DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e168651

Authors: Ngoc-Thi-Bich Tran, Trung-Thanh Nguyen, Dinh-Hai Luong, Hiep-Hung Pham

Abstract: Background: Over the past decade, open access (OA) publishing has gained increasing prominence in higher education systems worldwide. In Vietnam, this shift has been particularly visible within engineering and technology (E&T) universities, in which the requirement that students publish in international journals and the availability of funding have become central to research evaluation. Understanding how OA publishing has evolved and how funding patterns support this development is essential to assessing changes in research dissemination within the academic sector.Objectives: This study aimed to (1) analyse the growth of OA publications in Vietnamese E&T universities between 2013 and 2024 in relation to national policy reforms on international publication requirements, (2) identify the predominant OA publishing models, and (3) analyse patterns in funding sources that support OA publications and implications of these funding sources for researchers’ choices of outlets for publishing.Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted using publication data retrieved from the Scopus database from 2013 to 2024. The study assessed the distribution of OA publications, the relative prevalence of different models of OA (Gold, Green, etc.) and the extent of funding support for OA articles.Results: Open access publishing remained modest before 2017 but increased sharply after 2018, coinciding with the introduction of stricter requirements for publishing internationally for doctoral training, eligibility for being a research supervisor, and career advancement. Gold OA emerged as the dominant publishing model in the later years of the study period. Nearly two-thirds (63.3%) of OA publications acknowledged financial support, with domestic public agencies, particularly the National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) and the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET), forming the primary funding base, complemented by international collaborative sponsors.Conclusions: Open access publishing is becoming the norm in Vietnam’s E&T universities more because of policies and funding than because of isolated individual initiatives. The growing prominence of Gold OA reflects the interaction between policy-driven incentives, institutional strategies, and the availability of funding. These findings highlight the importance of sustaining and strategically aligning funding mechanisms to support OA publishing in research systems in developing countries.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e183055

Authors: Mary Hannah-Griebel, Amy Minix

Abstract: Dissemination of research is an important component of a successful nursing career, and research shows that providing faculty with resources that facilitate publication can increase their productivity. The authors identified gaps in publication resources available to faculty at Indiana University School of Nursing in Bloomington and created a toolkit to fill those gaps. The purpose of this article is to introduce the Writing and Dissemination Toolkit and discuss the resources provided. A template of the toolkit is available and is customisable for use by faculty, staff, or students at other institutions.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e160424

Authors: Bor Luen Tang

Abstract: A paradox was observed with regard to an increase in gold open access publications despite the increase in financial constraints. While this was viewed positively by some as an indication of strategic adaptation and financial sacrifice to publish in open access journals with an impact factor instead of conference proceedings, there could be alternative explanations for the paradox. I propose views that reflect more negative issues with citations, peer review, and an arguably suboptimal mutually propagating publishing loop for gold open access publications.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e165043

Authors: Reese Richardson, Matt Spick

Abstract: The combination of open-access datasets, machine learning workflows, increased computing capacity, and generative artificial intelligence has effectively removed many of the rate-limiting steps in manuscript production. This has created an industry of click-data science and a flood of low-quality manuscripts based on large health datasets such as the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the UK Biobank, and the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. These papers often employ statistically appropriate methods and real data, but introduce misleading results and false discoveries to the literature. Here, we offer suggestions for editors on how to identify such manuscripts and reject them at the point of submission, reducing the burden on the publishing process.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e145158

Authors: Lea Škorić, Miroslav Rajter, Bojan Macan, Jelka Petrak

Abstract: Background: Researchers’ attitudes to, and use of, open access publishing are shaped by many factors, including the characteristics of scientific disciplines – whether STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medicine) or SSH (Social Sciences and Humanities) – and various micro-characteristics of the environment in which the researchers operate.Objectives: To analyse the attitudes of Croatian authors to open access (OA) publishing and to explore disciplinary differences between researchers in STEM and those in SSH.Methods: Croatian researchers from both groups – STEM and SSH – were surveyed at the beginning of 2023. The online survey comprised 18 questions covering general attitudes towards OA, OA publishing models, the pay-to-publish option, and the criteria for choosing publication outlets.Results: Out of 1042 researchers who responded to the survey, the analysis focused on the 763 (a response rate of about 5%) who fully completed the questionnaire. The majority of respondents expressed support for OA publishing and believed that it was beneficial to research and education. However, their attitudes towards specific benefits and shortcomings of OA publishing showed significant disciplinary differences: researchers in SSH were more convinced that OA enables timely distribution of new knowledge and makes it more visible, whereas researchers in STEM were more concerned about the impact of OA on the further commercialization of scientific publishing and about questionable peer review standards often associated with OA. In selecting a journal for publication, the respondents were motivated primarily by the journal’s reputation. However, researchers in STEM tended to prioritize the journal’s quantitative metrics, whereas researchers in SSH considered such practical aspects as the time taken by a journal to publish and its acceptance rate to be more important. Differences between the two categories of researchers in their attitudes towards publishing in exclusively pay-to-publish journals were statistically significant: researchers in STEM were more receptive to that model whereas those in SSH were opposed to publication fees or article processing charges, even if they were paid not by authors themselves but by their employers, funders, or other entities.Conclusion: Researchers in STEM and those in SSH did not differ significantly in their general attitude towards OA publishing. The differences, when present, stemmed partly from the characteristics of scientific disciplines and partly from differences in the criteria for promotions. Researchers in STEM published significantly more often in international pay-to-publish OA journals, whereas researchers in SSH published significantly more often in national diamond OA journals. Continued state financial support to national diamond OA journals, together with making available more funds to publish in international OA journals, will be crucial to maintaining the current level of OA publishing in Croatia.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e120210

Authors: Hristina Prodanova, Stelian Dimitrov

Abstract: Background: The requirement of publishing high-quality papers in established peer-reviewed journals is still in the early days of implementation among academic geographers in Bulgaria, which limits the visibility and impact of Bulgarian research and delays the possibilities of academic recognition and international collaboration.Objectives: To examine the current visibility and impact of Bulgarian geographers using quantitative analysis of publicly available data derived from eight scientometric databases and social media platforms.Methods: Relevant data were collected for 116 researchers affiliated with five institutions from the following sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Publons, ORCID, Google Scholar, Research Gate, LinkedIn, and X (Twitter). Using Microsoft Excel, the performance of each of the researchers and each of the institutions was quantified in terms of (1) the number of publications, (2) the number of citations, (3) H-index, (4) i10-index, and (5) Research Interest Score. The scores were also plotted using RAWGraphs and Microsoft PowerPoint.Results: Only half of the researchers had published in internationally indexed journals. The institutions and departments in the capital city, Sofia, enjoyed significantly and disproportionately higher visibility than those from smaller towns. Geographers from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Sofia) and one department from Sofia University showed the highest visibility on Scopus (100%), whereas two rural universities – the University of Veliko Tarnovo and Shumen University – were visible mostly on ResearchGate and Google Scholar. Overall visibility of each institution on social media was very low (8%–16%).Conclusions: The analysis led to several recommendations on increasing the visibility and impact of Bulgarian research in geography. These recommendations will be valuable in research management, public relations, especially in improving communications and devising development strategies.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e124173

Authors: Joshua Wang

Abstract: The open access movement has drastically reconfigured the financial burdens of scholarly publishing. Yet, the influence of a marketized scholarly publishing system on doctoral education remains unexplored. I reflect on my own PhD candidature to illustrate how article processing charges disempower doctoral candidates. I argue that the current open access publishing model unfairly advantages candidates with personal, familial and/or institutional wealth. The inequalities imposed on doctoral students by our sectors’ current publishing habits ultimately bias who will be paid to produce and safeguard knowledge in the future. Doctoral students can no longer be ignored in debates over open access publishing.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e98101

Authors: Yuki Yamada, Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: Some journals require users to register before accessing a scientific paper, despite labelling that content as open access (OA) and free-of-charge. We refer to such cases as members-only OA (MOOA), which we contend is not ‘free’ since users are forced to ‘pay’ with personal data. Scholarly content may be accessible via MOOA to either the in-browser text (HTML) or to the archival-friendly version (PDF), or both. We suggest a four-tier typology to capture the degree of openness based on this observation. We believe that technical guidelines of OA implementation should not permit MOOA.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e96778

Authors: Danielle S. Gash, Christopher H. Wortley

Abstract: Artwork within publications, broadly covering non-text items including graphs, diagrams, and photographs, is typically published under a copyright licence, and permission for the reproduction of such items needs to be sought. The various image rights can be difficult to navigate, especially in the era of open access, and thus at The Lancet, we have developed a streamlined workflow to guide our teams on artwork permission processes in our journals. We present a practical guide for other publishing professionals, which can be adapted to meet their resources and needs.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e90113

Authors: Olivier Pourret

Abstract: Commentary on open access

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e59032

Authors: Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Juneman Abraham, Jonathan Peter Tennant, Olivier Pourret

Abstract: Background: Earth sciences is one of those sensitive field sciences that are closely needed to solve local problems within local physical and social settings. Earth researchers find state-of-the-art of topics in earth sciences by using scientific databases, conduct research on the topics, and write about them. However, the accessibility, readability, and usability of those articles for local communities are major problems in measuring the impact of research, although it may be covered by well-known international scientific databases.Objectives: To ascertain empirically whether there are differences in document distribution, in the proportions of openly accessible documents, and in the geographical coverage of earth sciences topics as revealed through analyses of documents retrieved from scientific databases and to propose new measures for assessing the impact of research in earth sciences based on those differences.Methods: Relevant documents were retrieved using ‘earth sciences’ as a search term in English and other languages from ten databases of scientific publications. The results of these searches were analysed using frequency analysis and a quantitative- descriptive design.Results: (1) The number of articles in English from international databases exceeded the number of articles in native languages from national-level databases. (2) The number of open-access (OA) articles in the national databases was higher than that in other databases. (3) The geographical coverage of earth science papers was uneven between countries when the number of documents retrieved from closed-access commercial databases was compared to that from the other databases. (4) The regulations in Indonesia related to promotion of lecturers assign greater weighting to publications indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science (WoS) and publications in journals with impact factors are assigned a higher weighting.Conclusions: The dominance of scientific articles in English as well as the paucity of OA publications indexed in international databases (compared to those in national or regional databases) may have been due to the greater weighting assigned to such publications. Consequently, the relevance of research reported in those publications to local communities has been questioned. This article suggests some open-science practices to transform the current regulations related to promotion into a more responsible measurement of research performance and impact.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e63663

Authors: Olivier Pourret, David William Hedding, Daniel Enrique Ibarra, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Haiyan Liu, Jonathan Peter Tennant

Abstract: 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.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e54523

Authors: Hilary Okagbue, Jaime Teixeira da Silva, Timothy Anake

Abstract: The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) is a prominent open access (OA) publisher that uses article processing charges (APCs) as its business model. Our objective was to determine the association between the APCs levied by MDPI journals and 1) their inclusion in Scopus and Web of Science databases or 2) their stature, as represented by their CiteScore (Elsevier’s Scopus) and Impact Factor (awarded by Clarivate Analytics). Among the 227 journals published by MDPI, 51 had both IF and CiteScore; 107, only a CiteScore; and 84, neither IF nor CiteScore. The charges levied by the journals varied widely, from 0 to CHF 2000 (Swiss francs), the most frequent figure (159 journals) being CHF 1000, or about €930. The amount of APCs was found to be correlated to IF (R² = 0.64; p <0.001; 107 journals) and also to CiteScore (R² = 0.619; p <0.001; 53 journals). The charges levied by journals that had both IF and CiteScore were significantly higher than those charged by journals with neither IF nor CiteScore (p <0.05). The charges were also correlated to the age of the journal: the more recently launched journals charged less than the older journals did.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e54172

Authors: Barbara DeCastro, Anna Geraci, Jayme Trott, G. Peter Snyder, Yaswant Dayaram

Abstract: A desire for both transparency in research and widespread access to the results of research has led to activism in support of open access publishing. Open access publishing, particularly publishing industry-sponsored research, can be complex. The overarching benefits of, and challenges to, open access are described, illustrated with the initiatives related to Medical Publishing Insights and Practices to help promote a better understanding of open access and its importance in ensuring transparency in industry-sponsored research.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e50566

Authors: Ksenija Bazdaric

Abstract: I am excited to announce that with this volume European Science Editing (ESE) has shifted from the print to a fully digital open access version. The journal underwent several changes last year. First of all, our publisher, the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) was generously offered – and accepted – a new ARPHA submission system (powered by PenSoft). Together with the EASE president Pippa Smart and EASE Council, we decided to transform ESE into a fully open access online journal. After several months of planning and re-thinking our strategy, a small working group (some members of the EASE Council and of ESE’s associate editors) prepared a proposal, the main idea of which was to divide the journal in two overlapping publications: European Science Editing and EASE Digest. The former will continue to publish original articles, reviews (formerly “essays”), viewpoints, and correspondence using the fully open access ARPHA submission system (flow publishing) but will drop the other sections, namely News notes, The editor’s bookshelf, This site I like, and EASE Forum Digest). These sections, which our readers consider particularly valuable, will now be published in EASE Digest with a few selected articles from ESE. The Digest will be available to EASE members only. As the proposal was accepted by the EASE Council in September 2019, the journal’s transformation is already under way. I wish to thank Silvia Maina (This site I like), Fiona Murphy (Book reviews), Elise Langdon-Neuner (EASE-Forum Digest), Anna Maria Rossi (The Editor’s bookshelf), and James Hartley and Denys Wheatley (members of the International Advisory Board) for the great work they have done and for their cooperation.

HTML

XML

PDF