Send us a link
The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) plans to stop paying to publish their papers in international free-to-read journals it regards as too expensive amid effort to grow the country’s own journals.
What would it mean to support community-led publishing as infrastructure, rather than as a collection of heroic individual efforts?
Author-paid publication fees, often associated with so-called “gold” open access journals, lead to the corruption of science by incentivizing the publication of low-quality research and exacerbate inequalities between institutions that are prestigious and well-funded and those that are less so. The authors recommend a total abandonment of author-paid publication fees for academic research, the publication of which is typically a public good yet serves to enrich publishers while degrading research outputs.
What does Open Access promise and what does it cost? How can the crucial importance of open infrastructures be embedded as a collective core task? What could a new concept for financing Diamond Open Access look like? At the Open Access Days 2025, these and other questions were answered in lectures and workshops.
Clarivate has decided to continue indexing some content from eLife in Web of Science.
There remain misconceptions and blindspots in the debate around diamond open access publishing. A realistic assessment of the sustainability this approach needs an agnostic assessment of its total costs and viability as a business model.
Journals that do not charge authors or readers struggle with staffing and budgeting, study finds
Authors are increasingly paying to publish their papers open access. But is it fair or sustainable?
EU-funded Diamas project wants to raise awareness of benefits of scholarly publishing model
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has adopted a policy on open-access publishing that the funder group Coalition S says “anticipates” its own planned change of direction.
CERN and the not-for-profit organization OAPEN Foundation are happy to announce a further expansion of their collaboration to jointly promote open access to books.
The rising cost of academic publishing is causing consternation across the research ecosystem and prompting calls in Europe for a transition to not-for-profit publishing models.
The goal of open access is to allow more people to read and use research outputs. An observed association between highly cited research outputs and open access has been claimed as evidence of increased usage of the research, but this remains controversial.
Europe’s open access advocates set out a vision for system-level reform to make scientific publishing faster, more open and scholar-led.
It is vital that scientists engage in discussions about open access because publishing is rapidly changing, and at the moment, there are no certain outcomes in the long run.
Five years after launching, the Plan S open-access initiative must retain its founding principles.
Kaitlin Thaney argues the current momentum building for “no pays” academic publishing models and establishing the “reasonable costs” of publication, present opportunities to rebalance the inequities, costs, and power dynamics initially bred by the push towards Open Access “at any cost” over the past two decades.
EU ministers have called for a ‘no pay’ academic-publishing model that bears no cost to readers or authors. Some academics have welcomed the proposed plans - but publishing industry representatives warn they are unrealistic.
