One problem here is overlooking or denying the existence of no-APC (#DiamondOA) journals, which are more numerous than APC-based OA journals. Another is assuming that when journals do charge APCs, authors always or even usually pay them out of pocket. https://suber.pubpub.org/pub/j1jk6hu9
It aims to compare methods for accessing medical research in the global #south. It covers subscription journals, APC-based OA journals, hybrid journals, green OA, and even Research4Life. But it doesn't cover no-APC or #DiamondOA journals and doesn't even mention their existence.
@petersuber Have u sent a text to the paper's author(s) (the page isn't loading for me rn) with ur suggestion? They may just be oblivious to DiamondOA; reach out with ur complaint !! :D
@ash
I'll look for time to do that. But the paper's already published and it's a higher priority for me to publicize the error to thousands than correct it for just a few. Also hoping these posts nudge others to publicize these errors as they run across them.
Update. Another piece made it through peer review w the false claims that most #OpenAccess journals charge #APCs & that #GreenOA must be embargoed. Also makes a new false claim I've never seen before, that journals always hold the #copyright to green OA articles. Tho trying to cover all the major options, it doesn't acknowledge the existence of no-APC or #DiamondOA journals. Same with #preprints. Please don't give this to "novice researchers" as an intro to publishing. https://journals.ku.edu/kjm/article/view/21169/19219
We can hope that the journal corrects these errors during review. There are two: (1) the false assumption that all or most OA journals charge #APCs, and (2) the false assumption that all paid APCs are paid by authors.
As in so many other cases, there are two errors here: (1) the false assumption that all or most OA journals charge #APCs, and (2) the false assumption that all paid APCs are paid by authors.
It's an editorial and didn't go through peer review.
It mentions APC discounts and read-and-publish agreements. But it doesn't mention no-APC (#DiamondOA) journals or the fact that most peer-reviewed OA journals (≈ 70%) are no-APC. Nor does it mention #GreenOA.
Note the two common errors: (1) the false assumption that all or most OA journals charge #APCs and (2) the false assumption that all paid APCs are paid by authors.
Like so many similar pieces, it's an editorial that did not undergo #PeerReview.
It's wrong that all OA journals charge APCs, wrong that all paid APCs are paid by authors, and wrong that the #NelsonMemo requires journal-based or #GoldOA. It requires repository-based or #GreenOA.
Three common errors here: (1) the false assumption that all or most OA journals charge #APCs, (2) the false assumption that all paid APCs are paid by authors, (3) the false assumption that there's just one OA journal business model.
PS: This claim is unargued. I think it's shorthand for this longer one: All or most OA journals charge #APCs, creating an incentive to accept low-quality work. The premise on APCs is false. But if restated to speak precisely about APC-based journals (not all or most OA journals), it would be worth confronting.
Unfortunately it also repeats two common errors: (1) the false claim that all or most OA journals charge APCs and (2) the false claim that all paid APCs are paid by authors.
"OA publishing allows publishers to generate revenue during the production process…Large commercial publishing houses have gained increasing control over the OA publishing market, which is moving towards an oligopoly market."
PS: These authors recognize that not all OA journals charge APCs (#DiamondOA). On the one hand, their data only show a decline in submissions from the south for APC-based OA journals. But their imprecise writing attributes it to OA as such.
Update. This new study concludes (in effect) that authors with less funding to pay #APCs are less likely to publish in APC-based #OpenAccess journals. But it words the conclusion this way: "Open access [without qualification] may become a barrier to the dissemination of work for researchers who have financial difficulty choosing open access."
"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12109-024-09978-0
PS: This is careless and misleading. APCs are the barrier, not OA. The article doesn't mention no-fee #GreenOA or #DiamondOA.
@petersuber One way of looking at it is that virtually all academic publishing is subsidised. There are basically three modes of indirect or direct subsidy, two of which pretend to be business models. 1. Subscriptions, paid for by (state-)subsidised libraries; 2. APCs, paid for by (funder-)subsidised authors; 3. Direct subsidies from anywhere to (NfP-)publishing outfits. The latter two make OA possible, of course; the first not.
@villavelius
Excellent point. Agreed. This affects our search for "sustainable" business models for #OpenAccess publishing. We can't forget that non-OA publishing was only sustainable with the help of state subsidies and donated labor + IP from authors and referees.
Add comment