Can You Pay Your Way to Readership? Free to Publish Open Access Formats Receive Greater Readership and Citations Than Paid Open Access Formats in Total Knee Arthroplasty Literature.

BACKGROUND: As publishing with open access is becoming increasingly popular within orthopaedics, understanding the types of publishing options available and what each may deliver is critically important. Hybrid articles require a high article processing charge. Open journal articles have a lower fee, while closed license articles are freely accessible at no charge. Open repository articles are peer-reviewed manuscripts posted freely online. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between article type and resulting citations, social media attention, and readership in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) literature. METHODS: Open access TKA journal articles published since 2016 were found using the Altmetric Explorer Database. Data gathered included the Altmetric Attention Score (attention), Mendeley Readership Score (readership), and citations per article. Articles were grouped by type: open journal, hybrid, closed license, and open repository. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Tukey's analysis; α = 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 9,606 publications were included. The open repository had the greatest mean citations (14.40), while open journal (9.55) had fewer than all other categories (P < .001). Hybrid had the greatest mean attention (10.35), and open journal (6.16) had a lower mean attention than all other categories (P ≤ .002). Open repository had the greatest mean readership (44.68), and open journal (34.00) had a lower mean readership than all other categories (P ≤ .012). The mean publication fee for paid publication options was $1,792 United States dollars. CONCLUSIONS: In open access TKA literature, free-to-publish open repositories had the greatest mean citations and readership. Free publication options, open repositories and closed licenses, had greater readership compared to paid publication options.

Publication Charges Associated with Quality Open Access (OA) Publishing and Its Impact on Low Middle Income Countries (LMICs), Time to Reframe Research Policies.

Dissemination of the scientific literature is as paramount as scientific studies. Scientific publishing has come a long way from localized distribution of few physical copies of journal to widespread and rapid distribution via internet in the 21st century. The evolution of open excess (OA) publishing which has rapidly evolved in last two decades has its heart at the right place with the ultimate goal being timely, and rapid distribution of published scientific work to a wider scientific community around the world and thus ultimately promoting scientific knowledge in global sense. However, quality OA publishing of cancer research involve an average publishing fee of around 1,500 USD which poses a challenge for Low middle income countries (LMICs), where per capita income is low. This has led to deterioration of science in LMICs in the form of publication in Cheap OA predatory journals for sake of securing academic promotions as well as authors ending up paying exorbitant publishing charges out of pocket to get their quality scientific work published. In countries like India and other LMICs, the funding agencies and institution have so far not addressed this problem. Here we assess the framework of open access publishing in LMICs like India and what are the steps which can be taken to facilitate open access publishing in LMICs.

The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good.

This paper provides an institutional and empirical analysis of the highly concentrated market of academic publishing, characterized by over proportionally high profit margins for publishing companies. The availability of latest research findings is an important issue for researchers, universities and politicians alike. Open access (OA) publication provides a promising but also costly solution to overcome this problem. However, in this paper we argue that OA publication costs are an important, but by far not the only way for academic publishers to gain access to public funding. In contrast, our study provides a comprehensive overview of the channels through which public expenditure benefits big academic publishing companies. Furthermore, we offer the results of an explorative case study, where we estimate the annual financial flows of public expenditures in Austria for the field of social sciences. In all, these expenditures add up to about 66.55 to 103.2 million € a year, which amounts to a fourth of total public funding for this field. Against this background, we contribute to the debate whether and to what extent public subsidies are justified for economically successful companies.

Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: How open is open?

Recent concerns about the reproducibility of science have led to several calls for more open and transparent research practices and for the monitoring of potential improvements over time. However, with tens of thousands of new biomedical articles published per week, manually mapping and monitoring changes in transparency is unrealistic. We present an open-source, automated approach to identify 5 indicators of transparency (data sharing, code sharing, conflicts of interest disclosures, funding disclosures, and protocol registration) and apply it across the entire open access biomedical literature of 2.75 million articles on PubMed Central (PMC). Our results indicate remarkable improvements in some (e.g., conflict of interest [COI] disclosures and funding disclosures), but not other (e.g., protocol registration and code sharing) areas of transparency over time, and map transparency across fields of science, countries, journals, and publishers. This work has enabled the creation of a large, integrated, and openly available database to expedite further efforts to monitor, understand, and promote transparency and reproducibility in science.