We\u2019ve added columns for contextual information, such as the type of publisher, their location, whether the problem relates to Gold or Green OA, and if Gold, whether hybrid or pure. This allows us to do some basic analysis on the data, for instance, we can filter to discover that most of the publishers who cause us problems in terms of licensing are small\/society outfits based in the USA.<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve come up with 7 categories that we use to collate similar problems together, as below.<\/p>\n
- \n
- Costs
\n<\/strong>
\n<\/u>We record publishers whose basic APC costs we consider to be excessive and also those who have unfair or unusual charges, such as those who charge an additional fee for a CC-BY licence (a cynical attempt to exploit institutional UKRI\/COAF OA grants?), compulsory page and colour charges, or APC charges based on article length.<\/li>\n- Licensing
\n<\/strong>
\n<\/u>For issues around CC licences, particularly changing them, and other licensing problems such as confusing or restrictive publisher-own Gold licences.<\/li>\n- Payment
\n<\/strong>
\n<\/u>Examples of payment problems include using different systems for APCs and other charges, sending invoices for articles that should be paid via prepay, or a publisher being repeatedly unable to trace payments.<\/li>\n- Policy
\n<\/strong>
\n<\/u>Predominantly for confusing, conflicting or very restrictive copyright\/self-archiving policies, such as rolling embargoes or deposit only in closed access repositories, or only on an intranet (me neither).<\/li>\n- Predatory
\n<\/strong>
\n<\/u>Simply a way of recording potentially illegitimate publishing entities (PIPEs). PIPEs are often referred to as \u2018predatory publishers<\/a>\u2019, and there is a list of PIPEs<\/a>. To be listed as a predatory publisher\/journal in our list the publisher\/journal must have failed several of the checks on the ThinkCheckSubmit<\/a> website.<\/li>\n- Procedure
\n<\/strong>
\n<\/u>For difficulties in arranging Green\/Gold and the processes that we\/the publisher go through. Examples include publishers requiring payment to be received before publishing, unintuitive dashboards for prepay schemes, or delays between ordering Gold and receiving an invoice. A problem recorded just this morning regards one publisher’s decision to set an exchange rate from $ to \u20ac in January of each year, which is then set until the following January, irrespective of currency fluctuations. This potentially increases costs as well as adding extra administrative burden when processing an invoice charged in \u20ac, to be paid in \u00a3, for an APC originally advertised in $.<\/li>\n- Production
\n<\/strong>
\n<\/u>To do with what the publishers actually produce, so for problems with their product, e.g. not stating whether something is CC-BY, broken DOIs, confusing article types, attaching adverts to articles, etc.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs-staging.imperial.ac.uk\/openaccess\/files\/2018\/10\/Publisher-Problems-Google-image-e1540550727803-450x132.png\")
<\/p>\nThe purpose of the spreadsheet was to allow us to see which problems and which publishers were frequently reoccurring so that we could try and locate particular areas that need addressing. The information, it is hoped, will be of use to the rest of the OA community, as well as other interested parties, such as funders, to see how we can collectively petition publishers to change their practices and quicken the transition to a more open system of scholarly communication.<\/p>\n
- Licensing