{ "types" : { "Bookmark" : { "pluralLabel" : "Bookmarks" }, "Publication" : { "pluralLabel" : "Publications" }, "GoldStandardPublication" : { "pluralLabel" : "GoldStandardPublications" }, "GoldStandardBookmark" : { "pluralLabel" : "GoldStandardBookmarks" }, "Tag" : { "pluralLabel" : "Tags" }, "User" : { "pluralLabel" : "Users" }, "Group" : { "pluralLabel" : "Groups" }, "Sphere" : { "pluralLabel" : "Spheres" } }, "properties" : { "count" : { "valueType" : "number" }, "date" : { "valueType" : "date" }, "changeDate" : { "valueType" : "date" }, "url" : { "valueType" : "url" }, "id" : { "valueType" : "url" }, "tags" : { "valueType" : "item" }, "user" : { "valueType" : "item" } }, "items" : [ { "type" : "Publication", "id" : "https://puma.ub.uni-stuttgart.de/bibtex/2576f17fdcd32ebb4f299bd7e6676075b/droessler", "tags" : [ "access","apc","article","charges","oligopoly","open","processing","publisher","publishing" ], "intraHash" : "576f17fdcd32ebb4f299bd7e6676075b", "interHash" : "3397868ab7c24802e703c5d12230cf93", "label" : "The oligopoly\u2019s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges", "user" : "droessler", "description" : "", "date" : "2024-10-31 20:20:25", "changeDate" : "2024-10-31 20:20:25", "count" : 1, "pub-type": "article", "journal": "Quantitative Science Studies", "year": "2023", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272", "author": [ "Leigh-Ann Butler","Lisa Matthias","Marc-André Simard","Philippe Mongeon","Stefanie Haustein" ], "authors": [ {"first" : "Leigh-Ann", "last" : "Butler"}, {"first" : "Lisa", "last" : "Matthias"}, {"first" : "Marc-André", "last" : "Simard"}, {"first" : "Philippe", "last" : "Mongeon"}, {"first" : "Stefanie", "last" : "Haustein"} ], "volume": "4","number": "4","pages": "778--799","abstract": "We aim to estimate the total amount of article processing charges (APCs) paid to publish open access (OA) in journals controlled by the five large commercial publishers (Elsevier, Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley) between 2015 and 2018. Using publication data from WoS, OA status from Unpaywall, and annual APC prices from open data sets and historical fees retrieved via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, we estimate that globally authors paid $1.06 billion in publication fees to these publishers from 2015\u20132018. Revenue from gold OA amounted to $612.5 million, and $448.3 million was obtained for publishing OA in hybrid journals. Among the five publishers, Springer Nature made the most revenue from OA ($589.7 million), followed by Elsevier ($221.4 million), Wiley ($114.3 million), Taylor & Francis ($76.8 million), and Sage ($31.6 million). With Elsevier and Wiley making most of their APC revenue from hybrid fees and others focusing on gold, different OA strategies could be observed between publishers.", "issn" : "26413337", "doi" : "10.1162/qss_a_00272", "bibtexKey": "butler2023oligopolys" } , { "type" : "Publication", "id" : "https://puma.ub.uni-stuttgart.de/bibtex/20aa78f8fdbc0e8f399f3986ec137d6b8/droessler", "tags" : [ "Access","Article","Artikelgebühren","Bibliothek","Charges","Library","Open","Processing","Publikationsmarkt","Publishing","Publishing,","Publizieren,","Scientific","Scientist,","Verlagswesen,","Veröffentlichungswesen","Wissenschaftler","Wissenschaftliches","epistemologie","industry","market","oa","publication","widr" ], "intraHash" : "0aa78f8fdbc0e8f399f3986ec137d6b8", "interHash" : "0fcf54fbcf0446a56cd08182f67fc28e", "label" : "Open Access zwischen Revolution und Goldesel. Eine Bilanz fünfzehn Jahre nach der Erklärung der Budapest Open Access Initiative", "user" : "droessler", "description" : "", "date" : "2022-01-29 17:01:32", "changeDate" : "2022-01-29 16:01:32", "count" : 1, "pub-type": "article", "journal": "Information - Wissenschaft & Praxis","publisher":"De Gruyter", "year": "2017", "url": "http://eprints.rclis.org/30959/", "author": [ "Ulrich Herb" ], "authors": [ {"first" : "Ulrich", "last" : "Herb"} ], "volume": "68","number": "1","pages": "1--10","abstract": "The declaration and positions on Open Access in the early 2000s spread a mood of upheaval, euphoria, and idealism, a revolution of scientific publishing was regularly predicted. The expectations for Open Access were obvious and clear: scientists wanted to share their own articles immediately with other scientist (and they also wanted to have easy fulltext access to the texts of their colleagues), librarians needed a remedy for exploding journal prices, the scientific institutions wanted funded research to be efficiently and freely disseminated. Only the position of the commercial publishers to Open Access was predominantly hesitant or even disapproving.\r\nThis contribution attempts to draw a balance on Open Access - 15 years after the Budapest Open Access Initiative meeting in 2001. 2016 it must be noted that the hopes of Open Access advocates for a revolution will be disappointed. On the contrary, today the development of Open Access seems to be largely driven by the commercial publishers, which were barely mentioned in the early Open Access scenarios. Although there non-commercial Open Access in scientific self-administration exists, today the actors in scientific publishing are still the same as in 2001, and the already known concentration effects on the publishing market continue.", "doi" : "https://doi.org/10.1515/iwp-2017-0004", "bibtexKey": "herb2017access" } , { "type" : "Publication", "id" : "https://puma.ub.uni-stuttgart.de/bibtex/2fde41f67bed7439c9e043bb342db3a69/open-access", "tags" : [ "access","kosten","article","scholarly","apc","journal","charges","processing","publishing","open","studie","from:droessler" ], "intraHash" : "fde41f67bed7439c9e043bb342db3a69", "interHash" : "6c941b128fc10160157e4cf82d19a187", "label" : "Open access article processing charges 2011 - 2021", "user" : "open-access", "description" : "", "date" : "2021-12-07 20:53:54", "changeDate" : "2021-12-07 19:53:54", "count" : 2, "pub-type": "preprint", "year": "2021", "url": "http://hdl.handle.net/10393/42327", "author": [ "Heather Morrison","Luan Borges","Xuan Zhao","Tanoh Laurent Kakou","Amit Nataraj Shanbhoug" ], "authors": [ {"first" : "Heather", "last" : "Morrison"}, {"first" : "Luan", "last" : "Borges"}, {"first" : "Xuan", "last" : "Zhao"}, {"first" : "Tanoh Laurent", "last" : "Kakou"}, {"first" : "Amit Nataraj", "last" : "Shanbhoug"} ], "abstract": "This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 \u2013 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon & Björk (2012). Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data is drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data (Morrison et al, 2021). Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 USD to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 USD to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC and pricing trends. About half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation, and a suggestion that support for the university sector, responsible for the majority of journals, nearly half the articles, with a tendency not to charge and very low average APCs, may be the most promising approach to achieve economically sustainable no-fee OA journal publishing.", "bibtexKey": "morrison2021access" } , { "type" : "Publication", "id" : "https://puma.ub.uni-stuttgart.de/bibtex/2fde41f67bed7439c9e043bb342db3a69/droessler", "tags" : [ "access","apc","article","charges","journal","kosten","open","processing","publishing","scholarly","studie" ], "intraHash" : "fde41f67bed7439c9e043bb342db3a69", "interHash" : "6c941b128fc10160157e4cf82d19a187", "label" : "Open access article processing charges 2011 - 2021", "user" : "droessler", "description" : "", "date" : "2021-12-07 20:53:30", "changeDate" : "2021-12-07 19:53:54", "count" : 2, "pub-type": "preprint", "year": "2021", "url": "http://hdl.handle.net/10393/42327", "author": [ "Heather Morrison","Luan Borges","Xuan Zhao","Tanoh Laurent Kakou","Amit Nataraj Shanbhoug" ], "authors": [ {"first" : "Heather", "last" : "Morrison"}, {"first" : "Luan", "last" : "Borges"}, {"first" : "Xuan", "last" : "Zhao"}, {"first" : "Tanoh Laurent", "last" : "Kakou"}, {"first" : "Amit Nataraj", "last" : "Shanbhoug"} ], "abstract": "This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 \u2013 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon & Björk (2012). Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data is drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data (Morrison et al, 2021). Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 USD to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 USD to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC and pricing trends. About half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation, and a suggestion that support for the university sector, responsible for the majority of journals, nearly half the articles, with a tendency not to charge and very low average APCs, may be the most promising approach to achieve economically sustainable no-fee OA journal publishing.", "bibtexKey": "morrison2021access" } , { "type" : "Publication", "id" : "https://puma.ub.uni-stuttgart.de/bibtex/2481cbb9c39d1a72173c044eb6957e949/droessler", "tags" : [ "Global","Libraries","Open","Publishing","Stratification","Universities","access","charges","economics","health","macht","power","processing" ], "intraHash" : "481cbb9c39d1a72173c044eb6957e949", "interHash" : "87abd41958c7861ef0a576888cf9ff5b", "label" : "Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research", "user" : "droessler", "description" : "", "date" : "2018-09-26 12:06:42", "changeDate" : "2018-09-26 10:06:42", "count" : 1, "pub-type": "article", "journal": "PeerJ", "year": "2018", "url": "https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4269", "author": [ "Kyle Siler","Stefanie Haustein","Elise Smith","Vincent Larivière","Juan Pablo Alperin" ], "authors": [ {"first" : "Kyle", "last" : "Siler"}, {"first" : "Stefanie", "last" : "Haustein"}, {"first" : "Elise", "last" : "Smith"}, {"first" : "Vincent", "last" : "Larivière"}, {"first" : "Juan Pablo", "last" : "Alperin"} ], "volume": "6","pages": "e4269","abstract": "Using a database of recent articles published in the field of Global Health research, we examine institutional sources of stratification in publishing access outcomes. Traditionally, the focus on inequality in scientific publishing has focused on prestige hierarchies in established print journals. This project examines stratification in contemporary publishing with a particular focus on subscription vs. various Open Access (OA) publishing options. Findings show that authors working at lower-ranked universities are more likely to publish in closed/paywalled outlets, and less likely to choose outlets that involve some sort of Article Processing Charge (APCs; gold or hybrid OA). We also analyze institutional differences and stratification in the APC costs paid in various journals. Authors affiliated with higher-ranked institutions, as well as hospitals and non-profit organizations pay relatively higher APCs for gold and hybrid OA publications. Results suggest that authors affiliated with high-ranked universities and well-funded institutions tend to have more resources to choose pay options with publishing. Our research suggests new professional hierarchies developing in contemporary publishing, where various OA publishing options are becoming increasingly prominent. Just as there is stratification in institutional representation between different types of publishing access, there is also inequality within access types.", "issn" : "2167-8359", "doi" : "10.7717/peerj.4269", "bibtexKey": "10.7717/peerj.4269" } ] }