Editorial —Open access publishing at EPL

Open data is becoming more and more a recognised research output in the research life cycle. Research validation and replication depend on open data which enriches the research output. Open data goes beyond the traditional article and book publishing format. As such open data reinforces Open Access (OA) publishing, and OA publishing reinforces open data. Open data and OA publishing stimulate collaboration and increase both the impact of research findings and the visibility of researchers and research groups. In the past years, funders and institutions developed independently policies that support open data and OA publishing. Researchers are increasingly required to publish OA and make their data open. The question is how we can evaluate the impact of Open data on OA publishing. Subsequently, to what extent does OA publishing influence open data? At the TU Delft, 82% of peer-reviewed articles and 71% of conference papers are published OA in 2021, but how many of those publications refer to open data? We have no records and no traceability processes in place to answer this question. As a consequence, few datastewards took on themselves to count manually the number of OA publications that include open data. It is nevertheless clear some changes need to occur to help open data and OA publishing joining forces. The current challenges and barriers faced could be reduced with an increase in OA research outputs (OA books or educational resources), a change in research culture and a change in reviewers’ practices. Recognising and rewarding data publishing; credit data review activities; developing a different workflow of the review process if including data review and requiring different expertise from the reviewers on the data review (data management and research insights) are realistic options. In parallel, new features of innovation for the publishing platform (open data review workflow, link to datasets for download) and for data repositories (quality badge on reviewed datasets, flexibility of incorporating review changes) are worth exploring. There are few possible solutions or workaround available that could help all. We can make it easy for the researchers by connecting different blocks of open science and optimising the benefits with the Data Access Statement (DAS) as a standard section of the article template and with publishers providing a DAS template with basic requirements. For institutions, having a dashboard connecting all research outputs with DOIs together will be very beneficial. Another option is giving authors control of their publications by publishing their findings in an open peer-reviewed community-driven journal. Our framework for connecting open data to OA publishing includes an OA publishing platform, data and publication repositories, a funding policy for OA publishing, expertise in Open Science and research lifecycle; and collaboration.

A Review of: Hadad, S., & Aharony, N. (2024). Librarians and academic libraries’ role in promoting open access: What needs to change? College & Research Libraries, 85(4), 464–478. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.4.464 Objective – The study aims to explore and examine how Israeli librarians perceive their role and the academic library's role in promoting open access (OA) publishing; identify the barriers, challenges, and difficulties in implementing OA; and determine the factors and needs that are required to promote OA. By examining these aspects, the research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of OA promotion in Israeli academic libraries, the challenges faced by librarians, and the necessary changes and support required to enhance OA adoption in the country's academic institutions. Design – Qualitative design using semi-structured interviews. Setting – University libraries in Israel. Subjects – One representative from each of the ten existing universities in Israel. The ten participants held positions as administrators of the library system at their institution (50%), directors of disciplinary libraries (30%), or directors of information systems in academic libraries of Israeli universities. Among the subjects, 90% were female. In terms of seniority, 60% of respondents had been employed by their institution for over 10 years, while 40% had been less than 10 years in their current positions. Methods – Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom between April and June of 2020. The interviews were based on items from existing surveys on librarians' attitudes towards open access and changes in academic library practices. The authors used thematic analysis to categorize and code the interview responses. This "bottom-up" approach allowed researchers to identify common expressions and recurring themes. The analysis yielded 1,264 statements classified into three main categories with several sub-categories. To ensure reliability, 25% of the statements were analyzed by a second coder, resulting in a Cohen's Kappa of .86 (.8 and above is rated as “almost perfect”). The researchers ensured trustworthiness of data by adhering to four principles: truth-value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality of data. Main Results – The interview data revealed that, in general, librarians see their role as crucial in advising researchers about OA publishing. They view themselves as responsible for implementing changes related to OA after institutional policies are set. The authors identify a myriad of barriers to overcome if OA is going to grow and become a more accepted practice of publishing for Israeli researchers. These barriers include, but are not limited to, lack of budget for OA agreements, lack of cooperation from university management, researchers' unfamiliarity with OA and fears about predatory journals, the influence of journal impact factors, and lack of personnel and training for librarians. In order to overcome these barriers, librarians believe they need clear national and institutional OA policies, as well as cooperation and collaboration between academic institutions on OA initiatives. Librarians also believe that systematic training for library staff in OA publishing is imperative, along with guidance and incentives for researchers to publish in OA journals. The results also yielded qualitative data about librarians’ current involvement in OA, which include participating in OA agreements through library consortia, operating current research information systems (CRIS), promoting institutional policies, and interfacing with university administration on OA issues. The study also revealed that there is a desire among librarians to establish the library as the central body for OA matters within their institutions. Conclusion – Librarians see their role as crucial in promoting open access (OA) publishing, particularly in advising researchers and implementing changes after institutional policies are set. Overall, the study concludes that while librarians see themselves as playing important roles in promoting OA, they face numerous challenges and require additional support and resources to fulfill this role effectively. The research highlights the need for systemic changes at both institutional and national levels to advance OA adoption in Israeli academic institutions.

Open Access and Legal Publishing: An Annotated Bibliography

FTC Sues OMICS: Claims Open Access Academic Publisher Scams Academics

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess the status of the open access (OA) movement on the African continent, and if there is any financial or moral exploitation by dominant “foreign” world powers. OA provided the African intellectual community with a tool to prove its academic prowess and an opportunity to display cultural and intellectual independence. OA publishing is prone to abuse, and some in Africa have sought to exploit the OA boom to profit from non-academic activity rather than use this tool to glorify Africa’s image and diversity on the global intellectual stage. These issues are explored in detail in the paper.Design/methodology/approachThe authors broadly assessed literature that is related to the growth and challenges associated with OA, including the rise of OA mega journals, in Africa.FindingsAfrican OA journals and publishers have to compete with established non-African OA entities. Some are considered “predatory”, but this Jeffrey Beall-based classification may be erroneous. Publishing values that African OA publishers and journals aspire to should not equal those published by non-African publishing entities. Africa should seek solutions to the challenges on that continent via Africa-based OA platforms. The budding African OA movement is applauded, but it must be held as accountable as any other OA journal or publisher.Originality/valueAfrican scholars need to reassess the “published in Africa” OA image.

Open access publication rates have been steadily increasing over time. In spite of this growth, academics in low income settings struggle to gain access to the full canon of research literature. While the vast majority of open access repositories and funding organizations with open access policies are based in high income countries, the geographic patterns of open access publication itself are not well characterized. In this study, we developed a computational approach to better understand the topical and geographical landscape of open access publications in the biomedical research literature. Surprisingly, we found a strong negative correlation between country per capita income and the percentage of open access publication. Open access publication rates were particularly high in sub-Saharan Africa, but vastly lower in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, and East Asia and the Pacific. These effects persisted when considering papers only bearing authors from within each region and income group. However, papers resulting from international collaborations did have a higher percentage of OA than single-country papers, and inter-regional collaboration increased OA publication for all world regions. There was no clear relationship between the number of open access policies in a region and the percentage of open access publications in that region. To understand the distribution of open access across topics of biomedical research, we examined keywords that were most enriched and depleted in open access papers. Keywords related to genomics, computational biology, animal models, and infectious disease were enriched in open access publications, while keywords related to the environment, nursing, and surgery were depleted in open access publications. This work identifies geographic regions and fields of research that could be priority areas for open access advocacy. The finding that open access publication rates are highest in sub-Saharan Africa and low income countries suggests that factors other than open access policy strongly influence authors’ decisions to make their work openly accessible. The high proportion of OA resulting from international collaborations indicates yet another benefit of collaborative research. Certain applied fields of medical research, notably nursing, surgery, and environmental fields, appear to have a greater proportion of fee-for-access publications, which presumably creates barriers that prevent researchers and practitioners in low income settings from accessing the literature in those fields.

This paper examines the status of Open Access (OA) publishing in India and reviews its academic, economic, and societal impact. The study adopted descriptive and review methods. Data was extracted from directories, online databases, and websites for analyzing OA trends at the global level and in India. Studies related to the topic were also reviewed to examine the academic, economic, and societal impact of OA publishing on different stakeholders. The study's findings suggest that the number of OA journals indexed in Scopus, WoS, and DOAJ is consistently growing in India. A significant amount of research literature published in Scopus and WoS indexed journals is OA, making India one of the leading nations in the OA movement. Major funding bodies like CSIR, UGC, DST, DBT, and ICAR in India have formulated OA policies and mandated authors to make research outcomes of publicly funded research OA. The present study’s results will aid policymakers in realizing the difficulty associated with OA adoption, contributing to policy formulation and implementation nationwide.

This bibliometric study investigates Open Access (OA) publication and citation trends in Austria, Israel, and Mexico from 2010 to 2020—three countries with comparable research output but differing OA infrastructures. (1) Background: The study examines how national OA policies, funding mechanisms, and transformative agreements (TAs) shape publication and citation patterns across disciplines. (2) Methods: Using Scopus data, the analysis focuses on four broad subject areas (health, physical, life, and social sciences), applying both three-way ANOVA and a Weighted OA Citation Impact index that adjusts citation shares based on the proportional representation of each subject area in national research output. An OA Engagement Score was also developed to assess each country’s policy and infrastructure support. (3) Results: OA publications consistently receive more citations than closed-access ones, confirming a robust OA citation advantage. Austria leads in both OA publication volume and weighted impact, reflecting its strong policy frameworks and TA coverage. Israel, while publishing fewer OA articles, achieves high citation visibility in specific disciplines. Mexico demonstrates strengths in repositories and Diamond OA journals but lags in transformative agreements. (4) Conclusions: National differences in OA policy maturity, infrastructure, and publishing models shape both visibility and citation impact. Structural limitations and indexing disparities may further affect how research from different regions and disciplines is represented globally, emphasizing the need for inclusive and context-sensitive frameworks for evaluating OA engagement.

This study explores early career researchers’ (ECRs) appreciation and utilisation of open access (OA) publishing. The evidence reported here results from a questionnaire-based international survey with 1600 participants, which forms the second leg and final year of a four year long, mixed methods, longitudinal study that sought to discover whether ECRs will be the harbingers of change when it comes to scholarly communications. Proceeding from the notion that today’s neophyte researchers, believed to hold millennial values of openness to change, transparency and sharing, may be best placed to power the take-up of OA publishing, the study sought to discover: the extent to which ECRs publish OA papers; the main reasons for their doing or not doing so; and what were thought to be the broader advantages and disadvantages of OA publishing. The survey data is presented against a backdrop of the literature-based evidence on the subject, with the interview stage data providing contextualisation and qualitative depth. The findings show that the majority of ECRs published in OA journals and this varied by discipline and country. Most importantly, there were more advantages and fewer disadvantages to OA publishing, which may be indicative of problems to do with cost and availability, rather than reputational factors. Among the many reasons cited for publishing OA the most important one is societal, although OA is seen as especially benefiting ECRs in career progression. Cost is plainly considered the main downside.

<I>Publishing Beyond the Market</I> argues that the move to open access should focus less on the free accessibility of research outputs and more on who controls the publications and infrastructures for scholarly communication. By deploying theoretical literature on science and technology studies, care ethics, and the commons, the book critically interrogates open access and reimagines a more ethical future for researcher-led publishing. A case study of Plan S—the multifunder European policy for open access publishing—explores its tendency to rehearse all the failures of commercialisation. Through critical engagement with the open access landscape, the book reveals the shortcomings of market-centric and policy-based approaches to open access book and journal publishing, particularly their tendency to reinforce conservatism, commercialism, and private control of publishing.<BR /><BR /> Going forward, <I>Publishing Beyond the Market</I> explores the importance of collectivity and democratic governance within the transition to open access publishing. It suggests that developing a commons-based, scholar-led publishing landscape through a series of presses that are each managed by working academics could offer a productive counterpoint to marketised systems of open access and subscription publishing. In weaving themselves together in order to "scale small" these publishing initiatives would act as a counter-hegemonic project based on mutual reliance and care. By illustrating how these projects build toward a commons-based publishing future, and how they may complement other approaches to publishing within university presses and libraries, the book culminates in an argument for the infrastructures, policies, and forms of governance needed to nurture such a collective vision.

Access to speech-language therapy (SLT) and audiology (AUD) research is critical for clinicians, researchers, policymakers and the public to fulfil the professional scope of practice, support advocacy and enable evidence-based service delivery. However, research locked behind paywalls disproportionately limits access for underserved communities and for clinician-researchers seeking tools in languages with scarce resources. Limited access to clinically applicable research disproportionately affects individuals needing SLT and/or AUD services in under-resourced languages and populations, where contextualised, high-quality evidence is most needed. The authors advocate for open access (OA) publishing as a critical strategy to improve access to research in SLT and AUD. Open access publishing promotes more equitable dissemination of information, potentially fostering inclusion, innovation and informed clinical decision-making. This perspective calls for the clinician-researcher to become aware of the different OA models and how to access their benefits. Furthermore, we encourage advocacy amongst key stakeholders, highlighting how collaborative efforts may strengthen the move towards increased OA publishing.Contribution:This article contributes to the growing dialogue on decolonising knowledge and democratising access within the health sciences. By promoting OA publishing, the fields of SLT and AUD can help dismantle structural inequities in knowledge dissemination, support local and global clinical relevance and improve the quality of service for multilingual and underserved communities worldwide. We specifically call on South African clinician-researchers to engage with OA opportunities and collaborate in sharing clinicallyapplicable findings, including implementation guidance, outcome evidence, and contextual considerations for assessment and intervention in South African languages.

This was a retrospective review. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of open access (OA) publication on citation rates and attention scores of literature related to lumbar spine surgery. OA literature allows readers to view full-text manuscripts of research publications free of charge, however, OA publication is often associated with substantial fees for authors. The Altmetric database was searched for articles related to lumbar spine surgery. Title, journal, publication date, Dimensions Citations, Mendeley Readers, Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), number of public mentions, and OA status were collected for each included article. The influence of OA status on Dimensions Citations, Mendeley Readers, and each individual component of the AAS was assessed. To control for journal influence, impact of OA on Dimensions Citations and AAS was separately assessed for each of the top 10 journals contributing the most mentioned articles. The top 25 most cited articles and top 25 articles by AAS were also characterized. A total of 5245 articles were included, of which 2063 were published with OA and 3182 were not. OA status was a significant, independent predictor of AAS and Mendeley Readers (both P <0.001), but not Dimensions Citations ( P =0.422). OA status significantly predicted mentions in news stories ( P =0.003), Twitter posts ( P <0.001), Facebook posts ( P <0.001), and Wikipedia citations ( P =0.011). Of the top 10 contributing journals, OA status significantly predicted Dimensions Citations for European Spine Journal , Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine , and Neurosurgery ( P ≤0.005) and predicted AAS for Spine , European Spine Journal , The Spine Journal , Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine , and Neurosurgery ( P ≤0.017, all). OA status appeared to significantly impact public attention scores, but not citation rates, although these effects did vary based on the journal in which articles were published. Authors may want to consider OA publication based on their target audience and the goal of their research.

This study analyses the extent of gold open access (OA) publishing options in 377 anthropology journals by applying a six-level coding scheme (0=non-transparent publishing, 5=fully OA, i.e., free to read and publish without embargo). This analysis is meant to simplify the process of identifying OA journal publishing options in the discipline of anthropology, in addition to sharing findings on some of the prominent issues in OA publishing as they relate to anthropology journals, including non-transparency among publishers and the prevalence and price of article processing charges (APCs). We conclude that publishers should be more transparent about their OA publishing options and policies by providing conspicuous and straightforward information to potential authors. Further, we find that in the anthropology scholarly communication ecosystem, APCs for hybrid journals are more expensive than those for fully gold OA journals, thus contradicting the assumption that gold OA is more costly to researchers.

Open access (OA) publishing upends the traditional business model in scientific publishing by requiring authors instead of readers to pay for the publishing-related costs. In this paper, we aim to elicit the willingness to pay (WTP) of authors for open access publishing. We conduct two separate field studies with different methodological approaches in different scientific disciplines (economics and medicine). First, a choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis measures stated preferences of 243 economists in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland regarding their valuations of open access publishing in the “Top 5” economics journals. Second, a field experiment at four different open access medical journals elicits authors’ self-determined (“Pay-What-You-Want”) payments for open access publications. The results provide a plausible range of authors’ valuations, given that the first study rather provides an upper bound and the second study a lower bound of authors’ willingness to pay for open access publishing.

Edward Keane, formerly Periodicals Librarian at Long Island University, Brooklyn Campus, examines how teaching faculty perceive the value of Open Access (OA) publishing. His main interest is whether or not faculty are receptive to publishing in OA journals. In spring 2005, a survey was administered to faculty at Long Island University, Brooklyn Campus. Keane also documents subsequent efforts to inform faculty about OA publishing. ...