Shakedown Social

petersuberUpdate. Here are two new bits on this story: <a href="https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/washington-watch/116455" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/washington-watch/116455</a> * <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/NIH" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#NIH</a> director Jay Bhattacharya has been railing against <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a> in conservative news outlets like Charlie Kirk and the Disinformation Chronicle. It looks like opposition to APCs is a warmly received <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MAGA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#MAGA</a> talking point. It's almost as if <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Republicans" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Republicans</a> supported equity and equitable access but didn't want to use those words. * The NIH plans to set the APC cap by this by October, at the start of its 2026 fiscal year. <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DefendResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DefendResearch</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Trump" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Trump</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/TrumpVResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#TrumpVResearch</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/USPol" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#USPol</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/USPolitics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#USPolitics</a>

petersuberThe <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/NIH" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#NIH</a> just announced that it will "cap how much <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/publishers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#publishers</a> can charge NIH-supported scientists to make their research findings publicly accessible." <a href="https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-crack-down-excessive-publisher-fees-publicly-funded-research" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-crack-down-excessive-publisher-fees-publicly-funded-research</a>We don't yet know the cap or how NIH will calculate or enforce it. <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DefendResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DefendResearch</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/GoldOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#GoldOA</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Trump" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Trump</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/TrumpVResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#TrumpVResearch</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/USPol" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#USPol</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/USPolitics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#USPolitics</a>

petersuberSpringer Nature makes clear that federally-funded authors who want to publish in SN journals will have to pay <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a>. <a href="https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/us-federal-agency-compliance" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/us-federal-agency-compliance</a> If you're a fed-funded author, then submitting your manuscript to one of SN's non-OA or subscription-based journals, to avoid the APC, is not an option for you. Those SN journals will desk-reject your submissions without regard to relevance or merit. When you face a publisher demand for an APC, remember what the fee really buys. It buys entry to publish in that particular journal (assuming manuscript acceptance). It does not buy compliance with your funder policy. Compliance with your funder policy is free of charge and you can always take your submission to another journal or another publisher. <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/NIH" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#NIH</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Publishers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Publishers</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/SpringerNature" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#SpringerNature</a>

petersuberAn editorial in _Microbial Biotechnology_ argues that journals aiming to maximize the number of papers published, in part to maximize <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a>, are "promoting an insidious degradation of rigour and quality standards of reviewing–editing practices. Such predatory practices result in the systematic degradation of research quality and its “truthfulness”. Moreover, they undermine the science ethos and threaten to create a new generation of scientists that lack this ethos. These trends will inevitably progressively erode public trust in scientists and the research ecosystem." <a href="https://enviromicro-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1751-7915.70180" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://enviromicro-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1751-7915.70180</a> Since the authors don't mention it, I'll mention that non-APC <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DiamondOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DiamondOA</a>) journals don't create this problem or even carry the risk. <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuberThe Royal Society of Chemistry (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/RSC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#RSC</a>) just issued a vague and puzzling statement about its plans. <a href="https://www.rsc.org/news/our-evolving-approach-to-open-access" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.rsc.org/news/our-evolving-approach-to-open-access</a>It once planned to convert all its journals to <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> by 2028. By which it apparently meant <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APC</a>-based OA. But after talking with customers in different parts of the world, it learned that some regions "are not yet ready for fully OA." By which it means APC-based OA. "The resounding message we heard over and over is that one size cannot fit all." By which it means that not all can pay APCs. "It became clear that we needed to adapt our vision for openness to account for a landscape that is increasing in complexity and no longer coalescing around a single direction for open research." As if the global landscape had ever coalesced around support for APCs. But RSC is still committed to some kind of transition to OA. "We are now shaping our future OA approach to support authors in ways that suit them best in a local context." If it plans to support no-APC forms of OA, it carefully avoids saying so. It never mentions <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/GreenOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#GreenOA</a> and never endorses <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DiamondOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DiamondOA</a>. (It mentions one diamond OA initiative in Africa, but it's not an RSC initiative.)I'm guessing that it plans to rely on locally customized <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReadAndPublish" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ReadAndPublish</a> agreements. (I've argued that all such agreements use APCs in disguise.) But if so, why not say so? If it has other models in mind for regions "not ready" for APC-based OA, why not say what they are? <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/South" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#South</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuberI just added the results of a 17th survey to my growing summary, "Which pockets pay APCs?" <a href="https://suber.pubpub.org/pub/j1jk6hu9" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://suber.pubpub.org/pub/j1jk6hu9</a><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuberUpdate. Here's a published article making a cluster of false claims about <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> journals: "In the OA model…costs are…covered by Article Processing Charges (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a>) paid by the authors (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/GoldOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#GoldOA</a>); in relatively rare cases, some funders cover the full costs of a journal (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DiamondOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DiamondOA</a>) to make it free for readers and authors alike." <a href="https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/international-journal-of-public-health/articles/10.3389/ijph.2025.1608614/full" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/international-journal-of-public-health/articles/10.3389/ijph.2025.1608614/full</a>1. It claims that most OA journals charge APCs and that diamond OA journals are rare. But most OA journals do NOT charge APCs and diamond OA journals predominate. Today the <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DOAJ" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DOAJ</a> (<a href="https://masto.ai/@DOAJ" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@DOAJ</a>) lists 21,597 OA journals, of which 13,735 or 63.5% are diamond. <a href="https://doaj.org/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://doaj.org/</a>2. It claims that at APC-based OA journals, APCs are (always) paid by authors. But while this tends to be true in the global south, even there it's only a tendency, not a universal truth. In the north, APCs are usually NOT paid by authors but by their funders or employers. <a href="https://suber.pubpub.org/pub/j1jk6hu9" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://suber.pubpub.org/pub/j1jk6hu9</a>3. There are many ways to fund a diamond or non-APC OA journals, not just by having funders cover their costs.BTW, this piece is called a "commentary" and might not have been peer-reviewed. In the rest of the piece, the authors complain about misunderstandings of their journal.

DOAJDOAJ and EZB: Working together for more visibility of information on publishing. A new collaboration will see DOAJ and EZB contribute to greater transparency in scholarly publishing, empowering authors with the information they need to make informed publishing decisions<a href="https://masto.ai/tags/DOAJ" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DOAJ</a> <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/metadata" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#metadata</a> <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a> <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/transparency" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#transparency</a> <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a> <a href="https://masto.ai/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> All details at <a href="https://blog.doaj.org/2025/04/10/doaj-and-ezb-working-together-for-more-visibility-of-information-on-publishing/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://blog.doaj.org/2025/04/10/doaj-and-ezb-working-together-for-more-visibility-of-information-on-publishing/</a>

petersuberUpdate. Here's another piece that made it through peer review (at Oxford UP) falsely assuming that all <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> journals charge <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a>. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf092" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf092</a>The author concludes that there is *not* too much OA, but only because APC discounts and waivers exist. Imagine how much she could have strengthened her argument by bringing in <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DiamondOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DiamondOA</a> and <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/GreenOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#GreenOA</a>.<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuber<a href="https://h4.io/@joshisanonymous" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@joshisanonymous</a> Bracketing the problem of deciding which journals are "prominent", we have a good answer from the Directory of Open Access Journals (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DOAJ" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DOAJ</a>, <a href="https://masto.ai/@DOAJ" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@DOAJ</a>). As of today, it lists 21,452 <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> journals, of which 13,712 are <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DiamondOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DiamondOA</a> or charge no <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a>. Hence. 63.9% (≈ 64%) of DOAJ-listed journals charge no APCs.

petersuberUpdate. Here's another unrefereed letter to the editor (this time at Physics Today) falsely asserting that all <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> journals charge <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a>, effectively denying the existence and prevalence of no-APC OA (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DiamondOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DiamondOA</a>) journals , and failing to acknowledge the existence of OA repositories (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/GreenOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#GreenOA</a>). <a href="https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/78/3/8/3337073/Open-access-for-reading-or-closed-access-for" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/78/3/8/3337073/Open-access-for-reading-or-closed-access-for</a>

petersuberToday is the 23d birthday of the Budapest Open Access Initiative. <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/</a>BOAI is still active and issued its 20th anniversary recommendations in 2022. <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/</a>Unlike previous BOAI statements, which made many recommendations, the 20th anniversary statement deliberately focused on just a small number of top priorities:1. Adopting <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenInfrastructure" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenInfrastructure</a> 2. Reforming <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ResearchAssessment" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ResearchAssessment</a> 3. Moving away from <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a> 4. Moving away from <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReadAndPublish" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ReadAndPublish</a> agreements. I'm proud of my association with the <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/BOAI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#BOAI</a>, <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/BOAI10" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#BOAI10</a>, and <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/BOAI20" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#BOAI20</a>.Happy <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ValentinesDay" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ValentinesDay</a> to all who are working for <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> worldwide.

petersuber<a href="https://neuromatch.social/@neuralreckoning" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@neuralreckoning</a> <a href="https://mastodon.archive.org/@internetarchive" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@internetarchive</a> Sorry if you already know this. The <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/NelsonMemo" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#NelsonMemo</a> described <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/GreenOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#GreenOA</a> policies. It required deposit in OA <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/repositories" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#repositories</a>, not submission to OA <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/journals" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#journals</a>. Some publishers told authors that they'd have to pay <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a> to comply with the policy. But that was deception and spin. Compliance with the policy was always free of charge. When journals charge APCs to publish fed-funded research, it was to publish in those journals, not to comply with federal policy.

petersuberNew study: "Current levels of implementation of <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/transformative" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#transformative</a> agreements is insufficient to bring about a large-scale transition to full <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a>." <a href="https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00348" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00348</a> Reminder from the Budapest Open Access Initiative 20th anniversary statement, section 4.6: "Paying <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a> at hybrid journals [through these agreements] pays the journals to stay hybrid. It pays them to resist the conversion to full <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OA</a> that many institutions intend and predict when they enter the agreements." <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/</a><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/BOAI20" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#BOAI20</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReadAndPublish" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ReadAndPublish</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuberNew study: "Our analysis demonstrates that research institutions seem to be ‘trapped’ in <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/transformative" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#transformative</a> agreements [aka <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReadAndPublish" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ReadAndPublish</a> agreements]. Instead of being a bridge towards a fully <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> world, academia is stuck in the <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/hybrid" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#hybrid</a> system." <a href="https://www.cwts.nl/seminars/announcements?article=n-t2s284&title=trapped-in-transformative-agreements-a-multifaceted-analysis-of-1000-contracts" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.cwts.nl/seminars/announcements?article=n-t2s284&title=trapped-in-transformative-agreements-a-multifaceted-analysis-of-1000-contracts</a>Reminder from the Budapest Open Access Initiative 20th anniversary statement, section 4.6: "Journals covered by [transformative or read-and-publish] agreements are…hybrid journals…Paying <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a> at hybrid journals [through these agreements] pays the journals to stay hybrid. It pays them to resist the conversion to full <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OA</a> that many institutions intend and predict when they enter the agreements." <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/BOAI20" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#BOAI20</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuberNew study: "Undeclared [use of] <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/AI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#AI</a> seems to appear in journals with higher citation metrics and higher article processing charges (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a>), precisely those outlets that should theoretically have the resources and expertise to avoid such oversights." <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15218" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15218</a><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Misconduct" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Misconduct</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuberWatching with interest:"While the <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAPC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAPC</a> initiative has created an internationally recognized approach to the disclosure of funds in the area of publication fees [<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a>], there is still no such initiative for <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/subscription" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#subscription</a> costs…Against this background, the <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DFG" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DFG</a> project <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Transform2Open" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Transform2Open</a> [<a href="https://openbiblio.social/@Transform2Open" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@Transform2Open</a>] is striving for a national <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/transparency" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#transparency</a> initiative [in <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Germany" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Germany</a>] that addresses subscription as well as transformation and <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> contracts." <a href="https://zenodo.org/records/14505423" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/records/14505423</a>

petersuberUpdate. Here's yet another unrefereed editorial asserting that all <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> journals charge <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a> and failing to acknowledge the existence or prevalence of no-APC OA (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DiamondOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DiamondOA</a>) journals. <a href="https://www.arthroscopyjournal.org/article/S0749-8063(24)01080-6/fulltext" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.arthroscopyjournal.org/article/S0749-8063(24)01080-6/fulltext</a>

petersuberUpdate. Here's another unrefereed editorial asserting that all <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> journals charge <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a>. <a href="https://journals.lww.com/jgpt/fulltext/2025/01000/editor_s_message__pay_to_publish,_or_perish__.1.aspx" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://journals.lww.com/jgpt/fulltext/2025/01000/editor_s_message__pay_to_publish,_or_perish__.1.aspx</a>It never acknowledges the existence of no-APC (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DiamondOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DiamondOA</a>) journals or the 20+ year old fact that they far outnumber APC-based OA journals.

petersuberUpdate. Here's another piece that made it through peer review (Oxford U Press) documenting real problems caused by <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a> but leaving the false impression that all or most <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> journals charge APCs. It's silent on the existence and prevalence of non-APC OA (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DiamondOA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DiamondOA</a>) journals. <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ejcts/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ejcts/ezae447/7926881" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://academic.oup.com/ejcts/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ejcts/ezae447/7926881</a> (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/paywalled" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#paywalled</a>)

Recent searches

Search options

Administered by:

Server stats:

#APCs