Search results

Citation is an important measure of quality, and it plays a vital role in evaluating scientific research. However, citation advantage varies from discipline to discipline, subject to subject and topic to topic. This study aims to compare the citation advantage of open access and toll access articles from four subfields of computer science.

This research studies the articles published by two prestigious publishers: Springer and Elsevier in the author-pays charges model from 2011 to 2015. For experimentation, four sub-domains of computer science are selected including (a) artificial intelligence, (b) human–computer interaction, (c) computer vision and graphics, and (d) software engineering. The open-access and toll-based citation advantage is studied and analyzed at the micro level within the computer science domain by performing independent sample t-tests.

The results of the study highlight that open access articles have a higher citation advantage as compared to toll access articles across years and sub-domains. Further, an increase in open access articles has been observed from 2011 to 2015. The findings of the study show that the citation advantage of open access articles varies among different sub-domains of a subject. The study contributed to the body of knowledge by validating the positive movement toward open access articles in the field of computer science and its sub-domains. Further, this work added the success of the author-pays charges model in terms of citation advantage to the literature of open access.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine the citation advantage of the author-pays charges model at a subject level (computer science) along with four sub-domains of computer science.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the economic perspective in open access publishing. The status of the article processing charges in open access journals is explored and highlighted.

The study is based on the analysis of journals indexed by Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the fee structure levied by them as article processing charges (APCs).

Open access journal publishers have to evolve a mechanism that will share the burden of the authors interested in publishing in OA journals that levy article processing charges.

The study can act as an eye‐opener for the publishers and associations affiliated with authors to support them and their works in making them publishable in open access journals which charge fees for article publishing. Also, the study can be extended on the basis of economic models that open access journals share in different disciplines and additional work can be carried out to highlight the perception of the authors who are benefitted from article processing charges.

An economic divide between the authors who belong to the developed nations and the authors who reside from third world nations can be bridged.

The study is first of its kind, as it highlights the economic burden that the authors share in a fee‐based open access publishing world.

Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community.

This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety.

While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing.

This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

Open access journals (OAJs) offer immediate, free and unrestricted online access to the scholarly literature. The purpose of this study is to trace the status and characteristics of OAJs published across the globe. Various trends that have evolved in OAJ market have been studied.

The study is based on data collected from one of the largest OA journal directory – Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The data were downloaded on 02 January 2018 and details of OAJs added to DOAJ till 31 December 2018 were harvested, codified and further analyzed in SPSS software. A Microsoft-Excel template application – MAKESENS – developed by Finnish Meteorological Institute (Finland) in 2002, was explored to perform Mann–Kendall Test and Sen’s Slope Estimates.

A less score of OAJs offer access to their archival content. An increasing trend is witnessed in the OAJ publishing with Elsevier, Sciendo and BioMed Central (BMC) as the top publishers. Majority of publishers are from high-income zone countries, followed by upper-middle and lower-middle zone countries. Majority of OA publishers are from the UK, Indonesia and Brazil. A lesser score of journals offer article processing charges and/or author submission charges. Majority of OAJs from high- and lower-middle-income zone countries levy submission/processing charge to authors compared to OA journals from upper-middle- and lower-income zone countries (p < 0.01). OJS stays a prioritized platform for hosting OA journal content. Portico and CLOCKSS/LOCKSS are mostly used for long-term preservation purposes. Majority of OAJs from high-income zone countries participate in digital arching initiatives compared to ones from other income zones. Majority of the journals adopt a peer review (double-blind peer review, blind peer review, peer review and open peer review) process for validation of their scholarly content. The time lag between submission and publication ranges from one to 53 weeks, with majority of OAJs having a time lag of 11-20 weeks. Creative Commons Licenses are mainly adopted by OAJs.

As the study is based on the data offered by DOAJ, any gaps in the DOAJ data will also get reflected in the study. Further, there might be other OAJs also that have yet to show compliance with DOAJ standards and get indexed with it.

The study tries to showcase the current status and characteristics of OAJs.

The purpose of this paper is to detail the approach used in a project that worked with journal publication, subscription and article processing charges (APC) data. The project aim was to test if the resources allocated by the Matariki Network of Universities, a group of seven medium-sized universities, would pay for APC at the current level of publishing activity.

Data were collated and analysed from three years (2015–2017) for each of the seven partners.

A range of assumptions were made in dealing with the data. It was difficult to identify a subscription package that was common to all the partners. Data were not always consistent and in some instances it was incomplete. An iterative and flexible approach was required in this project. Even though testing had been carried out during planning, changes had to be made as the project was carried out. The timetable had to be flexible as those working on the project dealt with their day-to-day operational priorities and to enable each of the partners to contribute as resources allowed.

As alternative models of scholarly journal publication are evolving, it is important that the implications of these be tested to inform planning. Details of this testing need to be shared so that others can confirm the results, consider the approach and apply lessons learned.

This paper focuses on the details of the investigation so that others interested in repeating this project, or carrying out a similar project, can consider this in their planning.

The purpose of this study is to know the various factors librarians consider while selecting open access (OA) journal for publication, and to know the challenges librarians face with OA journal publishing.

Online questionnaire was designed to collect data using SurveyMonkey software from 335 academic librarians in 57 institutions (Universities, Polytechnics and Colleges of Education) in Nigeria.

The findings of the study revealed that majority of the academic librarians are aware of the gold and green publishing routes, while the majority of academic librarians are not aware of the diamond publishing route. The study also revealed that when considering where to publish, reputation and impact factor of journal were rated as very important among the factors that inform their choice of OA. The study further revealed that academic librarians have little or no knowledge about the existence of institutional repositories in their institutions, and only a few actual use institutional repositories and ResearchGate to self-archive their publications. The majority of the academic librarians agreed that author fees (Article Processing Charges) and low impact factor of journal are barriers to publishing in OA journals. Training on OA publishing is recommended for librarians to increase their knowledge and confidence to discuss OA with faculty members in future.

Knowledge of authors’ attitude toward OA publishing models will help OA advocates focus on the factors that are meaningful that are raised in this study.

The study is an original research work that investigated academic librarians’ perception and engagement with OA publishing as they lead the OA campaign in their institutions.

The current academic publishing model, in which researchers rely significantly on multinational publishing companies to disseminate their work, has implications for knowledge enterprise both in terms of knowledge production and distribution. This study aims to provide a critical reflection on the academic publishing model and how it works, particularly in light of the rise of open access publishing and the growing analytics focus of publishing companies and discusses the impact on knowledge equity.

This exploratory essay offers a critical analysis of the impact of the current academic publishing model on research practices. The discussion provides a foundation for the argument that knowledge equity is essential to social justice.

To effectively fulfil the transformative aims of the interdisciplinary research community within social and environmental accounting, it is imperative to establish equitable access to published research.

This essay opens space for discussion of the current publishing model, given its dominance of the knowledge enterprise. It outlines some of the implications of this model for knowledge equity and suggests strategies for fostering a more inclusive and accessible dissemination of scholarly work.

Predatory publishing is a growing and global issue infecting all scientific domains. Predatory publishers create counterfeit, not (properly) peer-reviewed journals to exploit the open access (OA) model in which the author pays. The plethora of predatory marketing journals along with the sophisticated deceptive practices of their publishers may create total confusion. One of the many highly likely risks of that bewilderment is when peer-reviewed, prestigious marketing journals cite these pseudo-marketing journals. This phenomenon is called citation contamination. This study aims to investigate the extent of citation contamination in the peer-reviewed marketing literature.

Using Google Scholar as a citation gathering tool, this study investigates references to four predatory marketing journals in 68 peer-reviewed marketing journals listed in the 2018 version of the Academic Journal Guide by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABSs).

Results indicate that 59 of the 68 CABS-ranked peer-reviewed marketing journals were, up to late January 2021, contaminated by at least one of the four sampled predatory journals. Together, these four pseudo-journals received (at least) 605 citations. Findings from nonparametric statistical procedures show that citation contamination occurred irrespective of the age of a journal or its 2019 Journal Impact Factor (JIF). They also point out that citation contamination happened independently from the fact that a journal is recognized by Clarivate Analytics or not.

This study investigated citations to only four predatory marketing journals in only 68 CABS-listed peer-reviewed marketing journals.

These findings should sound an alarm to the entire marketing community (including academics and practitioners). To counteract citation contamination, recommendations are provided for researchers, practitioners, journal editors and academic and professional associations.

This study is the first to offer a systematic assessment of references to predatory journals in the peer-reviewed marketing literature.

This paper investigates the fit for purpose of the flip model proposed by Max Planck Society and Plan S for the African environment. This flipped model is examined against the backdrop of African imperatives, which is much broader than just flipping a journal pricing model from subscription to open access. This paper also seeks a viable alternative model that supports the growth of African scholarship and the dissemination thereof.

This paper adopts a descriptive research methodology, which allows for an in-depth analysis of a phenomenon. By using this method, this paper describes a flip model proposed by global north entities, which do not augur well for the growth of the OA movement in Africa.

The findings demonstrate that the global north centric flipped model exacerbates the inequality in the publishing landscape by further marginalizing the research voices from the global south. Africa is in dire need of an alternative that denorthernizes the publishing landscape, promote equity and equality, and is more inclusive of the research voices from Africa. South African academic libraries have demonstrated their willingness to experiment with and roll-out library publishing services. This proof of concept has been extended into a continental platform for the publication and dissemination of African scholarship.

This paper will be of interest to those who are grappling with viable alternatives to the current flip models, which include, inter alia, university leadership. This paper will also be of interest to global north libraries who are embarking on library publishing without the social justice obligation but are committed to the OA movement.

There are different opinions about the quality and reputation of publications. Given that one of the ways to analyze the quality of journals and articles is citation indicators, the purpose of this paper is to compare the citation indicators of open access (OA), full subscription and hybrid journals and articles based on the Scopus in the field of library and information science (LIS) for a period of ten years (2004-2013).

The research population is all LIS journals and articles in LIS hybrid journals in Scopus. The data related to citation indicators (number of received citations, two years’ impact, Citescore [IPP] and H-index) were extracted from Scopus, Journal Metrics and SCImago and analyzed using descriptive and analytical statistics with SPSS and Excel.

The findings indicate that number of OA journals and articles were less than that of full subscription and hybrid journals. The average rate of all citation indicators in hybrid journals were more than that of OA and full subscription journals. However, in the level of articles, the average number of citations received by OA articles (15.6) was more than that of non-OA articles (2.25).

Unlike journals, OA seems to be an advantage for articles in LIS. LIS hybrid journals receive more citations than OA and subscription journals. Thus, the authors’ approach to publishing in OA, hybrid or subscription journals and the publishers approach to the publication type may also be influenced by the findings of the present study.