Forecast of the Development of Russian Scientific Journals: Open Access Journals
https://doi.org/10.24108/2658-3143-2021-4-1-2-29-58
Abstract
The article analyzes Russian open access scholarly journals in the context of improving the presentation of the results of scientific research of Russian scientists. The advantages and problems of supporting open access publications are considered, taking into account the analysis of the interests of the stakeholders of scientific publications, examples of state policy for supporting open access publications are presented, and options for adapting the open access model in Russia are formulated. The analysis of the representation of information on the terms of open access for Russian journals is carried out. The citation rate of open access journals was investigated in comparison with the citation rate of traditional subscription publications taking into account the types of open access and the country of the author of the publication. Proposals for adjusting the editorial policy in order to promote Russian journals, improve their quality and accessibility are presented. The final conclusions are made for the entire series of articles devoted to the forecast of the development of Russian journals.
About the Authors
O. V. Moskaleva
M. Gorky Scientific Library of the Saint Petersburg University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga V. Moskaleva, Cand. Sci. (Biol.), Advisor of the Director; Editorial Board Member, “Science Management: Theory and Practice”, “Scientific Communications. Problems and Solutions”
Universitetskaya embankment, 7/9, Saint Petersburg, 199034
M. A. Akoev
Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Mark A. Akoev, Head of the Scimetrics Lab, Member of the ACM, ISSI, IEEE Computer Society and EuroCRIS
Mira str., 19, Ekaterinburg, 620002
References
1. Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities [Electronic resource]. 2003. URL: http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/.
2. Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing [Electronic resource]. 2003. URL: http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm (accessed: 14.04.2020).
3. Trischenko N.D. Open Access to Science. Ekaterinburg: 2017. 200 p. (in Russ)
4. Björk B.-C., Solomon D. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine. 2012; (10): 73 . doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-73.
5. Ghane M.R., Niazmand M.R., Sabet Sarvestani A. The citation advantage for open access science journals with and without article processing charges. J. Inf. Sci. 2020; 46(1):118–130.
6. Heneberg P. The troubles of high-profile open access megajournals. Scientometrics. 2019; 120.:733–746.
7. Buranyi S. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? [Electronic resource]. The Guardian. 2017. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science.
8. Kowaltowski A.J. et al. The push for open access is making science less inclusive [Electronic resource]. Times Higher Education. 2021. URL: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/push-open-access-making-science-less-inclusive (accessed: 31.08.2021).
9. Latour B. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. — Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988. — 288 p.
10. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012;489(7415):179. DOI: 10.1038/489179a
11. Syed I. India to develop own framework for open access instead of joining Plan S [Electronic resource]. Editage Insights. 2019. URL: https://www.editage.com/insights/india-develop-own-frame-work-open-access-instead-joining-plan-s.
12. Björk B.-C. Why Is Access to the Scholarly Journal Literature So Expensive?. Libr. Acad. 2021;21(2):77–192.
13. Brainard J. Open access takes flight. Science. 2021; 371(6524):16-20. DOI:10.1126/science.371.6524.16
14. Eddy T.D. Plan S: Motivations of for-profit publishers. Science. 2019;363( 6426):. 462. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw2107
15. Brainard J. Facing Plan S, publishers may set papers free. Science. 2019; 364(6441):620. DOI: 10.1126/science.364.6441.620
16. Rabesandratana T. Radical open-access plan is delayed a year: In response to criticisms, Plan S also lifts cap on article fees. Science. 2019;364,6444):919. DOI: 10.1126/science.364.6444.919
17. Schiltz M. Science Without Publication Paywalls: cOAlition S for the Realisation of Full and Immediate Open Access. Front. Neurosci. 2018;12:656. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00656
18. Kowaltowski A.J., Oliveira M.F. Plan S: Unrealistic capped fee structure. Science. 2019;363(6426):461. http://hdl.handle.net/10760/40949
19. Spedding M. et al. Plan S: A threat to quality of science? Science. 2019:363( 6426):462. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw1424
20. Brainard J. Publishing: Scientific societies worry about threat from Plan S. Scienc.. 2019;363(6425): 332–333. DOI: 10.1126/science.363.6425.332
21. Else H. Ambitious open-access Plan S delayed to let research community adapt [Electronic resource] Nature. 2019. May 30. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-01717-2.
22. Domnina T. N. Russian Scholarly periodicles in directory of open access journaks. NTI, Ser.1 2018; 26–39.(in Russ)
23. Moskaleva O.V., Akoev M.A. Forecast of the development of Russian scientific journals: indexing in international citation indexes (Web of Science platform). Scholarly Research and Information. 2020;3(1):30-63. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.24108/2658-3143-2020-3-1-30-63
24. Akoev M.A., Moskaleva O.V. Forecast of the development of Russian scientific journals: indexing in international citation indexes (Scopus). Scholarly Research and Information. 2020;3(1):64-84. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Moskaleva O.V., Akoev M.A. Forecast of the Development of Russian Scientific Journals: Open Access Journals. Scholarly Research and Information. 2021;4(1-2):33-62. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24108/2658-3143-2021-4-1-2-29-58
Views:
2650
Email this article 