3.8 Article

Assessing the effect of article processing charges on the geographic diversity of authors using Elsevier's Mirror Journal system

Journal

QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE STUDIES
Volume 2, Issue 4, Pages 1123-1143

Publisher

MIT PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00157

Keywords

Global North; Global South; Gold OA; hybrid journals; open access; parent journals; Simpson's index; waivers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Authors from high-income countries dominate in open access articles, and there is a lack of authors from low-income countries, indicating that APCs may be a barrier to open access publishing for scientists from the Global South.
Journals publishing open access (OA) articles often require that authors pay article processing charges (APC). Researchers in the Global South often cite APCs as a major financial obstacle to OA publishing, especially in widely recognized or prestigious outlets. Consequently, it has been hypothesized that authors from the Global South will be underrepresented in journals charging APCs. We tested this hypothesis using more than 37,000 articles from Elsevier's Mirror journal system, in which a hybrid Parent journal and its Gold OA Mirror share editorial boards and standards for acceptance. Most articles were non-OA; 45% of articles had lead authors based in either the United States or China. After correcting for the effect of this dominance and differences in sample size, we found that OA articles published in Parent and Mirror journals had lead authors with similar Geographic Diversity. However, Author Geographic Diversity of OA articles was significantly lower than that of non-OA articles. Most OA articles were written by authors in high-income countries, and there were no articles in Mirror journals by authors in low-income countries. Our results for Elsevier's Mirror-Parent system are consistent with the hypothesis that APCs are a barrier to OA publication for scientists from the Global South.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available