Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research.

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.

Email solicitation for scholarly work--a single researcher's perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Publishing is important for career progression. The traditional journal model results in subscribers bearing publication costs. The eagerness with which researchers seek journals for the publishing of their work, along with the internet, has resulted in the creation of a new model called open access (OA). Author/s or their institution/s pay an actual publication fee. This has in turn resulted in the creation of questionable journals which charge steep publishing fees. METHODS: Emails soliciting publication to one of the authors (VG) were collected for the month of March 2015. Information collected included costs of OA publishing, and whether or not this information was readily available. The appropriateness of said solicitations was also assessed with regard to topics with which the targeted author was familiar. RESULTS: There was a total of 44 solicitations: 3 were duplicates. Out of 41 solicitations, 20 (49%) were appropriate. The open access fee was readily available in 27 out of 41 solicitations (66%). The open access fee averaged $475, ranging from $25 to $1500. The only journal which provided true OA was Medical Principles and Practice, with no fees charged whatsoever. DISCUSSION: Potential authors should carefully investigate OA journals prior to choosing journals wherein to submit their work.