If higher fees result in fewer academics wanting to publish with a journal, then it seems likely when a journal introduces or increases its fees, it should see a reduction in the number of articles published. But researcher Shaun Khoo did not find any evidence that this was the case.
In this post by Ruth Harrison, Yvonne Nobis & Charles Oppenheim they tell about the challenges that Sci-Hub presents to librarians who are advocating for open access to scholarly content. We published this post in recognition of lasts weeks Open Access Week around the country. The article highlights issues associated with open access and scholarly communications and the views reflect that of the authors.
In his second article about the citation system and Google Scholar, Louis Coiffait looks at some of the current criticisms.
The two federal agencies that spend the most on making grants to social and behavioral science research in the United States, both have their budgets shaved by an eighth in the Fiscal Year 2020 budget proposal released by the Trump administration earlier this month. But the move is more symbolic than substantive.
Plan S focuses on making all publicly funded research immediately fully and freely available by open access publication. If Australia does not adopt Plan S, the authors argue, it could potentially restrict collaboration, publishing, and funding opportunities with research bodies who subscribe to this ambitious movement.
In honor of AERA Open being named “Best New Journal in Social Sciences” in the 2019 Publishers Awards for Professional and Scholarly Excellence, or PROSE, Awards, we’re highlighting three of the compelling studies — including an assessment of Common Core — that appeared in the journal last year.
Elie Diner presents arguments for and against sharing research presentations online, arguing that sharing research presentations should be seen as part of the mainstream of open scholarship and is a natural way for academics to present their preliminary findings.
Plan S represents an exciting example of the scholarly community mobilizing to create funding requirements that could lead to an open access future. However, the plan has also raised a number of legitimate concerns, not least the absence of any incentive for publishers to lower journal costs. Brian Cody suggests how simple adjustments to the proposed article processing charge cap could encourage publishers to reduce costs and so free up funds for other open access projects.
Predatory publications are different from mainstream journals because they charge exorbitant fees to publish the articles they solicit, and they don’t follow any of the quality assurance processes expected in academic publication. Academics in the developing world have become a favorite target for these journals, and many seem to be falling into the trap. We need to ask why.
A survey of environmental research shows only 26 percent of the projects made their data accessible, despite data-sharing requirements from funders. In this commentary, lead author Jessica Couture urges data sharing for open science.
Publishing remains a key part of the mission of many British learned societies, as does disseminating scholarship and staying afloat. A new report appearing in December, and previewed at a September meeting, will offer some direction for organizations trying to reduce the tension that open access may create among those goals.
University librarian Jeffrey Beall used to write a blog that identified by name what he saw as predatory publishers of academic journals. Since he suddenly shut down the site earlier this month, will –or even should — someone else pick up the baton?
