Some warn that experts are liable for the cost of free content rather than being paid for them.
By 2025, Cambridge University Press intends to make the majority of its intellectual documents accessible through a fresh effort.
However, researchers are debating the advantages and effects of open exposure.
The click, which is based in England, is the oldest and one of the best scientific journals in the world. It oversees more than 250 stare- reviewed scientific papers, most of which will be free to read electronically under the” Building Open Future” program, according to its site.
Now, about 50 percentage of its research papers are available exposure, according to the editor. By next year, “most of our articles” will be available exposure, the writer’s website noted.
There are many advantages to empty exposure, according to Curtis Brundy, an associate library at Iowa State University and a proponent of the program.
Brundy claimed that the design “allows our experts ‘ articles to be read more widely, which increases the impact of their work.” Also, “open access reports are downloaded more often and cited more usually”, he said.
According to the publisher,” Open entry articles published by Cambridge only” get on average 3.5 % more full text opinions and 1.6 times more citations.
According to the Cambridge website, one of the objectives of the effort is to “allow large participation in formal communications” from researchers from all over the world.
Brundy stated to The Fix at the media and at his own school that” no excluding scholars and visitors from around the globe is a broad consideration for us.”
In a news release, Mandy Hill, managing chairman of Cambridge Press, stated that open exposure will make it possible for people to receive high-quality research anywhere in the world.
” This can help to drive innovation]and ] lead to new discoveries”, Hill said.
Less: Changes to the entries for “man” and “woman” in the Cambridge University dictionary
Some researchers have, nevertheless, expressed concerns about opened access designs because of the costs they demand.
Stuart Vyse, a psychologist and author who has thoroughly studied available access, directed The Fix to his content,” You We Trust Peer Review Journals”, when asked about the Cambridge effort.
In order to make their work available for public use, authors must usually pay” an essay processing charge” in accordance with Vyse’s theory.
But,” when writers pay to have their content considered for release, it creates the possibility of common bias in favor of acceptance”, he wrote.
John Frank, an emeritus professor at the University of Edinburgh, echoed these issues in his content,” Open access publication – noble objective, weak reality”, shared with The Fix.
Frank argued that the “most direct downside …is the unfair economic burden” on researchers who do not have grant funding to pay journal fees.
These fees can range from$ 1, 500 to$ 2, 500 per article, or higher for prestigious journals, according to his research.
Cambridge University Press charges up to$ 3, 000, according to its website. However, it also introduced the Open Equity Initiative last year to help “open entry publication where there is a price barrier for writers”.
This makes it possible for authors from 107 reduced- and middle-income nations to publish in Cambridge journals without having to pay article processing fees, the publisher claimed. The strategy is implemented by combining financial aid from Cambridge and our administrative partners, according to the statement.
The Fix contacted Cambridge University’s media section twice in the past two months for comment, but did not receive a reply. Inquiries pertained to the project’s vision, financing, and problems, as well as whether artists have the option to consider whether their article is published as open exposure.
MORE: ‘ Open- access’ journals create’ concerns about quality’: former academic
IMAGE: Cambridge University Press/Facebook
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.
