Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Disentangling gold open access

215 views

Published on

Seminar presented at the European Summer School for Scientometrics (ESSS 2018) held at Vienna on july 27, 2018

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Disentangling gold open access

  1. 1. Disentangling Gold Open Access Disciplinary and Country Effect
  2. 2. Objectives ➢ Learn on differences by country on Gold OA publication patterns ➢ Discuss and reflect on impact differences derived from Gold OA, publisher type and specialization field ➢ Reflect on the changes in the publication industry derived from the emergence of OA megajournals and implications for research assessment
  3. 3. Agenda I. Open Access and academia ➢ Beliefs and controversies ➢OA and Open Science II. Journals and publishers ➢The APC model ➢ Predatory journals and OA detractors ➢ The new and the old oligopolies of publishers III. Publication patterns worldwide ➢ Differences by country and discipline ➢ Three models of Gold OA publishing
  4. 4. Open Access and academia
  5. 5. Open Access and academia “[…] it is up to the scientific community to change the system in a similar fashion and in paralell to the open Access and open science movements” Larivière et al., 2015
  6. 6. Open Access and academia
  7. 7. Open Access and academia 1. OA = OA journals 2. All OA journals charge publication fees 3. The authors have to pay these fees 4. Publishing in non-OA journals = no OA 5. OA journals are low quality 6. OA mandates infringe academic freedom
  8. 8. Open Access and academia EU Open Science Monitor 2018 Data: Scopus
  9. 9. Open Access and academia EU Open Science Monitor 2018 Data: Scopus
  10. 10. Open Access and academia EU Open Science Monitor 2018 Data: Scopus GOLD 39.7% | GREEN 26.1%
  11. 11. Open Access and academia Data: Google Scholar, CrossRef
  12. 12. Open Access and academia Data: WoS Period: 2007-2015 Data sources, period frame, OA definitions and subject classifications are important!!
  13. 13. Open Access and academia Data: WoS Period: 2007-2015 Data sources, period frame, OA definitions and subject classifications are important!!
  14. 14. Open Access and academia Open Access is one of the many pillars by which Open Science practices are supported
  15. 15. Journals and publishers FIRST WAVE − LATE 1990s • OA publishing dominated by individual initiatives • Journal of of Medical Internet Research main exponent SECOND WAVE − 1990s and 2000s • Movement led by scientific societies • Some examples: British Medical Journal | Scielo THIRD WAVE − 2000s • Birth of OA publishers: BMC and PLOS ONE • Introduction of the APC (Article Processing Charges) business model Björk & Solomon, 2012
  16. 16. Journals and publishers THE APC MODEL AND PEER REVIEW SYSTEM • Most sustainable solution to maintain journals as a profitable business • It allows ‘savings up to 30%’ compared to subscription model • Ensure wide accessibility and visibility to sci literature • Speed of publication • Peer review sloppy • Opens door to predatory journals • Journals have a monetary interest on accepting and publishing manuscripts • OA journals tend to have lower Journal Impact Factor
  17. 17. “The open-Access movement has been a blessing to anyone who has unscientific ideas and wants to get these ideas into print” Jeffrey Beall, 2013 Journals and publishers
  18. 18. Journals and publishers • 2013 –Science Magazine publishes ‘Who’s afraid of peer review?’ by John Bohannon, a scientific journalist • He submitted 304 versions of a bogus paper to OA journals, 157 were accepted • This was seen as an attack by Science Magazine to OA, as it sent the subtle message that OA and poor quality were related.
  19. 19. Journals and publishers • OA journals are not of a lesser quality than traditional ones but are younger Björk & Solomon, 2012 • In fields such as Biomedicine OA journals with APC model have similar citation rates than subscription-based journals Solomon, Laakso & Björk, 2013 • “[O]verall positive impact trend for Top Open Access journals”. Gumpenberger et al., 2013
  20. 20. Journals and publishers
  21. 21. Journals and publishers Nature Springer, Plos One, Hindawi and Frontiers are the new oligopoly of OA publishers
  22. 22. Journals and publishers Author pays model JOURNAL JIF 2017 € / article Pubs 2017 Benefits 2017 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS 12.35 3,850 € 4,511 1,736,735 € SCIENTIFIC REPORTS 4.12 1,370 € 25,333 34,706,210 € PLOS ONE 2.77 1,373 € 21,083 28,946,959 € BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL 2.58 1,679 € 2,050 3,441,950 € BMC PUBLIC HEALTH 2.42 1,745 € 1,070 1,867,150 € BMJ OPEN 2.41 1,514 € 2,630 3,981,820 €
  23. 23. Publication patterns worldwide • Does research ouput published in OA journals have less impact? → OA journals of lesser quality • Are there differences by fields? → Concentration of OA journals in specific areas • Are there differences by countries? → Differing country profiles • Is it really OA what is driving these differences? → Characterization of publishers
  24. 24. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2005-2014
  25. 25. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2005-2014 Pilot analysis: Spain as a case study
  26. 26. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2005-2014 Pilot analysis: Spain as a case study
  27. 27. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2005-2014 Pilot analysis: Spain as a case study
  28. 28. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2005-2014 Pilot analysis: Spain as a case study
  29. 29. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2007-2016
  30. 30. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2007-2016
  31. 31. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2005-2014 Pilot analysis: Spain as a case study
  32. 32. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2017 SPAIN SOC SCI & HUM MATHS & COMP SCI
  33. 33. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2017 SPAIN
  34. 34. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2017 AUSTRIA
  35. 35. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2017 BRAZIL
  36. 36. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2017 UNITED KINGDOM
  37. 37. Publication patterns worldwide Data: WoS Period: 2007-2016 Distribution of OA journals by scientific area and impact
  38. 38. Publication patterns worldwide OA journals by country: output and impact
  39. 39. Publication patterns worldwide COUNTRY PROFILES MODEL I United Kingdom Publication in English language High JIF OA journals Focused on Biomedical Sciences and Life Sciences Main venues are OA megajournals for profit OA publishers from USA, United Kingdom Top OA journals: PLOS One, Scientific Reports, Nature Communications, BMJ Open
  40. 40. Publication patterns worldwide COUNTRY PROFILES MODEL II Brazil Publication in national language Low JIF OA journals Diversified OA disciplinary profile Main venues are OA small publishers publicly funded OA publishers from Brazil Top OA journals: PLOS One, Semina-Ciencias Agrarias, Ciencia Rural, Ciencia & Saude Coletiva
  41. 41. Publication patterns worldwide COUNTRY PROFILES MODEL III Spain Publication in both English and national languages Diversified publication profile based on JIF Focused on Biomedical Sciences and Social Sciences & Humanities Venues by field: OA megajournals for Biomed, small publishers for SSH OA publishers from USA, United Kingdom, Spain Top OA journals: PLOS One, Scientific Reports, Nutrición Hospitalaria, Sensors, Journal of High Energy Physics
  42. 42. Publication patterns worldwide MODEL I • Big OA publishers and megajournals • Concentration of OA pubs in Life Sciences • Main language of publication is English MODEL II • Small national publishers • Diversified disciplinary publication profile • Main language of publication is national language MODEL III • Diversified publication profile with special focus on SSH and Life and Biomed Sci. • Both national and English language • SSH small publishers, Life Sci, large publishers.
  43. 43. FORTHCOMING D. Torres-Salinas, N. Robinson-Garcia & H.F. Moed. Disentangling Gold Open Access. Glanzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch U., Thelwall, M. (2018). Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1311536
  44. 44. Disentangling Gold Open Access Disciplinary and Country Effect Nicolas Robinson-Garcia Daniel Torres-Salinas
  45. 45. References Beall, J. (2013). The open-access movement is not really about open access. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 11(2), 589–597.008 Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine, 10, 73. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-73 Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60 Gumpenberger, C., Ovalle-Perandones, M.-A., & Gorraiz, J. (2013). On the impact of Gold Open Access journals. Scientometrics, 96(1), 221–238. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0902-7 Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PloS One, 10(6), e0127502. Martín-Martín, A., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Evidence of Open Access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: a large-scale analysis. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1803.06161. Solomon, D. J., Laakso, M., & Björk, B.-C. (2013). A longitudinal comparison of citation rates and growth among open access journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 642–650. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.03. Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-Garcia, N., & Aguillo, I. F. (2016). Bibliometric and Benchmark Analysis of Gold Open Access in Spain: Big Outpu... Profesional de La Informacion, 25(1), 17–24. doi:10.3145/epi.2016.ene.03

×