Open access and the Australian Occupational Therapy Journal

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

Predatory publishing: what authors need to know.

FTC Sues OMICS: Claims Open Access Academic Publisher Scams Academics

Rise of the predators: Business is booming in the murky global market of suspect and sham publishers and journals.

In 2017, the ‘Author Guidelines’ for the Australian Occupational Therapy Journal were revised so as to better inform prospective contributors of the journal's aim and scope; submission and reporting format requirements; ethical considerations; manuscript types available; governing copyright principles; and publishing processes. The guidelines now align minimum information requirements with the increasingly complex and rapidly evolving regulatory, standards and technical context of scholarly publishing.

Despite growing interest in Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature, there is an unmet need for large-scale, up-to-date, and reproducible studies assessing the prevalence and characteristics of OA. We address this need using oaDOI, an open online service that determines OA status for 67 million articles. We use three samples, each of 100,000 articles, to investigate OA in three populations: 1) all journal articles assigned a Crossref DOI, 2) recent journal articles indexed in Web of Science, and 3) articles viewed by users of Unpaywall, an open-source browser extension that lets users find OA articles using oaDOI. We estimate that at least 28% of the scholarly literature is OA (19M in total) and that this proportion is growing, driven particularly by growth in Gold and Hybrid. The most recent year analyzed (2015) also has the highest percentage of OA (45%). Because of this growth, and the fact that readers disproportionately access newer articles, we find that Unpaywall users encounter OA quite frequently: 47% of articles they view are OA. Notably, the most common mechanism for OA is not Gold, Green, or Hybrid OA, but rather an under-discussed category we dub Bronze: articles made free-to-read on the publisher website, without an explicit Open license. We also examine the citation impact of OA articles, corroborating the so-called open-access citation advantage: accounting for age and discipline, OA articles receive 18% more citations than average, an effect driven primarily by Green and Hybrid OA. We encourage further research using the free oaDOI service, as a way to inform OA policy and practice.

Purpose:This retrospective database analysis study aims to present the scientometric data of journals publishing in the field of ophthalmology and to compare the scientometric data of ophthalmology journals according to the open access (OA) publishing policies.Methods:The scientometric data of 48 journals were obtained from Clarivate Analytics InCites and Scimago Journal & Country Rank websites. Journal impact factor (JIF), Eigenfactor score (ES), scientific journal ranking (SJR), and Hirsch index (HI) were included. The OA publishing policies were separated into full OA with publishing fees, full OA without fees, and hybrid OA. The fees were stated as US dollars (USD).Results:Four scientometric indexes had strong positive correlations; the highest correlation coefficients were observed between the SJR and JIF (R = 0.906) and the SJR and HI (R = 0.798). However, journals in the first quartile according to JIF were in the second and third quartiles according to the SJR and HI and in the fourth quartile in the ES. The OA articles published in hybrid journals received a median of 1.17-fold (0.15–2.71) more citations. Only HI was higher in hybrid OA; other scientometric indexes were similar with full OA journals. Full OA journals charged a median of 1525 USD lower than hybrid journals.Conclusion:Full OA model in ophthalmology journals does not have a positive effect on the scientometric indexes. In hybrid OA journals, choosing to publish OA may increase citations, but it would be more accurate to evaluate this on a journal basis.

See video of the presentation.In 2013 The University of Bergen established a publication fund to cover the costs for publishing Open Access. The fund covers Article Processing Charges (APC) in both Open Access journals and hybrid Open Access in subscription journals. The publication fund at The University of Bergen is one of few in Norway that includes support for hybrid Open Access. The hybrid model is controversial because the publisher receives income twice for the same article, first through APC and then through subscriptions.The arguments for including hybrid were: (1) there are more journals to choose from, hence giving more researchers the opportunity and initiative to publish Open Access. (2) the quality issue of Open Access journals. The University believed that by including hybrid more articles would be published Open Access in renowned journals. This because a larger percentage of hybrid journals are registered on level 2 in the Norwegian System for defining quality of publication channels.The fund has been a success in so far that it has led to an increase in Open Access articles in high quality journals, also within research fields that traditionally do not publish Open Access. The fund has granted applications for almost 9 million NOK. Of a total of 437 granted applications, 278 (64 %) are articles in hybrid journals. 103 articles (24 %) have been published on level 2; 11 in Open Access-journals and 92 hybrid.When it comes to research field, the results show that about 90 % of granted applications come from researchers within medicine, psychology and the natural sciences, including many fields that already have a tradition for publishing their research Open Access. The fund has only led to a slight increase in Open Access publishing with APC within the humanities, social sciences and law.Researchers are happy with hybrid publishing because they are able to continue publishing in the same journals as before. It is also the case that support of hybrid publishing results in more Open Access articles in high quality journals according to the Norwegian system. Yet, support for hybrid publishing has so far not altered which research fields that publish Open Access, although there has been an increase of Open Access publications within all faculties.Our presentation will form a basis for discussing a number of questions pertaining to the hybrid model: What have the academic and economic consequences of the hybrid model been? Do all researchers at the University have the same opportunity to publish their research Open Access? Has support of hybrid lead to more Open Access in renowned publication channels?The University has appointed a group to evaluate the publication fund and recommend if and how it shall continue. Will the fund continue to support hybrid after the trial period ends in 2015?

The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal (AOTJ) is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), an organisation that supports editors, editorial boards, and publishers to ensure a culture of ethical practices. In accordance, the publication arrangements and policies of the journal must be ethically sound and transparent. It is particularly important that AOTJ, a society journal working with both Occupational Therapy Australia and the publisher Wiley, establish governance practices that are clear and transparent. The editorials within this volume of AOTJ have spoken to quality and research integrity, and it is time to take an inward view. The introduction of a publicly advertised expression of interest for board membership in late 2019 was a first step in creating transparent processes. A new structure was created within the editorial board: the Associate Editors continue to assist the Editor-in-Chief with the management of submitted manuscripts; and the Editorial Board Members (EBM) provide support for initiatives and reviews. The role of EBM supports new members to learn the business of the journal, including governance and publishing ethics, prior to their entry into role of Associate Editor and manuscript management. All members of the editorial board now have terms of appointment to support a regular turnover of members while ensuring continuity of knowledge and succession planning. The members of the editorial board are volunteers for Occupational Therapy Australia, and we are building a system of governance while recognising the importance of editorial independence. We are introducing an induction process for all new members to clearly outline journal policies and processes, code of conduct expectations, confidentiality statements, etc. The induction process includes a conflict of interest declaration and the board is examining how to manage conflicts of interest within meetings, management of manuscripts, and publishing. An upcoming, independently facilitated session will further develop our understanding of conflicts of interest in the context of a journal editorial board. As incoming Editor-in-Chief, I gave due consideration to perceived or actual conflicts of interest and implemented the following approaches early in 2020. Firstly, I consider that I have a conflict of interest during editorial and review processes for other occupational therapy journals. I have therefore made myself unavailable for the duration of my term with AOTJ. Secondly, I have identified a perceived conflict of interest for manuscripts submitted to the journal with a current colleague or collaborator as an author. It is now editorial policy to allocate these manuscripts to an Associate Editor for management, removing the potential for any perceived influence, and ensuring confidence in the rigorous review process and final editorial decision. The more difficult issue, for all members of the editorial board and myself as Editor-in-Chief, relates to publication within the journal. As leaders in the profession, the editorial board have collaborators and research students who wish to publish in their professional association journal. COPE advice that there are examples of when an editor may publish in their own journal but that every effort must be made to minimise bias (COPE, 2005). This advice has been applied across all members of the editorial board with the following processes. Any manuscript submitted by a member of the editorial board is managed by the Editor-in-Chief and the manuscript is reviewed by experts external to the board. Any manuscript submitted with the Editor-in-Chief listed as a co-author is automatically allocated by the publishing assistant at Wiley to an Associate Editor. The Editor-in-Chief has no access to the manuscript during any stage of the review process or the editorial decision. Finally, we are introducing a policy that any manuscript authored by members of the editorial board will include a conflict of interest statement that clearly outlines their association with the journal and how this conflict was managed during the review process. To be clear, the pursuit of ethical practices in publishing have always been a focus of the AOTJ Editorial Board. This year, with the support of Occupational Therapy Australia and Wiley, we are formalising existing policies and processes and enhancing governance practices. The AOTJ has a strong commitment to ethical and transparent practices that maintain the highest standards in publication ethics.

Is there a need for a new journal devoted to preventive medicine?

The Launch of PRS GO

Open access (OA) to every research result supported by funding bodies is a medium to long-term goal. This work aims to find out whether OA publication is useful for all research fields, regardless of their specific features. As a sample, articles from the WoS databases from two disparate disciplines (one from SSCI and another from SCIE) are selected, and several hypotheses related to the presence of funding acknowledgements, cooperation and citations are tested. A first look at the general distribution of publications shows that collaborative and funded research obtains a higher proportion of cited articles, and that this proportion increases in the case of OA publications. Moreover, the logistic regression reveals that the probability of finding an OA publication is significantly increased in the SCIE discipline, and by the presence of EU funding, international collaboration and citations. This probability rises with some interactions (e.g. presence of international funding and international collaboration, or international funding and citations). Regarding OA types, Green OA publications are the most related to fund recognition, although Gold OA/Bronze OA articles in international collaboration are also significantly related to financing. Concerning impact, the most likely cited OA type is the Hybrid OA. However, if papers include funding acknowledgements, the Bronze OA and Green OA publications increase their citation likelihood. Similarly, when Gold OA articles include international collaboration, there is a greater chance of citation. With these findings, it is possible to venture that OA publishing will be useful for all research fields, although their specific features should be considered. Consequently, funders should be aware of these particularities to stimulate OA without compromising the quality of the research.

Putting into consideration the objective of the SDG 4, it would be important to note that the provision, access, and use of information resources such as open access (OA) journals is a sine qua non for quality education in Africa. Despite its importance to the education system, open access journals have been proliferated by predatory journals. Stakeholders in the OA movement and academia claim that predatory publishing is a big problem for scientific communication and could undermine development efforts. Hence, the increasing use of predatory open access journals could affect the attainment of SDGs in Africa; hence, there is the need to raise awareness to enhance the possibility of attaining the SDGs in Africa. This chapter will among others enumerate the possible havocs predatory open access journals can create and the setbacks on the attainment of SDGs in Africa. It will also spell out the necessary prospects of curtailing these havocs and setbacks towards providing quality-based information resources such as open access journals to the education societies in Africa.

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

Sir, I read with interest the editorial by Satyanarayana where he mentions that open access (OA) of journals is one of the changing aspects of journal publishing in modern day1. This system is a blessing for scientific communities because it is easily available in digital form and allows user to read, download, copy, distribute, and print2,3 without any barrier, thus increases impact of the published material. The progress of scientific knowledge in any field depends on retrieval and accessibility of relevant literature2 and in this regard archiving4 and access5 of OA literature plays a major role. In self archiving, the author can upload preprint or postprint versions in OA digital platform2,5,6 and use personal website, institutional archive, departmental archive, inter- and intra-disciplinary archive for this purpose2,6. Self-archiving can be Green OA2,6 which allows uploading postprint version and Pale Green2 OA which allows uploading preprint version of scholar work. Open access journals are another source of OA literature and provide postprint or copy edited version2 of a published article. When publishers allow immediate OA to all published material, it is known as Gold OA2,5,7. Sometimes publishers make scholarly article available after an embargo period, identified as delayed open access7. When subscription based journals allow OA to a limited number of scholarly articles, it is known as hybrid open access7. Open access in digital platform allows free access and reduced expenses for printing and distribution5 unlike traditional printing and subscription based journals. But to host a digital platform by using modern technology and archive in cyber space increase expenditure of journal publishing5 and put additional economic burden to OA publication3,5. Economically sustainability is one of the main supports for long lasting of any journal3 and it comes from either authors pay model or from external supports like public funding, membership fees, users consortia, advertising, institutional subscriptions and service sales3. In OA publication except public funding and advertising there are less chances to generate revenue from any author external sources to fulfill publication cost. Advertising generates small revenue3 and public funding sources like universities, research laboratories pay for their organization member publication3,5. In this scenario, the only feasible option left for OA journal is to generate revenue through authors pay model. According to Subar2, most of the OA journals do not charge authors but most of conventional and non OA journals do and usually authors’ fee for publication is paid by author sponsors or waived off2. Now-a- days fraud publishers use this authors pay model to generate money in dishonest way as termed as “Cash Cow” model in the editorial1. This is one of the biggest threats in the era of OA journals for scientific communities. Due to pressure for publication scholars fall in their traps. They should be careful about these fake journals because now-a-days quality of publication is more acceptable than quantity of publication8. Though there are no foolproof methods to find out fake journals in open access platform, but scholars can take certain measures to avoid these kind of counterfeit journals. First, they should check scope of the journal as most of these fake journals publish articles from different fields of science9 within a short period of time9,10, which is usually not possible for a normal regular journal. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association(OASPA) clearly mentions in their code of conduct that an OA journal should have editorial boards or other governing bodies consisting of recognized specialists from the field(s) that constitute the scope of the journal8. OASPA also suggested that there should be some form of peer review and it should be clearly mentioned on the journal or publisher's website8. The authors should also check the details of the editorial board members or reviewers available in journal home page like phone number with ISD codes which help to identify countries they belong to, institutes they work in and their details like websites from where scholars can obtain information. Regarding publication fee OASPA has clearly stated in the code of conduct that the publication fee or charges in the OA journal should be clearly mentioned on the home page and should be easily located by potential authors8. Finally, scholar should check contact details of the publisher provided in the journal or publisher's home page as most of the time it is an internet based invoice1,10 and does not have any postal code and phone number and bank account details available, which can help to identify the publishing place and thus are strong indicators of “Predatory Publishers”. All OA publishers are not predatory publisher9 but this situation can create many problems for authors and readers. This problem may be solved when open access becomes free for authors like its users6. This is an ideal OA and termed as Diamond or Platinum OA6 and will give a new direction of OA publication.