The Prices of Open Access Publishing: The Composition of APC across Different Fields of Sciences

Xijie Zhang, T. Grebel, Oliver Budzinski
{"title":"The Prices of Open Access Publishing: The Composition of APC across Different Fields of Sciences","authors":"Xijie Zhang, T. Grebel, Oliver Budzinski","doi":"10.1515/9783110724523-014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern media technologies paved the way to the open access movement. Instead of the traditional academic subscription and publishing model, which allowed few big publishers to charge excessive publishing fees, the open access model raises the hope for a fair system, where scientific content is freely accessible and thus the dissemination of research work becomes possible at little cost. However, previous literature pointed out that big publishers seem to be able to preserve their market power when going from the subscription-based model to the open access model. In this paper, we take a closer look at the differences across disciplines. The publication routines in Social Sciences, Physical Sciences, Life Sciences and Health Sciences differ to a substantial extent. On these grounds, we test whether there are also differences in the explanations for the article processing charges (APC) across these disciplines. For doing so, we combined various data sources such as the dataset of the “Directory of Open Access”, the “OpenAPC Initiative” and the “CiteScore Metrics”. Our regression results show that the differences across the four fields in terms of publication habits and endowment levels allow publishers to exploit their market power to different extents.","PeriodicalId":269303,"journal":{"name":"Zur Ökonomik von Sport, Entertainment und Medien","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zur Ökonomik von Sport, Entertainment und Medien","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110724523-014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Modern media technologies paved the way to the open access movement. Instead of the traditional academic subscription and publishing model, which allowed few big publishers to charge excessive publishing fees, the open access model raises the hope for a fair system, where scientific content is freely accessible and thus the dissemination of research work becomes possible at little cost. However, previous literature pointed out that big publishers seem to be able to preserve their market power when going from the subscription-based model to the open access model. In this paper, we take a closer look at the differences across disciplines. The publication routines in Social Sciences, Physical Sciences, Life Sciences and Health Sciences differ to a substantial extent. On these grounds, we test whether there are also differences in the explanations for the article processing charges (APC) across these disciplines. For doing so, we combined various data sources such as the dataset of the “Directory of Open Access”, the “OpenAPC Initiative” and the “CiteScore Metrics”. Our regression results show that the differences across the four fields in terms of publication habits and endowment levels allow publishers to exploit their market power to different extents.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开放获取出版的价格:不同科学领域APC的构成
现代媒体技术为开放获取运动铺平了道路。传统的学术订阅和出版模式允许少数大出版商收取过高的出版费用,而开放获取模式带来了一个公平体系的希望,在这个体系中,科学内容是免费获取的,因此研究成果的传播成为可能,成本很低。然而,之前的文献指出,当大型出版商从基于订阅的模式转向开放获取模式时,他们似乎能够保持自己的市场力量。在本文中,我们将更仔细地研究跨学科的差异。社会科学、物理科学、生命科学和健康科学的出版惯例有很大的不同。基于这些理由,我们检验了这些学科对文章加工费(APC)的解释是否也存在差异。为此,我们结合了各种数据源,如“开放获取目录”、“OpenAPC倡议”和“CiteScore指标”的数据集。我们的回归结果表明,四个领域在出版习惯和禀赋水平上的差异,使得出版商能够在不同程度上利用其市场力量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation eines Blended Learning Konzepts in der makroökonomischen Lehre Datenskaleneffekte und Künstliche Intelligenz – Ein ökonomischer Blick auf die KI-Bibliotheken Tensorflow von Google und Pytorch von Facebook Ein Ordnungsrahmen für den Wettbewerb in Sportligen: das Beispiel der National Football League Die Ökonomik von Sport, Entertainment und Medien – ein Thema für das Forschungsseminar Radein? Künstliche Intelligenz, Preisalgorithmen und ihre wettbewerbspolitischen Implikationen
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1