Academic journal publishing reform refers to advocacy for exchange in the academic journals are created and distributed in the age of the Internet and the advent of electronic publishing . Since the rise of the Internet, their traditional distributors and their readership. Most of the discussion is centered on taking advantage of the Internet.
Before the advent of the Internet.  Historically publishers performed services including proofreading , typesetting , copy editing , printing , and worldwide distribution.  In modern times, all applicants have become more likely to provide digital publishers.  For digital distribution printing was unnecessary, copying was free, and worldwide distribution happens online instantly.  In science journal publishing, Internet technology enabled the four major scientific publishers- Elsevier, Springer , Wiley , and Informa – to cut them down in their income. 
The Internet made it easier for researchers to make it easier for them to publish it. This perception was a problem for publishers, who stated that their services were still necessary at the rates they asked.  Critics began to describe publishers’ practices with terms such as “corporate scam” and ” racket “.  Scholars Sometimes obtenir items from fellow scholars through unofficial channels, Such As posting requests is Twitter using the hashtag ” #icanhazpdf ” (a play on the I Can Has Cheezburger? Even) to Avoid paying publishers’ 
Motivations for reform
Although it has some historical precedent, open access has become desirable in the advent of electronic publishing. Electronic publishing created new benefits as compared to paper publishing but beyond that, it helps to drive problems in traditional publishing models.
The premises are behind open access That There are viable funding models to Maintain traditional academic publishing standards of quality while making également The Following exchange to the field:
- Rather than making journals be available through a subscription business model , all academic publications should be free to read and some other funding model. Publications should be gratis or “free to read”. 
- Rather than applying traditional notions of copyright to academic publications, readers should be free to build on the research of others. Publications should be free or “free to build upon”. 
- Everyone should have greater awareness of the serious social problems caused by restricting access to academic research. 
- Everyone should recognize that there are serious economic challenges for the future of academic publishing. Even though they are problematic, traditional publishing is definitely not sustainable and something radical needs to change immediately. 
Open access also has ambitions beyond simply granting access to academic publications. Open access advances scholarly pursuits in the fields of open data , open government , open educational resources , free and open source software , and open science , among others. 
Problems addressed by academic publishing reform
The motivations for academic journalism reform include the ability of computers to expand the size of information, the advantages of giving researchers access to preprints , and the potential for interactivity between researchers. 
Various studies showed that they were more likely to have a positive impact than others .  
Some universities reported that “package deal” subscriptions were too costly for them to maintain, and that they would prefer to subscribe to journals individually to save money. 
The problems which led to the discussion of academic publishing have been considered in the context of what provision of open access can provide. Here are some of the problems in academic publishing which open access advocates
- A pricing crisis called the serials crisis has been growing in the days before and continues today. The academic publishing industry has higher academic journals than inflation and beyond the library budgets. 
- The pricing crisis does not only mean the size of the budget, but also that it is actually losing access to journals. 
- Not even the wealthiest libraries in the world are able to afford all the journals that their users are demanding, and they are severely harmed by lack of access to journals. 
- Publishers are using “bundling” strategies to sell journals, and this marketing strategy is criticized by many libraries as forcing them to pay for unpopular journals which are not demanding. 
- Libraries are cutting their books to pay for academic journals. 
- Libraries do not own electronic journals in permanent archival form as they do paper copies, so they have to cancel a subscription then they are all subscribed journals. This did not happen with paper journals, and yet costs historically have been higher for electronic versions. 
- Academic publishers get essential assets from their subscribers in a way that other publishers do not.  Authors donate the texts of academic journals to the publishers and grant rights to publish them, and editors and referees donate peer-review to validate the articles. The people writing the journals are questioning the increased pressure for their journals produced by their community. 
- Conventional publishers are using a business model which requires access barriers and creates artificial scarcity.  All publishers need income, but they are crucial to raising revenue. 
- Scholarly publishing depends heavily on government policy, public subsidy, gift economy , and anti-competitive practices , yet still in conflict with the conventional wisdom. 
- Toll access journals compete more for authors to donate content to them that they compete for subscribers to pay for the work. This is because every scholarly journal has a natural monopoly over the information of its field. Because of this, the market for pricing does not have any feedback because it is outside of traditional market forces, and the markets need to be marketed. 
- Besides the natural monopoly, there is supporting evidence that is artificially inflated to advantage publishers while harming the market. Evidence includes the trend of large-scale publishers, when they are introduced into high-volume markets.
- Conventional publishers fund “content protection” actions which restrict and police content sharing. 
- For-profit publishers have economic incentives to decrease rates of decline. No such market force exists if it is not a motivating factor. 
- Many researchers are unaware that it might be possible for them to read the article, they need it, and just accept it as they would always read it. 
- Access to toll-access journals is not only scaling up with growth in research and publishing, but also because they are restricting the growth of research. 
Motivations against reform
Publishers state that if profit was not a consideration in the pricing of journals then the exchange rates would not substantially change.  Publishers also state that they add value to publications in many ways, and that they do not provide these services. 
Critics of open access have suggested that by itself, it is not a solution to scientific publishing.  Evidence for this does exist and for example, Yale University ended its financial support of BioMed Central’s Effective Access Access Program effective July 27, 2007. In their announcement, they stated,
The libraries’ BioMedCentral membership represents an opportunity to test the technical feasibility and the business model of this open access publisher. While the technology proved acceptable, the business model failed to provide a viable long-term revenue base upon logical and scalable options. Instead, BioMedCentral has asked libraries for larger and larger contributions to subsidize their activities. Starting with 2005, BioMed Central’s article cost charges $ 4,658, comparable to single biomedicine journal subscription. The cost of article charges for 2006 then jumped to $ 31,625. $ 29,635 through June 2007, with $ 34,965 in additional article charges in submission. 
A similar situation is reported from the University of Maryland, and Phil Davis commented that,
The assumptions that are more important than the traditional subscription model are described in many of these mandates. But they remain just that – assumptions. In reality, the data from Cornell  show just the opposite. Institutions like the University of Maryland would pay much more under an author-country model , as it would be more research-intensive universities, and the rise in authoring charges (APCs) would rivals the inflation felt at any time under the subscription model. 
Opponents of the open access model for the marketplace and the provision of information and services. “In fact, most STM [Scientific, Technical and Medical] publishers are not profit-seeking corporations, but rather learned societies and other non-profit entities, many of which rely on income from journal subscriptions to support their conferences , member services, and scholarly endeavors “.  Scholarly newspaper publishers that support pay-for-access claim that the “gatekeeper” role they play, maintaining a scholarly reputation, arranging for peer review, and editing and indexing articles, require economic resources that are not supplied under an open access model. Conventional newspaper publishers may also have access to the Internet. The Partnership for Research Integrity in Science and Medicine (PRISM), a lobbying organization formed by the American Publishers Association (AAP), is opposed to the open access movement.  PRISM and AAP have published a report on the subject of the publication of the publication, describing it as “government interference” and a threat to peer review. 
For researchers, publishing an article in a reputable scientific journal is perceived to be beneficial to one’s reputation among scientific peers and in advancing one’s academic career. There is a concern that the perception of open access journals do not have the same reputation, which will lead to less publishing.  Park and Qin discuss the perceptions that academics have with regard to open access journals. One concern that academics have “are growing concerns about how to promote [Open Access] publishing.” Park and Qin also state, “The general perception is that [Open Access] journals are new, and therefore many uncertainties, such as quality and sustainability, exist.”
The article is an article in the French text of the French version of the French version of the French text. 
There are those, for example PRISM, who think that open access is unnecessary or even harmful. David Goodman argued that there is no need for those major academic institutions to have access to primary publications, at least in some fields. 
The argument that is publicly funded research should be made with the assertion that “taxes are not paid so that taxpayers can access research results, but rather that society can benefit from the results of that research in the form of It is certainly possible that it is possible that it is possible that it is possible that it is possible for it to gain access to it.  The argument for tax-pay is only available in certain countries as well. For instance in Australia, 80% of research funding comes through taxes, while in Japan and Switzerland, only 10% is from the public coffers. 
For various reasons open access journals have been established by predatory publishers. The causes of predatory open access publishing include the low barrier to Creating the appearance of a legitimate digital newspaper and funding models qui May include author publishing costs Rather than subscription sales. Research reviewer Jeffrey Beall publishes a “List of Predatory Publishers” and an accompanying methodology for identifying publishers and editors.  
Public Library of Science
The Public Library of Science is a nonprofit open-access scientific publishing project for the creation of a library of open access journals and other scientific literature under an open license. The founding of the organization had its origins in a 2001 online petition calling for all scientists to pledge that from September 2001 they would discontinue submission of papers to journals or immediately after a delay of several months. The petition collected 34,000 signatures but the publishers took the lead. Shortly thereafter, the Public Library of Science was founded as an alternative to traditional publishing. 
HINARI is a 2002 project of the World Health Organization and major publishers to enable devel- oping countries. 
Research Works Act
The Research Works Act Was a bill of the United States Congress Which would-have prohibited all laws Which would require an open access mandate When US-government-funded Researchers Their published work. The proponents of the law stated that it would “ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-reviewed research by the private sector”.  Critics of the law stated that it was the time that “academic publishers gave up all pretense of being on the side of scientists.”  In February 2012, Elsevier withdrew its support for the bill. Following this statement, the sponsors of the bill announced they will also withdraw their support. 
The Cost of Knowledge
The Cost of Knowledge is a campaign started by Elsevier.  Elsevier’s journals is one of the most prominent mathematicians in the world. 
Access2Research is a United States-based campaign to open the door to the United States government to require that taxpayer-funded research be made available to the public under open licensing.
PeerJ is an open-access journal launched in 2012 that charges publication fees per researcher, not per article, resulting in what has been called “a flat fee for ‘all you can publish'”. 
Public Knowledge Project
Since 1998, PKP has been developing open source software platforms for managing and publishing peer-reviewed open access journals and monographs, with Open Journal Systems used by more than 7,000 active journals in 2013.
2013 Nobel Prize winner Randy Schekman called for a boycott of traditional academic journals including Nature , Cell , and Science .  Instead he promoted the open access journal eLife . 
Initiative for Open Citations
Initiative for Open Citations is a CrossRef initiative for improved citation analysis . It was supported by the majority of the publishers effective from April 2017.
- ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Taylor, Mike (21 February 2012). “It’s Not Academic: How Publishers Are Squelching Science Communication” . Discover . Retrieved 22 February 2012 .
- Jump up^ Monbiot, George (29 August 2012). “Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist” . The Guardian . London : GMG . ISSN 0261-3077 . OCLC 60623878 . Retrieved 26 February 2012 .
- Jump up^ “How #canhazpdf can hurt our academic libraries” . The Lab and Field.
- Jump up^ “Interactions: The Numbers Behind #ICanHazPDF – Altmetric.com” .
- ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Suber 2012, pp. 29–43
- Jump up^ Suber 2012, pp. xi
- Jump up^ Odlyzko, Andrew M. (January 1995). “Tragic Loss or Good Riddance? The Impending Demise of Traditional Scholarly Journals” (PDF) . Notes of the American Mathematical Society : 49-53 . Retrieved 27 February2012 .
- Jump up^ Antelman, Kristin (September 2004). “Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact?” . College & Research Libraries . 65 (5): 372-382. doi : 10.5860 / crl.65.5.372 . Retrieved 27 February 2012 .
- Jump up^ Lawrence, Steve (May 31, 2001). “Free online availability is a big increase in paper’s impact” . Nature . Nature Publishing Group. 411(6837): 521. Bibcode : 2001Natur.411.521L . doi : 10.1038 / 35079151. PMID 11385534 . Retrieved 27 February 2012 .
- Jump up^ Mayor, S. (2004). “US universities review subscriptions to journal” package deals “as costs rise” . BMJ . 328 (7431): 68. doi : 10.1136 / bmj.328.7431.68 . PMC 1150298 . PMID 14715586 .
- ^ Jump up to:a Beschler B , Edwin F. (November 1998). “Pricing of Scientific Publications: A Commercial Publisher’s Point of View” (PDF) . Notes of the American Mathematical Society : 1333-1343 . Retrieved 27 February2012 .
- Jump up^ “Yale University Libraries Cancel BioMed Central Membership in the Face of Spiraling Costs – Depth-First” .
- Jump up^ Science Libraries News | Yale University ArchivedLibraryJune 20, 2012, at theWayback Machine.
- Jump up^ “Calculating the Cost per Article in the Current Subscription Model” .
- Jump up^ “Open Access Voted Down at Maryland” . The Scholarly Kitchen .
- Jump up^ Anderson, Rick. “Open access – clear benefits, hidden costs” . The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. Archived from the original on 21 July 2011 . Retrieved 16 October 2011 .
- Jump up^ Leonard, Andrew (August 28, 2007). “Science publishers get even stupider” . Salon . Archived from the original on February 5, 2010 . Retrieved 2011-12-03 .
- Jump up^ Rachel DeahlAAP Tries to Keep Government Out of Science Publishing. Publishers Weekly. 23 August 2007
- Jump up^ Park, Ji-Hong; Jian Qin (2007). “Exploring the Willingness of Scholars to Accept Open Access: A Grounded Theory Approach”. Journal of Scholarly Publishing . 2. 38 (2): 30. doi : 10.1353 / scp.2007.0009 .
- Jump up^ Nicholas, D .; Rowlands, I. (2005). “Open Access publishing: The evidence from the authors” . The Journal of Academic Librarianship . 31(3): 179-181. doi : 10.1016 / j.acalib.2005.02.005 .
- Jump up^ DLIST – Goodman, David (2005) Open Access: What Comes Next. Arizona.openrepository.com (2005-11-27). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Worlock, Kate (2004). “The Pros and Cons of Open Access” . Nature Focus . Nature Publishing Group . Retrieved 2011-07-28 .
- Jump up^ Beall, Jeffrey (1 December 2012). “Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition)” . Scholarly Open Access . Archived from the original on 3 June 2013 . Retrieved 19 June 2013 .
- Jump up^ Butler, D. (2013). “Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing”. Nature . 495 (7442): 433-435. Bibcode : 2013Natur.495..433B . doi :10.1038 / 495433a . PMID 23538810 .
- ^ Jump up to:a b “Early History of PLoS” . plos.org . 2012. Archived from the original on February 19, 2012 . Retrieved 26 February 2012 .
- Jump up^ Long, Mauritius (December 2003). “Bridging the knowledge gap The HINARI program” (PDF) . The Biochemist . Biochemical Society : 27-29. Retrieved 27 February 2012 .
- Jump up^ 112th Congress (2011) (Dec 16, 2011). “HR 3699” . Legislation . GovTrack.us . Retrieved February 26, 2012 .
Research Works Act
- Jump up^ Taylor, Mike (16 January 2012). “Academic publishers have become the enemies of science”. The Guardian. London: GMG. ISSN 0261-3077. OCLC 60623878. Retrieved 26 February 2012.
- Jump up^ Howard, Jennifer. “Legislation to Bar Public-Access Requirement on Federal Research Is Dead” . The Chronicle.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Flood, Alison (2 February 2012). “Scientists sign petition to boycott academic publisher Elsevier” . The Guardian . London : GMG . ISSN 0261-3077 . OCLC 60623878 . Archived from the original on 16 February 2012.
- Jump up^ Van Noorden, R. (2012). “Journal offers flat fee for ‘all you can publish ‘”. Nature . 486 (7402): 166. Bibcode : 2012Natur.486.166V . doi :10.1038 / 486166a . PMID 22699586 .
- ^ Jump up to:a b Sample, Ian (9 December 2013). “Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals” . theguardian.com . Retrieved 16 December 2013 .