A framework for systematic analysis of open access journals and its application in software engineering and information systems
This article is a contribution towards an understanding of open access (OA) publishing. It proposes an analysis framework of 18 core attributes, divided into the areas of bibliographic information, activity metrics, economics, accessibility, and predatory issues. The framework has been employed in a systematic analysis of 30 OA journals in software engineering (SE) and information systems (IS), which were selected from among 386 OA journals in Computer Science from the Directory of OA Journals. An analysis was performed on the sample of the journals, to provide an overview of the current situation of OA journals in the fields of SE and IS. The journals were then compared between-group, according to the presence of article processing charges. A within-group analysis was performed on the journals requesting article processing charges from authors, in order to understand what is the value added according to different price ranges. This article offers several contributions. It presents an overview of OA definitions and models. It provides an analysis framework born from the observation of data and the existing literature. It raises the need to study OA in the fields of SE and IS while offering a first analysis. Finally, it provides recommendations to readers of OA journals. This paper highlights several concerns still threatening the adoption of OA publishing in the fields of SE and IS. Among them, it is shown that high article processing charges are not sufficiently justified by the publishers, which often lack transparency and may prevent authors from adopting OA.
KeywordsOpen access Predatory publishers Software engineering Information systems Research Systematic analysis
The authors are thankful to Elena Borgogno for her valuable help during the study and when writing this article. The authors would like to thank Christian Gumpenberger for the insightful comments he offered to improve the manuscript. Lastly, the authors are thankful to two anonymous reviewers for the several suggestions that significantly improved the article.
- ACM. (2012). The 2012 ACM computing classification system. Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved August 01, 2013, from http://www.acm.org/about/class/2012.
- Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/65/5/372.abstract.
- Arunachalam, S. (2008). Open access to scientific knowledge. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 28(1), 7–14. Retrieved from http://www.publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/djlit/article/view/147.
- Beall, J. (2012a). Predatory publishers and opportunities for scholarly societies. In American Educational Research Association meeting, Washington, D.C. (Vol. 489, pp. 1–5). doi: 10.1038/489179a.
- Beall, J. (2013a). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers (2nd ed.). Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from http://perma.cc/LKY4-UWHH.
- Beall, J. (2013b). OA journal stops publishing, deletes Website. Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved August 01, 2013, from http://perma.cc/BU36-WSWM.
- Beall, J. (2013c). The open-access movement is not really about open access. tripleC, 11(2), 589–597.Google Scholar
- Beall, J. (2013d). Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved January 28, 2014, from http://perma.cc/G45Q-88B5.
- Björk, B. C. (2003). Open access to scientific publications - an analysis of the barriers to change. Information Research, 9(2), 170. Retrieved from http://perma.cc/X6GJ-R8FD.
- Bjørnshauge, L., Brage, R., Brage, S., & Jørgensen, L. (2013a). DOAJ. Directory of Open Access Journals. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://www.doaj.org/.
- Bjørnshauge, L., Brage, R., Brage, S., & Jørgensen, L. (2013b). DOAJ announces new selection criteria. Directory of Open Access Journals. Retrieved August 06, 2013, from http://perma.cc/8CBJ-RFTN.
- BOAI. (2002). Budapest open access initiative. Budapest Open Access Initiative. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from http://perma.cc/8BT3-KFNY.
- Brown, P. O., Cabell, D., Chakravarti, A., Cohen, B., Delamothe, T., Eisen, M.,… Watson, L. (2003). Bethesda statement on open access publishing. Harvard Dash. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4725199.
- CLOCKSS. (2013). Contribute to CLOCKSS. CLOCKSS. Retrieved August 06, 2013, from http://perma.cc/BS77-P23N.
- Crawford, S., & Stucki, L. (1990). Peer review and the changing research record. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(3), 223–228. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199004)41:3%3C223:AID-ASI14%3E3.0.CO;2-3.Google Scholar
- CrossRef. (2013). 2013 CrossRef Deposit Fees. CrossRef. Retrieved May 25, 2013, from http://perma.cc/XY86-JXYW.
- Davis, P. (2009). Open access publisher accepts nonsense manuscript for dollars. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://perma.cc/UDK7-9QSU.
- DOAJ. (2013). About. Directory of Open Access Journals. Retrieved January 27, 2014, from http://perma.cc/BR9R-KWSC.
- Eysenbach, G. (2008). Black sheep among open access journals and publishers. Gunther Eysenbach Random Research Rants Blog. Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://perma.cc/8SQU-JBLC.
- Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal: Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 22(2), 338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Graziotin, D. (2013, May 18). Comparison of open access software engineering and information systems journals. figshare. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.704442.
- Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-oa articles in the same journals. DLib Magazine, 10(6), 2–6. doi: 10.1045/june2004-harnad.
- Holmstrom, A. (2012). What happened to online articles published in K-theory (Springer journal)? Mathoverflow. Retrieved August 01, 2013, from http://perma.cc/46VC-46WG.
- Houghton, J. W., & Oppenheim, C. (2010). The economic implications of alternative publishing models. Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, 28(1), 41–54. doi: 10.1080/08109021003676359.
- IEEE. (2013). IEEE open-article processing charges. Institute of Electrical and Electornics Engineers. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://perma.cc/LZ56-ARGG.
- ISSN. (2013). ISSN and electronic publications. ISSN International Centre. Retrieved August 01, 2013, from http://perma.cc/R2T3-4Z56.
- Karen, C. (2013). Predatory publishers. Library Journal. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://perma.cc/PZZ9-KMKN.
- Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. In O. Neurath (Ed.), Philosophical review (Vol. II, p. 210). London: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.1119/1.1969660.
- Laika Spoetnik, J. (pseudonym). (2011). Jeffrey Beall’s list of predatory, open-access publishers. Laika’s MedLibLog.Google Scholar
- Ley, M. (2002). The DBLP computer science bibliography: Evolution, research issues, perspectives. In 9th international symposium on string processing and information retrieval (SPIRE 2013) (Vol. 2476, pp. 1–10). Lisbon, Portugal: Springer, Berlin. doi: 10.1007/3-540-45735-6.
- Mattern, F. (2008). Bibliometric evaluation of computer science—Problems and pitfalls. In European computer science summit (Vol. 2008, p. 6). Zurich, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.inf.ethz.ch/department/IS/vs/publ/slides/Bibliometry-ECSS-Summit-08.pdf.
- Max Planck Society. (2003). Berlin declaration. Open Access at the Max Planck Society. doi: 10.1353/hrq.2005.0002.
- Mosallahnezhad, R. (2007). REMOVED: Cooperative, compact algorithms for randomized algorithms. Applied Mathematics and Computation. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2007.03.011.
- Navidi, W. (2010). Statistics for engineers and scientists. Education (3rd ed., Vol. 6). McGraw-Hill. doi: 10.2307/2288012.
- OASPA. (2013). Code of conduct. Open access scholarly publishers association. Retrieved from http://perma.cc/F874-Z72N.
- Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://perma.cc/D7YM-CCGB.
- Pringle, J. (2013). Do Open Access journals have impact? Nature Web focus: Access to the literature. Retrieved June 05, 2013, from http://perma.cc/G26H-RP56.
- SHERPA. (2002). RoMEO—Search—Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving. SHERPA Services based at the University of Nottingham. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php.
- Sol, H. G. (1983). A feature analysis of information systems design methodologies: Methodological considerations. In Information Systems design methodologies: A feature analysis (pp. 1–7).Google Scholar
- Stribling, J., Krohn, M., & Aguayo, D. (2005). SCIgen—An automatic CS paper generator. PDOS Research. Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/.
- Suber, P. (2008). Gratis and libre open access. SPARC Open Access Newsletter. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from http://perma.cc/AD8E8DZE.
- Suber, P. (2009). Timeline of the open access movement. Open Access Directory. Retrieved July 29, 2013, from http://perma.cc/VYT6-5DWB.
- Suber, P. (2012). Open Access (1st ed., pp. 1–255). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Swoger, B. (2013). It’s not about predators, it’s about journal quality. Scientific American Blogs. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://perma.cc/SCY9-BQV8.
- Taylor, M. (2012). Crowdsourcing a database of “predatory OA journals.” Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from http://perma.cc/629G-VBGS.
- Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle. electronic publishing (1st ed., Vol. 85, pp. 227–232). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Worlock, K. (2013). The pros and cons of open access. Nature Web Focus: Access to the Literature. Retrieved June 05, 2013, from http://perma.cc/464S-3Z8K.
- Young, B. (1988). International standard serial numbers. Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community, 1(2), 48–50. doi: 10.1629/010248.