Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

BMC Medicine editorial board members on open access publishing.

ABSTRACT: In recognition of Open Access week (21st-27th October 2013), we asked some BMC Medicine Editorial Board Members to share their views and experiences on open access publishing. In this short video, they highlight the benefits of visibility and dissemination of their research, and discuss the future directions for this model of publishing.

SUBMITTER: Carmont MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3897970 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

BMC Medicine editorial board members on open access publishing.

Carmont Michael R MR Lawn Stephen D SD Stray-Pedersen Babill B Shoenfeld Yehuda Y Meier Pascal P

BMC medicine 20140121

In recognition of Open Access week (21st-27th October 2013), we asked some BMC Medicine Editorial Board Members to share their views and experiences on open access publishing. In this short video, they highlight the benefits of visibility and dissemination of their research, and discuss the future directions for this model of publishing. ...[more]

PMID: 24447778

Similar Datasets

Celebrating 20 years of open access publishing at BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

Project description:Twenty years ago, on October 23, the first article published by BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders appeared free online. Over 5700 publications later, we celebrate our anniversary as the largest Open Access journal in the 'Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine' and 'Rheumatology' fields. Our 'open, inclusive, and trusted' ethos, along with our efficient and robust peer review services, are recognized by the musculoskeletal field.The early pioneers of BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders pushed the Open Access publishing model, in order to better support the needs of both the clinical and research communities. We pride ourselves on the continual innovation of author services, data transparency, and peer review models. These advances would not have been possible without your efforts - so a massive thank you to all the authors, editorial teams, and reviewers who have contributed to our success. Excellent reviewers are the nucleus of any thriving journal, and we have been lucky to collaborate with so many talents.

| S-EPMC7680582 | biostudies-literature

Open access publishing takes off.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC313879 | biostudies-literature

CMAJ editorial board members vent anger at lack of openness

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC1403253 | biostudies-literature

Open access publishing: too much oxygen?

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC555877 | biostudies-literature

PLOS Medicine 2017 Reviewer and Editorial Board Thank You

Project description:PLOS and the PLOS Medicine team would like to express our appreciation to the academic editors, guest editors, and reviewers who contributed to the peer-review process in 2017.

| S-EPMC5854231 | biostudies-literature

PLOS Medicine 2016 Reviewer and Editorial Board Thank You

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC5358730 | biostudies-literature

Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows.

Project description:IntroductionOpen access (OA) publishing rates have risen dramatically in the biomedical sciences in the past decade. However, few studies have focused on the publishing activities and attitudes of early career researchers. The aim of this study was to examine current publishing activities of clinical and research fellows and their perceptions of OA publishing and public access.MethodsThis study employed a mixed methods approach. Data on publications authored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center fellows between 2013 and 2018 were collected via an in-house author profile system and citation indexes. Journals were categorized according to SHERPA/RoMEO classifications. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with fifteen fellows to discern their perceptions of OA publishing.ResultsThe total percentage of fellows' publications that were freely available OA was 28.6%, with a relatively flat rate between 2013 and 2018. Publications with fellows as first authors were significantly more likely to be OA. Fellows cited high article processing charges (APCs) and perceived lack of journal quality or prestige as barriers to OA publishing. Fellows generally expressed support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy.ConclusionsWhile the fellows in this study acknowledged the potential of OA to aid in research dissemination, they also expressed hesitation to publish OA related to confusion surrounding legitimate OA and predatory publications and frustration with APCs. Fellows supported the NIH public access policy and accepted it as part of their research process. Health sciences information professionals could potentially leverage this acceptance of public access to advocate for OA publishing.

| S-EPMC6919981 | biostudies-literature

Researcher's Perceptions on Publishing "Negative" Results and Open Access.

Project description:Scientific advance is based on reproducibility, corroboration, and availability of research results. However, large numbers of experimental results that contradict previous work do not get published and many research results are not freely available as they are hidden behind paywalls. As part of COST Action "DARTER", a network of researchers in the field of RNA therapeutics, we have performed a small survey among our members and their colleagues to assess their opinion on the subject of publishing contradictory or ambiguous results and their attitude to open access (OA) publishing. Our survey indicates that, although researchers highly value publication of "negative" results, they often do not publish their own, citing lack of time and the perception that those results may not be as highly cited. OA, on the other hand, seems to be widely accepted, but in many cases not actively sought by researchers due to higher costs associated with it.

| S-EPMC8215407 | biostudies-literature

Perceptions of open access publishing: interviews with journal authors.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore authors' attitudes towards open access publishing and author charges, their perceptions of journals that charge authors, and whether they would be willing to submit to these journals.DesignSemistructured telephone interviews.Participants28 randomly selected international authors who submitted to the BMJ in 2003.ResultsAuthors were more aware of the concepts of open access publishing and author pays models than previously reported. Almost all authors supported the concept of open access, but few had submitted to an open access journal, other than the BMJ. Reasons for not submitting included lack of awareness of which journals publish with open access, and journal quality taking a higher priority in decision making than the availability of open access. Authors disliked the idea of author charges without institutional support and were concerned about implications for authors from developing countries and those without research funding. However, many said they would probably continue to submit to journals they perceived as being of high quality even if they charged authors.ConclusionsAuthors consider perceived journal quality as more important than open access when deciding where to submit papers. New journals with open access may need to do more to reassure authors of the quality of their journals.

| S-EPMC555876 | biostudies-literature

Guest Editorial: Open Access: Principles, Practice, and Potential.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC6640967 | biostudies-literature