mastouille.fr est l'un des nombreux serveurs Mastodon indépendants que vous pouvez utiliser pour participer au fédiverse.
Mastouille est une instance Mastodon durable, ouverte, et hébergée en France.

Administré par :

Statistiques du serveur :

596
comptes actifs

#APCs

2 messages2 participants0 message aujourd’hui
Suite du fil

Update. Here are two new bits on this story:
medpagetoday.com/washington-wa

* #NIH director Jay Bhattacharya has been railing against #APCs in conservative news outlets like Charlie Kirk and the Disinformation Chronicle. It looks like opposition to APCs is a warmly received #MAGA talking point. It's almost as if #Republicans supported equity and equitable access but didn't want to use those words.

* The NIH plans to set the APC cap by this by October, at the start of its 2026 fiscal year.

www.medpagetoday.comNIH to Cap How Much Journals Can Charge Authors for Open AccessExact amount still to be determined, agency says

Springer Nature makes clear that federally-funded authors who want to publish in SN journals will have to pay #APCs.
springernature.com/gp/open-sci

If you're a fed-funded author, then submitting your manuscript to one of SN's non-OA or subscription-based journals, to avoid the APC, is not an option for you. Those SN journals will desk-reject your submissions without regard to relevance or merit.

When you face a publisher demand for an APC, remember what the fee really buys. It buys entry to publish in that particular journal (assuming manuscript acceptance). It does not buy compliance with your funder policy. Compliance with your funder policy is free of charge and you can always take your submission to another journal or another publisher.

www.springernature.comUS federal agency public access policy compliance | Open science | Springer Nature

An editorial in _Microbial Biotechnology_ argues that journals aiming to maximize the number of papers published, in part to maximize #APCs, are "promoting an insidious degradation of rigour and quality standards of reviewing–editing practices. Such predatory practices result in the systematic degradation of research quality and its “truthfulness”. Moreover, they undermine the science ethos and threaten to create a new generation of scientists that lack this ethos. These trends will inevitably progressively erode public trust in scientists and the research ecosystem."
enviromicro-journals.onlinelib

Since the authors don't mention it, I'll mention that non-APC #OpenAccess (#DiamondOA) journals don't create this problem or even carry the risk.

The Royal Society of Chemistry (#RSC) just issued a vague and puzzling statement about its plans.
rsc.org/news/our-evolving-appr

It once planned to convert all its journals to #OpenAccess by 2028. By which it apparently meant #APC-based OA. But after talking with customers in different parts of the world, it learned that some regions "are not yet ready for fully OA." By which it means APC-based OA. "The resounding message we heard over and over is that one size cannot fit all." By which it means that not all can pay APCs.

"It became clear that we needed to adapt our vision for openness to account for a landscape that is increasing in complexity and no longer coalescing around a single direction for open research." As if the global landscape had ever coalesced around support for APCs.

But RSC is still committed to some kind of transition to OA. "We are now shaping our future OA approach to support authors in ways that suit them best in a local context."

If it plans to support no-APC forms of OA, it carefully avoids saying so. It never mentions #GreenOA and never endorses #DiamondOA. (It mentions one diamond OA initiative in Africa, but it's not an RSC initiative.)

I'm guessing that it plans to rely on locally customized #ReadAndPublish agreements. (I've argued that all such agreements use APCs in disguise.) But if so, why not say so? If it has other models in mind for regions "not ready" for APC-based OA, why not say what they are?

Suite du fil

Update. Here's a published article making a cluster of false claims about #OpenAccess journals: "In the OA model…costs are…covered by Article Processing Charges (#APCs) paid by the authors (#GoldOA); in relatively rare cases, some funders cover the full costs of a journal (#DiamondOA) to make it free for readers and authors alike."
ssph-journal.org/journals/inte

1. It claims that most OA journals charge APCs and that diamond OA journals are rare. But most OA journals do NOT charge APCs and diamond OA journals predominate.

Today the #DOAJ (@DOAJ) lists 21,597 OA journals, of which 13,735 or 63.5% are diamond.
doaj.org/

2. It claims that at APC-based OA journals, APCs are (always) paid by authors. But while this tends to be true in the global south, even there it's only a tendency, not a universal truth. In the north, APCs are usually NOT paid by authors but by their funders or employers.
suber.pubpub.org/pub/j1jk6hu9

3. There are many ways to fund a diamond or non-APC OA journals, not just by having funders cover their costs.

BTW, this piece is called a "commentary" and might not have been peer-reviewed.

In the rest of the piece, the authors complain about misunderstandings of their journal.

SSPH+SSPH+ | Conspiracies in Academia? Stand Up Against Defamations of Open Access Journals!through subscriptions while also charging APCs to authors who opted to publish OA. This hybrid model is routinely criticized for using an unfair "double...

DOAJ and EZB: Working together for more visibility of information on publishing.

A new collaboration will see DOAJ and EZB contribute to greater transparency in scholarly publishing, empowering authors with the information they need to make informed publishing decisions

#DOAJ #metadata #APCs #transparency #ScholComm #OpenAccess

All details at blog.doaj.org/2025/04/10/doaj-

blog.doaj.orgDOAJ and EZB: Working together for more visibility of information on publishing – DOAJ Blog

Today is the 23d birthday of the Budapest Open Access Initiative.
budapestopenaccessinitiative.o

BOAI is still active and issued its 20th anniversary recommendations in 2022.
budapestopenaccessinitiative.o

Unlike previous BOAI statements, which made many recommendations, the 20th anniversary statement deliberately focused on just a small number of top priorities:

1. Adopting #OpenInfrastructure
2. Reforming #ResearchAssessment
3. Moving away from #APCs
4. Moving away from #ReadAndPublish agreements.

I'm proud of my association with the #BOAI, #BOAI10, and #BOAI20.

Happy #ValentinesDay to all who are working for #OpenAccess worldwide.

www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.orgRead the Declaration – Budapest Open Access Initiative
A répondu dans un fil de discussion

@neuralreckoning @internetarchive
Sorry if you already know this. The #NelsonMemo described #GreenOA policies. It required deposit in OA #repositories, not submission to OA #journals. Some publishers told authors that they'd have to pay #APCs to comply with the policy. But that was deception and spin. Compliance with the policy was always free of charge. When journals charge APCs to publish fed-funded research, it was to publish in those journals, not to comply with federal policy.

New study: "Current levels of implementation of #transformative agreements is insufficient to bring about a large-scale transition to full #OpenAccess."
doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00348

Reminder from the Budapest Open Access Initiative 20th anniversary statement, section 4.6: "Paying #APCs at hybrid journals [through these agreements] pays the journals to stay hybrid. It pays them to resist the conversion to full #OA that many institutions intend and predict when they enter the agreements."
budapestopenaccessinitiative.o

New study: "Our analysis demonstrates that research institutions seem to be ‘trapped’ in #transformative agreements [aka #ReadAndPublish agreements]. Instead of being a bridge towards a fully #OpenAccess world, academia is stuck in the #hybrid system."
cwts.nl/seminars/announcements

Reminder from the Budapest Open Access Initiative 20th anniversary statement, section 4.6: "Journals covered by [transformative or read-and-publish] agreements are…hybrid journals…Paying #APCs at hybrid journals [through these agreements] pays the journals to stay hybrid. It pays them to resist the conversion to full #OA that many institutions intend and predict when they enter the agreements."
budapestopenaccessinitiative.o

New study: "Undeclared [use of] #AI seems to appear in journals with higher citation metrics and higher article processing charges (#APCs), precisely those outlets that should theoretically have the resources and expertise to avoid such oversights."
arxiv.org/abs/2411.15218

arXiv.orgSuspected Undeclared Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Academic Literature: An Analysis of the Academ-AI DatasetSince generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as OpenAI's ChatGPT became widely available, researchers have used them in the writing process. The consensus of the academic publishing community is that such usage must be declared in the published article. Academ-AI documents examples of suspected undeclared AI usage in the academic literature, discernible primarily due to the appearance in research papers of idiosyncratic verbiage characteristic of large language model (LLM)-based chatbots. This analysis of the first 500 examples collected reveals that the problem is widespread, penetrating the journals and conference proceedings of highly respected publishers. Undeclared AI seems to appear in journals with higher citation metrics and higher article processing charges (APCs), precisely those outlets that should theoretically have the resources and expertise to avoid such oversights. An extremely small minority of cases are corrected post publication, and the corrections are often insufficient to rectify the problem. The 500 examples analyzed here likely represent a small fraction of the undeclared AI present in the academic literature, much of which may be undetectable. Publishers must enforce their policies against undeclared AI usage in cases that are detectable; this is the best defense currently available to the academic publishing community against the proliferation of undisclosed AI.

Watching with interest:

"While the #OpenAPC initiative has created an internationally recognized approach to the disclosure of funds in the area of publication fees [#APCs], there is still no such initiative for #subscription costs…Against this background, the #DFG project #Transform2Open [@Transform2Open] is striving for a national #transparency initiative [in #Germany] that addresses subscription as well as transformation and #OpenAccess contracts."
zenodo.org/records/14505423

ZenodoTransparenz in der Wissenschaft: Strategien für offene InformationsversorgungAbstract DE Sowohl die Open-Access-Strategie des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), als auch die Empfehlungen der Europäischen Kommission zu OA an die EU-Mitgliedsstaaten fordern wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen auf, die Transparenz rund um vertragliche Vereinbarungen mit Verlagen zu stärken. Auch die Allianz der deutschen Wissenschaftsorganisationen adressiert dieses Thema. In der Praxis wird diese Forderung jedoch bis auf wenige Ausnahmen (z. B. die Offenlegung der DEAL-Verträge) nicht umgesetzt. Während im Bereich der Publikationsgebühren mit der Initiative OpenAPC ein international beachteter Ansatz zur Offenlegung der Mittel geschaffen wurde, steht eine solche Initiative z. B. für Subskriptionskosten noch aus. Vor diesem Hintergrund strebt das DFG-Projekt Transform2Open eine nationale Transparenzinitiative an, die sowohl Subskriptions- als auch Transformations- und OA-Verträge adressiert. Von besonderem Interesse sind der Umgang mit Non-Disclosure-Agreements und aktuelle Hindernisse für Transparenzbestrebungen. Auch praktische Verfahren zur Offenlegung von Kosten sind ein wichtiges Thema. Mit den Bestrebungen zur Öffnung von Forschungsinformationen, z. B. im Rahmen der Initiative „Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information“, ergeben sich darüber hinaus neue Möglichkeiten der Zusammenführung von Daten über Publikationen und ihre Kosten. Unter dem Tagungsmotto „Gemeinsame Infrastrukturen für eine offene Wissenschaft“ der 25. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Initiative für Netzwerkinformation (DINI) am 19. September 2024 in Potsdam wurden im Rahmen eines World-Café-Workshops thematisiert, welche Aspekte und Einrichtungen für eine prototypische Implementierung einer Transparenzinitiative zunächst fokussiert werden sollten. Gemeinsam wurden Herausforderungen bei der Umsetzung identifiziert, um die Umsetzung in die Praxis vorzubereiten. Der Workshop wurde gemeinsam von den DFG-Projekten Transform2Open und OA Datenpraxis angeboten. OA Datenpraxis unterstützt die Strukturbildung für die Open-Access-Transformation auf nationaler Ebene. Eine enge Zusammenarbeit mit Akteur:innen aus dem Projekt DEAL, OpenAPC, openCost und dem OA-Monitor besteht bzw. wird weiter ausgebaut. EN Both the Open Access strategy of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the European Commission's recommendations on OA to the EU member states call on scientific institutions to increase the transparency of contractual agreements with publishers. The Alliance of German Science Organizations also addresses this issue. In practice, however, with a few exceptions (e.g., the disclosure of DEAL contracts), this demand has not been implemented. While the OpenAPC initiative has created an internationally recognized approach to the disclosure of funds in the area of publication fees, there is still no such initiative for subscription costs, for example. Against this background, the DFG project Transform2Open is striving for a national transparency initiative that addresses subscription as well as transformation and OA contracts. Of particular interest are the handling of non-disclosure agreements and current obstacles to transparency efforts. Practical procedures for the disclosure of costs are also an important topic. Efforts to open up research information, e.g. as part of the “Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information” initiative, also open up new possibilities for combining data on publications and their costs. Under the motto “Shared infrastructures for open science”, a World Café workshop was held at the 25. annual conference of the Deutsche Initiative für Netzwerkinformation (DINI) on September 19, 2024 in Potsdam to discuss which aspects and institutions should initially be focused on for a prototype implementation of a transparency initiative. Implementation challenges were jointly identified in order to prepare for practical implementation. The workshop was offered jointly by the DFG projects Transform2Open and OA Datenpraxis. OA Datenpraxis supports the formation of structures for open access transformation at national level. Close cooperation with stakeholders from the DEAL project, OpenAPC, openCost and the OA Monitor exists or will be further expanded.