scholarly journals The Factors Significant to the Introduction of Institutional Open Access Policies: Two Case Studies of R-1 Universities

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 2400
Author(s):  
Leo S. Lo
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Access Policies

ATTITUDE TO OPEN ACCESS IN RUSSIAN SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY: 2018. SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. K. Razumova ◽  
N. N. Litvinova ◽  
M. E. Shvartsman ◽  
A. Yu. Kuznetsov
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Scholarly Community ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Policies And Programs ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Level ◽  
Access Policies

Introduction. The paper presents survey results on the awareness towards and practice of Open Access scholarly publishing among Russian academics.Materials and Methods. We employed methods of statistical analysis of survey results. Materials comprise results of data processing of Russian survey conducted in 2018 and published results of the latest international surveys. The survey comprised 1383 respondents from 182 organizations. We performed comparative studies of the responses from academics and research institutions as well as different research areas. The study compares results obtained in Russia with the recently published results of surveys conducted in the United Kingdom and Europe.Results. Our findings show that 95% of Russian respondents support open access, 94% agree to post their publications in open repositories and 75% have experience in open access publishing. We did not find any difference in the awareness and attitude towards open access among seven reference groups. Our analysis revealed the difference in the structure of open access publications of the authors from universities and research institutes. Discussion andConclusions. Results reveal a high level of awareness and support to open access and succeful practice in the open access publications in the Russian scholarly community. The results for Russia demonstrate close similarity with the results of the UK academics. The governmental open access policies and programs would foster the practical realization of the open access in Russia.

Open-access policies: A legal quagmire

Science ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 353 (6301) ◽  
pp. 758-759
Author(s):  
I. Kapovich
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Access Policies

scholarly journals Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e028655
Author(s):  
Tim S Ellison ◽  
Tim Koder ◽  
Laura Schmidt ◽  
Amy Williams ◽  
Christopher C Winchester
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Funded Research ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Commercial Research ◽  
Access Policies

ObjectivesAcademical and not-for-profit research funders are increasingly requiring that the research they fund must be published open access, with some insisting on publishing with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to allow the broadest possible use. We aimed to clarify the open access variants provided by leading medical journals and record the availability of the CC BY licence for commercially funded research.MethodsWe identified medical journals with a 2015 impact factor of ≥15.0 on 24 May 2017, then excluded from the analysis journals that only publish review articles. Between 29 June 2017 and 26 July 2017, we collected information about each journal’s open access policies from their websites and/or by email contact. We contacted the journals by email again between 6 December 2017 and 2 January 2018 to confirm our findings.ResultsThirty-five medical journals publishing original research from 13 publishers were included in the analysis. All 35 journals offered some form of open access allowing articles to be free-to-read, either immediately on publication or after a delay of up to 12 months. Of these journals, 21 (60%) provided immediate open access with a CC BY licence under certain circumstances (eg, to specific research funders). Of these 21, 20 only offered a CC BY licence to authors funded by non-commercial organisations and one offered this option to any funder who required it.ConclusionsMost leading medical journals do not offer to authors reporting commercially funded research an open access licence that allows unrestricted sharing and adaptation of the published material. The journals’ policies are therefore not aligned with open access declarations and guidelines. Commercial research funders lag behind academical funders in the development of mandatory open access policies, and it is time for them to work with publishers to advance the dissemination of the research they fund.

Effects of delays in the adoption of cancer innovation: Case studies of six landmark medications.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 27-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Shafrin ◽  
Jin Joo Shim ◽  
Seanna Vine ◽  
Caroline Huber ◽  
Beata Korytowsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Real World ◽  
Physician Education ◽  
Cancer Treatments ◽  
Patient Health ◽  
The Difference ◽  
New Treatment ◽  
Access Policies

27 Background: Although new oncology treatments have the potential to improve patient health, these innovations take time to reach to real-world patients. In this study, we estimated how delays in the uptake of novel oncology treatments affect real-world patient survival. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used 1991-2013 data from a cancer-registry linked to health care claims (SEER-Medicare). Our endpoint of interest was patient overall survival. We used variability in the adoption of new cancer treatments across aggregated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) (n = 50) as a “natural experiment” that assigned treatments randomly across patients, depending entirely on where they live. This approach recovers the effect of the new treatment on the overall survival of the “marginal patient,” who received treatment solely because she resides in an area with faster uptake. This framework was applied to six case studies: trastuzumab (breast), bevacizumab (colorectal), bevacizumab (lung), erlotinib (lung), bortezomib (myeloma) and lenalidomide (myeloma). Results: Among the 92,496 patients in the study, the difference between adoption rates among eligible patients for MSAs at the 90th percentile and those at the 10th percentile was 20.1 percentage points, with the largest differences being for bevacizumab (colorectal) (51.2% at the 90th percentile MSA vs. 20.9% at the 10th percentile), and smallest for erlotinib (10.3% vs. 2.8%). Median OS among eligible patients gaining access to these landmark therapies increased by 9.6 months. Survival improvements were largest for the lenalidomide case study (33.4 months OS improvement, p < 0.005) followed by erlotinib (21.2 mo., p < 0.001), trastuzumab (19.2 mo., p = 0.016), bevacizumab for lung (7.4 mo., p = 0.002), bevacizumab for colorectal cancer (4.0 mo., p = 0.062), and bortezomib (2.9 mo., p = 0.630). Conclusions: Improving the speed at which landmark treatments are adopted in practice—through physician education and outreach or more generous health insurance access policies—has the potential to improve real-world survival for cancer patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document