Linking APCs to impact factors serves traditional publishers' profit margins, but does not advance a fair publishing system. Our view on 's #openaccess pricing strategy w/
Our view on APCs, impact factors and a fair publishing system, reacting on the pricing strategy revealed in the IPO prospectus from , with
Yes, yes and more yes...”Simply adding an ‘open access’ option to the existing prestige-based journal system at ever increasing costs is not the fundamental change publishing needs..”
The prospectus is an insight into the publisher’s motivations in supporting and facilitating open access, write and
🚨 Must-read article from & also if u follow #FixCopyright: it sheds interesting light on a category of stakeholders "Linking impact factor to #openaccess charges creates more inequality in academic publishing" … via
The #impactfactor is alive and well: "The open access market is ... differentiated by impact factor, making it possible to charge much higher APCs for publishing open access in high impact factor journals". #springernature #Dora
Linking impact factor to 'open access' charges creates more inequality in academic publishing via
Linking impact factor to #openaccess charges creates more inequality in academic publishing via
Simply adding an ‘open access’ option to the existing prestige-based journal system at ever increasing costs is not the fundamental change publishing needs, , says and OH YEAH. #openaccess #openscience
Linking impact factor to 'open access' charges creates more inequality in academic publishing - #OA
Good read today from : Linking impact factor to 'open access' charges creates more inequality in academic publishing
Fantastic from and : Linking impact factor to 'open access' charges creates more inequality in academic publishing Springer Nature clearly aligning themselves as enemies to scientific progress here. HT
Linking impact factor to 'open access' charges creates more inequality in academic publishing via
Non-alignment between publisher and researcher (and even salaried editor) interests, case in point: Springer Nature editors sign DORA to avoid reliance on impact factor, while filing explains they pump IF to increase APC revenue by
In the light of SpringerNature’s IPO prospectus, good questions here for & about what signing DORA means to them. Any editorial answers?
WELL, YES: "Linking impact factor to 'open access' charges creates more inequality in academic publishing"
“The information revealed through the prospectus now raises the question whether signing DORA and the Nature editorial statements were in effect merely paying lip service to appease those worried by toxic effects of impact factor thinking”
Something the "global flip" proponents need to realize: "Linking impact factor to 'open access' charges creates more inequality in academic publishing" #oa #openaccess
Linking impact factor to 'open access' charges creates more inequality in academic publishing
Linking impact factor to #openaccess charges creates more inequality in academic publishing!
Prospectus for potential investors in (cancelled) IPO gave a glimpse into their strategy - "Linking impact factor to 'open access' charges creates more inequality in academic publishing" by & via
Interesting piece in THE picks the linkage of journal brand to APC price from the SpringerNature IPO. Been happening at low scale for a while but how many other publishers have growth of this practice in strategy? via
Linking impact factor to 'open access' charges creates more inequality in academic publishing via
If the glam publishers entire business model is based on monetising their jIF (see the IPO ), the end of this revenue stream in their biggest growing market is going to hit their profitability. No wonder that IPO fell through
My position on hybrid is on the record and further underlined by plans that Springer was intending to tie APCs to IF in the unsuccessful float prospectus