International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences
International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences
复制标题
地球科学开放获取实践的国际差异
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jonathan P. Tennant
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
O. Pourret;D. Hedding;D. Ibarra;Dasapta Erwin Irawan;Haiyan Liu;Jonathan P. Tennant
背景：开放获取（OA）意味着免费和不受限制地访问和重复使用研究文章。最近，OA出版已经看到了一个新的浪潮的兴趣，辩论和实践周围的出版模式。
目的：概述出版实践，并在全世界六个国家之间进行比较，以激发进一步的辩论，提高对开放式获取的认识，从而促进关于进一步发展地球科学开放式获取实践的决策。
研究方法：OA文章的数量，它们在六个国家中的分布，以及发表OA文章的十大期刊使用两个数据库，即Scopus和Web of Science，主要基于2018年的数据。
结果：2018年，两个数据库中只有24%-31%的文章是OA文章。在发表OA论文的前十名地球科学期刊中，有六种是完全OA期刊，四种是混合期刊。完全开放存取的期刊大多由新兴出版商出版，其文章处理费用从1000美元到2200美元不等。
结论：OA出版的兴起对研究人员有潜在的影响，并倾向于将文章处理费用从组织转移到个人。在地球科学界决定放弃以期刊为基础的研究人员评价标准之前，这种高费用很可能会继续维持这一研究界内部的财政不平等，特别是对最不发达国家的研究人员不利。然而，地球科学家通过选择其出版物的法律的自我存档，可有助于促进公平和可持续地获取和更广泛地传播其工作成果。
Background: Open access (OA) implies free and unrestricted access to and re-use of research articles. Recently, OA publishing has seen a new wave of interest, debate, and practices surrounding that mode of publishing.
Objectives: To provide an overview of publication practices and to compare them among six countries across the world to stimulate further debate and to raise awareness about OA to facilitate decision-making on further development of OA practices in earth sciences.
Methods: The number of OA articles, their distribution among the six countries, and top ten journals publishing OA articles were identified using two databases, namely Scopus and the Web of Science, based mainly on the data for 2018.
Results: In 2018, only 24%–31% of the total number of articles indexed by either of the databases were OA articles. Six of the top ten earth sciences journals that publish OA articles were fully OA journals and four were hybrid journals. Fully OA journals were mostly published by emerging publishers and their article processing charges ranged from $1000 to $2200.
Conclusions: The rise in OA publishing has potential implications for researchers and tends to shift article-processing charges from organizations to individuals. Until the earth sciences community decides to move away from journal-based criteria to evaluate researchers, it is likely that such high costs will continue to maintain financial inequities within this research community, especially to the disadvantage of researchers from the least developed countries. However, earth scientists, by opting for legal self- archiving of their publications, could help to promote equitable and sustainable access to, and wider dissemination of, their work.