Today is the start of the International Open Access Week (also known as OA Week), an annual event organized by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) for the global scholarly publishing community. Every year, OA Week focuses on creating awareness about open access and related topics. The theme of this year’s OA Week is “Open in Action,” and it will be celebrated from October 24 to 30.

Open access is deemed to be the future of scholarly communication since it has the potential to change the way scientific information is disseminated. Therefore, as per the OA Week website, the primary intent behind organizing this event is spreading awareness about the potential benefits of making scientific results and data and freely accessible to all immediately after publication or creation. And this year’s theme will focus on concrete steps (taken by researchers, journals, publishers, institutions, or funders) that take us closer to making science truly open for all.

Since its inception eight years ago, this global event has been joined and supported by many universities, colleges, institutes, funding agencies, libraries, and other think tanks invested in the benefits of open access publishing. As a supporter of the open access movement, Editage Insights is proud to participate in Open Access Week 2016. Throughout the week, we will share resources in various formats and pertaining to the current discussions on open access such as open access policies across the globe, different venues where authors can publish their research open access, the benefits of publishing on platforms that are open access, and more. So stay tuned to Editage Insights and make the most of Open Access Week 2016!         

In recent years, open access has steadily gained momentum. Most journals and publishers today have open access channels and authors have the choice to publish open access. However, many authors, particularly those who are relatively new to academia, are still in a haze about open access publishing. What is open access? What is the rationale behind publishing open access? What are the different venues for publishing open access? Such questions bother authors and they are often skeptical about publishing open access as they are unclear about the answers to these questions. This article aims to clear these doubts and provide the fundamentals of open access publication.

What is open access?

Open access is built upon the idea that scientific research should be made freely available to all so that others can build upon it and help escalate scientific progress. Traditionally, the academic publishing industry has followed a subscription-based model. This model requires readers to pay for the content that they read. Typically, libraries purchase bulk subscription to a journal so that members or students can access the journals. But as subscription charges for journals started increasing, libraries found it increasingly difficult to purchase expensive journals. This was particularly true for libraries and institutions in developing countries where funding was scarce. As a result, researchers often could not access studies that they wished to, and this started affecting the progress of research. The need to remove this roadblock gave rise to the open access model of publishing in which readers have unrestricted and immediate access to research after it has been published with the permission to reuse it.

What are the different venues for publishing open access?

Broadly speaking, there are two models for open access publishing: gold and green.

Gold open access

In this model, open access journals give readers free access to peer reviewed articles, but the publication charges are borne by the author(s) (which in some cases might include the author’s institution or funder). Today, most big publishers offer open access options, and some, like PLOS, are purely open access. There are several major directories of open access journals, most notably Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) which can help researchers identify open access journals in their field. 

Under the gold open access model, authors have different kinds of journals to choose from:

Full open access journals: All articles published in such journals are freely available for readers on the journal website. Some of these journals are subsidized, and financed by an academic institution, a learned society, or by the government; but others may require the payment of a fee from the author(s), known as article processing charges (APCs) once the paper is accepted for publication.

Hybrid journals: Most of the articles in these journals are paywalled, with only some content open. Authors can choose to provide open access to their articles by paying an extra fee. This fee is generally known as open access fee. Some examples of hybrid open access journals are: iOpenAccess by Taylor Francis, Online Open by Wiley, or Sage Open by Sage.

Delayed open access journals: In this model, articles become free for readers some time after initial publication. The time period for which the article is paywalled is known as embargo period. For most journals, the embargo period is six to twelve months.

Green open access

Under green open access, authors publish in subscription-based journals, but at the same time deposit their articles in an open access repository. This is known as self-archiving. Thus, although the journal is behind a paywall, readers have free access to the article through the repository. Authors who cannot pay the fees for publishing in open access journals often take this route. However, articles may not be peer reviewed prior to posting in a repository. Another point to be kept in mind is that not all subscription-based journals allow authors to post their paper on a repository. Authors should, therefore, check the website of their target journal to find out whether self-archiving is allowed, and preferably take the journal’s permission before self-archiving.

Repositories can be institutional or independent, subject-specific, such as bioRxiv, Nature Precedings, and PubMed Central, or multidisciplinary such as arXiv, Global Open Access Portal, and Zenodo. OpenDOAR is a directory of academic open access repositories that provides a  list of repositories.

There are three basic versions of an article that can be self-archived in repositories:

Pre-Prints: This refers to the author's copy of the article before it has been peer reviewed.

Post-Prints: This also refers to the author's copy, but after it has been peer reviewed, with the suggested revisions incorporated, but before the publisher has formatted it for publication.

Publisher’s version: This refers to the final PDF of the article that is formatted and appears in print or online.

Popular misconceptions about open access

As mentioned at the outset, authors are often unsure about publishing open access. This is largely due to some popular misconceptions about open access in their minds. Let us try to dispel some of these myths:

1. Open access journals are not peer reviewed:  This is an absolutely wrong idea. A journal’s peer review policy has nothing to do with its access policy. Most open access journals are peer-reviewed.

2. Open access journals have low impact factors: This is, once again, a myth. Many open access journals publish highly cited articles and receive high impact factors. For example, Living Reviews in Relativity has an impact factor of 32. Additionally, authors should remember that the impact factor is not the most reliable indicator of a journal’s quality.

3. Publishing in open access journals is expensive: Authors often avoid publishing in open access journals as they feel that they will not be able to afford the high APCs. However, the truth is that not all open access journals charge APCs, and the ones that do generally have the APCs clearly mentioned on their website. APCs vary across journals and are not always high. Additionally, many universities or funding bodies bear the APCs. Also, open access journals often waive fees for researchers in developing countries and those researchers who are in financial difficulty. For example, many Nature Publishing Group journals have an APC waiver policy.

4. Open access publishing does not offer copyright protection or credit to authors: In fact, for many open access journals, such as PLOS or BMJ, authors retain copyright after publication. Additionally most open access journals use Creative Commons licenses under which authors always receive credit when their work is reused.

As an early-career researcher, it is extremely important for you to recognize the importance of publishing open access. Science can progress only when immediate, unrestricted access to research is provided. We hope that in the coming years, researchers show more willingness to publish open access so that the scientific community, policy makers, and the general public can benefit from their research.

Case: A Chinese author in collaboration with a US-based author wrote an article on a new treatment method for diabetes. The US-based author was keen on publishing the paper open access as she felt it would benefit many patients suffering from the condition. The Chinese author, however, did not agree. He wanted to submit it to a traditional subscription journal. This led to a disagreement between the authors. The Chinese author approached Editage Insights for advice as he was the lead author of the paper.

Action:  On questioning the author, we found that he was unwilling to publish in an open access journal was based on the misconception that open access journals always charge very high article processing charges or APCs. He felt he would not be able to afford the APCs. However, he had not communicated this clearly to his co-author, which had resulted in a misunderstanding.

We explained to the author that not all open access journals charge high APCs. In fact, some OA journals are funded by academic institutions or learned societies and do not charge APCs at all. We also explained that many journals that normally charge APCs often waive off the charges totally or partially if the author is in financial difficulty. Additionally, APCs are sometimes covered by the funding bodies or authors’ institutions. Eventually, the author decided that he would publish the article open access if the APCs were not too high or could be waived off. We helped him draft an email to his co-author, explaining his apprehensions and stating his decision. A few weeks later, the author informed us that the co-author has accepted this condition and the dispute was amicably resolved.

Summary: Authors often avoid publishing in open access journals as they are often under the misconception that all open access journals charge high APCs. However, this is not true; the charges vary across journals and can be anywhere between $100 to over $3,000. Additionally, not all open access journals charge APCs, and there are some not-for-profit journals that publish open access without charging the authors. Additionally, authors do not always have to pay the APCs from their own pockets. Often, the author’s institution or funding body bears the APCs.

Also, most open access journals that charge APCs consider fee waiver requests from authors who are under financial constraints. For example, many large publishing houses such as Nature Publishing Group, Elsevier, Springer, and BMJ have a fee waiver policy according to which fee waiver requests are considered on a case-by-case basis, and a total or partial waiver is granted if the problem is genuine. Additionally, most journals waive off APCs for authors from low income countries.

You might also be insterested in reading the following posts:

• Do I have to pay for submitting an article to a journal regardless of whether it is accepted or not?
• Unclear information about APC leads to simultaneous submission: A case study
• A young researcher's guide to open access publishing

Open access policies and mandates are a direct indicator of the extent to which the concept of open access to scientific research is being embraced. Since it's Open Access Week and the theme this year is Open in Action, I decided to take a look at open access policies and mandates across the globe. I looked at the Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies (ROARMAP) database to extract the numbers and look at how many funders or research instutitions across the globe have actually implemented open access policies and/or mandates. It became clear that more and more organizatons and funders are acknowledging the benefits of open access and nudging researchers to make their research/data publicly available and accessible. I've plotted the data from the ROARMAP database in this infographic. Feel free to download, share, or distribute. It's all about open access!

Some of you would agree that staying on top of the happenings in the scholarly world this month was no mean feat! After all, October was one of the most exciting months of this year with the celebration of the International Open Access Week, the announcement of the 2016 Nobel Prizes, and many interesting discussions on topics such as the lack of freedom for researchers to explore their potential, how Brexit government’s intentions are worrying UK researchers, and more. To ensure that you didn’t miss out on any of the buzz, our team of editors has curated the most exciting and thought-provoking deliberations they came across. Happy reading!

1. Is the academic culture stifling researchers' freedom? Four influential researchers – Tolu Oni, Fabio Sciarrino, Gerardo Adesso, and Rob Knight – argue that the policies of research funders and institutions hinder researchers from exploring their potential. These researchers, who are part of the World Economic Forum’s group of scientists under the age of 40 and play a pivotal role in “integrating scientific knowledge into society for the public good,” are of the opinion that the currently followed practices in academia are withholding researchers’ freedom, which in the long run, can hamper innovation. They point out that the emphasis on track records of researchers while assessing grant applications and the lack of programs that allow early career and mid-career researchers to change trajectories are the two main factors that need alteration. According to them, the solution to these issues lies in training researchers to understand the importance of interdisciplinary research and grant reviewers to take into consideration researchers’ interest in making a shift in field or research area.

2. How editors tackle the revise and resubmit cycles: The multiple rounds of revision and resubmission are often frustrating for authors since they have to keep dedicating their time and effort to make their paper publication worthy. However, this process is not easy for the editors either, according to Angela Cochran who is the Director of Journals for the American Society of Civil Engineers. She explains that editors and editorial boards are under tremendous pressure to shorten the timelines between manuscript submission and publication. Going through several rounds of revision means the editor has to ensure that the reviewers review manuscripts on time and authors are given adequate time to make changes. If a journal is too quick or takes too long to go through this process, it faces criticism. This sometimes forces them to reject a paper that would require major revisions or accept a paper that has passable standards.  Angela also states other problems such as authors failing to notify that they do not intend to send a revised version. To counter this problem, she encourages authors to communicate openly with editors about their problems or opinions on the review.

3. The challenges of being a researcher:SciDev.Net, an information portal for the academic community, conducted a survey involving 80 researchers from all over the world to understand the challenges they face, the pitfalls that they thought every researcher should avoid, and the advice they wanted to share with their peers based on their own experiences. Based on their survey results, the top five challenges researchers face include getting funding, becoming isolated from others, the lack of skill-based training, the lack of relevant data or literature to support them during their research, and the difficulty in maintaining a focused topic of study. Based on these responses, SciDev.Net has also shared some tips to help researchers overcome each of these challenges such as sharing ideas with trustworthy people outside of research group, improving communication skills, and being active on social media.

4. Brexit government’s intentions have UK scientists worried: Scientists are rattled by the Brexit government’s stance of restricting movement of scientists between the UK and the EU. The Theresa May government has given the first indications of its anti-immigration inclination at the annual Conservative party conference held in Birmingham in early October. Scientists in the UK are worried because this means that they may be excluded from EU funding programs. UK home secretary Amber Rudd said in her conference speech that the government would consider making it harder to recruit from overseas, having companies to disclose the proportion of foreign staff they are employing, and cutting down on universities’ ability to recruit foreign students. Many scientists have expressed their concern at this because they feel that the government's priority in reducing the number of people coming to the UK could be damaging to the economy.

5. Libraries under pressure due to gold OA publishing: The gold open access model of publishing, which involves article processing charges (APCs), is growing steadily. Katie Shamash, a scholarly communications analyst at Jisc, analyzed the available APC data to find out the impact of APCs on libraries. The data for this analysis came from UK universities, the Reseach Councils UK (RCUK), and the Charity Open Access Fund (COAF) about how much they spend on APCs throughout the year. Here are the key insights that she presents in this article: 1. Libraries are facing increased pressure from both subscriptions and APCs, and APCs are now an increasingly significant portion of institutions’ overall spend. 2. The quickly narrowing gap between gold open access APCs and those of hybrid journals present an additional concern. 3. The administrative difficulties that can lead to underreporting of APC expenditure demonstrate the importance of opening up the data and promoting a fully transparent marketplace.

6. Is bad science a result of bad incentives? In this interesting post Bethany Brookshire talks about how the ‘publish or perish’ culture continues to damage science as well as the careers of researchers. As a result of the constant pressure to publish, most researchers spend their time trying to meet or exceed expectations. But this could have dangerous implications for scientific development, as it could lead to sloppy science getting selected in the competitive game. The definition of success in science seems to be misplaced – instead of referring to a groundbreaking discovery, for researchers, success means finding employment, and unfortunately, this idea of success has become finely ingrained in their minds. It's time for a culture and mindset shift in academia.

7. Researchers have little time for research: In response to a post on Facebook by Nature asking young scientists to share their challenges, scientists starting labs said that they were under immense pressure to publish, secure funding, and earn permanent positions, leaving them very little time for actual research, reports Kendall Powell. According to Powell, some data and anecdotal evidence suggests that the present generation of scientists does face more hurdles in starting research groups than their counterparts did a few decades ago. They are weighed down by a growing bureaucratic burden, with little administrative support. Moreover, they are largely judged on their record of publishing and of winning grants. This increasingly competitive environment is not only taking a toll on the scientists’ personal and professional lives, but also stifling their creativity and pushing them “to do mediocre science.” Such a situation is making research an unwelcoming career for many.

This is it for this month! We’ll be back with another list in November. Follow our monthly reading lists for more such interesting updates. And if you would like to stay tuned to important happenings in the journal publishing industry, visit our Industry News section.