authors by conferring more citations relative to closed access articles. We identified 146,415 articles published in 152 hybrid journals in the field of biology from 2013-2018 to compare the number of citations between various types of open access and closed access articles. In a simple generalized linear model analysis of our full dataset, we found that publishing open access in hybrid journals that offer the option confers an average citation advantage to authors of 17.8 citations compared to closed access articles in similar journals. After taking into account the number of authors, Journal Citation Reports 2020 Quartile, year of publication, and Web of Science category, we still found that open access generated significantly more citations than closed access (p<0.0001). However, results were complex, with exact differences in citation rates among access types impacted by these other variables. This citation advantage based on access type was even similar when comparing open and closed access articles published in the same issue of a journal (p<0.0001). However, by examining articles where the authors paid an article processing charge, we found that cost itself was not predictive of citation rates (p=0.14). Based on our findings of access type and other model parameters, we suggest that, in the case of the 152 journals we analyzed, paying for open access does confer a citation advantage. For authors with limited budgets, we recommend pursuing open access alternatives that do not require paying a fee as they still yielded more citations than closed access. For authors who are considering where to submit their next article, we offer additional suggestions on how to balance exposure via citations with publishing costs.

Updated American Malacological Bulletin Publication Schedule, Publication Fees, and Institutional Subscription Fees

Updated American Malacological Bulletin Publication Schedule, Publication Fees, and Institutional Subscription Fees

Can You Pay Your Way to Readership? Free to Publish Open Access Formats Receive Greater Readership and Citations Than Paid Open Access Formats in Total Knee Arthroplasty Literature

BackgroundAs publishing with open access is becoming increasingly popular within orthopaedics, understanding the types of publishing options available and what each may deliver is critically important. Hybrid articles require a high article processing charge. Open journal articles have a lower fee, while closed license articles are freely accessible at no charge. Open repository articles are peer-reviewed manuscripts posted freely online. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between article type and resulting citations, social media attention, and readership in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) literature. MethodsOpen access TKA journal articles published since 2016 were found using the Altmetric Explorer Database. Data gathered included the Altmetric Attention Score (attention), Mendeley Readership Score (readership), and citations per article. Articles were grouped by type: open journal, hybrid, closed license, and open repository. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Tukey’s analysis; α = 0.05. ResultsA total of 9,606 publications were included. The open repository had the greatest mean citations (14.40), while open journal (9.55) had fewer than all other categories (P < .001). Hybrid had the greatest mean attention (10.35), and open journal (6.16) had a lower mean attention than all other categories (P ≤ .002). Open repository had the greatest mean readership (44.68), and open journal (34.00) had a lower mean readership than all other categories (P ≤ .012). The mean publication fee for paid publication options was $1,792 United States dollars. ConclusionsIn open access TKA literature, free-to-publish open repositories had the greatest mean citations and readership. Free publication options, open repositories and closed licenses, had greater readership compared to paid publication options.

The peer-review process: critical issues and challenges from an online survey

the peer-review process, which is the foundation of modern scientific production, represents one of its essential elements. However, despite numerous benefits, it presents several critical issues. to collect the opinions of a group of researchers from the epidemiological scientific community on peer-review processes. cross-sectional study using a questionnaire evaluation. a 29-question survey was administered to 516 healthcare professionals through the SurveyMonkey platform. The questions focused on the individual characteristics of the respondents and their perceived satisfaction with some characteristics of the review process as well as their propensity of changing some aspects of it. In addition, three open-ended questions were included, allowing respondents to provide comments on the role that reviewers and the review process should play. Descriptive statistics were produced in terms of absolute frequencies and percentages for the information collected through the questionnaire. Secondly, a multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the willingness to change certain aspects of peer review, adjusting for covariates such as age, sex, being the author of at least one scientific work, being a reviewer of at least one scientific work, and belonging to a specific discipline. The results are expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Text analysis and representation using word cloud were also used for an open-ended question. level of satisfaction regarding some characteristics of the peer-review process. a total of 516 participants completed the questionnaire. Specifically, 87.2% (N. 450) of the participants were the authors of at least one scientific publication, 78.7% were first authors at least once (N. 406), and 71.5% acted as reviewers within the peer-review process (N. 369). The results obtained from the multiple logistic regression models did not highlight any significant differences in terms of propensity to change for age and sex categories, except for a lower propensity of the under 35 age group towards unmasking, defined as the presence of reviewers and editorial boards names on the publish article (OR <35 years vs 45-54 years: 0.51; 95%CI 0.29-0.89) and a higher propensity for post-formatting proposals, defined as the possibility of formatting the article following journal guidelines after the acceptance, among those under 45 (OR <35 years vs 45-54 years: 1.73; 95%CI 0.90-3.31; OR 35-44 years vs 45-54 years: 2.02; 95%CI 1.10-3.72). Finally, approximately 50% of respondents found it appropriate to receive credits for the revision work performed, while approximately 30% found it appropriate to receive a discount on publication fees for the same journal in which they acted as reviewers. the peer-review process is considered essential, but imperfect, by the professionals who participated in the questionnaire, thus providing a clear picture of the value that peer-review adds rigorously to each scientific work and the need to continue constructive dialogue on this topic within the scientific community.

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

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