Abstracts
Abstract
Little is known about open access publishing in educational technology journals that employ a hybrid model which charges authors only if they wish to publish via gold open access. In this study we sought to address this gap in the scholarly understanding of open access publishing in hybrid journals that publish research into the intersection of education and technology. We analysed three categories of article access types: gold, green, and limited access, and collected data on their prevalence in the seven-year period from 2010-2017 across 29 journals. Data was gathered from Scopus, Unpaywall, Sherpa RoMEO, and via manual searches of the journal websites, resulting in a dataset comprising the metadata of 8,479 articles. Our findings highlight that most research remains locked behind paywalls, that open access publishing through legal means is a minority activity for the scholars involved, and that the complexity and costs of legal open access publishing in these journals may be inhibiting the accessibility of research to readers.
Keywords:
- publishing,
- gold open access,
- open scholarship,
- open access,
- educational technology research,
- open education
Appendices
Bibliography
- Allahar, H. (2017) Academic publishing, Internet technology, and disruptive technology. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(11), 47-56. Retrieved from https://timreview.ca/sites/default/files/article_PDF/Allahar_TIMReview_November2017.pdf
- Anderson, T. (2013). Open access scholarly publications as OER. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(2), 81-95. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v14i2.1531
- Armstrong, R., Jackson, N., Doyle, J., Waters, E., & Howes, F. (2005). It’s in your hands: The value of handsearching in conducting systematic reviews of public health interventions. Journal of Public Health (Oxford, England), 27(4), 388-391. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdi056
- Bailey, C. W., Jr. (2007). What is open access? (Blog post). Retrieved from http://digital-scholarship.org/cwb/WhatIsOA.htm
- Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall’s list: Better understanding predatory publishers. College and Research Library News, 76(3), 132-135. doi: 10.5860/crln.76.3.9277
- Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2015, April 8). Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation open access policy. Retrieved from https://www.gatesfoundation.org/how-we-work/general-information/open-access-policy
- Björk, B.-C. (2018). Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006-2017. PeerJ, 6. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4357
- Björk, B. C. (2017). Gold, green, and black open access. Learned Publishing, 30(2), 173-175. doi: 10.1002/leap.1096
- Björk, B.-C., & Holmström, J. (2006). Benchmarking scientific journals from the submitting author’s viewpoint. Learned Publishing, 19(2), 147-155. doi: 10.1087/095315106776387002
- Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1-12. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291
- Brown, P. O., Cabell, D., Chakravarti, A., Cohen, B., Delamothe, T., Eisen, M., ... Watson, L. (2003). Bethesda statement on open access publishing. Scholarly Communications Report, 7(6), 9-10. Retrieved from https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4725199
- Canagarajah, A. Suresh. (2002). The geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Chan, L., Cuplinskas, D., Eisen, M., Friend, F., Genova, Y., Guédon, J. C.... La Manna, M. (2002). Budapest open access initiative. ARL Bimonthly, 48. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tid/page/5833
- Chen, X., & Olijhoek, T. (2016). Measuring the degrees of openness of scholarly journals with the open access spectrum (OAS) evaluation tool. Serials Review, 42(2), 108-115. doi: 10.1080/00987913.2016.1182672
- cOalition S (2019) Why plan S? Retrieved from https://www.coalition-s.org/why-plan-s/
- Colledge, L., de Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., López-Illescas, C., Aisati, M. E., & Moed, H. (2010). SJR and SNIP: Two new journal metrics in Elsevier’s Scopus. Serials, 23(3), 215-221. doi: 10.1629/23215
- Conole, G., & Brown, M. (2018). Reflecting on the impact of the open education movement. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(3), 187-203. Retrieved from http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/3099
- Costello, E. (2019). Bronze, free, or fourrée: An open access commentary. Science Editing, 6(1), 69-72. doi: 10.6087/kcse.157
- Costello, E., Huijser, H., & Marshall, S. (2019). Education’s many “opens”. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 1-6. doi: 10.14742/ajet.5510
- Earney, L. (2017). Offsetting and its discontents: Challenges and opportunities of open access offsetting agreements. Insights, 30(1), 11-24. doi: 10.1629/uksg.345
- Eve, M. P., de Vries, S., & Rooryck, J. (2017). The state of the market, offsetting deals, and a demonstrated model for fair open access with the open library of humanities. In L. Chan & F. Loizides (Eds.), Expanding perspectives on open science: Cultures and diversity in concepts and practice. Retrieved from http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/18914/1/STAL9781614997696-0118.pdf
- Eve, M., & Priego, E. (2017). Who is actually harmed by predatory publishers? TripleC: Communication, Capitalism, & Critique: Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 15(2), 755-770. Retrieved from http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/867/1041
- European Commission. (2019, January) Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication - Report of the expert group to the European Commission. Retrieved from https://www.eosc-portal.eu/sites/default/files/KI0518070ENN.en_.pdf
- Freshwater, M. F. (2014). Open access, fauxpen access: Problems in transparency and proposed solutions. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, & Aesthetic Surgery, 67(4), 589-590. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2013.09.035
- Guédon, J. C. (2004). The “green” and “gold” roads to open access: The case for mixing and matching. Serials Review, 30(4), 315-328. doi: 10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.005
- Hanafi S., & Boucherie S. (2018, January 18) Discover the data behind the Times Higher Education World university rankings (Blog post). Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/connect/discover-the-data-behind-the-times-higher-education-world-university-rankings
- Harnard, S. (1991). Post-Gutenberg galaxy: The fourth revolution in the means of production of knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 2(1), 39-53. Retrieved from https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/253376/1/harnad91.postgutenberg.html
- Harnad, S. (2006, December 4). Re: When is a journal open access? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5881.html
- Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallières, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y. ... Hilf, E. R. (2004). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access. Serials Review, 30(4), 310-314. doi: 10.1080/00987913.2004.10764930
- Heaton, R., Burns, D., & Thoms, B. (2019). Altruism or Self-Interest? Exploring the Motivations of Open Access Authors. College & Research Libraries, 80(4), 485-507. doi: 10.5860/crl.80.4.485
- Hilton, J., III., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four ‘R’s of openness and ALMS analysis: Frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 25(1), 37-44. doi: 10.1080/02680510903482132
- Jamali, H. R. (2017) Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics, 112(1), 241-254. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4
- Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), 1-15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
- Lewis, C. L. (2018). The open access citation advantage: Does it exist and what does it mean for libraries? Information Technology and Libraries, 37(3), 50-65. doi: 10.6017/ital.v37i3.10604
- MacCallum, C. J. (2007) When is open access not open access? PLOS Biology, 5(10), 2095-2097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050285
- Olijhoek, T., & Tennant, J. (2018, September 25). The “problem” of predatory publishing remains a relatively small one and should not be allowed to defame open access [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/09/25/the-problem-of-predatory-publishing-remains-a-relatively-small-one-and-should-not-be-allowed-to-defame-open-access/
- Perkins, R. A., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2016). Open access journals in educational technology: Results of a survey of experienced users. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(3), 18-37. doi: 10.14742/ajet.2578
- Pinfield, S., Salter, J., & Bath, P. A. (2017). A “Gold-centric” implementation of open access: Hybrid journals, the “total cost of publication,” and policy development in the UK and beyond. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2248-2263. doi: 10.1002/asi.23742
- Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Lariviere, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Noorlander, B. ... Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ, 6. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4375
- Prosser, D. (2018, September 5). RLUK - Plan S - A major shift for open access in Europe [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.rluk.ac.uk/plan-s-a-major-shift-for-open-access-in-europe/
- Ridgway, G. (2014, August 22). Could we redefine Gold #OpenAccess: Gold = CC-BY or CC-BY-SA; Silver = NC, ND, or new STM nonsense; Bronze = only open on publisher website [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/RidgwayGR/status/502774185610211328
- Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies. (n.d.). Policies adopted by quarter. Retrieved January 10, 2019, from http://roarmap.eprints.org/
- Sherpa RoMEO. (n.d.) Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving. Retrieved from http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php
- Smith, K. L. (2017). Examining publishing practices: Moving beyond the idea of predatory open access. Insights, 30(3). 4-10. doi: 10.1629/uksg.388
- Solomon, D. J., & Björk, B.-C. (2012). Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 98-107. doi: 10.1002/asi.21660
- Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Tennant, J. P., Crane, H., Crick, T., Davila, J., Enkhbayar, A., Havemann, J. ... Vanholsbeeck, M. (2019). Ten myths around open scholarly publishing. PeerJ Preprints. doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27580v1
- Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2013). Scholars and faculty members’ lived experiences in online social networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 43-50. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.01.004
- Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. Basingstoke: Bloomsbury Academic.
- Weller, M. (2015). Battle for open: How openness won and why it doesn’t feel like victory. London: Ubiquity Press.
- Weller, M., Jordan, K., DeVries, I., & Rolfe, V. (2018). Mapping the open education landscape: Citation network analysis of historical open and distance education research. Open Praxis, 10(2), 109-126. doi: 10.5944/openpraxis.10.2.822
- Wiley, D. (2014, March 5). The access compromise and the 5th R [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://opencontent.org/blog/archives/3221
- Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Zawacki-Richter, O., Anderson, T., & Tuncay, N. (2010). The growing impact of open access distance education journals: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 24(3). Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/661/1210