Publishing – Page 4 – DigitalKoans

Paywall: "Journal Requirement for Data Sharing Statements in Clinical Trials: A Cross-Sectional Study"

Despite ICMJE [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors] recommendations, more than 27% of biomedical journals do not require clinical trials to include data sharing statements, highlighting room for improved transparency.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111405

"Towards Conversational Discovery: New Discovery Applications for Scholarly Information in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence "

Here, we. . . discuss how GenAI is moving us towards conversational discovery and what this might mean for publishing, as well as potential future trends in information discovery.

AI-powered features include natural language search, concise summaries, and synthesis of research. . . .

It [Scopus AI] has the ability to use keywords from research abstracts to generate concept maps for each query. Dimensions Assistant offers well-structured explanations. . . researchers can receive notifications each time content is generated . . . .

There are two types of AI/GenAI powered discovery systems: AI+ refers to native applications which can only be built based on GenAI (such as Chat GPT and Perplexity.ai), while +AI means AI/GenAI can be integrated to improve existing discovery tools and search engines such as Google and Bing.

https://tinyurl.com/53chtzu7

Paywall: "K-Means Clustering of Dermatology Journals: Comparing the Distribution of ‘Free-to-Publish’ and ‘Pay-to-Publish’ Models"

The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-024-03105-x

Classifying Open Access Business Models

The proliferation of Open Access (OA) business models has been rapid, presenting challenges for stakeholders in academic publishing in communicating and working effectively with one another. This article offers a comprehensive classification system for OA models, categorizing them into five core types (transactional, bundled, cooperative, sponsored, and alternative), each with distinct characteristics and implications for funding, equity, and implementation. This classification aims to clarify the myriad labels and terminologies used, addressing the inconsistencies and gaps in previous attempts to categorize OA models. By providing descriptions and analyses of different business models, the article seeks to enhance transparency around and understanding of OA options, ultimately supporting informed decision-making in the evolving landscape of academic publishing.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11242106

Generative AI Issues in Scholarly Publishing: "Guest Post: Jagged Edges of Conversational Interfaces Over Scholarly and Professional Content "

The fundamental tension is that unlike web distribution of static content, which has enormous scale advantages due to very low marginal costs, the RAG [Retrieval-Augmented Generation] pattern has high marginal costs (10-1000X) that scale linearly. While token costs remain high, for general scholarly applications outside of specialty practitioners, the central business or product challenge will be how to generate sufficient incremental revenue to offset the vastly higher compute costs to use GenAI technology to generate responses to queries.

https://tinyurl.com/38x432h7

"Stronger Together: Library-led Open Access Publishing in Scotland"

The purpose of this article is to look at library-led Open Access publishing initiatives across Scotland: particularly the Scottish Confederation of University and Research Libraries (SCURL) Open Hosting Shared Service and Scottish Universities Press (SUP). . . .

In 2018, the University of Edinburgh (UoE) submitted a proposal to SCURL, pitching the creation of a new shared service that would be governed by SCURL and provided by library staff at the University of Edinburgh. The aim of this shared service was to equip member institutions with a hosting solution to fulfil their Open Access publishing activities, with the development time charged to UoE. The fee for the shared service is at cost (currently £1,400 + VAT per year), and everything is reinvested, predominantly covering technical and staffing costs. All members meet four times a year to discuss the direction and growth of the shared service, ensuring it is very much a partnership and not just led by the University of Edinburgh.

The hosting solution is fulfilled by the use of Open Journals System (OJS) and Open Monograph Press (OMP). SCURL partners get their own installation of the required open-source software, and the staff at UoE complete the initial configuration of the site and customisation of the user interface. The fee is charged per installation. So, for example, a user pays one fee for OJS and can set up as many journals as they like. . . .

To finish, the shared service launched with three members and now has eleven, with more on the way. The members are:

Glasgow Caledonian University

Heriot Watt University

Queen Margaret University

Robert Gordon University

Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

Scottish Universities Press

Society of Antiquaries Scotland

St Andrews University

University of Edinburgh

University of Glasgow

The University of the Highlands and Islands

https://tinyurl.com/2vy7wp94

Paywall: "Does Research Funding, Open Access Availability, and Collaboration in Research Influence Citation Impact? An Analysis of Neurotechnology Research"

The United States Department of Health and Human Services remains at the top by contributing funding to 7.46% of research papers in the field of Neurotechnology research. Statistical tests confirmed significant correlations between research funding, collaboration, and research availability mode with citation impact. Positive correlations were identified between research funding and collaboration, while open access availability showed a negative correlation with citation impact.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2024.2350377

"More Readers in More Places: The Benefits of Open Access for Scholarly Books"

Open access to scholarly contents has grown substantially in recent years. This includes the number of books published open access online. However, there is limited study on how usage patterns (via downloads, citations and web visibility) of these books may differ from their closed counterparts. Such information is not only important for book publishers, but also for researchers in disciplines where books are the norm. This article reports on findings from comparing samples of books published by Springer Nature to shed light on differences in usage patterns across open access and closed books. The study includes a selection of 281 open access books and a sample of 3,653 closed books (drawn from 21,059 closed books using stratified random sampling). The books are stratified by combinations of book type, discipline and year of publication to enable likewise comparisons within each stratum and to maximize statistical power of the sample. The results show higher geographic diversity of usage, higher numbers of downloads and more citations for open access books across all strata. Importantly, open access books have increased access and usage for traditionally underserved populations.

https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.558

"Editors at Philosophy & Public Affairs Resign; Will Launch New OA Journal"

We take this step because we believe that scholarly journals—including our own—serve important purposes, and that these purposes are not well-served by commercial publishing. For three decades now, academic journals have suffered from their ownership by for-profit publishers, who have exploited their monopoly position to sharply raise prices, unduly burdening subscribing libraries and shutting out other institutions and individuals from access to research. The recent rise of the author-funded "open access" model has only reinforced academic inequality, since scholars with access to fewer resources are unable to pay the fees that make their work freely accessible; it has also incentivized commercial publishers to try to publish as many articles as possible and so to pressure rigorous journals to weaken or abandon their quality controls. . . .

The new diamond journal will be published by the Open Library of Humanities.

https://tinyurl.com/42z2t83c

"Challenges and Roadblocks to Robust Metadata in the Scholarly Communications Industry"

For the scholarly communications community to extract the most value from scientific research, as well as to successfully move from subscription to open access publishing models, it is essential to have ‘clean’ metadata and a robust infrastructure to build the required workflows, processes and systems to support effective use of that metadata. The obstacles to achieving a supporting infrastructure and implementing effective workflows are many, negatively impacting every stakeholder group and every aspect of the research and publishing process.

https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.642

"Amplifying Academic Research through YouTube: Engagement Metrics as Predictors of Citation Impact"

The preliminary findings from the linear regression analysis (Table 1) suggest a meaningful relationship between the online engagement metrics of videos on YouTube and the academic impact of the publications referenced within these videos. Specifically, the analysis found positive correlations with the citation impact for three key metrics: the number of videos referencing publications, the ratio of likes to dislikes on videos, and the number of comments containing references to other publications. The positive correlation indicates a sort of selective amplification process. Publications mentioned in videos that garner attention in the form of likes and active discussion in comments are likely being selectively chosen for their relevance or quality. This selection process by content creators and the subsequent engagement by viewers may serve as an “informal peer review”, signaling the value and impact of the research. The findings suggest that social media, particularly YouTube in this context, acts as a filter that potentially can highlight the visibility of impactful research.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12734

UC and Authors Alliance: "Outcomes, Questions, and Answers: ‘The Right to Deposit (r2d) Uniform Guidance to Ensure Author Compliance and Public Access’"

The United States Office of Management and Budget uniform guidance for grants and agreements contains the following language in 2 CFR §200.315(b):

To the extent permitted by law, the recipient or subrecipient may copyright any work that is subject to copyright and was developed, or for which ownership was acquired, The Right to Deposit (R2D)under a Federal award. The Federal agency reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work for Federal purposes and to authorize others to do so. This includes the right to require recipients and subrecipients to make such works available through agency-designated public access repositories.¹

This provision, the Federal purpose license, has existed in some form since at least 1976. Some federal agencies, including the Department of Energy (DOE), have already been relying on it in the implementation of their public access plans. The Federal purpose license applies upon creation of an article, overriding all subsequent terms and licenses. It provides a highly effective, non-disruptive, elegant and familiar solution for accomplishing the ends of the Nelson memo without having to rely on individual authors and institutions to protect this right or navigate differing institutional approaches. Leveraging the Federal purpose license could also provide consistency for articles and authors subject to policies from multiple granting agencies. . . .

If the Federal purpose license has already existed for a long time, and has new language clarifying that it can be used this way, does that solve the problem for authors?

It depends on the author’s funder. Agencies have rights in federally funded research publications, but they are not uniformly using them. Only some agencies are telling their grantees in agency guidance that the Federal purpose license covers sharing publications in agency-designated repositories. Other agencies aren’t relying on their own rights from the license, and instead advising grantees to work with their publisher and secure the rights to post their publications independently. The Federal purpose license does not help authors if they don’t know about it.

https://tinyurl.com/bdfks8pu

"Article Processing Charges Suppress the Scholarship of Doctoral Students"

The open access movement has drastically reconfigured the financial burdens of scholarly publishing. Yet, the influence of a marketized scholarly publishing system on doctoral education remains unexplored. I reflect on my own PhD candidature to illustrate how article processing charges disempower doctoral candidates. I argue that the current open access publishing model unfairly advantages candidates with personal, familial and/or institutional wealth. The inequalities imposed on doctoral students by our sectors’ current publishing habits ultimately bias who will be paid to produce and safeguard knowledge in the future. Doctoral students can no longer be ignored in debates over open access publishing.

https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2024.e124173

"WIPO Study: Research4Life Program Spikes Research Output by up to 75% in Low- and Middle-Income Countries"

A new study conducted by leading researchers from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the University of the Bundeswehr Munich and the German Economic Institute reveals that free or low-cost online access to scientific publications — as provided by Research4Life programs — results in a surge in scientific output, particularly in health sciences, by up to 75% in low- and middle-income countries. . . .

Research institutions in the Caribbean, Central Asia, Europe, and Latin America saw their academic paper output increase by 80-100%. In terms of clinical trials, program participation was most impactful for East Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East, and North Africa, with trial activity rising by up to 35%.

Report

https://tinyurl.com/vjpfub7u

"The Road to Sustainability: Examining Key Drivers in Open Access Diamond Journal Publishing"

Despite the rising interest in open access (OA) diamond journals as a scholarly journal publishing model, their sustainability remains a pressing concern. Using the Open Access Diamond Journals Study (OADJS) Dataset, we examined the characteristics and factors of OA diamond journal publishing that are associated with high sustainability. From 1335 journals, 476 journals with low sustainability and 438 journals with high sustainability were selected and compared. Our analysis revealed that factors such as the region and official language of the publishing country and the discipline, ownership, and financial status of the journal were significantly associated with sustainability. Journals owned by government or national agencies, those with financial stability, and those promoting open practices like unrestricted text and data mining are more likely to be sustainable. This study also discusses the implications of these findings for the future of scholarly publishing and the open science movement. Ultimately, we emphasize the need for national and international support to enhance the sustainability of OA diamond journals and propose that a collective approach involving policymakers, funding agencies, and journal administrators is crucial for fostering a sustainable open access ecosystem.

https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1611

"Relationships between Expert Ratings of Business/Economics Journals and Key Citation Metrics: The Impact of Size-Independence, Citing-Journal Weighting, and Subject-Area Normalization"

This study uses data for >3300 business and economics journals to explore the relationships between 5 subjective (expert) journal ratings and 10 citation metrics including 5IF (5-year Impact Factor), Article Influence (AI) score, CiteScore, Eigenfactor, Impact per Publication, SJR, and SNIP. Overall, AI and SJR are the citation metrics most closely related to the expert journal ratings. . . . These results, which are consistent across the 5 expert ratings, suggest that evaluators consider the average impact of an article in each journal rather than the total impact of the journal as a whole, that they give more credit for citations in high-impact journals than for citations in lesser journals, and that they assess each journal’s relative standing within its own field or subfield rather than its broader scholarly impact.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102882

"MIT Press releases Direct to Open (D2O) Impact Report"

The MIT Press announces the release of a report on its Direct to Open (D2O) program detailing the impact that it has had in its first three years. Launched in 2021, D2O is a sustainable framework for open access monographs that shifts publishing from a solely market-based, purchase model where individuals and libraries buy single eBooks, to a collaborative, library-supported open access model. . . .

To date, D2O has funded 240 books: 159 in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS), and 81 in Science, Technology, Engineering, Art/Design, and Mathematics (STEAM). The data show that, on average, open access HSS books in the program are used 3.75 times more and receive 21% more citations than their paywalled counterparts. Open access books in STEAM fields are used 2.67 times more and receive 15% more citations than their non-open counterparts, on average. . . .

At a time when average print runs for academic monographs are often in the low hundreds, books in the D2O program are reaching larger audiences online than ever before—averaging 3,061 downloads per title and bringing important scholarship to international audiences.

https://tinyurl.com/4cwet48f

"Different Open Access Routes, Varying Societal Impacts: Evidence from the Royal Society Biological Journals"

In this article, we explore different OA routes (i.e., gold OA, hybrid OA, and bronze OA) and their varying effects on multiple types of societal impacts (i.e., social media and web) by using the case of four biological journals founded by the Royal Society. The results show that (1) gold OA is significantly and positively related to social media indicators (Twitter counts and Facebook counts), but significantly and negatively associated with web indicators (Blog counts and News counts); (2) hybrid OA has a significant and positive effect on both social media and web indicators; and (3) bronze OA is significantly and positively associated with social media indicators, but it turns to be negative albeit nonsignificant for web indicators.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05032-0

Open Access Projects in Europe: From a General Perspective to Monographs and Ebooks

The development of policies in favour of open science and the transformation of publication channels for academic literature and research produced with public funding by researchers and authors in higher education, combined with technological and financial developments in open access models for scholarly publication and the interest shown by funders for a long time in journals and articles and more recently in monographs and textbooks, continue to reshape the face of academic publication.

Cécile Swiatek Cassafieres, a member of the Executive Board of the Association of European Research Libraries (LIBEReurope.org), will provide a general overview of the main European trends, initiatives and projects in this area, focusing on the diamond model and its current prospects, before addressing the case of ‘books’ in open access, from the angle of monographs on the one hand, and textbooks on the other. A presentation of LIBER’s own initiatives will illustrate the Association of European Research Libraries’ support for such developments.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11149567

"Guidance Needed for Using Artificial Intelligence to Screen Journal Submissions for Misconduct"

Journals and publishers are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) to screen submissions for potential misconduct, including plagiarism and data or image manipulation. While using AI can enhance the integrity of published manuscripts, it can also increase the risk of false/unsubstantiated allegations. Ambiguities related to journals’ and publishers’ responsibilities concerning fairness and transparency also raise ethical concerns. In this Topic Piece, we offer the following guidance: (1) All cases of suspected misconduct identified by AI tools should be carefully reviewed by humans to verify accuracy and ensure accountability; (2) Journals/publishers that use AI tools to detect misconduct should use only well-tested and reliable tools, remain vigilant concerning forms of misconduct that cannot be detected by these tools, and stay abreast of advancements in technology; (3) Journals/publishers should inform authors about irregularities identified by AI tools and give them a chance to respond before forwarding allegations to their institutions in accordance with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines; (4) Journals/publishers that use AI tools to detect misconduct should screen all relevant submissions and not just random/purposefully selected submissions; and (5) Journals should inform authors about their definition of misconduct, their use of AI tools to detect misconduct, and their policies and procedures for responding to suspected cases of misconduct.

https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241254052

AI-native Platform: "Reimagining Research Impact: Introducing Web of Science Research Intelligence"

Currently being developed in partnership with leading academic institutions, Web of Science Research Intelligence is an AI-native platform that embodies a vision centered on three pillars: unification, innovation and impact. It seamlessly integrates funding data with research outputs that include publications, patents, conference proceedings, books, policy documents and more. Based on these data, the platform identifies relevant funding opportunities within emerging research areas, equipping institutions and researchers to innovate.

A conversational assistant powered by generative AI enables all users to gain insights and create qualitative narratives for more balanced impact assessment, from data scientists to those with limited analysis experience.

Tailored recommendations for collaboration and funding help early career researchers build their networks and all researchers position themselves to win.

A new framework for measuring societal impact beyond traditional citation metrics will empower researchers and institutions to showcase the broader impacts of their work.

https://tinyurl.com/2zdshm6b

"Researchers from over 3700 Global Institutions Now Supported by Springer Nature Transformative Agreements"

Springer Nature now supports researchers from over 3700 institutions, across six continents, with open access (OA) publication via its Transformative Agreements (TA). The continued growth of the publisher’s TAs underscores the Springer Nature’s in accelerating the global transition to OA, ensuring all who want to publish OA can do so regardless of location or funding.

https://tinyurl.com/4xrsebkr

Paywall: "Open Peer Review Correlates with Altmetrics but Not with Citations: Evidence from Nature Communications and PLoS One"

The analysis reveals articles subjected to OPR [Open Peer Review] have no obvious advantage in citations but a notable higher score in altmetrics. The distribution of data variation across most disciplines, displaying a statistically significant difference between OPR and non-OPR, mirrors the overall trend. Two potential explanations for the disparity in OPR’s impact on citations compared to altmetrics are proposed. The first relates to the quality heterogeneity between OPR and non-OPR research, while the second is related to the diverse authors citing and mentioning articles in distinct communities.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101540

"And Never the Twain Shall Meet? Institutional Open Access Policies (IOAPs) and Review, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT)"

Introduction: Institutional open access policies (IOAPs) express an institutional commitment to making scholarly knowledge openly accessible, typically by asking academics to deposit their scholarship into an open access (OA) repository. Faculty, however, must prioritize other scholarly requirements, such as those specified in review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) processes and policies. If IOAPs are ignored or in conflict with RPT, they will not be as effective as possible. Literature Review: Despite the fact that many higher education institutions say they value scholarly research contributing to the public good, they often do not articulate that OA is a necessary component to achieve this goal. Parallelly, increasing numbers of higher education institutions have adopted an IOAP, but few of them include the policy in RPT policies. Methods: An electronic survey was disseminated to members of the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI) in order to quantify how many include the concept of OA and/or their IOAP in their RPT mechanisms. Results: Only four out of 28 respondents indicated that the concept of OA is integrated into RPT at their institution, and only one out of 28 reported that the IOAP is present in RPT. Discussion: Consistent with sparse examples in the literature, this study suggests that most IOAPs exist in separation from RPT, and this separation threatens the success of IOAPs. Conclusion: Faculty prioritize RPT guidelines in order to advance their careers, but these policies rarely address OA and IOAPs. More attention to the relationship between IOAPs and RPT is necessary in order to discover how they can complement one another and enhance scholarly knowledge production and exchange.

https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.16899

"Are Transformative Agreements Worth It? An Analysis of Open Access Publication Data at the University of Kentucky"

Open access publishing is continuing to grow as funders such as cOAlition S, National Institutes of Health, and the White House implement mandates and requirements that publicly funded research be made immediately available for public consumption. Publishers have adopted open access as a business model through transformative agreements that combine subscription and publishing fees. However, it is unclear whether these agreements are beneficial for libraries. This article discusses a project by the University of Kentucky Libraries to gather and analyze open access publication data to aid in the evaluation of transformative agreement proposals. This article also discusses how the University of Kentucky compares to peer institutions in the Southeastern Conference and other benchmark institutions regarding open access publishing output. Additionally, this article discusses downsides of transformative agreements and highlights promising alternatives.

https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.68n1.8211