Publishing – Page 10 – DigitalKoans

"Quantifying Consolidation in the Scholarly Journals Market"

Overall, the market has significantly consolidated since 2000 — when the top 5 publishers held 39% of the market of articles to 2022 where they control 61% of it. Looking at larger sets of publishers makes the consolidation even more extreme, as the top 10 largest publishers went from 47% of the market in 2000 to 75% in 2023, and the top 20 largest publishers from 54% to controlling 83% of the corpus.

https://tinyurl.com/4xmt5zeu

| Research Data Publication and Citation Bibliography | Research Data Sharing and Reuse Bibliography | Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

"Measured in a Context: Making Sense of Open Access Book Data"

Open access (OA) book platforms, such as JSTOR, OAPEN Library or Google Books, have been available for over a decade. Each platform shows usage data, but this results in confusion about how well an individual book is performing overall. Even within one platform, there are considerable usage differences between subjects and languages. Some context is therefore necessary to make sense of OA books usage data. A possible solution is a new metric — the Transparent Open Access Normalized Index (TOANI) score. It is designed to provide a simple answer to the question of how well an individual open access book or chapter is performing. The transparency is based on clear rules, and by making all of the data used visible. The data is normalized, using a common scale for the complete collection of an open access book platform and, to keep the level of complexity as low as possible, the score is based on a simple metric. As a proof of the concept, the usage of over 18,000 open access books and chapters in the OAPEN Library has been analysed, to determine whether each individual title has performed as well as can be expected compared to similar titles.

https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.627

"UC Berkeley Library to Copyright Office: Protect Fair Uses in AI Training for Research and Education"

If the Copyright Office were to enable rightsholders to opt-out of training AI for research and teaching fair uses, then academic institutions and scholars would face even greater hurdles in licensing content for research purposes. It would be operationally difficult for academic publishers and content aggregators to amass and license the "leftover" body of copyrighted works that remain eligible for AI training. Costs associated with publishers’ efforts in compiling "AI-training-eligible" content would be passed along as additional fees charged to academic libraries, who are already financially constrained to preserve TDM and other fair uses for scholars. In addition, rightsholders might opt out of allowing their work to be used for AI training fair uses, and then turn around and charge AI usage fees to scholars (or libraries)—essentially licensing back fair uses for research. These scenarios would impede scholarship by or for research teams who lack grant or institutional funds to cover these additional expenses; penalize research in or about underfunded disciplines or geographical regions; and result in bias as to the topics and regions studied.

https://tinyurl.com/5cd2vc85

$2,500 Fee: "COAR’s response to the American Chemical Society’s New Fee or Repository Deposit"

COAR strongly objects to this charge for the following reasons:

Authors own their manuscripts and should retain their rights. Authors typically hold the copyright to their research, but too often transfer those rights to publishers when publishing their manuscript. When authors retain the copyright to their manuscript, they have the right to disseminate and use their own manuscript as they choose. If authors’ rights are retained, publishers do not own an article accepted manuscript (AAM) and researchers should not be duped into paying a fee to exercise a right they already have.

This fee is in direct contravention with the ethos of open science and scholarship and equity. . .

ACS is charging $2,500 while providing no added value. There is not a fee for an extra service offered. It requires no extra work on the side of the publisher, but rather is an attempt to develop a new revenue stream, while at the same time they will be receiving funds from subscriptions and pay-to-access for this same article.

ACS is creating a false impression about compliance with funder policies. . . . A fee is only required if you want to publish in an ACS journal and sign over your rights.

See ACS’ "Open Access Pricing for Authors: The Power of Choice" for more fee details.

https://tinyurl.com/4u4dfxsk

"On the Culture of Open Access: The Sci-Hub Paradox"

Based on a large randomized sample, this study first shows that OA publications, including those in fully OA journals, receive more citations than their subscription-based counterparts. However, the OACA has slightly decreased over the seven last years. The introduction of a distinction between those accessible or not via the Sci-hub platform among subscription-based suggest that the generalization of its use cancels the positive effect of OA publishing. The results show that publications in fully OA journals are victims of the success of Sci-hub. Thus, paradoxically, although Sci-hub may seem to facilitate access to scientific knowledge, it negatively affects the OA movement as a whole, by reducing the comparative advantage of OA publications in terms of visibility for researchers

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04792-5

Delta Think Open Access Journals Report: "Market Sizing Update 2023"

2022’s OA market grew by a little over 24% from 2021. This is around two thirds of the growth we saw in 2021. . . .

Given the exceptionally high growth in 2020 and 2021, a correction in 2022 was expected. . . .

Growth in hybrid revenues was a major factor driving growth in OA, although all types of OA saw improved revenues per article, which helped to drive growth.

Currency effects contributed to reduced growth. Many publishers operate in non-USD currencies, which lost value against the US dollar in 2022. . . .

Just over 49% of all scholarly articles were published as paid-for open access in 2022, accounting for just under 20% of the total journal publishing market value.

We anticipate a 2022-2025 CAGR (average growth each year) of 13% in OA output and 13% in OA market value.

https://tinyurl.com/5n7m6n5k

"An Open Book: Launching a Library-Based Open Access Books Hosting Service"

Edinburgh University Library launched a journal hosting service in 2009, initially to support two journals. The service has since grown into a portfolio of 19 journals and a handful of conference proceedings. The purpose of this case study is to review the 2021 launch of our book hosting service and our service rebrand to Edinburgh Diamond, looking at the reasons for launching, the timeline and challenges, and offering recommendations for those wishing to launch their own service.

https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.13745

"Researchers Express Growing Enthusiasm About Open Access, New Wiley Survey Reports"

Open access is quickly becoming the preferred publishing choice among researchers, according to new research from Wiley. 75% of respondents who have published research articles in the past three years have published open access, up from 44% just two years ago.

The survey of more than 600 scholars around the globe revealed the following insights:

Growing enthusiasm for open access. In addition to the increase in authors publishing open access, 75% of respondents agree that transformative agreements (TAs) are the right solution at this time to make research findings more openly available.

At least half of researchers engage in open research practices such as open data, open peer review and self-archiving. This demonstrates that researchers are embracing all the practices that will lead to a fully open research landscape, and are not limiting their activities to open access publishing.

Researchers who are publishing open access are motivated more by the benefits than by requirements. Respondents chose "visibility and impact" (65%) and "public benefit" (54%), followed by “transparency and reuse” (33%), when asked why they engage in open access publishing, significantly more often than journal requirements (25%) and institutional requirements (22%).

Lack of funding presents the most prominent roadblock for publishing open access. The top barrier, reported by 58% of respondents, is no or limited funds available to pay fees for open access publishing. 77% of respondents said they were likely to very likely to publish open access if their APCs were paid by their funder or institution. In addition, more than half of authors who publish open access are not clear on the license requirements from their funder (51%) or institution (55%).

https://tinyurl.com/bdetnz7y

Paywall: "Digital Ownership: The Case of E-books"

This paper presents the results of an empirical research study that used an online survey to examine e-book consumers’ perspectives on digital ownership and digital rights. The study revealed that while most participants value and desire ownership rights, certain conventional ownership rights, such as reselling, gifting, and lending, are deemed less significant and can be relinquished by consumers due to cost-related factors. Furthermore, contrary to prevailing assumptions, the study found no discernible generational gap concerning people’s perceptions of digital ownership rights.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.807

"Preprint Review Services: Disrupting the Scholarly Communication Landscape?"

The most important tension that we identified relates to anonymisation of reviewers and authors. In line with the ideas of the Democracy & Transparency school, preprint review services promote more open forms of peer review in which authors and reviewers participate on a more equal basis. However, from the perspective of the Equity & Inclusion school, this raises concerns. To make peer review processes more equitable and inclusiv e, this school emphasises the importance of enabling anonymisation of reviewers and possibly also authors, which is in tension with the focus on openness and transparency of preprint review services.

https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/8c6xm

"Wiley and German DEAL Consortium to Sign New 5-Year Agreement "

Wiley (NYSE: WLY) today announced its intent to enter a new five-year agreement with the DEAL Consortium, a countrywide consortium representative of more than 1,000 academic institutions in Germany, commencing January 2024. Wiley and DEAL are creating a blueprint for the next phase of open access publishing to better meet the evolving needs of the scholarly community.

Wiley and DEAL will build on the unprecedented success achieved in their first five years of partnership, which has resulted in:

Nearly 100% of eligible hybrid DEAL articles published open access across Wiley’s portfolio.

90% of Wiley’s article output from Germany published open access. Increased usage of research content in Germany by 83%, resulting in nearly 20 million full text downloads in 2022 alone.

Rapid growth in usage of German-authored content globally, especially in low-income countries.

https://tinyurl.com/3f8rvzd7

Paywall: "The Open Access Movement and its March in Africa"

While the goal of the OA movement remains good, it appears the epistemic disbalance in global knowledge creation and access has not abated. However, the promise of OA, the motivation on which it stands, its consequence and current state are reviewed in this paper with particular focus on the contribution of Africa to the global OA movement. It has been reported that the emergence of OA on the continent is albeit slow but with a mixed fortune of both progress and challenges. Notwithstanding, open access is seen as a development imperative for Africa that offers tremendous opportunities to the continent to actively contribute to global knowledge. It was reported that a number of universities and research institutions in Africa have adopted open access policies that require their researchers to publish their work in open access journals or repositories. The paper presented a number of open access initiatives and platforms that are actively being deployed to achieve OA mandate in the continent and concluded with recommendations.

https://tinyurl.com/f7zhss6m

"A Bibliometric Study of Open Educational Resources, Open Textbooks, and Academic Librarianship: Assessing Trends and Scholarly Productivity in Library and Information Science"

Open Educational Resources (OER) play a key role in reducing the financial burden and increasing the accessibility of learning for students in higher education. OER can be considered an important field of research for academic librarians and supports the democratic mission of academic libraries. This study aimed to track the publication of scholarly literature about OER and higher education from 2002 to 2022 using a bibliometric research methodology. In addition, this research sought to assess the productivity of Library and Information Science (LIS) scholarship on this topic and investigate research trends, like open textbooks. Web of Science (WOS) was searched for publications and the search results were mapped to determine publication productivity, core authors, core journals, and research topics in the scholarly literature about OER and higher education. Research on OER has been steadily increasing since 2002, and this study indicates that research has increased significantly on the topic in the last six years. The data in this study support that most productivity in research on this topic is in the field of Education, but also found a presence of scholarship on the topic in the field of LIS.

https://doi.org/10.13001/joerhe.v2i1.7877

"Elsevier Introduces Geographical Pricing Pilot to Support Authors in Low- And Middle-Oncome Countries with Equitable Open Access Publishing Options"

The GPOA [Geographical Pricing for Open Access] model, a publishing industry first, is set to take effect from January 2024. As part of the pilot, Elsevier will structure its article publishing charges for this subset of journals based on countries’ local economic conditions and average income. By tailoring pricing structures according to Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, a transparent and well-established measure used by many international organisations including Research4Life, Elsevier aims to reduce financial barriers that have traditionally hindered researchers and institutions from low and middle-income countries from publishing the latest research in Gold Open Access journals. Elsevier’s approach to GPOA and country banding based on GNI are outlined on our website. A full list of the journals taking part in this novel pilot can be found here. Elsevier will continue to waive APCs for authors in the lowest economic band and already provides affordable access to over 100,000 peer-reviewed resources for institutions in 120 low- and middle-income countries through Research4Life.

https://tinyurl.com/jxzt8d7e

"Springer Nature and Authors Successfully Use Generative AI to Publish Academic Book"

As part of an innovative experiment, Springer Nature has become the first publisher to create a whole new academic book by empowering authors to use GPT as part of the integrated workflow. Developed during a —Hack Day— in the Spring which brought together authors, editors and experts from across Springer Nature, the German-language book Einsatzmöglichkeiten von GPT in Finance, Compliance und Audit (Applications of GPT in finance, compliance and audit) has now been published. It took less than five months from inception to publication — about half the time normally taken. . . .

The process was as follows:

Working simultaneously on six screens, the team defined commands which GPT then executed chapter by chapter to create the first version of the manuscript

At each stage of the process, the content generated by the Large Language Model (LLM) was reviewed by the authors, who then asked the machine to adapt the text

This "prompt ping pong" ensured that the knowledge expertise of the authors renowned in their field was combined with the language expertise of the LLM

After the Hack Day, the authors and Springer Nature’s editorial team further checked, corrected and supplemented the text

The team then linked the relevant data sources to ensure proper attribution

https://tinyurl.com/4x7nvvks

Using Altmetric Data Responsibly: A Guide to Interpretation and Good Practice

This guide focuses specifically on data from the data provider and company, Altmetric, but other types of altmetrics are mentioned and occasionally used as a comparison in this guide, such as the Open Syllabus database to find the educational engagement with scholarly outputs. This guide opens with an introduction followed by an overview of Altmetric and the Altmetric Attention Score, Altmetrics and Responsible Research Assessment, Output Types Tracked by Altmetric, and the Altmetric Sources of Attention, which include: News and Mainstream Media, Social Media (X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Reddit, and historical data from Google+, Pinterest, LinkedIn, and Sina Weibo); Patents, Peer Review, Syllabi (historical data only), Multimedia, Public Policy Documents, Wikipedia, Research Highlights, Reference Managers, and Blogs; finally, there is a conclusion, a list of related resources and readings, two appendices, and references. This guide is intended for use by librarians, practitioners, funders, and other users of Altmetric data or those who are interested in incorporating altmetrics into their bibliometric practice and/or research analytics. It can also help researchers who are going up for annual evaluations and promotion and tenure reviews, who can use the data in informed and practical applications. It can also be a useful reference guide for research managers and university administrators who want to understand the broader online engagement with research publications beyond traditional scholarly citations, also known as bibliometrics, but who also want to avoid misusing, misinterpreting, or abusing Altmetric data when making decisions, creating policies, and evaluating faculty members and researchers at their institutions.

http://hdl.handle.net/10919/116448

| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Springer Nature Introduces Curie, Its AI-powered Scientific Writing Assistant"

Springer Nature today announced a new AI-powered in-house writing assistant to support researchers, particularly those whose first language is not English, in their scientific writing. . . .

It has been specifically trained on academic literature, spanning 447+ areas of study, more than 2,000 field-specific topics and on over 1 million edits on papers published including those in leading Nature journals. It combines the power of large language models (LLMs) with specialised AI digital editing developed in-house and designed specifically for scientific writing. Unlike generalist AI writing apps, Curie focuses on the unique pain points of researchers in their professional writing, including translation to English and English language editing to address grammatical errors and improve phrasing and word choice.

https://tinyurl.com/msvc28ra

"How ChatGPT and Other AI tools Could Disrupt Scientific Publishing"

In the age of LLMs, [Michael] Eisen pictures a future in which findings are published in an interactive, "paper on demand" format rather than as a static, one-size-fits-all product. In this model, users could use a generative AI tool to ask queries about the experiments, data and analyses, which would allow them to drill into the aspects of a study that are most relevant to them. It would also allow users to access a description of the results that is tailored to their needs. "I think it’s only a matter of time before we stop using single narratives as the interface between people and the results of scientific studies," says Eisen.

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03144-w

Access to Science and Scholarship: Key Questions about the Future of Research Publishing

The health of the research enterprise is closely tied to the effectiveness of the scientific and scholarly publishing ecosystem. Policy-, technology-, and market-driven changes in publishing models over the last two decades have triggered a number of disruptions within this ecosystem:

Ongoing increases in the cost of journal publishing, with dominant open access models shifting costs from subscribers to authors

Significant consolidation and vertical (supply chain) integration in the publishing industry, and a decline in society-owned subscription journals that have long subsidized scientific and scholarly societies

A dramatic increase in the number of "predatory" journals with substandard peer review

Decline in the purchasing power of academic libraries relative to the quantity and cost of published research

To illustrate how researcher behavior, funder policies, and publisher business models and incentives interact, this report presents an historical overview of open access publishing. The report also provides a list of key questions for further investigation to understand, measure, and best prepare for the impact of new policies related to open access in research publishing, categorized into six general areas: access and business models, research data, preprint publishing, peer review, costs to researchers and universities, and infrastructure.

https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/152414

"How ChatGPT and Other AI Tools Could Disrupt Scientific Publishing"

More broadly, generative AI tools have the potential to change how research is published and disseminated, says Patrick Mineault, a senior machine-learning scientist at Mila — Quebec AI Institute in Montreal, Canada. That could mean that research will be published in a way that can be easily read by machines rather than humans. "There will be all these new forms of publication," says Mineault.

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03144-w

"IFLA ARL Section’s ‘Inclusiveness through Openness’ Conference Proceedings Now Available!"

All videos and slides from this August IFLA Academic & Research Libraries Section (ARL) Satellite conference to the 2023 WLIC in Rotterdam IFLA conference are now available:

https://tinyurl.com/4cywvp9h

"2024 EBSCO Serials Price Projection Report"

Each year, EBSCO strives to help its academic and academic medical library customers plan their library budgets by projecting publisher price increases for the upcoming year. We use recent information received from publishers, as well as historical price data to calculate these projections. As of now, we expect the overall effective publisher price increases for academic and academic medical libraries in 2024 to be in the range of three to four percent for individual titles and two to three percent for e-journal packages.

https://tinyurl.com/2s3akjmw

"A Large Scale Perspective on Open Access Publishing: Examining Gender and Scientific Disciplines in 38 OECD countries"

Gender inequality is a persistent issue in scientific publishing. Recent studies suggest that Open Access (OA) publishing can increase the visibility and impact of female scientists’ research. Despite the growing acceptance of OA as a means of disseminating research results, there is a notable gap in studies focusing on the role of gender in OA publishing trends. The presented research offers a comprehensive analysis of OA publishing with a focus on gender differences and specific scientific disciplines in 38 OECD countries. Our study using the OpenAlex database included over 20 million publications from 1990-2021 and revealed that 39.3 percent of these were freely available in some form of OA. Results showed, over time, a decline in Bronze OA and Green OA but also an increase in Gold OA and, as of 2018, a rapid increase in Hybrid OA. The results also showed that females are more likely to publish in gold OA than males, both in cases of female-only authorship and mixed-gender authorship. Disciplinary analysis showed that Biology, Physics and Mathematics had the most OA publications. The results also showed the influence of major OA initiatives on publication trends. This study highlights the need for a more inclusive scientific publishing system that promotes gender equality and wider accessibility.

https://doi.org/10.55835/6442b2f80dd9c5d18e7caff8

"Which Database with Article Processing Charges Should Be Used?"

This study investigated the characteristics of three databases compiling article processing charges—price lists on publishers’ official websites, Directory of Open Access Journals, and OpenAPC—for open access journals published by Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley. Although many article processing charges listed on Directory of Open Access Journals are identical to those listed on price lists for 2023, several article processing charges on the Directory are not updated. . . . journals on OpenAPC are not representative of open access journals in general. Nevertheless, the correlation between list prices and actual article processing charges paid indicates a strong positive relationship, implying that even if empirical studies on article processing charges use different databases, the database chosen might not significantly influence their conclusions.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04841-z

"What Happens When a Journal Converts to Open Access? A Bibliometric Analysis"

In recent years, increased stakeholder pressure to transition research to Open Access has led to many journals converting, or "flipping," from a closed access (CA) to an open access (OA) publishing model. Changing the publishing model can influence the decision of authors to submit their papers to a journal, and increased article accessibility may influence citation behaviour. In this paper we aimed to understand how flipping a journal to an OA model influences the journal’s future publication volumes and citation impact. We analysed two independent sets of journals that had flipped to an OA model, one from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and one from the Open Access Directory (OAD), and compared their development with two respective control groups of similar journals. For bibliometric analyses, journals were matched to the Scopus database. We assessed changes in the number of articles published over time, as well as two citation metrics at the journal and article level: the normalised impact factor (IF) and the average relative citations (ARC), respectively. Our results show that overall, journals that flipped to an OA model increased their publication output compared to journals that remained closed. Mean normalised IF and ARC also generally increased following the flip to an OA model, at a greater rate than was observed in the control groups. However, the changes appear to vary largely by scientific discipline. Overall, these results indicate that flipping to an OA publishing model can bring positive changes to a journal.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03972-5