Misplaced Pages

#495504

55-566: Phytologia is an open-access journal to expedite plant systematics , phytogeographical and ecological publication, focused on North America. Its mode of subscription is by sending e-mail to the editor. It has been available online since 2013. It is edited by Robert P. Adams and others. Open-access journal Open access ( OA ) is a set of principles and a range of practices through which nominally copyrightable publications are delivered to readers free of access charges or other barriers. With open access strictly defined (according to

110-410: A professional in the field, a researcher in another field, a journalist , a politician or civil servant , or an interested layperson. Indeed, a 2008 study revealed that mental health professionals are roughly twice as likely to read a relevant article if it is freely available. Research funding agencies and universities want to ensure that the research they fund and support in various ways has

165-416: A case of academic misconduct and plagiarism, and could be pursued as such. There is no evidence that "scooping" of research via preprints exists, not even in communities that have broadly adopted the use of the arXiv server for sharing preprints since 1991. If the unlikely case of scooping emerges as the growth of the preprint system continues, it can be dealt with as academic malpractice. ASAPbio includes

220-489: A colour system. The most commonly recognised names are "green", "gold", and "hybrid" open access; however, several other models and alternative terms are also used. In the gold OA model, the publisher makes all articles and related content available for free immediately on the journal's website. In such publications, articles are licensed for sharing and reuse via Creative Commons licenses or similar. Many gold OA publishers charge an article processing charge (APC), which

275-589: A journal's impact factor. Some publishers (e.g. eLife and Ubiquity Press ) have released estimates of their direct and indirect costs that set their APCs. Hybrid OA generally costs more than gold OA and can offer a lower quality of service. A particularly controversial practice in hybrid open access journals is " double dipping ", where both authors and subscribers are charged. By comparison, journal subscriptions equate to $ 3,500–$ 4,000 per article published by an institution, but are highly variable by publisher (and some charge page fees separately). This has led to

330-410: A journal, the archived version is called a " postprint ". This can be the accepted manuscript as returned by the journal to the author after successful peer review. Hybrid open-access journals contain a mixture of open access articles and closed access articles. A publisher following this model is partially funded by subscriptions, and only provide open access for those individual articles for which

385-411: A journal. Green open access through self-archiving was initially enabled through institutional or disciplinary repositories , as a growing number of universities adopted policies to encourage self-archiving. Self-archiving repositories do not peer-review articles, though they may hold copies of otherwise peer-reviewed articles. Self-archiving repositories also expect that the author who self-archives has

440-562: A key principle. Open access (mostly green and gratis) began to be sought and provided worldwide by researchers when the possibility itself was opened by the advent of Internet and the World Wide Web . The momentum was further increased by a growing movement for academic journal publishing reform, and with it gold and libre OA. The premises behind open access publishing are that there are viable funding models to maintain traditional peer review standards of quality while also making

495-527: A multitude of journal and conference styles, and sometimes spend months waiting for peer review results. The drawn-out and often contentious societal and technological transition to Open Access and Open Science/Open Research, particularly across North America and Europe (Latin America has already widely adopted "Acceso Abierto" since before 2000 ) has led to increasingly entrenched positions and much debate. The area of (open) scholarly practices increasingly sees

550-461: A new open access business model, to experiments with providing as much free or open access as possible, to active lobbying against open access proposals. There are many publishers that started up as open access-only publishers, such as PLOS, Hindawi Publishing Corporation , Frontiers in... journals, MDPI and BioMed Central. Some open access journals (under the gold, and hybrid models) generate revenue by charging publication fees in order to make

605-699: A request-a-copy Button with which users can request and authors can provide a single copy with one click each during the embargo. Social reference management software websites such as Mendeley , Academia.edu , and ResearchGate facilitate sharing between researchers; however, these services are often subject to criticism for using scholars' contributions for commercial purposes as well as for copyright violation. They are also targeted by publishers for copyright compliance, such as when Elsevier (which purchased Mendeley) issued Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices to Academia.edu for hosting scientific papers. Social networking services also do not fulfill

SECTION 10

#1732780583496

660-468: A role for policy-makers and research funders giving focus to issues such as career incentives, research evaluation and business models for publicly funded research. Plan S and AmeliCA (Open Knowledge for Latin America) caused a wave of debate in scholarly communication in 2019 and 2020. Subscription-based publishing typically requires transfer of copyright from authors to the publisher so that

715-583: A series of hypothetical scooping scenarios as part of its preprint FAQ, finding that the overall benefits of using preprints vastly outweigh any potential issues around scooping. Indeed, the benefits of preprints, especially for early-career researchers, seem to outweigh any perceived risk: rapid sharing of academic research, open access without author-facing charges, establishing priority of discoveries, receiving wider feedback in parallel with or before peer review, and facilitating wider collaborations. The "green" route to OA refers to author self-archiving, in which

770-499: A time-stamp at the time of publication, which helps to establish the "priority of discovery" for scientific claims (Vale and Hyman 2016). This means that a preprint can act as proof of provenance for research ideas, data, code, models, and results. The fact that the majority of preprints come with a form of permanent identifier, usually a digital object identifier (DOI), also makes them easy to cite and track. Thus, if one were to be "scooped" without adequate acknowledgement, this would be

825-627: A version of the article (often the peer-reviewed version before editorial typesetting, called "postprint") is posted online to an institutional and/or subject repository. This route is often dependent on journal or publisher policies, which can be more restrictive and complicated than respective "gold" policies regarding deposit location, license, and embargo requirements. Some publishers require an embargo period before deposition in public repositories, arguing that immediate self-archiving risks loss of subscription income. Embargoes are imposed by between 20 and 40% of journals, during which time an article

880-463: A very important role in responding to open-access mandates from funders. Self-archiving Self-archiving was first explicitly proposed as a universal practice by Stevan Harnad in his 1994 online posting " Subversive Proposal " (later published in Association of Research Libraries ) although computer scientists had been practicing self-archiving in anonymous FTP archives since at least

935-466: A wide variety of academic disciplines, giving most academics options for OA with no APCs. Diamond OA journals are available for most disciplines, and are usually small (<25 articles per year) and more likely to be multilingual (38%); thousands of such journals exist. The growth of unauthorized digital copying by large-scale copyright infringement has enabled free access to paywalled literature. This has been done via existing social media sites (e.g.

990-410: Is a prohibition on data mining . For this reason, many big data studies of various technologies performed by economists ( as well as machine learning by computer scientists ) are limited to patent analysis , since the patent documents are not subject to copyright at all. FAIR is an acronym for 'findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable', intended to more clearly define what is meant by

1045-752: Is consistent with the Green Open Access model. A persistent concern surrounding preprints is that work may be at risk of being plagiarised or "scooped" – meaning that the same or similar research will be published by others without proper attribution to the original source – if publicly available but not yet associated with a stamp of approval from peer reviewers and traditional journals. These concerns are often amplified as competition increases for academic jobs and funding, and perceived to be particularly problematic for early-career researchers and other higher-risk demographics within academia. However, preprints, in fact, protect against scooping. Considering

1100-480: Is in demand elasticity : whereas an English literature curriculum can substitute Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone with a free-domain alternative, such as A Voyage to Lilliput , an emergency room physician treating a patient for a life-threatening urushiol poisoning cannot substitute the most recent, but paywalled review article on this topic with a 90 year-old copyright-expired article that

1155-919: Is incommensurably smaller, than the cost of on-paper publishing and distribution, which is still preferred by many fiction literature readers. Whereas non-open access journals cover publishing costs through access tolls such as subscriptions, site licenses or pay-per-view charges, open-access journals are characterised by funding models which do not require the reader to pay to read the journal's contents, relying instead on author fees or on public funding, subsidies and sponsorships. Open access can be applied to all forms of published research output, including peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed academic journal articles, conference papers , theses , book chapters, monographs , research reports and images. There are different models of open access publishing and publishers may use one or more of these models. Different open access types are currently commonly described using

SECTION 20

#1732780583496

1210-458: Is one of the most permissive, only requiring attribution to be allowed to use the material (and allowing derivations and commercial use). A range of more restrictive Creative Commons licenses are also used. More rarely, some of the smaller academic journals use custom open access licenses. Some publishers (e.g. Elsevier ) use "author nominal copyright" for OA articles, where the author retains copyright in name only and all rights are transferred to

1265-606: Is paywalled before permitting self-archiving (green OA) or releasing a free-to-read version (bronze OA). Embargo periods typically vary from 6–12 months in STEM and >12 months in humanities , arts and social sciences . Embargo-free self-archiving has not been shown to affect subscription revenue , and tends to increase readership and citations. Embargoes have been lifted on particular topics for either limited times or ongoing (e.g. Zika outbreaks or indigenous health ). Plan S includes zero-length embargoes on self-archiving as

1320-600: Is the Subscribe to Open publishing model introduced by Annual Reviews ; if the subscription revenue goal is met, the given journal's volume is published open access. Advantages and disadvantages of open access have generated considerable discussion amongst researchers, academics, librarians, university administrators, funding agencies, government officials, commercial publishers , editorial staff and society publishers. Reactions of existing publishers to open access journal publishing have ranged from moving with enthusiasm to

1375-424: Is typically paid through institutional or grant funding. The majority of gold open access journals charging APCs follow an "author-pays" model, although this is not an intrinsic property of gold OA. Self-archiving by authors is permitted under green OA. Independently from publication by a publisher, the author also posts the work to a website controlled by the author, the research institution that funded or hosted

1430-477: Is usually other researchers. Open access helps researchers as readers by opening up access to articles that their libraries do not subscribe to. All researchers benefit from open access as no library can afford to subscribe to every scientific journal and most can only afford a small fraction of them – this is known as the " serials crisis ". Open access extends the reach of research beyond its immediate academic circle. An open access article can be read by anyone –

1485-415: The #ICanHazPDF hashtag) as well as dedicated sites (e.g. Sci-Hub ). In some ways this is a large-scale technical implementation of pre-existing practice, whereby those with access to paywalled literature would share copies with their contacts. However, the increased ease and scale from 2010 onwards have changed how many people treat subscription publications. Similar to the free content definition,

1540-681: The Free Journal Network . APC-free journals tend to be smaller and more local-regional in scope. Some also require submitting authors to have a particular institutional affiliation. A " preprint " is typically a version of a research paper that is shared on an online platform prior to, or during, a formal peer review process. Preprint platforms have become popular due to the increasing drive towards open access publishing and can be publisher- or community-led. A range of discipline-specific or cross-domain platforms now exist. The posting of pre-prints (and/or authors' manuscript versions)

1595-486: The final published version of the article, not just peer-reviewed final drafts. Locations for self-archiving include institutional repositories , subject-based repositories , personal websites, and social networking websites that target researchers. Some publishers attempt to impose embargoes on self-archiving; embargo-lengths can be from 6–12 months or longer after the date of publication (see SHERPA/RoMEO ). For embargoed deposits some institutional repositories have

1650-420: The 1980s (see CiteSeer ) and physicists had been doing it since the early 1990s on the web (see arXiv ). The concept of green open access was coined in 2004 to describe a "mode of publishing in non open access journal but also self archiving it in an open access archive". Different drafts of a paper may be self-archived, such as the internal non-peer-reviewed version, or the peer-reviewed version published in

1705-526: The 2001 definition), or libre open access, barriers to copying or reuse are also reduced or removed by applying an open license for copyright, which regulates post-publication uses of the work. The main focus of the open access movement has been on " peer reviewed research literature", and more specifically on academic journals . This is because: 1) such publications have been a subject of serials crisis , unlike newspapers , magazines and fiction writing . The main difference between these two groups

Phytologia - Misplaced Pages Continue

1760-595: The Department of Information Science at Loughborough University analysed 80 journal publishers' copyright agreements and found that 90 percent of publishers asked for some form of copyright transfer and only 42.5 percent allowed self-archiving in some form. In 2014 the SHERPA/Romeo project recorded that of 1,275 publishers 70 percent allowed for some form of self-archiving, with 62 percent allowing both pre and postprint self-archiving of published papers. In 2017

1815-457: The assessment that there is enough money "within the system" to enable full transition to OA. However, there is ongoing discussion about whether the change-over offers an opportunity to become more cost-effective or promotes more equitable participation in publication. Concern has been noted that increasing subscription journal prices will be mirrored by rising APCs, creating a barrier to less financially privileged authors. The inherent bias of

1870-662: The authors (or research sponsor) pay a publication fee. Hybrid OA generally costs more than gold OA and can offer a lower quality of service. A particularly controversial practice in hybrid open access journals is " double dipping ", where both authors and subscribers are charged. For these reasons, hybrid open access journals have been called a " Mephistophelian invention", and publishing in hybrid OA journals often do not qualify for funding under open access mandates , as libraries already pay for subscriptions thus have no financial incentive to fund open access articles in such journals. Bronze open access articles are free to read only on

1925-401: The current APC-based OA publishing perpetuates this inequality through the 'Matthew effect' (the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer). The switch from pay-to-read to pay-to-publish has left essentially the same people behind, with some academics not having enough purchasing power (individually or through their institutions) for either option. Some gold OA publishers will waive all or part of

1980-448: The differences between traditional peer-review based publishing models and deposition of an article on a preprint server, "scooping" is less likely for manuscripts first submitted as preprints. In a traditional publishing scenario, the time from manuscript submission to acceptance and to final publication can range from a few weeks to years, and go through several rounds of revision and resubmission before final publication. During this time,

2035-402: The fee for authors from less developed economies . Steps are normally taken to ensure that peer reviewers do not know whether authors have requested, or been granted, fee waivers, or to ensure that every paper is approved by an independent editor with no financial stake in the journal. The main argument against requiring authors to pay a fee, is the risk to the peer review system, diminishing

2090-498: The following changes: An obvious advantage of open access journals is the free access to scientific papers regardless of affiliation with a subscribing library and improved access for the general public; this is especially true in developing countries. Lower costs for research in academia and industry have been claimed in the Budapest Open Access Initiative , although others have argued that OA may raise

2145-517: The greatest possible research impact. As a means of achieving this, research funders are beginning to expect open access to the research they support. Many of them (including all UK Research Councils) have already adopted open-access mandates , and others are on the way to do so (see ROARMAP ). A growing number of universities are providing institutional repositories in which their researchers can deposit their published articles. Some open access advocates believe that institutional repositories will play

2200-604: The kinds of open access defined in the Budapest Open Access Initiative , the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities . The re-use rights of libre OA are often specified by various specific Creative Commons licenses ; all of which require as a minimum attribution of authorship to the original authors. In 2012,

2255-516: The latter can monetise the process via dissemination and reproduction of the work. With OA publishing, typically authors retain copyright to their work, and license its reproduction to the publisher. Retention of copyright by authors can support academic freedoms by enabling greater control of the work (e.g. for image re-use) or licensing agreements (e.g. to allow dissemination by others). The most common licenses used in open access publishing are Creative Commons . The widely used CC BY license

Phytologia - Misplaced Pages Continue

2310-452: The necessary rights to do so, as copyright may have been transferred to a publisher. Therefore it may only be possible to self-archive the preprint of the article. Whereas the right to self-archive postprints is often a copyright matter (if the rights have been transferred to the publisher), the right to self-archive preprints is merely a question of journal policy. A 2003 study by Elizabeth Gadd, Charles Oppenheim, and Steve Probets of

2365-507: The number of works under libre open access was considered to have been rapidly increasing for a few years, though most open-access mandates did not enforce any copyright license and it was difficult to publish libre gold OA in legacy journals. However, there are no costs nor restrictions for green libre OA as preprints can be freely self-deposited with a free license, and most open-access repositories use Creative Commons licenses to allow reuse. The biggest drawback of many Open Access licenses

2420-1011: The overall quality of scientific journal publishing. No-fee open access journals, also known as "platinum" or "diamond" do not charge either readers or authors. These journals use a variety of business models including subsidies, advertising, membership dues, endowments, or volunteer labour. Subsidising sources range from universities, libraries and museums to foundations, societies or government agencies. Some publishers may cross-subsidise from other publications or auxiliary services and products. For example, most APC-free journals in Latin America are funded by higher education institutions and are not conditional on institutional affiliation for publication. Conversely, Knowledge Unlatched crowdsources funding in order to make monographs available open access. Estimates of prevalence vary, but approximately 10,000 journals without APC are listed in DOAJ and

2475-503: The project recorded that of 2,375 publishers 41 percent allowed pre and postprint to be self-archived. 33 percent only allowed the self-archiving of the postprint, meaning the final draft post-refereeing. 6 percent of publishers only allowed self-archiving of the preprint, meaning the pre-refereeing draft. Publishers such as Cambridge University Press or the American Geophysical Union , endorse self-archiving of

2530-581: The publisher page, but lack a clearly identifiable license. Such articles are typically not available for reuse. Journals that publish open access without charging authors article processing charges are sometimes referred to as diamond or platinum OA. Since they do not charge either readers or authors directly, such publishers often require funding from external sources such as the sale of advertisements , academic institutions , learned societies , philanthropists or government grants . There are now over 350 platinum OA journals with impact factors over

2585-462: The publisher. Since open access publication does not charge readers, there are many financial models used to cover costs by other means. Open access can be provided by commercial publishers, who may publish open access as well as subscription-based journals, or dedicated open-access publishers such as Public Library of Science (PLOS) and BioMed Central . Another source of funding for open access can be institutional subscribers. One example of this

2640-570: The requirements of many self-archiving policies from grant funders, journals, and institutions. In 2013 Germany created a legal basis for green open access by amending a secondary publication right into German copyright which gives scientists and researchers the legal right to self-archive their publications on the Internet, even if they have agreed to transfer all exploitation rights to a publisher. The secondary publication right applies to results of mainly publicly funded research, 12 months after

2695-486: The same work will have been extensively discussed with external collaborators, presented at conferences, and been read by editors and reviewers in related areas of research. Yet, there is no official open record of that process (e.g., peer reviewers are normally anonymous, reports remain largely unpublished), and if an identical or very similar paper were to be published while the original was still under review, it would be impossible to establish provenance. Preprints provide

2750-693: The term 'open access' and make the concept easier to discuss. Initially proposed in March 2016, it has subsequently been endorsed by organisations such as the European Commission and the G20 . The emergence of open science or open research has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Scholarly publishing invokes various positions and passions. For example, authors may spend hours struggling with diverse article submission systems, often converting document formatting between

2805-421: The terms 'gratis' and 'libre' were used in the Budapest Open Access Initiative definition to distinguish between free to read versus free to reuse. Gratis open access ( [REDACTED] ) refers to free online access, to read, free of charge, without re-use rights. Libre open access ( [REDACTED] ) also refers to free online access, to read, free of charge, plus some additional re-use rights, covering

SECTION 50

#1732780583496

2860-482: The total cost of publication, and further increase economic incentives for exploitation in academic publishing. The open access movement is motivated by the problems of social inequality caused by restricting access to academic research, which favor large and wealthy institutions with the financial means to purchase access to many journals, as well as the economic challenges and perceived unsustainability of academic publishing. The intended audience of research articles

2915-781: The work openly available at the time of publication. The money might come from the author but more often comes from the author's research grant or employer. While the payments are typically incurred per article published (e.g. BMC or PLOS journals), some journals apply them per manuscript submitted (e.g. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics until recently) or per author (e.g. PeerJ ). Charges typically range from $ 1,000–$ 3,000 ($ 5,380 for Nature Communications ) but can be under $ 10, close to $ 5,000 or well over $ 10,000. APCs vary greatly depending on subject and region and are most common in scientific and medical journals (43% and 47% respectively), and lowest in arts and humanities journals (0% and 4% respectively). APCs can also depend on

2970-446: The work, or to an independent central open repository, where people can download the work without paying. Green OA is free of charge for the author. Some publishers (less than 5% and decreasing as of 2014) may charge a fee for an additional service such as a free license on the publisher-authored copyrightable portions of the printed version of an article. If the author posts the near-final version of their work after peer review by

3025-407: Was published before the invention of prednisone in 1954. 2) the authors of research papers are not paid in any way, so they do not suffer any monetary losses, when they switch from behind paywall to open access publishing, especially, if they use diamond open access media. 3) the cost of electronic publishing , which has been the main form of distribution of journal articles since ca. 2000,

#495504