KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Legitimate open access and predatory journals are being conflated by some established actors, attempting to preserve legacy publishing.
• Understanding how to identify a true predatory journal is essential to maintaining scientific integrity.

With the rise in open access publishing, the presence of predatory journals has become a notable issue. However, in a Research Information article, Professor Emmanuel Andrès addresses labelling of legitimate open access journals as predatory by some in the publishing ecosystem.

Many accused journals have robust editorial standards and are indexed in respected databases like PubMed and DOAJ. So, why are they regarded as predatory? Prof. Andrès describes how some established actors have weaponised the term ‘predatory’ to exclude newcomers and protect the monopoly of legacy journals.

Open access versus exclusivity

Open access publishing can be affordable, accessible, and quick, enabling a broader range of individuals to publish, including those:

• new to research
• from non-elite universities or under-funded institutions
• from under-represented regions.

Historically, only a select few had the means to publish, largely due to the costs associated with legacy journals. Some may consider open access to result in a loss of publishing prestige. Prof. Andrès highlights that some established actors are terming any open access journal ‘predatory’ as a “convenient label” to dismiss them, in an attempt to preserve publishing exclusivity. On the contrary, Prof. Andrès says questioning the legitimacy of “all open access, fast-review, digitally native journals…is an intellectual laziness we can no longer afford”.

“Some established actors are terming any open access journal ‘predatory’ as a ‘convenient label’ to dismiss them, in an attempt to preserve publishing exclusivity”

Where can we draw the line?

Prof. Andrès notes that true predatory journals remain a significant threat to academic publishing. To help detect them, Prof. Andrès highlights 6 key characteristics to look out for:

• no transparent fee structure
• no visible or citable articles that can be corrected when necessary
• no clear peer review and editorial policies
• not indexed in recognised databases
• not a member of COPE
• not aligned with the Think.Check.Submit checklist.

While ‘predatory’ warns the research community of fraudulent journals, terming any journal that challenges traditional publishing  as such can be just as damaging. Before dismissing an open access journal branded as predatory, Prof. Andrès urges us to consider: is this truly fraudulent or is it just an outsider?

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Generative AI tools can simplify data sharing through automating metadata creation and flagging missed requirements, ultimately enhancing open science.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has proved transformative in scientific research, from experimental design to assisting publishers and streamlining peer review processes. But can it unlock access to research data, code, and protocols frequently lost behind digital and institutional walls? In a recent London School of Economics Impact Blog article, Niki Scaplehorn and Henning Schoenenberger, both at Springer Nature, describe how generative AI could play a pivotal role in reshaping how data are shared, potentially revolutionising open science.

Hurdles to data sharing

The COVID-19 pandemic marked a turning point for open science, with global collaboration and rapid data sharing accelerating breakthroughs. Yet, Scaplehorn and Schoenenberger highlight that there are still considerable challenges to data sharing:

• a lack of consistent guidance and struggles to align with FAIR standards
• confusing and overlapping data sharing policies
• cultural barriers
• a lack of recognition for data sharing, code publication, and protocol documentation in academia.

Springer Nature saw compliance with data sharing requirements jump from 51% to 87% simply by asking authors to justify why they hadn’t deposited data prior to article acceptance. Scaling this approach, however, demands time and manpower. According to Scaplehorn and Schoenenberger, here, generative AI shows potential.

How can AI benefit data sharing?

The authors call for a “product” mindset that treats AI open science tools as services designed around researchers’ needs, rather than top-down mandates or administrative burdens. Scaplehorn and Schoenenberger highlight that AI can benefit data sharing through:

• automation of metadata creation
• flagging missing documentation and overlooked requirements
• suggesting best practices to improve workflows.

“Generative AI could play a pivotal role in reshaping how data are shared, potentially revolutionising open science.”

The path forward

Scaplehorn and Schoenenberger believe that adopting AI tools designed around authors’ needs will streamline the burdensome aspects of data sharing. Ultimately, this will benefit researchers, policymakers, and everyone who relies on access to scientific information through lowering the barriers to open science.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Most open access repositories have evolved without sufficient means to communicate corrections or retractions.
• Metadata, such as DOIs, could be used to link all article versions and ensure corrections/retractions are clearly indicated to readers.

Open access repositories have an important role in disseminating scientific research. But what happens when a journal corrects or retracts a publication? A recent LSE Impact Blog article describes Frédérique Bordignon’s alarming discovery around how well this is captured by repositories.

Open repositories’ ‘blind spot’ to corrections and retractions

As Bordignon explains, most journals display up-to-date editorial notices alongside publications, although clarity can vary. On the other hand, open repositories do not necessarily pull through information on correction/retraction from published counterparts, and guidance from the Confederation of Open Access Repositories is lacking.

To examine the topic further, Bordignon’s team conducted a manually verified analysis of the world’s second largest institutional repository, HAL, by cross-checking its records against 24,430 corrected or retracted publications extracted from the Crossref x Retraction Watch database. Shockingly, they found that 91% of corrections/retractions were not indicated in the repository. Bordignon emphasises that this situation is not unique to HAL, but reflective of repositories across the world.

“91% of corrections/retractions were not indicated in the repository…this situation is…reflective of repositories across the world.”

How to ‘fill the gap’ in effective reporting of corrections

The solution? Bordignon points out that open repositories have a powerful opportunity to ‘fill the gap’ in effective reporting of corrections. However, rather than expecting repository managers to make individual version control decisions for every publication, Bordignon suggests that open repositories:

• create their own archives
• clearly display the editorial status of each article
• include a permanent, bidirectional link to the corrected published version
• enable automated updates through partnerships with Crossref x Retraction Watch, making use of metadata such as digital object identifiers
• incorporate platforms that detect and report retractions, such as PubMed, PubPeer, and Scite.

Bordignon provides a stark reminder that omission of corrections/retractions notices from open repositories risks that users may be learning, citing, or even propagating, flawed science; this can ultimately “erode public trust in science”. She urges open repositories to galvanise their position in the fight for research integrity, paving the way for a more streamlined archiving system that leaves readers in no doubt as to the reliability of the information they are accessing.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The key goals of reforming research assessment include reduced reliance on counterproductive, citation-based metrics and promotion of open science.
• New metrics designed to incentivise open science risk undermining initiatives to improve research evaluation.

Wider adoption of open science and reduced reliance on counterproductive, citation-based metrics are both key goals in the push to reform research assessment. However, in an article for Research Professional News, Ulrich Herb argues that flooding the market with open science metrics designed to incentivise researchers undermines the very reforms they are meant to promote.

Incentivising open science

Herb reports that while open science aims to improve transparency, accessibility, and collaboration in research, initiatives have struggled to gain traction with researchers. In a bid to push open science forward, advocates, research institutions, and funders have designed myriad new metrics to incentivise openness, including:

• counting outputs such as open access publications, preprints, Findable Accessible Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) datasets, data management plans, replication studies, and pre-registrations
• measuring attention from downloads, citations, and media coverage
• analysing social dimensions via collaborations, diversity, and citizen science activities.

New metrics are already the subject of extensive research and development in Europe.

Open science metrics undermine research assessment reform

Herb believes that open science metrics are experimental, fragmented, and lacking standardisation. Their dependence on quantitative measurement conflicts with the key principles of research evaluation reform, which promote qualitative, holistic assessment. Further, because open science metrics are used both to measure behaviour and influence it, they can encourage ‘metric-driven’ activities, such as using multiple data cuts to generate high numbers of FAIR-licensed datasets, or selecting diamond open access in favour of more appropriate journals. Finally, Herb argues, the current lack of clarity around precisely what open metrics are measuring renders them as counterproductive for research assessment as the citation-based metrics they are designed to replace.

“Because open science metrics are used both to measure behaviour and influence it, they can encourage ‘metric-driven’ activities.”

Using open science metrics as a force for good

Herb suggests that, if standardised, open science metrics could promote open science practices. At present, they risk creating a culture of incentivised behaviours that contradict the very ideals of open, fair, and meaningful research evaluation. The task ahead is to ensure that open science involves a genuine shift in how research is assessed.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Free-to-publish, free-to-read diamond OA may improve equity in publication opportunities, but uptake may be held back as authors are attracted to non-diamond journals with an established reputation.
• Questions remain around whether diamond OA will reduce the costs of publishing overall.

Open access (OA) is key to making research more accessible, with gold OA ever-growing: it accounted for 42% of Web of Science-indexed publications in 2023. In a recent article in Research Professional News, published by Clarivate, Ulrich Herb and Benedikt Schmal highlight that gold OA is no stranger to scrutiny. Article processing charges (APCs) can pose equity issues, and transformative agreements have not shifted the OA landscape as hoped. Diamond OA, providing both free-to-publish and free-to-read articles, has been hailed as a solution by funders, libraries, and OA advocates; however, it may not provide a complete fix.

Money, money, money

Herb and Schmal debate whether, on balance, diamond OA will lower the costs of publishing compared with the current landscape. They note that journals have many costs, including:

• managing peer review, editing, and quality control
• operational infrastructure
• indexing and archiving
• training and capacity building
• marketing and outreach.

Despite this long list, Herb and Schmal suggest that many assume large commercial publishers and non-profit outfits have the same costs. Think again. Diamond OA publishers are unlikely to replicate economies of scale at larger publishers, so face higher costs. By their nature, non-profit publishers also lack motivations to reduce costs to widen profit margins.

Is reputation everything?

Diamond OA levels the financial playing field for authors, but Herb and Schmal ask whether this will truly provide equity. With reputation often a key factor in journal selection, the authors question whether there is sufficient appetite for new diamond OA journals: these would need to compete with established rivals to build their reputation and gain broader appeal.

Diamond OA levels the financial playing field for authors, but Herb and Schmal ask whether this will truly provide equity.

Herb and Schmal push for a pragmatic assessment of diamond OA models to establish their viability and sustainability – or note that OA advocates once again risk disappointment.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Plan S architects cOAlition S have released the results of a global consultation on their latest open access proposal, “Towards Responsible Publishing”.
• Broad support exists for preprint posting, permissive licensing, and open peer review, while challenges remain around incentives, infrastructure, and implementation.

Earlier this year, cOAlition S welcomed the findings of a consultation with global stakeholders on their “Towards Responsible Publishing” (TRP) proposal. A detailed report reveals broad support for aspects such as preprint posting, the use of permissive licences, and open peer review, yet challenges remain.  

The proposal

Originally published last year, TRP builds on the principles of Plan S, which calls for the academic community to move towards “full and immediate” open access. cOAlition S proposes to reform academic publishing away from “highly inequitable” funding models, such as subscription charges and (over time) article processing charges (APCs), towards a scholar-led publishing ecosystem. These principles are aimed at allowing authors to decide when and what to publish.

The consultation

Over 11,600 respondents contributed to the consultation, including:

• 440 responses to an initial stakeholder feedback survey
• 72 focus group participants
• 11,145 responses to an online global researcher survey.

The report acknowledges that low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were underrepresented in the initial stakeholder feedback survey data. To mitigate this, the report authors solicited 10 organisational feedback letters from LMICs.

Key findings

There was general support across regions and academic disciplines for:

• preprint posting, to increase research transparency
• permissive licensing, albeit with some concerns that open licence adoption is imposed by funders rather than the academic community
• open peer review (where reports are published alongside a published article), with a preference for reviewer anonymity.

Despite this support, the traditional journal ecosystem remains dominant, with researchers reliant on journal indexes and impact factors when deciding where to publish. The report suggests that researchers in LMICs may be more dependent on these metrics currently. Along with inequities in relation to APCs, this could lead to TRP being seen as an imposition by wealthier nations.

There was general support across regions and academic disciplines for preprint posting, permissive licensing, and open peer review.

The way forward

The report suggests that cOAlition S should pursue a phased approach to implementing TRP goals:

• Short term: encourage preprint posting and open licensing
• Medium term: promote open peer review
• Long term: reform incentives at a global scale to encourage open access publishing, and reallocate resources from legacy funding models towards scholar-led publishing infrastructure

cOAlition S aim to publish a full response to the findings by the end of 2024.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• OA publishing can place financial stress on authors, but avenues like publisher discounts can offset costs and improve equity.
• Immediate OA mandates for US federally funded research challenge publishing models and author’s control over their work.

Debate continues following the 2022 White House directive mandating immediate open access (OA) for all US federally funded research by the end of 2025. While OA publication has many virtues, including improving access to research and citation diversity, some issues are far from resolved.

Are OA fees prohibitive for authors?

Challenges for OA publication include inequitable opportunities and inconsistent benefits to visibility in the scientific space. In a recent Career Feature article in Nature, Nikki Forrester builds on reports of prohibitive article processing charges, particularly for authors in low- and middle-income countries. Forrester shares advice on offsetting OA costs from experienced researchers, such as:

• seeking support from co-authors, funders, or institutions
• taking advantage of scientific society grants (eg, in partnership with Research4Life)
• utilising publisher fee waivers and discounts, where available.

How will OA mandates affect publishers?

Scientific publishing models rely on payment from authors and subscriptions, and are threatened by immediate OA, notes Kathryn Palmer for Inside Higher Ed: the 2022 directive will require embargo-free deposition of publications in designated, publicly accessible repositories.

Further, some libraries have pushed for use of the federal purpose licence for federally funded work—allowing free publication and reproduction—to simplify processes for authors. US Congress and publishing associations are concerned this move would limit authors’ control, with broad OA licences permitting reproduction, modification, and commercialisation. Given the federal purpose licence is non-exclusive, author and library bodies have rebuffed some copyright-related concerns, simply seeing a “business model conflict” for publishers who held exclusive copyright for articles published under subscription models.

Given the federal purpose licence is non-exclusive, author and library bodies have rebuffed some copyright-related concerns, simply seeing a “business model conflict” for publishers.

In any case, Palmer notes that publishers will face difficult decisions as the OA landscape continues to shift.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Researchers in less affluent countries report challenges getting APC discounts or waivers, posing barriers to OA publication.
• Tiered pricing and alternative funding models have been suggested to improve global equity in access to OA publication.

As scientific publishing shifts to open access (OA) models, authors—particularly in less affluent countries—face challenges paying article processing charges (APCs). A recent news feature in Science by Jeffrey Brainard highlights growing concerns about equity in OA.

Free to read, not free to publish

With ~50% of scientific papers now published under author-pays OA, 2023 saw gold and hybrid OA revenue triple for 6 large publishers versus 2019. This excludes potential reductions from discounts and waivers, relied on by many authors from low- and lower middle-income countries to publish OA. However, processes to obtain discounts or waivers can be complex, and they may not be offered by hybrid journals (who offer free, but paywalled, publication).

APCs can put financial strain on researchers worldwide when grant funding does not cover the fees: some even resort to paying from their own pocket. Brainard notes that when considering journal options likely to aid career advancement, authors in developed countries often prioritise journal reputation—one factor linked to higher APCs—over APC affordability. However, this may not be an option for scientists in developing regions. In the words of one researcher from Brazil, unaffordable APCs risk science from the Global South becoming “nonexistent”, perpetuating global disparities.

Unaffordable APCs risk science from the Global South becoming “nonexistent”, perpetuating global disparities.

Proposed solutions

Making journal articles both free to read and affordable to publish is challenging, but publishers are exploring alternatives to author-paid APCs. Potential solutions include:

• transformative agreements with institutions, allowing affiliated researchers to publish without paying APCs (and access paywalled content)
• tiered pricing based on a country’s wealth and purchasing power. While this would reduce APCs for many countries, costs would increase in wealthier nations if publishers offset lost revenue
• diamond OA, with government or philanthropic funding eliminating individual APCs. Brainard notes this has boosted OA publishing in some regions already, but absent impact factors for many journals can reduce the appeal.

Brainard highlights that OA publishing is actively changing: cOAlition S, Elsevier, and Springer Nature have introduced tiered pricing initiatives this year. We look forward to seeing how the OA landscape continues to evolve.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Delta Think has identified a “small” but “significant” drop in the percentage of open access articles published in 2023, following an 8-year period of sustained growth.
• Delta Think suggest this loss in open access market share could reflect authors moving away from fully open access publishers, given perceived quality issues in a subset of journals.

Hot on the heels of our recent article on the real-terms cost of article processing charges, we look at another report from Delta Think: open access (OA) market share has dropped for the first time since 2016.

According to preliminary results from Delta Think’s 2024 publisher survey, the volume of publications has been rising since 2016, with high OA growth rates dominating the market up to 2023. Following a “post-COVID spike”, growth has now slowed back down to long-term trends, with OA losing market share.  

2023 saw a “small” but “significant” loss in OA market share

Despite previously predicting that OA articles would make up over half the monetisable scholarly output by 2023, Delta Think found that between 2022 and 2023:

• total article output grew by 3.4%
• OA article output grew by 2.1%
• OA’s output share fell from 49% to 48%.

The decrease is a small but notable shift from the long-term trend of incremental gains in OA market share each year. For the first time, OA output is not growing as quickly as total scholarly output, representing “a reversal of long-term observations”.

For the first time, OA output is not growing as quickly as total scholarly output.

Why has OA lost market share?

Delta Think suggest that alongside a post-COVID return to long-term trends, underlying challenges experienced by OA publishers could be to blame. Authors’ concerns about quality due to paper mills, the rise of special editions, and removal of impact factors may have contributed to a shift away from fully OA publishers, despite these issues affecting only a minority of journals. Uncertainty around funder OA mandates may have also played a role.

Will OA bounce back?

Delta Think caution that it is too early to say, but expect OA growth may pick up again in 2024, at slightly lower levels than in recent years. They note that fully OA publishers still represent a fifth of the market’s output, with well-established hybrid publishers continuing to see growth in OA. Given the benefits of OA, we look forward to seeing whether OA uptake bounces back in 2024.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A partnership between the EQUATOR Network and the Centre for Open Science (COS) could further the objectives of both organisations and raise awareness of best practices for open science.
• Anticipated activities include educational outreach for researchers and updated reporting guidelines.

The open science movement aims to improve the transparency, accessibility, and reproducibility of scientific research. In May this year, the EQUATOR Network and Center for Open Science (COS) announced a 3-year collaboration in the hopes of accelerating the uptake of open science practices in health research through a series of shared activities.

A shared mission

Since launching the open science framework in 2012 – a project management tool designed to streamline collaboration on, and dissemination of, scientific research – COS have been on a mission to facilitate and incentivise open research practices. This approach is highly complementary to EQUATOR’s objective to improve research quality and transparency, leading the organisations to collaborate on development of the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines in 2015.

Nearly a decade later, the two are joining forces officially.

What can we expect?

Planning is ongoing, but several potential strategies are being explored:

• Educating researchers on processes such as writing and protocol creation, through a combination of outreach materials and toolkits
• Developing toolkits to guide reviewers in assessing data sharing practices and protocol deviation
• Increasing the visibility and use of existing tools, such as COS registration templates and EQUATOR reporting guidelines, through shared hosting
• Integrating practices such as protocol posting, data sharing, and study replication into existing EQUATOR reporting guidelines, where these are not yet included.

In particular, COS is keen to utilise EQUATOR’s existing systems to enhance research credibility by promoting the uptake of preregistration.

The potential impact

Open science practices are already included in CONSORT, but inclusion in further reporting guidelines could scale-up adoption substantially. In addition, the robustness of EQUATOR’s reporting standards could offer further structure and visibility to COS’ ongoing research.

Director of the EQUATOR Network, David Moher, has expressed his excitement around the partnership:

“Since its inception in 2006, the EQUATOR Network has worked hard to help improve comprehensive and transparent reporting of research. Collaborating with COS will help further achieve this objective.”

————————————————–