Not free, but relatively inexpensive [academic publishing

FTC Sues OMICS: Claims Open Access Academic Publisher Scams Academics

This study examines Western-language, particularly English-language, monographs on Asian published in the United States, Canada, England, Australia, and other countries from 2000 through 2005. The study provides a landscape view of the scope and trends of publications for both scholars and librarians in Asian studies. The data for this study were collected from the YBP's GOBI (Global Online Bibliographic Information) database, covering publications profiled by YBP from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2005. The results of data analysis shed light on scholarly currents and publishing trends in Asian over that six-year period. ********** Scholars and librarians in Asian often wonder how research productivity and publishing trends evolve in the field. Which publishers are active in this field? What subject areas have been covered prolifically or meagerly, and what does the publishing landscape look like? Traditionally, the areas of Asian literature, history, and philosophy have been strongly represented. Is this still so? Have traditional trends experienced any shifts? Which publishers are the major players in the field? Do university presses publish in different areas from commercial publishers? Some fifty years ago, Frederick Mote (1922-2005), a leading professor of history and culture at Princeton University, raised similar questions. He surveyed important academic publishers and their major publications, introducing new publishing developments in in the Republic of China on Taiwan to the Journal of Asian Studies audience. (1) He wrote, Although the Journal has on several occasions during the last five or six years reported briefly on publication there, now there is perhaps some value in reporting more comprehensively on recent developments, both because the phenomenon itself is of interest, and because many recently published items will be desired by scholars and by research libraries. (2) The authors of this article share his rationale in the examination of recent scholarly currents and publishing trends. The purpose of Mote's survey was not to list all of the worthwhile books recently published, for that would be an obvious impossibility, but to make the general outlines and character of recent publication activities known, and to inform the reader of names and addresses of publishers from whom more detailed information can be obtained. (3) Today, however, improved technology can be utilized to achieve the goal of a fairly complete survey. Technologically, all worthwhile books recently published can be listed and analyzed. The authors used YBP'S Global Online Bibliographical Information (GOBI) database in hopes of providing a comprehensive analysis of nearly all publications profiled. The analysis helped reveal characteristics of these publications and Asian publishing trends. This study's purpose was to evaluate the scope of, and trends in, Asian research and publications. In the study, the authors use the term East Asian studies to refer to on China, Japan, and Korea; Chinese studies includes People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, and Tibet. Within Korean studies, both North Korea and South Korea are covered. In this study, the focus is on print books. The scope includes English-language monographs on Asian published in the United States, Canada, England, Australia, and other countries between 2000 and 2005. The data were collected from GOBI, covering publications profiled by YBP from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2005. Research and publishing trends are of interest to publishers, though largely from the perspective of sales. The Association of American Publishers Industry Statistics Annual Report registers data based on publishers' responses to questionnaires, collecting data on the sale of books in the category of Professional and Scholarly Publishing, which covers categories of technical, scientific, law, business, humanities, and medical materials. …

The article tries to highlight the evolution and conceptual framework of institutional repositories and their impact on the academic and scholarly circles in terms of better visibility, wider audience and earlier communication of research. The characteristics associated with the institutional repositories are also highlighted, which makes them stand out from the crowd in the family of open access scholarly platforms. The study is based on the examination and evaluation of the articles published across various peer-reviewed journals showcasing numerous dimensions of institutional repositories, ranging from their evolution to open scholarly acceptance. A preliminary search on institutional repositories was carried through two well-renowned indexing/abstracting databases of peer-reviewed literature, Clarivate Analytic’s, Web of Science and Elsevier’s Scopus. Search terms like institutional repositories, institutional research output, open access repositories, green open access, open access, open access publishing, open access initiatives, digital libraries, directory of open access repositories, open DOAR and scholarly communication were run across the databases for article retrieval, and the relevant studies were extracted accordingly. To make the study more comprehensive and current, the studies citing the retrieved articles were also consulted. The study reveals that the benefits associated with institutional repositories are manifold. They recounter users with the information which was otherwise unavailable due to the reasons ranging from the non-availability of supplementary information (like unpublished reports and working papers, multimedia and audiovisual items, learning objects, other special item types, bibliographic references, datasets, lecture notes and so forth) to the paywall/subscription models adopted by commercial channels of scholarly communication. Furthermore, the social, research and technological factors tend to be the main motivating factors for their wider acceptance by the scholarly community at global, national, organizational, and individual levels. They enhance the preservation of institutional research output with increased viewership and prestige apart from achieving a potential research impact. They, in a real sense, have abrogated the unilateral assault orchestrated by the commercial publishers on the author community by democratizing their scholarly voices via open and barrierless scholarly platforms. They are the future of the academic output of an institution/author as they perform successfully within the constitutional boundaries of scholarly and academic publishing, thus safeguarding the rights and claims of every academic actor. Given the importance of institutional repositories for a more democratic, barrierless and impactful information communication, they are for sure going beyond various scholarly circles by breaking the traditional and rigid walls of scholarly endeavours. The study presents a useful overview of the progression of the institutional repositories, their intended purpose and how they serve to fill the gaps in scholarly publishing and meet the needs of the wider academic community. The article summarizes in one place a concise overview of the use and impact of institutional repositories. The study is also an eye-opener for scholars interested in the research in the field of institutional repositories.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as generative AI became more common, its use in academic settings also gained more popularity. Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is an AI powered chatbot developed by OpenAI. It has many benefits for scholarly publishing. However, ChatGPT and related technologies have been identified as disruptive innovations with the potential to revolutionize academia and scholarly publishing (Haque et al., 2022). ChatGPT can only benefit authors when used responsibly. There are certainly ethical issues with using ChatGPT for scholarly publishing. First of all, authorship is a major concern. There are questions about the ownership of the work generated by ChatGPT (Schönberger, 2018). Besides, there may be concerns about copyright as well. When using ChatGPT, users may find it challenging to ensure that quotes, data, or other materials from external sources comply with copyright laws and receive proper attribution (Gillotte, 2019). When the language models are trained on a massive amount of data from unknown sources, it is almost impossible to track the original source. As a result, plagiarism may arise from using ChatGPT. It is not limited to copyrighted text, but also includes paraphrasing, methods, graphics, ideas, and any other product of intelligence that belongs to another person (Gasparyan et al., 2017). With the issues raised above, it is necessary to examine the current state of transparency regarding the use of generative AI in scholarly publishing.

Dating from 1665, the scholarly journal has served the research community well for over 300 years. In the past few decades, however, the subscription model it utilises has created a couple of apparently intractable problems-what we will call the affordability and accessibility problems.

At the APE 2020 Pre-Conference in Berlin, a group of talent development and HR experts from across the scientific research and publishing community came together to discuss the future of talent development in the scholarly publishing industry. We heard from an excellent group of speakers who shared with us a rich and diverse range of expertise and experience. We set ourselves the challenge of imagining what the world of scholarly academic publishing would look like in 2030, and asked ourselves the question: how can we work together to develop the talent we will need now, and for the future, in a rapidly changing world? Are we keeping pace, and are we prepared for the challenge ahead? Based on our discussion, three key themes emerged: the importance of supporting increased diversity & inclusion within scholarly publishing, interorganizational leadership development initiatives for leaders across the publishing ecosystem to exchange experiences and ideas, and greater research and publishing career mobility to encourage more fluid movement between research and publishing jobs. We believe these things are all very achievable if we commit to investing in the kind of culture change and new ways of thinking that will lead us to success in 2030.

PurposeThis paper aims to examine the role that academic publishers have historically played and how this is being undermined by the revolution in information and communications technology. A central issue here is that of copyright. Although authors need to be protected against plagiarists, the main role of publishers' control over copyright is to generate profits for the publisher by limiting access.Design/methodology/approachThe paper explores some open‐access models for academic publishing, the first involving a heterodox economics library portal and the second a more general open peer quality review site.FindingsIt identifies a residual role for commercial academic publishers in the new guise of fee‐for‐service providers of refereeing services, whose accreditations may accelerate the uptake of scholarly contributions.Originality/valueThe paper examines the role that academic publishers have historically played and how this is being undermined by the revolution in information and communications technology.

Some Research Wants to Be Free, Some Follows the Money: Bogus Journals Complicate the Open Access Movement

In 2013, the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council funded a 4-year project on the editorial and commercial history of the world’s oldest-surviving scholarly journal (‘Publishing the Philosophical Transactions: a social, cultural and economic history of a learned journal, 1665-2015’, AH/K001841). The project is led by Dr Aileen Fyfe at the University of St Andrews in partnership with the Royal Society. The project team convened a workshop at the Royal Society, 22 April 2016, on ‘The Politics of Academic Publishing, 1950-2016’. This briefing paper is informed by the contributions of those who attended that day, and we thank them for their insights. The authors of this briefing paper are a sub-group of those who attended the April 2016 workshop. This report is based upon the primary (historical) research of the Philosophical Transactions project team, combined with a literature review, and the expertise of the other authors (principally in higher education research, and in scholarly communication).

Scholarly publishing is determined and guided by the questionable and artificial prestige of publication channels that are also falsely used for assessing the research and the researchers. This steers researchers to publish their papers in the same publication channels as others do, and many relevant channels are seen as less valuable.While publishing is focused on certain journals and publishers, open access publishing is increasingly concentrated on fee-based channels, where authors are obligated to pay publishing fees (article processing charges, APC and book processing charges, BPC) just to get their research published in open access. This places a burden for researchers to get funding for publishing; it creates inequality between the researchers with funding and those without it, and it increases the costs for universities and other research organizations. (See e.g., Klebel & Ross-Hellauer 2023.) At the same time the academic community has gone further from the very principles of open science, such as the attempts to control the increasing costs of scientific publications and the aims to improve the equality of researchers and other people in need of science. Diamond OA as a realistic alternativeOpen scholarly publishing should be funded in another way than by charging publication fees from individual authors or their institutions.Promoting Diamond OA should be seen as part of a larger change in the services and practices of scholarly publishing. The whole global academic community and research service providers should be engaged in this change. The current OA diamond landscape needs to be built as a community that will support diversity and include a wide range of different academic communities in different languages (see Becerril et. al., 2021).Research communities such as learned societies and research organizations could take more control of scholarly publishing. While universities are now advancing responsible research assessment (see CoARA), maybe it's time to also reconsider the more active andresponsible role of the universities in reforming the scholarly publishing sector.Case JYU Studies - open monographs with agile servicesJYU Studies is a fresh peer-reviewed monograph series for research affiliated with the University of Jyväskylä. We found a demand for an alternative publishing channel for peer- reviewed monographs with the Diamond OA model. The Open Science Centre of the University and the editorial board manage the series and the publishing process. The editorial work and publishing are funded by the Open Science Centre. Close and agile cooperation with the departments of the University and the authors is key to all successful publishing processes.• The peer-review process is implemented openly, so the authors and the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities.• We offer alternatives for publishing formats (such as Omeka S and EPUB) and develop publishing services in an agile way.• Our publishing services cooperate closely with our university researchers and listen to their thoughts and ambitions for publishing.• The publishing services include communication and marketing planning in cooperation with the authors striving to reach the best possible visibility for the publication.• We also offer the authors a reporting service showing the usage and visibility of publications (e.g., downloads, citations). This way, the publishing service continues after the publication, and the authors get interesting information about the visibility and impact of their publication.All monographs in JYU Studies are deposited in the University of Jyväskylä repository, JYX, which is an essential infrastructure for research and education at the university. Publishing in an open repository with high-quality metadata and registered DOI identifiers ensures that monographs are indexed in relevant databases.

Aim: This scoping review aims to investigate the reasons for adopting the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) in scholarly publishing, identify barriers to its implementation or concerns about its use, and propose improvements to enhance its effectiveness in attributing individual contributions to research articles. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across multiple databases, including ProQuest, LISA, LISTA, EBSCO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Results: From an initial pool of 732 papers, 45 were selected for inclusion in the review. The findings indicate that, while the adoption of CRediT promotes transparency and recognition of contributions beyond traditional authorship, several challenges remain. Key barriers include limited applicability across different research types, potential ethical concerns, and conflicts among contributors. Factors contributing to slow adoption include low awareness, inconsistent implementation, and cultural resistance within the research community. Additionally, ambiguous role definitions complicate attribution and fairness. Conclusions: This review highlights CRediT’s potential to enhance transparency and equitable recognition of diverse contributions in scholarly publishing. However, it underscores the need to address internal challenges and promote broader acceptance within the research community. Recommendations include establishing clearer role hierarchies, standardizing adoption policies, and integrating CRediT into metadata for improved contribution tracking.

ABSTRACTThis study examines aspects of scholarly journal publishing in the Nordic countries. On average half of Nordic journals publish online. In most Nordic countries, commercial publishers predominate; however, in Finland the majority are society publishers. The number of open access journals is low, in line with international figures. There is concern to maintain local languages in journal publishing. A majority of the journals publishing in local languages are within social science, humanities, and arts; the STM sector publishes in English. English‐language publications are favoured in research assessments, international recognition, and impact, while the visibility of local‐language scholarly journals in international databases is low. The Nordbib program supports Nordic scholarly journals and fosters co‐operation with publishing companies and learned societies over migration to e‐publishing; it also supports open access. The article discusses future challenges for journal publishing, pointing out the problems of small journal publishers and the need for co‐operation between stakeholders.

Obama Signs Act to Make More Federally Funded Research Open Access: NIH Requirement Extended to Other Agencies

There is no shortage of reading material in the research community. Scholars publish in English nearly three million journal articles a year in over 33,000 scholarly journals (Mark Ware and Michael Mabe in The STM Report: an overview of scientific and scholarly publishing, 2018. STM Publishing Association, London, 2018 [1]). This is the result of a well-established trend. The number of journal titles has grown roughly 3% a year since the first scholarly journals appeared over three and a half centuries ago.

Writing for scholarly publication in an interconnected disjunctured world