Abstract
Golden Open-access (GOA) journals make research more accessible and therefore more citable; however, the publication fees associated with GOA journals can be costly and therefore not a viable option for many researchers seeking high-impact publication outlets. In this study, metadata was collected from 174 open-access, non-human biological science journals and analyzed to determine relationships between Article Processing Charges (APC), Impact Factor (IF), Eigen Factor (EF), citability, h-index, journal rank, and potential contributing factors to publishing preference, such as years of available open access, publication frequency, and average review process time. Further, the aforementioned bibliometrics were examined in relation to country of publisher, as well as their national income threshold. The results of this study provide evidence that bibliometric values such as IF, EF, citability, h-index, and journal rank all increase as APC increases, and each of these metrics are higher in publishers from high-income countries in comparison to upper-middle and lower-middle income countries. Implications of these trends are discussed in regards to non-human biological sciences, and potential consequences of inequality within the global scientific community overall.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bartholomew, R. E. (2014). Science for sale: The rise of predatory journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,107(10), 384.
Beall, J. (2013). Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open-access. Learned Publishing,26(2), 79–84.
Björk, B. C. (2017). Gold, green, and black open access. Learned Publishing, 30(2).
Björk, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2015). Article processing charges in OA journals: Relationship between price and quality. Scientometrics,103(2), 373–385.
Brembs, B. (2018). Prestigious science journals struggle to reach even average reliability. Frontiers in human neuroscience,12, 37.
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in human Neuroscience,7, 291.
Burchardt, J. (2014). Researchers outside APC-financed open-access: Implications for scholars without a paying institution. SAGE open,4(4), 2158244014551714.
Drake, P. P. (2019). Predatory Journals, Open-Access, and the Effect on Publishing in Finance. (January 13, 2019).
Ellers, J., Crowther, T. W., & Harvey, J. A. (2017). Gold open-access publishing in mega-journals: Developing countries pay the price of western premium academic output. Journal of scholarly publishing,49(1), 89–102.
ElSabry, E. (2017). Unaffiliated Researchers: A Preliminary Study. Challenges,8(2), 20.
Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Planned obsolescence: Publishing, technology, and the future of the academy. NYU Press.
Fuchs, C., & Sandoval, M. (2013). The diamond model of open-access publishing: Why policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world need to take non-commercial, non-profit open-access serious. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique,11(2), 428–443.
Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallières, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., et al. (2008). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open-access: An update. Serials review,34(1), 36–40.
Hedding, D. W. (2019). Payouts push professors towards predatory journals. Nature,565(7737), 267–268.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,102(46), 16569–16572.
Kashnitsky, I. (2020). sjrdata: SCImago Journal & Country Rank Data, Ready for R. R package version 0.2.0. https://github.com/ikashnitsky/sjrdata
Kassambara, A. (2020). ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. R package version 0.2.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr
Keirstead, J. (2016) scholar: Analyse citation data from Google Scholar. R package
Lewis, D. W. (2012). The inevitability of open-access. College & research libraries,73(5), 493–506.
McDonald, K. (2005). Physicist proposes new way to rank scientific output. Phys Org.
Morrison, H. (2008). Directory of Open-access Journals (dOaJ) (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).
Morrison, H. (2018). Frontiers: 40% journals have APC increases of 18 – 31% from 2017 to 2018. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons/Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2018/04/12/frontiers-40-journals-have-apc-increases-of-18-31-from-2017-to-2018/
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature,403(6772), 853.
Piburn, J. (2016). wbstats (No. wbstats; 004914MLTPL00). Oak Ridge National Lab.(ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States).
Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., et al. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open-access articles. PeerJ,6, e4375.
Pond, B. B., Brown, S. D., Stewart, D. W., Roane, D. S., & Harirforoosh, S. (2019). Faculty applicants’ attempt to inflate CVs using predatory journals. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(1).
Reich, E. S. (2013). Science publishing: The golden club. Nature News,502(7471), 291.
Research4Life. (2015). Research4Life.
Research4Life. (2020). Research4life: Eligibility. retrieved from: https://www.research4life.org/access/eligibility/
Ryan, J. A., Ulrich, J. M., Thielen, W., Teetor, P., Bronder, S., & Ulrich, M. J. M. (2019). Package ‘quantmod’.
Siler, K., Haustein, S., Smith, E., Larivière, V., & Alperin, J. P. (2018). Authorial and institutional stratification in open-access publishing: The case of global health research. PeerJ,6, e4269.
Stocks, G., Seales, L., Paniagua, F., Maehr, E., & Bruna, E. M. (2008). The geographical and institutional distribution of ecological research in the tropics. Biotropica,40(4), 397–404.
van Vlokhoven, H. (2019). The effect of open access on research quality. Journal of Informetrics,13(2), 751–756.
version 0.1.5. http://github.com/jkeirstead/scholar.
Wickham, H. (2012). reshape2: Flexibly reshape data: a reboot of the reshape package. R package version, 1(2).
Wickham, H., Chang, W., & Wickham, M. H. (2016). Package ‘ggplot2’. Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics Version,2(1), 1–189.
Wickham, H., Francois, R., Henry, L., & Müller, K. (2015). dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.4. 3. R Found. Stat. Comput., Vienna. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dply
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Availability of data and material
All data used in this manuscript are provided as supplementary material.
Code availability
Rcode used for analysis in this study is provided as supplementary material.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gray, R.J. Sorry, we’re open: Golden open-access and inequality in non-human biological sciences. Scientometrics 124, 1663–1675 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03540-3
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03540-3