#pagecharges — Public Fediverse posts

A Ban on Publication Fees?

Yesterday I was going through the “onboarding” process via Zoom with two new Editors at the Open Journal of Astrophysics (OJAp) when one of them mentioned a recent policy decision at the USA which means we’ll probably get even more papers submitted from there. I wasn’t aware of the decision, but there’s an article in the Times Higher about it here.

In a nutshell:

Under proposed rule changes published by the Office of Management and Budget, all journal publication costs – “including page charges, article processing charges (APCs), or similar fees such as open access fees for professional journal publications and other peer-reviewed publications” – will become “unallowable under federal awards”.

It is important to stress that at this stage the change is proposed rather than actual and it remains to be seen whether it will stand. I think it should because publication fees, article processing charges or whatever you call them are a complete waste of money.

The Times Higher article frames this as “Trump’s ban on paying open access fees”. I was worried to be finding myself in agreement with Donald Trump on anything, but I very much doubt that Trump himself knows anything about scientific publishing or has had much of a hand in this decision. It seems to me to be eminently sensible to ensure that funds meant to be directed at research are not frittered away on page charges. If I were involved in running a research institution I would make it a disciplinary offence to spend money on publication fees.

Of course the academic publishing industry is upset about the proposal claiming that scientific publishing is “high cost”, which it is but only because the publishers rake in huge profits. The way forward, as I have argued many times (e.g. here), is Diamond Open Access, a exemplified by OJAp. The marginal cost per paper article published for OJAp is just $10 and we have at least as much impact as the other leading journals in astrophysics.

I have been surprised how many researchers from the USA are already using OJAp, including many from top institutions such as Harvard, Caltech, Princeton and Chicago. The surprise is basically that authors from the USA have for many years been used to paying page charges for publishing in the Astrophysical Journal and others from the AAS stable. This was the case even before digital journals came on the scene and well before the Open Access movement. I suppose American authors put up with page charges because they felt they had to, but that is no longer the case.

Will we get even more submissions from the USA as a result of this policy change? We’ll just have to wait and see…

P.S. This morning I published the 600th paper at the Open Journal of Astrophysics.

A Ban on Publication Fees?

Yesterday I was going through the “onboarding” process via Zoom with two new Editors at the Open Journal of Astrophysics (OJAp) when one of them mentioned a recent policy decision at the USA which means we’ll probably get even more papers submitted from there. I wasn’t aware of the decision, but there’s an article in the Times Higher about it here.

In a nutshell:

Under proposed rule changes published by the Office of Management and Budget, all journal publication costs – “including page charges, article processing charges (APCs), or similar fees such as open access fees for professional journal publications and other peer-reviewed publications” – will become “unallowable under federal awards”.

It is important to stress that at this stage the change is proposed rather than actual and it remains to be seen whether it will stand. I think it should because publication fees, article processing charges or whatever you call them are a complete waste of money.

The Times Higher article frames this as “Trump’s ban on paying open access fees”. I was worried to be finding myself in agreement with Donald Trump on anything, but I very much doubt that Trump himself knows anything about scientific publishing or has had much of a hand in this decision. It seems to me to be eminently sensible to ensure that funds meant to be directed at research are not frittered away on page charges. If I were involved in running a research institution I would make it a disciplinary offence to spend money on publication fees.

Of course the academic publishing industry is upset about the proposal claiming that scientific publishing is “high cost”, which it is but only because the publishers rake in huge profits. The way forward, as I have argued many times (e.g. here), is Diamond Open Access, a exemplified by OJAp. The marginal cost per paper article published for OJAp is just $10 and we have at least as much impact as the other leading journals in astrophysics.

I have been surprised how many researchers from the USA are already using OJAp, including many from top institutions such as Harvard, Caltech, Princeton and Chicago. The surprise is basically that authors from the USA have for many years been used to paying page charges for publishing in the Astrophysical Journal and others from the AAS stable. This was the case even before digital journals came on the scene and well before the Open Access movement. I suppose American authors put up with page charges because they felt they had to, but that is no longer the case.

Will we get even more submissions from the USA as a result of this policy change? We’ll just have to wait and see…

P.S. This morning I published the 600th paper at the Open Journal of Astrophysics.

A Ban on Publication Fees?

Yesterday I was going through the “onboarding” process via Zoom with two new Editors at the Open Journal of Astrophysics (OJAp) when one of them mentioned a recent policy decision at the USA which means we’ll probably get even more papers submitted from there. I wasn’t aware of the decision, but there’s an article in the Times Higher about it here.

In a nutshell:

Under proposed rule changes published by the Office of Management and Budget, all journal publication costs – “including page charges, article processing charges (APCs), or similar fees such as open access fees for professional journal publications and other peer-reviewed publications” – will become “unallowable under federal awards”.

It is important to stress that at this stage the change is proposed rather than actual and it remains to be seen whether it will stand. I think it should because publication fees, article processing charges or whatever you call them are a complete waste of money.

The Times Higher article frames this as “Trump’s ban on paying open access fees”. I was worried to be finding myself in agreement with Donald Trump on anything, but I very much doubt that Trump himself knows anything about scientific publishing or has had much of a hand in this decision. It seems to me to be eminently sensible to ensure that funds meant to be directed at research are not frittered away on page charges. If I were involved in running a research institution I would make it a disciplinary offence to spend money on publication fees.

Of course the academic publishing industry is upset about the proposal claiming that scientific publishing is “high cost”, which it is but only because the publishers rake in huge profits. The way forward, as I have argued many times (e.g. here), is Diamond Open Access, a exemplified by OJAp. The marginal cost per paper article published for OJAp is just $10 and we have at least as much impact as the other leading journals in astrophysics.

I have been surprised how many researchers from the USA are already using OJAp, including many from top institutions such as Harvard, Caltech, Princeton and Chicago. The surprise is basically that authors from the USA have for many years been used to paying page charges for publishing in the Astrophysical Journal and others from the AAS stable. This was the case even before digital journals came on the scene and well before the Open Access movement. I suppose American authors put up with page charges because they felt they had to, but that is no longer the case.

Will we get even more submissions from the USA as a result of this policy change? We’ll just have to wait and see…

P.S. This morning I published the 600th paper at the Open Journal of Astrophysics.

A Ban on Publication Fees?

Yesterday I was going through the “onboarding” process via Zoom with two new Editors at the Open Journal of Astrophysics (OJAp) when one of them mentioned a recent policy decision at the USA which means we’ll probably get even more papers submitted from there. I wasn’t aware of the decision, but there’s an article in the Times Higher about it here.

In a nutshell:

Under proposed rule changes published by the Office of Management and Budget, all journal publication costs – “including page charges, article processing charges (APCs), or similar fees such as open access fees for professional journal publications and other peer-reviewed publications” – will become “unallowable under federal awards”.

It is important to stress that at this stage the change is proposed rather than actual and it remains to be seen whether it will stand. I think it should because publication fees, article processing charges or whatever you call them are a complete waste of money.

The Times Higher article frames this as “Trump’s ban on paying open access fees”. I was worried to be finding myself in agreement with Donald Trump on anything, but I very much doubt that Trump himself knows anything about scientific publishing or has had much of a hand in this decision. It seems to me to be eminently sensible to ensure that funds meant to be directed at research are not frittered away on page charges. If I were involved in running a research institution I would make it a disciplinary offence to spend money on publication fees.

Of course the academic publishing industry is upset about the proposal claiming that scientific publishing is “high cost”, which it is but only because the publishers rake in huge profits. The way forward, as I have argued many times (e.g. here), is Diamond Open Access, a exemplified by OJAp. The marginal cost per paper article published for OJAp is just $10 and we have at least as much impact as the other leading journals in astrophysics.

I have been surprised how many researchers from the USA are already using OJAp, including many from top institutions such as Harvard, Caltech, Princeton and Chicago. The surprise is basically that authors from the USA have for many years been used to paying page charges for publishing in the Astrophysical Journal and others from the AAS stable. This was the case even before digital journals came on the scene and well before the Open Access movement. I suppose American authors put up with page charges because they felt they had to, but that is no longer the case.

Will we get even more submissions from the USA as a result of this policy change? We’ll just have to wait and see…

P.S. This morning I published the 600th paper at the Open Journal of Astrophysics.

Page Charges at A&A

The journal Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A for short) announced last week that it was increasing page charges on longer papers. The table of new charges to be implemented is here:

A&A is published on behalf of the European Southern Observatory by EDP Sciences (Édition Diffusion Presse Sciences) which began life as a joint venture of four French learned societies in science, mathematics, and medicine. The company was acquired in 2019 by  China Science Publishing & Media (which has headquarters in Beijing). Judging by its social media activity, EDP Sciences sees A&A as a flagship journal; for a list of other journals it runs see here. I gave some background on A&A here.

A&A publishes papers through a curious hybrid model called “S2O” (Subscribe to Open; not to be confused with “420”). This is not fully Open Access because it requires libraries to pay a subscription to access the journal. For this reason it is not compatible with some institutional open access policies. Unlike some journals, however, A&A does allow authors to place their papers on arXiv without restriction, so they can be read there for free. Previously A&A required authors (or their institutes) to pay “Page Charges” – essentially an Article Processing Charge (APC) – if they were not from a “member country”; this policy was introduced in 2020. Authors from a member country will now have to pay APCs to publish (if their paper exceeds the page limit) but their institutional libraries still have to pay a subscription if they are to access the paper. In other words, A&A is double-dipping.

According to A&A,

… the average length of papers has also been increasing. Too often, papers are longer than necessary, leading to increased workload for authors, referees, and editors, and hindering the reader’s ability to efficiently grasp their content. As well as needing logistical consideration, the challenges related to the journal’s growth have financial implications that must be addressed to ensure long-term sustainability.

I agree that many papers are far too long. As a journal Editor myself I know that it is much harder to find people willing to review very long papers, a fact that some authors seem reluctant to recognize. On the other hand I very much doubt that any of the funds generated by page charges will be given to the refeees who do the most important – indeed I would argue the only important – work of a journal.

If the desired effect is to reduce the number of long papers this policy may work, though I suspect authors who are incurably prolix will respond by splitting their work into several shorter papers to avoid the page charges and thereby generating even more work for the journal. I suspect however that the desired effect is really to increase revenue; so often in the context of academic publishing “sustainability” really means “profitability”. I would also bet that these charges will increase further in future.

The changing charges at A&A have widespread implications, including for the Euclid Consortium, most of whose scientific papers are published there. I’m sure the Euclid Consortium Editorial Board will discuss this development. I’m not a member of the ECEB so it would be inappropriate to comment further on publication policy so I’ll leave the discussion to them. I would say, however, that the publication process at A&A is rather slow. The main post-launch Euclid Overview paper by Mellier et al., for example, was accepted for publication in August 2024 but has still not appeared. It is, however, available on arXiv, which is all that really matters. That paper, incidentally, is over 90 pages long. According to the table above that would cost about €12,000 in page charges. It was submitted in May 2024 and accepted quite quickly but is planned to appear in a special issue Euclid on Sky the publication of which is being delayed by other papers still going through the editorial process.

(Incidentally, Mellier et al. has already acquired 157 citations despite not yet being officially published, which illustrates how little difference “official” publication is actually worth.)

#ArticleProcessingCharge #AstronomyAstrophysics #EuclidConsortium #OpenAccessPublishing #pageCharges #S20

Page Charges at A&A

The journal Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A for short) announced last week that it was increasing page charges on longer papers. The table of new charges to be implemented is here:

A&A is published on behalf of the European Southern Observatory by EDP Sciences (Édition Diffusion Presse Sciences) which began life as a joint venture of four French learned societies in science, mathematics, and medicine. The company was acquired in 2019 by  China Science Publishing & Media (which has headquarters in Beijing). Judging by its social media activity, EDP Sciences sees A&A as a flagship journal; for a list of other journals it runs see here. I gave some background on A&A here.

A&A publishes papers through a curious hybrid model called “S2O” (Subscribe to Open; not to be confused with “420”). This is not fully Open Access because it requires libraries to pay a subscription to access the journal. For this reason it is not compatible with some institutional open access policies. Unlike some journals, however, A&A does allow authors to place their papers on arXiv without restriction, so they can be read there for free. Previously A&A required authors (or their institutes) to pay “Page Charges” – essentially an Article Processing Charge (APC) – if they were not from a “member country”; this policy was introduced in 2020. Authors from a member country will now have to pay APCs to publish (if their paper exceeds the page limit) but their institutional libraries still have to pay a subscription if they are to access the paper. In other words, A&A is double-dipping.

According to A&A,

… the average length of papers has also been increasing. Too often, papers are longer than necessary, leading to increased workload for authors, referees, and editors, and hindering the reader’s ability to efficiently grasp their content. As well as needing logistical consideration, the challenges related to the journal’s growth have financial implications that must be addressed to ensure long-term sustainability.

I agree that many papers are far too long. As a journal Editor myself I know that it is much harder to find people willing to review very long papers, a fact that some authors seem reluctant to recognize. On the other hand I very much doubt that any of the funds generated by page charges will be given to the refeees who do the most important – indeed I would argue the only important – work of a journal.

If the desired effect is to reduce the number of long papers this policy may work, though I suspect authors who are incurably prolix will respond by splitting their work into several shorter papers to avoid the page charges and thereby generating even more work for the journal. I suspect however that the desired effect is really to increase revenue; so often in the context of academic publishing “sustainability” really means “profitability”. I would also bet that these charges will increase further in future.

The changing charges at A&A have widespread implications, including for the Euclid Consortium, most of whose scientific papers are published there. I’m sure the Euclid Consortium Editorial Board will discuss this development. I’m not a member of the ECEB so it would be inappropriate to comment further on publication policy so I’ll leave the discussion to them. I would say, however, that the publication process at A&A is rather slow. The main post-launch Euclid Overview paper by Mellier et al., for example, was accepted for publication in August 2024 but has still not appeared. It is, however, available on arXiv, which is all that really matters. That paper, incidentally, is over 90 pages long. According to the table above that would cost about €12,000 in page charges. It was submitted in May 2024 and accepted quite quickly but is planned to appear in a special issue Euclid on Sky the publication of which is being delayed by other papers still going through the editorial process.

(Incidentally, Mellier et al. has already acquired 157 citations despite not yet being officially published, which illustrates how little difference “official” publication is actually worth.)

#ArticleProcessingCharge #AstronomyAstrophysics #EuclidConsortium #OpenAccessPublishing #pageCharges #S20