The open access megajournal is a proven success, but its future may lie in the hands of commercial entities.
Output in PLOS ONE dropped by 6000+ papers in 2016, calling into question the sustainability of PLOS’ business model.
The pendulum for revenues swung from personal subscriptions to institutional subscriptions with the rise of digital options. With growth capped, a new mix of access options is likely to emerge.
Higher Impact Factor, faster publication, and weaker data availability policies may be drawing authors away from PLOS ONE.
It’s a question that has lurked around the edges of our campfire for a while — what if publishers paid authors of research papers? Quickly, it becomes clear why this is very unlikely to happen — for financial, ethical, and practical reasons.
CCC’s Roy Kaufman looks at the economic difficulties of the gold open access market, and suggest other pathways for revenue expansion.
There’s no denying the growth and increased acceptance of the concepts of open access in scholarly publishing. But the repercussions of the business models and methodologies chosen for OA are just beginning to be recognized.
We often hear that the majority of open access journals charge authors no fee for publication. Is that true? Well, it depends on how you count journals.
In an increasingly open world, should more subscription journals be converted to OA? And if so, why, how, and when?
Adding to the discussion of APCs, eLife’s financials suggest that being competitive with some major journals means the journal is expensive to run.
A surprising set of recipients dominate a list of APC payments released by Wellcome Trust, suggesting that OA is not leading to a reshaping of the industry but perhaps merely driving further consolidation.
After a great deal of public and political resistance, the RCUK revises its OA policy. Unfortunately, the revisions only highlight the same problems, sow more confusion, and reveal how central the issue of academic freedom is to this approach.