3.8 Article

The APC-barrier and its effect on stratification in open access publishing

期刊

QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE STUDIES
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 22-43

出版社

MIT PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00245

关键词

article processing charge; equity; institutional resources; Open Access; stratification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current implementations of Open Access (OA) publishing frequently involve article processing charges (APCs) which impede researchers with fewer resources. We analyzed 1.5 million scientific articles to assess average APCs and their determinants across scientific disciplines, world regions, and through time. Levels of APCs were strongly stratified by scientific fields and the institutions' countries, but the effects of institutional resourcing on APCs were small to moderate after controlling for country and scientific field, with larger effects in countries with low GDP.
Current implementations of Open Access (OA) publishing frequently involve article processing charges (APCs). Increasing evidence has emerged that APCs impede researchers with fewer resources in publishing their research as OA. We analyzed 1.5 million scientific articles from journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals to assess average APCs and their determinants for a comprehensive set of journal publications across scientific disciplines, world regions, and through time. Levels of APCs were strongly stratified by scientific fields and the institutions' countries, corroborating previous findings on publishing cultures and the impact of mandates of research funders. After controlling for country and scientific field with a multilevel mixture model, however, we found small to moderate effects of levels of institutional resourcing on the level of APCs. The effects were largest in countries with low GDP, suggesting decreasing marginal effects of institutional resources when general levels of funding are high. Our findings provide further evidence on how APCs stratify OA publishing and highlight the need for alternative publishing models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据