References
- 1Heather Piwowar et al., “The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles,’ PeerJ 6, (2018):
e4375 , DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4375 (accessed 3 December 2024). - 2
“Home,” Open Research Funders Group,https://www.orfg.org/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 3“Home,” F1000Research,
https://f1000research.com/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 4“Understanding the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) Model of Scholarly Communication,” ASAPbio,
https://asapbio.org/understanding-the-publish-review-curate-prc-model-of-scholarly-communication (accessed 3 December 2024). - 5Richard Van Noorden, “Wellcome and Gates join bold European open-access plan,” 2018,
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07300-5 (accessed 3 December 2024). - 6Robert Van Smits and Rachael Pells, Plan S for Shock: Science. Shock. Solution. Speed. (London: Ubiquity Press, 2022), DOI: 10.5334/bcq (accessed 3 December 2024).
- 7“Plan S principles,” cOAlition S,
https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 8“Plan S Retention Strategy,” cOAlition S,
https://www.coalition-s.org/rights-retention-strategy/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 9“Transformative Journals,” cOAlition S,
https://www.coalition-s.org/addendum-to-the-coalition-s-guidance-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 10“Towards Responsible Publishing,” cOAlition S,
https://www.coalition-s.org/towards-responsible-publishing/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 11“University rights-retention OA policies,” Open Access Directory,
https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/University_rights-retention_OA_policies (accessed 3 December 2024). - 12“Enabling Open Access through clarity and transparency: a request to publishers,” cOAlition S,
https://www.coalition-s.org/enabling-open-access-through-clarity-and-transparency-a-request-to-publishers/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 13“OA.Works receives $1.9 million to bolster OA policies,” OA.Works,
https://blog.oa.works/grant-to-bolster-oa-policies-from-bmgf/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 14Rachel Caldwell,
“A Provisional System to Evaluate Journal Publishers Based on Partnership Practices and Values Shared with Academic Institutions and Libraries,” Publications 8, no. 3 (2020): 39,https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/8/3/39 (accessed 3 December 2024); Christine N. Turner, “Developing a Vendor Scorecard as a Tool to Re-Allocate Acquisitions Dollars and Transform Scholarly Communication,” University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2019,https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/233842367.pdf (accessed 11 December 2024); Jessica Condlin, “Conducting a diversity audit in an academic library on the psychology, non-fiction collection,” In The Library With The Lead Pipe, (2024),https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2021/ethical-financial-stewardship/#respond (accessed 3 December 2024); Heinz Pampel, “From library budget to information budget: fostering transparency in the transformation towards open access,” Insights 35, no. 10 (2022): 1–10,https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.576 (accessed 3 December 2024). - 15Daniel Bingham,
“Crowdsourced Review Probably Can’t Replace the Journals,” The Road Goes On, 2024,https://theroadgoeson.com/crowdsourcing-peer-review-probably-wont-work (accessed 3 December 2024); Elaine Sykes, “You say you want a revolution! Could it finally be time to rethink scholarly communications?,” Insights 36, no. 1 (2023):24https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.632 (accessed 3 December 2024); “Home,” Discovery Stack Pilot,https://solvingfor.org/campaigns-database/discovery-stack-pilot-home (accessed 11 December 2024); Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner et al., “MetaROR – a new form of scholarly publishing and peer review for STS,” easst,https://easst.net/easst-review/easst-review-volume-421-july-2023/metaror-a-new-form-of-scholarly-publishing-and-peer-review-for-sts/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 16Madhukar Pai, “How Prestige Journals Remain Elite, Exclusive And Exclusionary,” Forbes, 2020,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/madhukarpai/2020/11/30/how-prestige-journals-remain-elite-exclusive-and-exclusionary/?sh=860b8c14d48f (accessed 3 December 2024). - 17Karen Steward, “Why Scientists Should Care About Society Publishing,” Technology Networks, 2024,
https://www.technologynetworks.com/tn/articles/why-scientists-should-care-about-society-publishing-383850 (accessed 3 December 2024); Kyle Siler et al., “Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research,” PeerJ 6 (2018):e4269 ,https://peerj.com/articles/4269/?highlight=equitable (accessed 3 December 2024); Bernie Folan, “Report from Equity in Open Access workshop #2: Why do professors pick paywalls?,” OASPA, 2023,https://oaspa.org/report-from-equity-in-open-access-workshop-2-why-do-professors-pick-paywalls/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 18Paul Ginsparg, “Lessons from arXiv’s 30 years of information sharing,” Nature Reviews Physics 3, (2021): 602–603,
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42254-021-00360-z (accessed 3 December 2024). - 19Jessica Polka,
“Make publishing more efficient and equitable by supporting a ‘publish, then review’ model,” Federation of American Scientists, 2024,https://fas.org/publication/publish-then-review/ (accessed 3 December 2024); Taiki Oka et al., “Autonomous, bidding, credible, decentralized, ethical, and funded (ABCDEF) publishing,” F1000Research 12, (2023): 877,https://f1000research.com/articles/12-877/v2?utm_medium=email&utm_source=tracked_articles_alert (accessed 3 December 2024). - 20Luke Drury,
“The normalization of preprints,” International Science Council,https://council.science/publications/normalization-preprints/ (accessed 3 December 2024); Björn Brembs et al., “Replacing academic journals,” Royal Society Open Science 10, no 7, (2023).https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.230206 (accessed 3 December 2024); “Funders support use of reviewed preprints in research assessment,” eLife, 2022,https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/e5423e39/funders-support-use-of-reviewed-preprints-in-research-assessment?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic (accessed 3 December 2024); Eve Kalmar et al., “Trust in open publishing practices,” F100Research 13, (2024): 851,https://f1000research.com/articles/13-851/v1?utm_medium=email&utm_source=tracked_articles_alert (accessed 3 December 2024). - 21“Funder policies,” ASAPbio,
https://asapbio.org/funder-policies#:~:text=%E2%80%9CPreprints%20Of%20Submitted%20Manuscripts%20Are,a%20CC%20BY%204.0%20license.%E2%80%9D (accessed 3 December 2024). - 22“Share your research on VeriXiv – the Verified Preprint Server,” VeriXiv,
https://verixiv.org/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 23Seye Abimbola, “Transforming academic publishing in public health,” Journal of Community Systems for Health 1, (2024),
https://journals.ub.umu.se/index.php/jcsh/article/view/1085/513 (accessed 3 December 2024). - 24Katherine Sanderson, “Editors quit top neuroscience journal to protest against open-access charges,” Nature, (2023),
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01391-5 (accessed 3 December 2024). - 25Dan Pollock and Ann Michael, “News & Views: Can open access be made more affordable?,” Delta Think,
https://www.deltathink.com/news-views-can-open-access-be-made-more-affordable (accessed 3 December 2024). - 26“Why hybrid journals do not lead to full and immediate Open Access,” cOAlition S, 2021,
https://www.coalition-s.org/why-hybrid-journals-do-not-lead-to-full-and-immediate-open-access/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 27“Transformative Journals: analysis from the 2023 reports,” cOAlition S, 2024,
https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/transformative-journals-analysis-from-the-2023-reports/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 28“More than 2000 journals share price and service data through Plan S’s Journal Comparison Service,” cOAlition S, 2022,
https://www.coalition-s.org/more-than-2000-journals-share-price-and-service-data-through-journal-comparison-service/ (accessed 3 December 2024). - 29“Open APC,” Open APC,
https://treemaps.openapc.net/apcdata/openapc/ (accessed 3 December 2024).