This study investigated how well current open access (OA) diamond journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and a survey conform to Plan S requirements, including licenses, peer review, author copyright, unique article identifiers, digital archiving, and machine-readable licenses.
A large-scale survey was conducted on open access (OA) diamond journals from June 2020 to February 2021 by a consortium of 10 organizations to facilitate an understanding of the present situation of OA diamond journals throughout the world.
Download Kcse Questions And Answers
Download Zip 🔥 https://ssurll.com/2yGBrB 🔥
This study aimed to identify whether OA diamond journals were compliant with the standards specified in the Plan S technical requirements. Specifically, the following were analyzed for adherence to the industry standards: licenses; peer review; author copyright; unique article identifiers; digital archiving; machine-readable licenses; author identifiers; self-archiving policy; full texts in JATS XML; compliance with OpenAIRE metadata standards; linking to data, code, and other research outputs; standards of the Initiative for Open Citations; and Creative Commons license types.
This was a literature database and survey-based study on journal publishing, and no sensitive personal information was included in the survey items. No approval by the Institutional Review Board was required. Participants agreed to participate in the survey voluntarily.
From mid-June to mid-July 2020, an online survey listing 94 questions collected data on the different components of diamond journals. Information in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was also searched. The structure and questions of the survey are available from the previous article on the landscape of OA diamond journals [1] (Suppl. 1). The analysis was based on data from two datasets: DOAJ metadata, which contained a large amount of information about DOAJ journals; and survey data, in which journals not in DOAJ had given much of the same information present in the DOAJ metadata, as well as some more, and where DOAJ journals had given information not found in the DOAJ metadata. Several comparisons were made between survey journals and DOAJ journals, as well as between OA diamond and article processing charge (APC)-based journals in DOAJ. APC-based journals were not asked to participate in the survey. In instances where the DOAJ metadata contained no relevant cinformation, a comparison was made between survey journals that were also listed in DOAJ and those not listed in DOAJ. The other aspects of the setting were also the same as in the previous article on the landscape of OA diamond journals [1].
The total number of surveyed journals was 1,619, consisting of 532 journals not listed in DOAJ, and 1,087 journals listed in DOAJ. The number of DOAJ journals analyzed was 14,368. Out of them, 10,449 (72.7%) were OA diamond journals. These data are the same as in the previous article on the journal landscape [1].
Use of article identifiers by journal category in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). DOI, digital object identifier; URN, uniform resource name; APC, article processing charge; OA, open access.
The potential sources of bias were also the same as in the previous study [1]. Different circumstances and motivations of journals to participate in the survey may have been a source of bias in participation.
In DOAJ, all journals except one indicated that they conducted peer review in a form that meets Plan S requirements. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of the various types of reviews listed by the journals over the two categories of journals (OA diamond and APC-based). Blind and double-blind reviews were the most frequently used types, totaling more than 80% for both journal groups. A comparison of the answers between journals in DOAJ and journals not in DOAJ is presented in Fig. 3. Double-blind peer review was performed by more than 50% of journals in both groups and emerged as the predominant review process by a wide margin. All review processes used by both DOAJ and survey journals that answered this question were Plan S-compliant.
The use of PIDs was the theme for Q42 in the survey. A journal could check more than one answer, so the numbers did not add up to the total number of journals surveyed. The DOAJ journals in the survey scored higher for Crossref DOIs, other DOIs, ORCIDs, and grant IDs, while survey-only journals had a higher percentage of Datacite DOIs and other PIDs (Fig. 6). Journals using other DOIs mentioned handles, mEDRA, and Researcher IDs. In total, 960 journals (59.3%) in the survey used Crossref DOIs, while 124 (7.7%) mentioned Datacite DOIs and 400 (24.7%) stated that they used other DOIs (Fig. 6).
In the survey, journals could choose more than one option; hence, the numbers do not equal the total number of journals surveyed. The majority of survey journals had no archiving policies (855 of 1,619 respondents) (Fig. 8). In addition, only 381 respondents used a standard archiving system (LOCKSS, PKP PN, CLOCKSS, and Portico) that would comply with cOAlition S requirements. Local solutions such as national libraries (170 respondents) were frequently quoted.
Most DOAJ journals deposited article-level metadata in DOAJ. However, it is unclear from the data to what extent this is a continuing process for individual journals or a one-off or rare occurrence. It was found that 2,304 out of 10,449 OA diamond journals (78.0%) in DOAJ had deposited one or more article-level records compared to 3,420 out of 3,919 APC-based journals (87.3%) (Fig. 9). This high deposit rate suggests that DOAJ could be the best way to solve this requirement for many OA diamond journals.
No information was available in DOAJ on whether journals provided openly accessible data on citations. Fewer than 25% of journals in the survey did indeed provide such citations, indicating a low level of compliance (Table S6). DOAJ journals in the survey were somewhat more compliant than survey-only journals.
DOAJ asks journals to list their most restrictive license. We know, though, that some journals allow a number of licenses to be chosen. Although certain journals limit the choices, some alternatives are allowed for authors to choose if mandated by funders. DOAJ is working on allowing journals to list a number of licenses for the author to choose. The listing of the most restrictive license in DOAJ metadata makes it likely that the compliance rate is higher than seen in Fig. 16. We assume that cOAlition S is satisfied if a Plan S-compliant license is available to the author, without all content in the journal being compliant.
Among DOAJ OA diamond journals, 44.2% satisfied the Plan S requirement (CC BY, CC BY-SA, or CC0), while 57.1% of APC-based journals complied. CC BY was the most widely used license; it was used by more than half of APC-based journals and 37.4% of DOAJ OA diamond journals. Some journals listing a restrictive license may also offer a compliant license, but DOAJ asks journals to list only the most restrictive license, which is often the least Plan S-compliant option (Fig. 16).
The NC clause is a significant problem for compliance. CC BY-NC and CC BY-NC-SA licenses, where the NC clause is the reason for the license being noncompliant, were applied by 27.8% of DOAJ OA diamond journals and 26.8% of APC-based journals. If OA diamond journals chose not to use the NC clause, 72.1% of DOAJ OA diamond journals and 80.9% of APC-based journals would be compliant. Furthermore, 23.6% of DOAJ OA diamond journals and 17.3% of APC-based journals used the CC BY-NC-ND license, where both the NC and the ND clauses represent a problem for compliance. The CC BY-ND license (which can be accepted as an individual exception) was used by only 1.4% of all OA diamond journals and hardly any APC-based journals. In the complete survey data, we found that 1,350 of 1,619 journals (83.4%) reported allowing reuse in accordance with a CC license or a license with a similar condition (Table S7).
This study investigated how well journals in DOAJ and the survey conformed to Plan S requirements and recommendations. Six requirements were confirmed based on the DOAJ metadata, which included license, peer review, author copyright, article permanent ID, permanent preservation, and machine-readable license. Peer review was the one requirement that all but one journal satisfied. Permanent preservation was the requirement with the lowest compliance among journals, at 28.9%, and only 19.1% for OA diamond journals (Table S9). APC-based journals met more requirements than OA diamond journals. The journals that met few criteria were predominated by OA diamond journals, while APC-based journals predominated among the journals that satisfied all requirements.
As for digital archiving, the Plan S requirement for content archiving is unclear as to what services conform to the requirement (Fig. 8). Journals need guidance on what is meant more specifically by archiving in this context, what possibilities exist, and how journals can use archives at low or no cost. Some groups of journals might need financial support to find a working solution to the archiving requirement.
DOAJ metadata do not provide information on whether the journal makes article-level metadata available under a CC0 license (Fig. 9). However, if a journal deposits article-level metadata with DOAJ, the metadata are made available under a CC0 license in various ways, including API, OAI-PMH, and a full data dump of all journal metadata. Therefore, journals depositing article-level metadata with DOAJ fulfill the article metadata requirement. cOAlition S requires these metadata to include funding information, but such information is not yet generally available in DOAJ.
A more detailed analysis indicated that larger journals tended to offer XML or HTML to a more considerable extent than smaller ones. Even among APC-based journals with income that can be used to pay for XML or secure in-house competence, XML is only offered by a fifth of them. This means that full-text JATS XML is still not a concern for many OA journals. 152ee80cbc
download genshin impact 4.2 manually