The Changing Landscape of Open Access Publishing
Can Open Access Publishing Make the Scholarly World More Equitable and Productive?
Richard G Dudley
Adjunct Associate Professor
International Programs, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Cornell University
rgd6@cornell.edu
Abstract
Almost 50% of scholarly articles are currently open access in some form. This greatly benefits
scholars at most institutions and is especially helpful to independent scholars and those without
access to libraries. It also furthers the long-standing idea of knowledge as a public good. The
changing dynamics of OA threatens this positive development by solidifying the pay-to-publish
OA model which further marginalizes peripheral scholars and incentivizes the development of
sub-standard and predatory journals.
The Rise of Open Access Publishing
The Generation of Academic Knowledge
Knowledge Builds on Knowledge,
Much scholarly work is built on knowledge but Access is Essential oe
discovered or created by previous scholars. The Potentially Available |
details of that previous work are communicated via ee mowiesee ‘ehotaty
scholarly publications. Although the form of these —
has changed over the years, the most common form aoa Nr
of communication now is via journal articles and aria neo pers
books. Access to this accumulated knowledge is an Pec (cere msenots
issue of vital importance to scholars around the fee {
world because, at present, much of it is unavailable ‘ | Lest %
to them. It should be. Scholars also need to be able bea 4 > sand
to publish their findings, so that others can benefit findings gehen eration ney
(Figure 1). This article examines how the open :
access movement is changing the dynamics of
scholarly publishing. Figure 1. Knowledge is built upon previous knowledge which
allows scholarly activity to progress. To a large
extent this progress is dependent on the availability
of scholarly publications.
The development of the internet and related technologies changed the journal format by creating the
opportunity for online publishing. Traditional print journal publishers rapidly moved to this new format,
but access to their journals remained restricted by high subscription (pay-to-view)! fees. That situation
continued to limit journal access to scholars at institutions that have access to good libraries. Expensive,
pay-to-view, journals locked out the vast majority of academics around the world, preventing them from
The Move Toward Open Access
+ Subscription (pay-to-view) icati are ime referred to as toll access or TA.
P. 1
DRAFT oF 15 JuLy 2019 AGE
OPEN ACCESS LANDSCAPE
reading recent research findings which would otherwise allow them to improve their own research
efforts. This limitation principally affected academics at small institutions (in many countries) and
independent scholars”? with no academic affiliation. Such restrictions on journal readership limited the
use of published research findings, the citation of that work, and, generally, the spread of knowledge.
Ultimately the rising price of journal subscriptions reached the point that many large academic
institutions rebelled and looked to the alternative: open access (OA) publishing (e.g. see chapter 2 in
Suber, 2012). Basically, the cost of maintaining academic libraries had become unsustainable and
contributed to the changes we are now seeing.
Open access (OA) was a relatively new, rapidly growing, phenomenon within academic publishing
circles. Open access strives to make published works available to a wider readership by removing the
cost of access to journal articles... by making articles free to read. Examples of respected early OA
journals are Ecology and Society online since 1997*, and the seven journals published by the Public
Library of Science (PLOS)°, online since 2003, among others. These and other pioneering OA journals
helped establish the credibility of OA as a .
platform (Figure 2). as of he iene pracuialey Peete ca Gn
<P publishing Journals
Although the rapid expansion of OA was early OA
relatively new, early OA archives had existed archives
for some time, a fact that also helped a
establish the credibility of OA as a platform iea'st aaa cet
(Figure 2). ArXiv’, still in use today, first went knowledge as platform
online in 1991 to improve scholarly a public good
communication within certain fields of
mathematics and physics (Ginsparg, 1994).
Other early OA archives are PubMed Central’ oe
launched in 2000, and Project Euclid® online
since 2003. In reality, using the internet to
exchange information in formalized serial
format started even earlier (e.g. see Bailey,
1990, 1991).°
Figure 2. Early years of OA were stimulated by success of previous
peri ion and the ished idea of asa
public good.
Laakso et al. (2011) provide a detailed review of the growth of OA publishing from 1993 to 2009. They
found that annual growth in OA journals from 2000 to 2009 was 18% and annual growth in the number
of OA articles during the same period was 30%. However, by 2009 OA articles still made up only 7.7% of
peer reviewed articles.
? The term “academic nomad” is sometimes used but that usually refers to people who move among temporary
academic positions, including those who must move for political reasons (Vatansever, 2018). The term “peripheral
scholar” is used but that could be interpreted as “not important” which is not what is meant here.
3 See, for example, comments by Bjork (2017) about specialists working outside academia.
* http://www.ec iety.org/ Originally i under the title Conservation Ecology.
5 https://www.plos.org/
6 http://arXiv.org
7 http://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/. An archive of scholarly articles in biomedical and life sciences.
8 https://projecteuclid.org/.
° The open access directory (http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main Page) provides additional information about
early OA and online journals.
PAGE 2
DRAFT oF 15 JuLy 2019
OPEN ACCESS LANDSCAPE
University libraries, fighting ever rising subscription costs, were early promoters of OA. As the open
access movement grew it gained the support of government and other funding agencies, and many of
those began to require results from research they funded to be readily accessible to other researchers
and to the public (Figure 3). Since 2008 research funding agencies of the US government require that
resulting research findings be made available on OA platforms (Varmus, 2008). More recently, since
September 2018, a major campaign, Plan S, has been underway, backed by an influential international
consortium of research funders*® (Rabesandratana, 2018; Schiltz, 2018). Such widespread funding
agency support for OA has reinforced the credibility of OA as a platform and, as of 2018 more than half
of all published academic articles were freely available (Science-Metrix Inc., 2018).
Other active promotion of OA also occurs. The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition
SPARC (http://sparc.arl.org/about ), is “an international alliance of academic and research libraries
working to create a more open system of scholarly communication.” The Directory of Open Access
Journals DOAJ (https://doaj.org/ ), and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association OASPA
(http://oaspa.org/ ) work with authors to find suitable OA outlets for their publications (Figure 3). These
organizations also help authors avoid predatory journals (see below).
Benefits of Open Access
The benefits of open access publishing in terms of increased visibility of research findings has been
documented for some years (Antelman, 2004), as has evidence for increased citation of open access
articles (Eysenbach, 2006). More recent studies have confirmed these findings (Breugelmans et al.,
2018; Piwowar et al., 2018; Science-Metrix Inc., 2018). Although Davis (2010) found only a slight
increase in citation of OA articles he found a 100% plus increase in downloads of OA articles, compared
to non-OA articles. He hypothesized that writers of academic articles typically worked at institutions
where they can access pay-to-view journals while a large proportion of readers did not. This suggests
that OA publishing helps authors reach a
wider audience (Figure 3).
use ofthe internet —_jt a
practical
and WWW reetiesiny FP early oA,
publishing
early OA
The wider availability of scholarly articles ae
via OA also helps remove certain non-
credibility article
financial barriers faced by ‘peripheral’ Ione a8 ‘pater too ?
scholars such as the likelihood that they aia NA ax Wr \
have current references, an assumption supportforOA (Growing » vq, \
that they should adhere to a particular goey % ‘ave, D pera
writing style, and an expectation that they ‘nreeriwoe “> A Na ate UW ——
adhere to internationally accepted ie of OA,
framing of discussion (Canagarajah, 1996, 7 +
2010). As access to a wide range of
journals becomes more common, authors, cane
reviewers, and editors will develop an
improved understanding of different reel
academic traditions.
Figure 3. Influences on early growth of the OA movement. As journal prices
Ultimately the idea of knowledge as a grew, libraries rebelled, and funding agencies started to support OA,
public good is fundamental and an early reinforcing the idea of knowledge as a public good (dark green). As use
of OA grew authors realized that OA provided improved article
readership reinforcing that growth (light green).
1° See: Plan S Website at https://www.coalition-s.org .
PAGE 3
DRAFT oF 15 JuLy 2019
OPEN ACCESS LANDSCAPE
basis for the OA movement (Figure 3). As in the phrase of Bollier (2010): “Academic knowledge should
be regarded as the inalienable resource of acommons”. The governance of this knowledge commons
has been undergoing significant change (Beerkens, 2018; Hellstrom, 2003; Stiglitz, 1999). A part of that
change is how OA knowledge is created and who can participate in that creation.
Note that self-archiving, including the use of institutional and commercial archives (called green OA),
does not reinforce the use of OA journals, and in fact permits the continued use of subscription-based
journals although it may lower numbers of subscriptions (Figure 4). It is conceivable that green OA
could limit growth of other forms of OA (Brainard, 2019a). There are also reasonable questions about
the long-term storage of articles on green OA archive sites (Bjork et al., 2014).
Big Publishers’ Response: The Rise of the Pay-to-Publish Model of Open Access
Importantly, a main driving force behind the rise of the OA movement was the mounting price of journal
subscriptions which threatened the sustainability of academic libraries (e.g. Buranyi, 2017; earlier
commentary in Sosteric, 1996). As libraries started to support open access initiatives, the income
stream to publishers looked precarious. To make up for the real, potential, and imagined loss of
subscription revenue, and to better compete with pure OA publishers, many traditional publishers
created a system to allow authors to publish OA articles within existing pay-to-read journals. This was
accomplished by adding a system of article processing charges (APCs) by which an author could pay to
Use of the internet pracy —
and WWW sa
SP publishing
early OA
early OA
archives
Predatory >
Journals
credibility
idea of of OAasa
knowledge as + platform a
~\ to Publsh
OA Journals
a public good Sik ‘oe
funding agency’ ‘i
support for OA ng. i" \
} citation count
f : . J venefit
university library ; —_—
‘support for OA * +
of OA acceptance of
2 Pay to Publish
model
* +
self
traditional need for Pay to
archiving
Be journals 5 Pbllah modal income from pay
+ to publish
price of journal 2
subscriptions income from
o> jouns! yt
subscriptions isibiber
see
Figure 4. The rise of pay-to-publish and article processing fees tended to reinforce the pay-to-publish approach as the
standard OA approach (blue arrows). Unfortunately, pay-to-publish also incentivizes predatory publishing (brown
arrows). The increase in predatory journals in turn can degrades the overall credibility of OA as a platform, but this
degradation appears to be limited.
PAGE 4
DRAFT oF 15 JuLy 2019
OPEN ACCESS LANDSCAPE
make an article OA." Most pure OA journal publishers also use the APC approach to fund their
operations but, in that case, all articles are OA... there are no subscription charges. This fact coupled
with the hybrid approach has created a system where the APC has become a de facto standard within
the OA landscape (Figure 4). Most major academic institutions have now created specific funding
mechanisms to help their authors pay for APCs thereby reinforcing the use of the APC model. Although
APCs can be as low as a few hundred dollars, most range in the thousands, and some are well above
USD5000. This seems to have more than compensated publishers for possible loss of revenue from
subscriptions and major publishing houses have been accused of double dipping: charging for both
subscriptions and for APCs (Pinfield et al., 2016).
While one ideal of the open access movement has been equal access to scholarly knowledge, the
increasing use of APCs has placed significant financial barriers in the path of independent scholars, those
at smaller institutions, and academics in much of the developing world who would like, or need, to
publish their work (Gadagkar, 2008). Consequently, the growing legitimacy of the pay-to-publish model
has given rise to sub-standard, predatory and fake journals (Figure 4).
Incentivizing Predators?
As the pay-to-publish model became more acceptable, increasing numbers of journals have allowed OA
through this approach. This permits authors to continue publishing in their favorite/normal journals,
and the OA requirements of research funders can also be met, if the APC is paid. This new
self-reinforcing OA system provides additional income to publishers and also enhances the wider
availability of OA articles (Figure 4).
An unintended consequence of the growing use and acceptance of the pay-to-publish model has been
the creation of many new OA journals with minimal or no publishing standards (Butler, 2013; Shen and
Bjdrk, 2015). These publishers may deliberately seek out authors needing to publish their work by
offering somewhat lower APCs and less stringent, or no real, peer review. Some of these, termed
“predatory journals” (Beall, 2012) lack any academic credibility, and publishing in such journals carries a
risk for authors who are attempting to build an academic reputation. In some cases, such journals
merely seek out unsuspecting authors who can be charged fees, their papers perhaps never published at
all (Figure 4).
The pay to publish approach is particularly problematic for independent/peripheral scholars and those
at smaller institutions or departments where charges to publish academic work cannot be met. For
those with limited, or no funds, the cheaper OA journals may seem an attractive alternative (Figure 4).
Originally OA seemed to provide substantial benefits to such scholars, but the rise of pay-to-publish OA
has created new barriers. The following section looks at these questions in more detail.
+1 4 pay to view (subscription) journal that includes OA articles paid for with APCs is referred to as a hybrid OA
journal.
PAGE 5
DRAFT oF 15 JuLy 2019
OPEN ACCESS LANDSCAPE
Current Situation - More Details
Big Publishers Persist
Although the rise of predatory publishing may
diminish the reputation of OA, particularly the
pay to publish model, pay-to-publish OA has,
nevertheless, become the dominant component
of the OA landscape. This is largely due to the
reputation of established publishers and their
subscription journals which now offer OA via the
APC option (Figure 5). These established
publishers seem important in maintaining
journal quality via an established peer review
process, well established editorial procedures,
support for some professional societies, and a
well-established web presence, with archives,
which is growing in sophistication. Another
major attraction these journals have appears to
benefits
of OA
+
BS es
reputation
reputation of of OA
authors
+
Ng. leputation of * use of OA via
established established
publishers publishers
Figure 5. Closer details. Growth of Pay to Publish OA 1: Authors
tend to stick with known publishers with a good
reputation (light blue).
be the fact that they are already well established as the expected place for academics, in a given field, to
publish. Academics, to a large extent, feel obligated to publish in these primary journals if possible. As
these journals’ reputations grow, author reputation can be enhanced by publishing in them. This
feedback mechanism continues to enhance the attractiveness of established journals even as OA
publishing expands. This also allows publishers to charge high APCs to maintain or improve their income
stream.
Journal reputation has come to be measured
by journal impact factors that track citations
of a journal's articles (Garfield, 1999, 2006).
These impact factors have come under
increasing criticism and alternatives have
been proposed (Anon., 2012; Brembs et al.,
2013). Nevertheless, at least in general,
journals with higher impact factors tend to
charge higher APCs (Solomon and Bjérk,
2012). That is, authors can pay more for
higher impact??. According to ECAC (2018)
the current hybrid open access system has
actually increased the total cost of scholarly
communication directly undermining an
original OA goal of lowering costs. This has
led to a renewed criticism of traditional
publishers’ high profits.
isolation of
peripheral
benefits scholars
ofon
fe Tota Number
4 A of ON Articles ee
reputation
reputation of of OA
auipors prevalence of the pay
to publish OA mode
vane useot Avia ete Hb
bs established established
=, publishers publishers
"i availability of
4 funding for APCs
provided by
traditional
publishers
profits
wee i
a To cost inancites
+ ron
reform
criticisms of
traditional
publishers
Figure 6. Demands for OA have reinforced use of APCs which fund further
development of traditional publishers (light green). Growing
criticisms (dark green) tended also to reinforce pay to publish by
providing funding for APCs.
2 Publishers of selective journals claim higher APCs are justified due to high selectivity requiring more articles to
be rejected thus higher costs (e.g. see comments in Else, 2019b).
DRAFT oF 15 JuLy 2019
PAGE 6
OPEN ACCESS LANDSCAPE
Plan S Problems
The current (2018-19) controversies regarding hybrid OA and Plan S are related to both journal and
scholar reputation. One unusual aspect of Plan S is the insistence that scholarly papers not be published
in hybrid OA journals -- journals that publish both OA and non-OA papers. This requirement was meant
to force all papers to be OA (even though most would be pay-to-publish). Plan S has met with significant
resistance both from publishers, who wish to continue with subscription based as well as OA options,
and from scientists and other scholars. Scholarly resistance is based on the concern that forcing
everyone to use OA will: likely lock in place high APCs, may prevent scholars from publishing in their
preferred journals, may place severe limitations on journals published by professional societies, and may
cause a loss of income for professional societies (Brainard, 2019b; Clarke, 2018; Kamerlin et al., 2018;
Research Community, 2018; Several authors, 2019).”?
The opposition to Plan S is a new phase in the continuing push for OA reform (Figure 7). In this case
reformers seem to be requesting a step backward... to the continuation of subscription-based journals.
Pending a better resolution of how OA publishing will be funded, many are concerned about weakening
the original goal of the OA movement: open access to both read and publish.
The significant progress toward OA has certainly helped peripheral scholars as intended, by providing
access to newly available, and archived, knowledge. However, the form that OA has now taken again
increases isolation of peripheral scholars (Figure 7 brown arrows). They will be less able to publish their
work because, typically, they have no funds to pay APCs. OA, as it is being implemented is increasing
the likelihood that these scholars will publish in sub-standard journals. This same outcome might also
appear in academic fields that have less research funding but nevertheless have scholars who are
expected to publish (Alizon, 2018; Edwards, 2015).
Efforts to establish platinum™, no-pay, OA
are still limited due to the lack of well-
organized funding options (Figure 7). The
dominance of big publishers and the hens
acceptance of the pay-to-publish model have
Platinum
also hurt platinum OA efforts. While some ee ro pay
early efforts at platinum OA have succeeded, asst ae ’
overall these successes form a rather small aaners prevalence ofthe pay
to publish OA model
part of the OA publishing landscape. To some A, reputation of iid
extent this is due to the time needed to build Sno 7 esrtambin
a new journal’s reputation, but certainly the i] / 7
solid reputation of existing journals and the services : \ rs
acceptance of the pay to publish model limit “edoa! — et \
progress toward platinum OA. The near term a te
future journal publishing landscape appear to went
favor pay-to-publish OA with a possible birrinned
transitioning from hybrid to pure pay-to-
publish OA (e.g. see Schimmer et al., 2015). Figure 7. Current situation. The dominance of pay to publish OA (blue) and its
reinforcing factors (light green) led to mandates for OA reform (dark green) which
continued to focus on promoting OA via pay to publish which also incentivized sub-
standard and predatory journals. Efforts at platinum OA remain weak (orange).
3 |n May 2019 it was announced that implementation of plan S was to be delayed (Else, 2019a).
+4 Platinum OA articles are free to publish and free to read.
PAGE 7
DRAFT oF 15 JuLy 2019
OPEN ACCESS LANDSCAPE
Discussion
Ideally, true open access should remove financial barriers to publish articles as well as to read them—
so-called platinum open access. In this way financial barriers would be removed, and articles could, in
theory, be judged solely on merit. Few primary journals follow the platinum OA model.
Nevertheless, DOAJ lists over 9,000 platinum OA journals, some 400 of which are based in the USA.
Many of those appear to be specialized journals catering to limited readerships. However, several
different funding models are apparent for some better-quality platinum OA journals.
Some such as Fishery Bulletin’> are published by government agencies, in this case the US National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Others such as Cultural Anthropology” are published by
scholarly societies, in this case the American Anthropological Association. A third platinum OA funding
model draws on universities, in some cases on behalf of academic organizations. Three examples are:
The Journal of World-Systems Research?” published by the U of Pittsburg library system on behalf of the
American Sociological Association, the Journal of Political Ecology’® published by the University of
Arizona since 1994, and a non US example Revista de Biologia Tropical’? published by the University of
Costa Rica. A fourth platinum OA funding model, private foundation funding, supports for example
Conservation and Society funded by the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment
(ATREE)”°, and The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS) sponsored by a non-profit umbrella
organization NumFOCUS” 72,
These examples illustrate free-to-read / free-to-publish OA funding approaches have persisted for many
years indicating that platinum OA can be a viable publishing approach. One might wonder, if platinum
OA is a viable option why isn’t it more common? To a certain extent the answers to this question lie in
the reinforcing causal relationships illustrated in this paper.
OA has reached a critical mass and OA articles are read and cited more often than non-OA causing more
authors to prefer, and more publishers/journals to offer an open access option. We might imagine that
competition for good papers would push APCs down making quality journals more widely accessible to
both readers and writers. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to have happened. Data indicate that, in
general, more prestigious journals charge higher APCs. Scholars continue to favor prestigious journals
over less expensive alternatives making the emergence of new, cheaper key journals less likely.
45 Fishery Bulletin: https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/fb.htm
46 Cultural Anthropology: https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/about
17 Journal of World-Systems Research:_https://jwsr.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/jwsr
48 Journal of Political Ecology: https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/JPE
19 Revista de Biologia Tropical: https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/rbt/about
2° Conservation and Society: http://www.conservati iety.org/, ATREE: https://atree.org/about
21 JOSS: http://joss.theoj.org/about#about, NumFOCUS: https://numfocus.org/communit)
22 Note that some journals listed on the DOAJ as platinum seem to be pay-to-publish journals that waive APCs for
the first few years of the journal’s existence, apparently using the no fee approach to gain authors. The publisher
AIMS Press http://www.aimspress.com/index.html seems to fall in the category.
PAGE 8
DRAFT oF 15 JuLy 2019
OPEN ACCESS LANDSCAPE
Initially, the increased availability of OA, within a field, increased the use of those publications perhaps
at the expense of traditional publications. The increasing OA readership stimulated further growth of
OA. Sensing a possible loss of revenue from subscription journals publishers initiated open access
options using the author pays model. They were able to do this because of 1) the established
reputation of key journals, and 2) the growing acceptance of the idea that research projects would
budget funds for APCs.
APCs posed a significant problem for the new funding model. With the previous, subscription, model,
journal funding was quite removed from research funding... researchers at large institutions had very
little knowledge of the total journal cost. It was not their concern. On the other hand, APC funding
often comes straight from the research budget, a fact that researchers cannot ignore. Subsequent
efforts on behalf of researchers resulted in changes that reinforced the author-pays-model: Special
accounts were set up, by universities and funding agencies, to pay the APCs on behalf the authors. This
reinforced the dominance of the APC approach to funding which was already in use by the pure OA
(non-hybrid) publishers.
Unfortunately, the APC approach hurts peripheral scholars who, otherwise, have greatly benefited from
the growth of OA publishing. They cannot afford the APCs. These financial (and other) barriers to
publishing their work creates a demand for “sub-standard journals”. Publishing in those, to a large
extent, diminishes the reputation of work carried out. This reinforces the existing dichotomy between
scholars in wealthier and those in relatively poorer research situations, and also diminishes the idea of
knowledge as a common good, equally shared by all.
PAGE 9
DRAFT oF 15 JuLy 2019
OPEN ACCESS LANDSCAPE
Literature Cited
Alizon, S., 2018. Inexpensive research in the golden open-access era. Trends in Ecology & Evolution
33(5), 301-303.
Anon., 2012. DORA - San Francisco declaration on research assessment. https://sfdora.org/.
Antelman, K., 2004. Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research
Libraries 65(5), 372-382.
Bailey, C.W., Jr., 1990. Two electronic serials on bitnet: The public-access computer systems review and
the public-access computer systems news. ONLINE 15(January 1991), http://digital-
scholarship.org/cwb/2eserial.pdf.
Bailey, C.W., Jr., 1991. Network-based electronic serials. Information Technology and Libraries 11(March
1992), 29-35.
Beall, J., 2012. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 489(7415).
Beerkens, M., 2018. Knowledge commons and global governance of academic publishing, In: Cogolati, S.,
Wouters, J. (Eds.), The Commons and a New Global Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bjdrk, B.-C., 2017. Open access to scientific articles: A review of benefits and challenges. Internal and
Emergency Medicine 12(2), 247-253.
Bjork, B.C., Laakso, M., Welling, P., Paetau, P., 2014. Anatomy of green open access. Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology 65(2), 237-250.
Bollier, D., 2010. Academia as a commons. Commons Magazine,
http://www.onthecommons.org/academia-commons#sthash.epf6Loel.dpbs.
Brainard, J., 2019a. Facing Plan S, publishers may set papers free. Science 364(6441), 620.
Brainard, J., 2019b. Scientific societies worry about threat from Plan S. Science 363(6425), 332-333.
Brembs, B., Button, K., Munafd, M., 2013. Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7(291).
Breugelmans, J.G., Roberge, G., Tippett, C., Durning, M., Struck, D.B., Makanga, M.M., 2018. Scientific
impact increases when researchers publish in open access and international collaboration: A
bibliometric analysis on poverty-related disease papers. PLOS ONE 13(9), 0203156.
Buranyi, S., 2017. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The
Guardian.
Butler, D., 2013. Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature 495(7442), 433-435.
PAGE 10
DRAFT oF 15 JuLy 2019
OPEN ACCESS LANDSCAPE
Canagarajah, S., 1996. “Nondiscursive” requirements in academic publishing, material resources of
periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication 13(4),
435-472.
Canagarajah, S., 2010. Internationalizing knowledge construction and dissemination. The Modern
Language Journal 94(4), 661-664.
Clarke, M., 2018. Plan S: Impact on society publishers. The Scholarly Kitchen.
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/12/05/plan-s-impact-on-society-publishers/
Davis, P.M., 2010. Access, readership, citations: A randomized controlled trial of scientific journal
publishing. PhD, Cornell University,
ECAC, 2018. On the effectiveness of APCs. 3rd ESAC workshop in Munich | 28-29 june 2018: Outcome
report. Efficiency Standards for Article Charges: http://esac-initiative.org/.
Edwards, C., 2015. How can existing open access models work for humanities and social science
research? Insights 27(1), 17-24.
Else, H., 2019a. Ambitious open-access Plan S delayed to let research community adapt. Nature(May
2019).
Else, H., 2019b. High-profile subscription journals critique Plan S. Nature (26 February 2019).
Eysenbach, G., 2006. Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology 4(5), e157.
Gadagkar, R., 2008. Open-access more harm than good in developing world. Nature 453(7194), 450.
Garfield, E., 1999. Journal impact factor: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal 161(8),
979-980.
Garfield, E., 2006. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Jama 295(1), 90-93.
Ginsparg, P., 1994. First steps toward electronic research communication. Los Alamos Science 22.
Hellstrém, T., 2003. Governing the virtual academic commons. Research Policy 32(3), 391-401.
Kamerlin, L., Wittung-Stafshede, P., Day, A., Wells, S.A., Gruden, M., Kamp, M.v.d., Bruin, B.d., Holbrook,
B., Sam Hay. , 2018. Response to Plan S from academic researchers: Unethical, too risky! For
Better Science: Science journalism by Leonid Schneider.
https://forbetterscience.com/2018/09/11/response-to-plan-s-from-academic-researchers-
unethical-too-risky/
Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Bo-Christer, B., Hedlund, T., 2011. The development of
open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS One 6(6).
Pinfield, S., Salter, J., Bath, P.A., 2016. The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access
environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in
Pace 11
DRAFT oF 15 JuLy 2019
OPEN ACCESS LANDSCAPE
combination with subscriptions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology 67(7), 1751-1766.
Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Lariviére, V., Alperin, J.P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., Farley, A., West, J.,
Haustein, S., 2018. The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open
access articles. Peer/ 6, e4375.
Rabesandratana, T., 2018. European funders detail their open-access plan. Science 362 (6418), 983.
Research Community, 2018. Reaction of researchers to Plan S; too far, too risky? An open letter from
researchers to european funding agencies, academies, universities, research institutions, and
decision makers. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.1484544.
Schiltz, M., 2018. Science without publication paywalls: Coalition S for the realisation of full and
immediate open access. PLOS Biology 16(9), e3000031.
Schimmer, R., Geschuhn, K.K., Vogler, A., 2015. Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for
the necessary large-scale transformation to open access. A Max Planck Digital Library Open
Access Policy White Paper(http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0026-C274-7).
Science-Metrix Inc., 2018. Open access availability of scientific publications. Analytical Support for
Bibliometrics Indicators. Science-Metrix Inc., 1335 Mont-Royal E., Montréal, Québec, Canada
Quebec.
Several authors, 2019. Replies to Rabesandratana "the world debates open-access mandates". Science
362(6426), 461-462.
Shen, C., Bjdrk, B.-C., 2015. ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market
characteristics. BMC Medicine 13(1), 230.
Solomon, D.J., Bjérk, B.C., 2012. A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(8), 1485-1495.
Sosteric, M., 1996. Electronic journals: The grand information future? Electronic Journal of Sociology.
Stiglitz, J.E., 1999. Knowledge as a global public good In: Inge Kaul, |.G., Marc A. Stern (Ed.), Global public
goods: International cooperation in the 21st century. Oxford University Press, pp.308-325.
Suber, P., 2012. Open access. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Varmus, H., 2008. Progress toward public access to science. PLOS Biology 6(4).
Vatansever, A., 2018. Academic nomads. The changing conception of academic work under precarious
conditions. Cambio 8(15), 153-165.
PAGE 12
DRAFT oF 15 JuLy 2019
