Is open access affordable? Why current models do not work and why we need internet-era transformation of scholarly communications

Learned Publishing

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 13-25

  Green, Toby ^a  

^a OECD   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85060540957     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: 17414857     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/leap.1219     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Alperin, J.-P. (2017, 7 August). The number and proportion of freely available articles is growing; reaching 45% of the literature published in 2015. LSE The Impact Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/08/07/the-number-and-proportion-of-freely-available-articles-is-growing-reaching-45-of-the-literature-published-in-2015/
2. Alperin, J.-P., Muñoz Nieves, C., Schimanski, L., Fischman, G. E., Niles, M. T., & McKiernan, E. C. (2018). How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion, and tenure documents? Humanities Commons. https://doi.org/10.17613/M6W950N35
3. Anderson, K. (2013, 8 January). Have journal price increases really increased much in the digital age? Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/01/08/have-journal-prices-really-increased-in-the-digital-age/
4. Anderson, K. (2018a, 23 August). The new plugins – What goals are the access solutions pursuing? Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/08/23/new-plugins-kopernio-unpaywall-pursuing/
5. Anderson, K. (2018b, 30 July). Dropping the hammer: Predatory publishers get pounded by regulators and the press. Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/07/30/dropping-hammer-predatory-publishers-get-pounded-regulators-press/
6. Anderson, K. (2018c, 5 September). “Open,” patronage, and proposition S. Caldera Publishing Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.caldera-publishing.com/blog/2018/9/5/open-patronage-and-proposition-s
7. Anderson, R. (2018, 7 August). Denialism on the rocks: It just got a lot harder to pretend that predatory publishing doesn’t matter. Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/08/07/denialism-rocks-just-got-lot-harder-pretend-predatory-publishing-doesnt-matter/
8. Anthony, S. (2012, 10 September). CERN’s Higgs boson discovery passes peer review, becomes actual science. ExtremeTech Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.extremetech.com/extreme/135756-cerns-higgs-boson-discovery-passes-peer-review-becomes-actual-science
9. Arns, M. (2014). Open access is tiring out peer reviewers. Nature, 515, 467. https://doi.org/10.1038/515467a
10. Ayeh, J., Au, N. & Law, R. (2013). “Do we believe in TripAdvisor?” Examining credibility perceptions and online travelers' attitude toward using user-generated content. Journal of Travel Research, 52, 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287512475217
11. Bal, M. (2018, 3 September). Let’s abolish the peer-review system. media theory [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://mediatheoryjournal.org/mieke-bal-lets-abolish-the-peer-review-system/
12. Baldwin, M. (2018). Scientific automony, public accountability, and the rise of “peer review” in the cold war United States. Isis, 109(3), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1086/700070
13. Beall, J. (2017). What I learned from predatory journals. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029
14. Boselli, B., & Galindo-Rueda, F. (2016). Drivers and implications of scientific open access publishing: Findings from a pilot OECD International Survey of Scientific Authors. In OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 33. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlr2z70k0bx-en
15. Bosman, J. & Kramer, B. (2018). Open access levels: A quantitative exploration using web of science and oaDOI data. PeerJ Preprint [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3520v1
16. Boukacem-Zegmouri, C., Dillaerts, H., Lafouge, T., Bador, P., & Sauer-Avargues, A. (2018). French publishing attitudes in the open access era: The case of mathematics, biology, and computer science. Learned Publishing, 31, 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1169
17. Bower, B. (2018, 27 August). ‘Replication crisis’ spurs reforms in how science studies are done. ScienceNews [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/replication-crisis-psychology-science-studies-statistics
18. Boyes, P. & Kingsley, D. (2016, 24 October). Hybrid open access – An analysis. Unlocking Research Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=969
19. Buranyi, S. (2017, 27 June). Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
20. Caldeira, K. (2018, 16 August). Tweet “my institution considers purchases over $5000 to be a capital expense …” Twitter [Web log post]. Retrieved from @KenCaldeira
21. Chan, G. (2018, 15 June). Scholarly communication at the crossroad: from subscription to open access? Paper presented at IFLA WLIC 2018. Retrieved from http://library.ifla.org/2192/1/163-chan-en.pdf
22. Clarke, M. (2018, 4 October). Navigating the big deal: A guide for societies. Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/10/04/navigating-the-big-deal/
23. Curry, S. (2018a). Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: It’s time to change how we judge research. Nature, 554, 147. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w
24. Curry, S. (2018b, 1 October). Academic freedom and responsibility: Why plan S is not unethical. Reciprocal Space Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2018/10/01/academic-freedom-and-responsibility-why-plan-s-is-not-unethical/
25. Davis, P. (2013). Public accessibility of biomedical articles from PubMed central reduces journal readership – Retrospective cohort analysis. FASEB Journal, 7, 27–2541. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.13-229922
26. Davis, P. (2018, 21 May). Journals lose citations to preprints servers. Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/05/21/journals-lose-citations-preprint-servers-repositories/
27. De Vrieze, J. (2018, 4 September). Open-access journal editors resign after alleged pressure to publish mediocre papers. Science News [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/open-access-editors-resign-after-alleged-pressure-publish-mediocre-papers
28. DORA. (2012). San Francisco declaration on research assessment. Retrieved from https://sfdora.org/read/
29. Editage Insights. (2013, 12 November). Most common reasons for journal rejection. Editage Insights [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.editage.com/insights/most-common-reasons-for-journal-rejection
30. Else, H. (2018). Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions. Nature, 561, 17–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06178-7
31. Esposito, J. (2008). Open access 2.0: Access to scholarly publications moves to a new phase. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.203
32. Esposito, J. (2016, 1 August). For scholarly communications, double-dipping is double the fun. Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/08/01/for-scholarly-communications-double-dipping-is-double-the-fun/
33. Esposito, J. (2018a, 23 May). Libraries face a future of open access. Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/05/23/libraries-face-future-open-access/
34. Esposito, J. (2018b, 20 June). Counting the holes in the Swiss cheese: “Read and publish” discovers America. Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/06/20/counting-holes-swiss-cheese-read-publish-discovers-america/
35. Esposito, J., (2018c, 16 July). Why hasn’t the academy taken back control of publishing already? Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/07/16/hasnt-academy-taken-back-control-publishing-already/
36. European Research Council. (2018). Main changes expected in the ERC work programme 2019. Retrieved from https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/content/pages/pdf/ERC-2019-Work-Programme-main-changes.pdf
37. Eve, M. P. (2018, 3 June). Transparency agendas are being used to legislate against consortial open-access models even though it has good cost outcomes. Martin Paul Eve Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.martineve.com/2018/06/03/transparency-agendas-are-used-to-legislate-against-consortial-open-access-models/
38. Farris, E. (2018, 6 August). Tweet: “Just got a second paper rejected after months because editors couldn’t get reviewers to review in a timely manner …” Twitter [Web log post]. Retrieved from @emayfarris
39. Flaherty, C. (2018, 16 August). Don’t even think of publishing in this journal. Inside Higher Ed [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/16/major-higher-education-research-journal-suspending-clear-out-two-year
40. Fowler, N., & Meijer, G. (2018). What’s the big DEAL and why is it so difficult to reach? Elephant in the Lab. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1404031
41. Fox, F. (2018, 17 July). The preprint dilemma: good for science, bad for the public? A discussion paper for the scientific community. Science Media Centre Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.sciencemediacentre.org/the-preprint-dilemma-good-for-science-bad-for-the-public-a-discussion-paper-for-the-scientific-community/
42. Gino, F. (2018). Rebel talent: Why it pays to break the rules at work and in life. New York: Dey Street Books. ISBN: 978-0-06-269463-8.
43. Green, T. (2017). We’ve failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach. Learned Publishing, 30(4), 325–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1116
44. Green, T. (2018, 6 September). We're still failing to deliver open access and solve the serials crisis: To succeed we need a digital transformation of scholarly communication using internet-era principles. Zenodo [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1410000
45. Greenway, A., Terret, B., Bracken, M., & Loosemore, T. (2018). Digital transformation at scale: Why the strategy is delivery. London, England: London Publishing Partnership. ISBN: 978-1907994784. Retrieved from http://londonpublishingpartnership.co.uk/digital-transformation-at-scale/
46. Hern, A. & Duncan, P. (2018, 10 August). Predatory publishers: The journals that churn out fake science. The Guardian [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/10/predatory-publishers-the-journals-who-churn-out-fake-science
47. Hersh, G. (2017, 26 September). Working towards a transition to open access. Elsevier Connect [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/connect/working-towards-a-transition-to-open-access
48. Himmelstein, D. S., Romero, A. R., Levernier, J. G., Munro, T. A., McLaughlin, S. R., Tzovaras, B. G., & Greene, C. S. (2018). Research: Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature. eLife, 7, e32822. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32822.001
49. Hinchliffe, L. (2018, 19 June). Tweet: “I especially worry re locking in with APC big deals to replace subscription Big Deals. Inequity in who can afford to publish and allocates all the $ to already dominant platforms/publishers”. Twitter [Web log post]. Retrieved from @lisalibrarian
50. Horton, R. (2018, 5 September). Tweet: “The APC model is incentivising some publishers to set ambitious goals for number of published papers. Quality is not part of (the) equation.” Twitter [Web log post]. Retrieved from @richardhorton1
51. Ibero-American and Caribbean Consortium. (2017, 1 September). Declarations, first consortium assembly from Ibero-America and the Caribbean [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://reuniondeconsorcios.conricyt.mx/index.php/primers-reunion/declaraciones/?lang=en
52. Ilva, J. (2018). Looking for commitment: Finnish open access journals infrastructure and funding. Insight, 31, 25. http://doi.org/10.1629/UKSG.414
53. Jamali, H. R. (2017). Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics, 112(1), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4
54. Johnson, R. (2018, 25 June). Time to check out of the hybrid hotel? Scholarly Kitchen Blog Guest Post [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/06/25/guest-post-time-check-hybrid-hotel/?informz=1
55. Johnson, R., Watkinson, A., & Mabe, M. (2018). The STM report, an overview of scientific and scholarly publishing. (5th ed.). STM Association. Retrieved from www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf
56. Kamerlin, L., Wittung-Stafshede, P., Dey, A., Wells, S. A., Gruden, M., van der Kamp, M. W., … Sam H. (2018, 11 September). A response to plan-S from academic researchers: Unethical, Too Risky! An open letter available via the For Better Science Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://forbetterscience.com/2018/09/11/response-to-plan-s-from-academic-researchers-unethical-too-risky/
57. Kämper, B.-C. (2018, 12 August). Email reply to Liblicense-L posting “German and Swedish libraries shrug off Elsevier shutdown”. Retrieved from http://listserv.crl.edu/wa.exe?A2=ind1808&L=LIBLICENSE-L&P=28485
58. Kingsley, D. (2018a, 14 June). Compliance is not the whole story. Unlocking Research Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=2074
59. Kingsley, D. (2018b, 23 July). Tweet: “At Last: submissions to arXiv will be counted for REF if ‘near final’ version is on preprint server before publication.” Twitter [Web log post]. Retrieved from @dannykay68
60. Kingsley, D. & Boyes, P. (2016, 24 October). Who is paying for hybrid? Unlocking Research Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1002
61. Kurt, K. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals. Learned Publishing, 31(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150
62. Laursen, L. (2008, 15 August). If at first you don’t succeed, cool off, revise, and submit again. Science Magazine [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.sciencemag.org/careers/2008/08/if-first-you-dont-succeed-cool-revise-and-submit-again
63. Lawson, E. & Price, C. (2003, June). The psychology of change management. McKinsey Quarterly [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/the-psychology-of-change-management
64. Lin, J. (2018, 31 May). Preprints growth rate ten times higher than journal articles. CrossRef Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.crossref.org/blog/preprints-growth-rate-ten-times-higher-than-journal-articles/
65. Liu, W., & Li, Y. (2017). Open access publications in sciences and social sciences: A comparative analysis. Learned Publishing, 31, 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1114
66. Luther, J. (2017, 18 April). The stars are aligning for preprints. Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/18/stars-aligning-preprints
67. Mabe, M., & Mulligan, A. (2011). What journal authors want: Ten years of results from Elsevier's author feedback Programme. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614576.2011.574495
68. Martin, S. (2018, 25 June). Social problems of scholarly communication. History of Scholarly Communication Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://histscholcomm.wordpress.com/2018/06/25/social-problems-of-scholarly-communication/
69. Martín-Martín, A., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T., & López-Cózar, E. (2018). Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google scholar: A large-scale analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 819–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.06.012
70. Mason, S., (2018, 20 November). High score, low pay: Why the gig economy loves gamification. The Guardian [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/20/high-score-low-pay-gamification-lyft-uber-drivers-ride-hailing-gig-economy
71. Matthias, L. (2018, 26 June). The worst of both worlds: Hybrid open access. OpenAire Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=3431
72. Moody, G. (2018, 17 August). As academic publishers fight and subvert open access, preprints offer an alternative approach for sharing knowledge widely. Techdirt [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.techdirt.com/articles/20180816/06022140441/as-academic-publishers-fight-subvert-open-access-preprints-offer-alternative-approach-sharing-knowledge-widely.shtml
73. National Academy of Sciences. (2004). Electronic scientific, technical, and medical journal publishing and its implications. In Report of a symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10969
74. National Library of Sweden. (2018). Alternative routes to scholarly articles and research outputs. OpenAccess.se website. Retrieved from http://openaccess.blogg.kb.se/bibsamkonsortiet/alternative-routes-to-scholarly-articles-and-research-outputs/
75. O’Brian, A. P. (1989). How to succeed in business: Lessons from the struggle between ford and general motors during the 1920s and 1930s. Business and Economic History, 18, 79–87. Retrieved from www.thebhc.org/sites/default/files/beh/BEHprint/v018/p0079-p0087.pdf
76. Obar, J. A. & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2018). The biggest lie on the internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. In TPRC 44: The 44th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy 2016. SSRN https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2757465
77. Oberhaus, D. (2018, 14 August). Hundreds of researchers from Harvard, Yale and Stanford were published in fake academic journals. Motherboard [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3ky45y/hundreds-of-researchers-from-harvard-yale-and-stanford-were-published-in-fake-academic-journals
78. Peterson, A.T. (2018, 22 August). Diversity and distributions protest letter [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://plus.google.com/101228061637329814897/posts/cv77LBrjsEJ
79. Pinfield, S. & Johnson, R. (2018, 22 January). Adoption of open access is rising – But so too are its costs. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/01/22/adoption-of-open-access-is-rising-but-so-too-are-its-costs/
80. Pinhasi, R., Blechl, G., Kromp, B., & Schubert, B. (2018). The weakest link – Workflows in open access agreements: The experience of Vienna university library and recommendations for future negotiations. Case study. Insights, 31, 27. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.419
81. Piwowar H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., … Haustein S. (2018), The state of OA: A large scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ 6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375
82. Poynder, R. (2018a, 2 January). Preface: Open Divide? Open and Shut Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/01/preface-open-divide.html
83. Poynder, R. (2018b, 14 May). Six questions about openness in science: Green OA. Open and Shut Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://poynder.blogspot.com/2018/05/six-questions-about-openness-in-science.html#more
84. Priyadarshini, S. (2018). India targets universities in predatory-journal crackdown. Nature, 560, 537–538. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06048-2
85. Publons. (2018). Global state or peer review 2018. Retrieved from https://publons.com/static/Publons-Global-State-Of-Peer-Review-2018.pdf
86. Pyne, D. (2017). The rewards of predatory publications at a small business school. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 48(3), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.48.3.137
87. Raju, R. (2018, 23 July). From green to gold to diamond: open access’s return to social justice. Paper presented at IFLA WLIC 2018.Retrieved from http://library.ifla.org/2220/1/092-raju-en.pdf
88. Remler, D. (2014, 23 April). Are 90% of academic papers really never cited? Reviewing the literature on academic citations. LSE Impact Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/23/academic-papers-citation-rates-remler/
89. Research Community (2018). Reaction of researchers to Plan S (Version 2). Zenodo [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1484544
90. Rowley, J., & Sbaffi, L. (2017). Academics’ attitudes toward peer review in scholarly journals and the effect of role and discipline. Journal of Information Science, 44, 644–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551517740821
91. Rumsey, S. (2018, 24 July). Discussion Paper: Help! I’m an author – get me out of here. University of Oxford. Retrieved from https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/pubs:890971
92. Schimmer, R., Geschuhn, K. K., & Vogler, A. (2015). Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access. A Max Planck Digital Library Open Access Policy White Paper. https://doi.org/10.17617/1.3
93. Schneider, L. (2018, 6 March). Editor sacked over rejection rate: “not inline with Frontiers core principles.” For Better Science Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://forbetterscience.com/2018/03/06/editor-sacked-over-rejection-rate-not-inline-with-frontiers-core-principles/
94. Schonfeld, R. (2018a, 4 September). Read and publish: Is it good for the academy? Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/09/04/read-publish-good-academy/
95. Schonfeld, R. (2018b, 26 June). Will Europe lead a global flop to open access. Scholarly Kitchen Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/06/26/will-europe-lead-open-access/
96. ScienceEurope. (2018, June). Challenging the current business models in academic publishing: Accelerators and obstacles to the open access transition. Workshop report. Retrieved from www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SE_WS_Report_OA_Big_Deals.pdf
97. Scott Morton, F. (2001). The problems of price controls. Cato Institute. Retrieved from www.cato.org/publications/commentary/problems-price-controls
98. Sheldon, T. (2018). Preprints could promote confusion and distortion. Nature, 559, 445. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05789-4
99. Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13, 230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2
100. Sherer, J. (2018, 13 June). Open access history monograph initiative. Longleaf Services Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.longleafservices.org/blog/oa-monographs/
101. Simba Information. (2018, 15 July). Open access sales exceed expectations. Simba Information Report Open Access Publishing 2018–2022 [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.simbainformation.com/about/release.asp?id=4369
102. Smith, C. (2018, 20 June). Q&A about the cancellation of the agreement with Elsevier commencing 1 July. OpenAccess.se Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://OpenAccess.blogg.kb.se/2018/06/20qa-about-the-cancellation-of-the-agreement-with-Elsevier-commencing-1-July/
103. SpringerNature. (2018, June). Assessing the open access effect for hybrid journals [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/about/oa-effect-hybrid
104. Stockholm University. (2018, 29 June). Library press release 29th June 2018. www.su.se/english/library/about-us/press-information/2.42247/stockholm-university-gives-researchers-more-support-to-get-published-in-full-open-access-journals-1.392523
105. Suber, P. (2017, 26 October). Still true: 70% of peer-reviewed OA journals charge no APCs. Google+ Post [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/aaAknRyN9cs
106. The Economist. (2018, 23 June). Publish and don’t be damned: Some science journals that claim to peer review papers do not do so. The Economist [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/06/23/some-science-journals-that-claim-to-peer-review-papers-do-not-do-so
107. Tracz, V., & Lawrence, R. (2016). Towards an open science publishing platform. F1000 Research, 2016(5), 130. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7968.1
108. University of California. (2018, 25 April). University committee on library and scholarly communication. Declaration of Rights and Principles to Transform Scholarly Communication. Retrieved from https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/ucolasc/scholcommprinciples-20180425.pdf
109. van der Graaf, M. (2017). Paying for open access: The author’s perspective. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.438037
110. van Noorden, R. (2018). Science journals end open-access trial with gates foundation. Nature, 559, 311–312. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05729-2
111. van Otegem, M., Wennstrom, S., & Hormia-Poutanen, K. (2018). Five principles to navigate a bumpy golden road towards open access. Insights, 31, 16. https://doi.org/10.1629/UKSG.403
112. Ware, M. (2010, March). Submission fees – A tool in the transition to open access? Knowledge Exchange. Retrieved from http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6473/1/Submission_Fees_-_A_Tool_in_the_Transition_to_Open_Access.pdf
113. Worlock, D. (2018, 11 May). After the IPO was over… DavidWorlock.com Blog [Web log post]. Retrieved from www.davidworlock.com/2018/05/after-the-ipo-was-over-a/