In April 2008, the National Institutes of Health placed a new reporting requirement on researchers, asking them to deposit the final, peer-reviewed manuscripts of all articles arising from NIH-funded research into PubMed Central, where they would be freely accessible to all so that they might better advance science and improve health. After nearly four years, submissions have gone from about 1000 articles a month to almost 6000.
This success story shows how open access to publicly-funded research in other subject areas can be achieved without sacrificing the economic well-being of publishers.
Jeffrey Beall, Metadata Librarian / Assistant Professor at Auraria Library, University of Colorado Denver, recently issued the 2012 edition of his List of Predatory, Open-Access Publishers.
From his introduction:
Predatory, open-access publishers are those that unprofessionally exploit the author-pays model of open-access publishing (Gold OA) for their own profit. Typically, these publishers spam professional email lists, broadly soliciting article submissions for the clear purpose of gaining additional income. Operating essentially as vanity presses, these publishers typically have a low article acceptance threshold, with a false-front or non-existent peer review process. Unlike professional publishing operations, whether subscription-based or ethically-sound open access, these predatory publishers add little value to scholarship, pay little attention to digital preservation, and operate using fly-by-night, unsustainable business models.
Excerpted from the Dec. 2 edition of Times Higher Education:
Earlier this year, Research Libraries UK said that it would not renew the "big deals" to secure access to the entire journal portfolios of Elsevier and fellow publishing company Wiley-Blackwell if they did not make "significant real-terms price reductions".
Wiley-Blackwell announced in late October that a three-year deal had been reached with Jisc Collections, the negotiating body for libraries, on "mutually beneficial terms".
Announcing yesterday that it had now also struck a five-year deal with Elsevier, RLUK estimated that the deal with the two publishers will save the sector around £20 million over the course of the deals.
The organisation said that this was money "that institutions would otherwise have had to find from cancelled journal subscriptions, fewer book purchases and reduced services for students and researchers."