AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
A recent ALPSP survey found that much open access (OA) journal publishing is bypassing the need for academic researchers to pay for their research to be published, suggesting that "author-pays" is an inappropriate way of describing the model.
The research also suggests that OA journals are providing peer-review and copy-editing processes on a par with commercial publishing standards, contrary to rumours in the industry that they are responsible for a decline in editorial standards.
Funding for the research, carried out by Kaufman-Wills Group, was supplied by the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Stanford University's HighWire Press.
The company surveyed over 1,150 OA journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (classed as 'Full OA') and 184 journals hosted on HighWire's platform, which have a timelag before articles are freely available (classed as 'Delayed OA').
"We wanted to help reduce the emotional heat in the debate and replace it with some hard facts," said Cara Kaufman, co-founder of Kaufman-Will Group, presenting the results of the survey at the London BookFair last month.
The survey found that author fees contributed 30.3% of total revenues for Full OA journals, and 9.3% for Delayed OA journals. The biggest revenue contributions came from industry support (37.2%) and grants (12.6%) for Full OA, and 67.2% from subscriptions and licences for Delayed OA publications.
"These results were surprising, as the model is commonly referred to as "author-pays," said Kaufman. Traditional commercial journal suppliers have been quick to use the term "author-pays", rather than "open access", as a ...
Source: HighBeam Research, ALPSP survey blasts OA myths. Results of a new ALPSP survey of open...