From the National Institutes of Health's Office of Extramural Research, November 16 posting:
When we put the [open access] policy into place in 2008 it was an adjustment for all of us. Since that time, NIH has focused much of our attention on outreach. We've helped you understand your obligations and provided reminders when we found papers that were out of compliance. This strategy, along with the research community's shared commitment to making the results of NIH-supported research public, has resulted in a high level of compliance with the policy. But our work is not done as there are still publications -- and as a consequence, NIH awards -- that are not in compliance. Thus, as of spring 2013 at the earliest, we will begin to hold processing of non-competing continuation awards if publications arising from grant awards are not in compliance with the public access policy. Once publications are in compliance, awards will go forward. For more details, see NIH Guide notice NOT-OD-12-160.
We are giving funded organizations at least five months to prepare for our new process, and we hope you use this time to assure that publications are in compliance with the policy long before this change in process begins.
The challenge is that publication occurs throughout the year, and progress reporting occurs once a year. So I encourage principal investigators to start thinking about public access compliance when papers are planned. Discuss with your co-authors how the paper will be submitted to PubMed Central, and who will do so, along with all the other tasks of paper writing. The easiest thing to do, perhaps even today, is to take a couple of minutes to enter the NIH-supported papers you have published in the last year into My NCBI to ensure you meet the requirements of the policy regardless of when your non-competing continuation is due. This will help you avoid a last minute scramble that could delay your funding.
From a study by authors at Michigan State University's College of Human Medicine and the Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki, Finland:
Solomon DJ, Björk B-C. A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2012;63(8):1485-95.
Article processing charges (APCs) are a central mechanism for funding open access (OA) scholarly publishing. We studied the APCs charged and article volumes of journals that were listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals as charging APCs. These included 1,370 journals that published 100,697 articles in 2010. The average APC was $906 U.S. dollars (USD) calculated over journals and $904 USD calculated over articles. The price range varied between $8 and $3,900 USD, with the lowest prices charged by journals published in developing countries and the highest by journals with high-impact factors from major international publishers. Journals in biomedicine represent 59% of the sample and 58% of the total article volume. They also had the highest APCs of any discipline. Professionally published journals, both for profit and nonprofit, had substantially higher APCs than journals published by societies, universities, or scholars/researchers. These price estimates are lower than some previous studies of OA publishing and much lower than is generally charged by subscription publishers making individual articles OA in what are termed hybrid journals.
From JSTOR's October 22 press release:
A team of researchers led by Jevin West and Carl Bergstrom of the University of Washington released today the results of an 18-month long study of gender inequality among authors of academic papers. The study is based on an analysis of the authors of more than 1.8 million published research articles available through the not-for-profit digital library, JSTOR.
Fast forward to 2008 when JSTOR launched its self-service Data for Research website enabling anyone in the world to explore its holdings and to freely create datasets for use in their research. Today the site sees about 700 datasets created and downloaded annually. Larger scale projects like the one undertaken by West, Bergstrom and their co-authors: Jennifer Jacquet, Molly King, Shelley Correll, and Theodore Bergstrom are handled upon request and in close collaboration with JSTOR's Advanced Technologies Research team.
While the research itself is ground-breaking, the benefits of projects like the one just released by the West-Bergstrom team can reach beyond the findings themselves. The West-Bergstrom team also created an interactive tool that allows others to explore the underlying content based on the work they have done. This demonstrates how sharing large corpora of data can also lead to the creation of new ways of exploring and discovery scholarship - effectively giving researchers another lens through which to view the published literature.