Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeOpen access journals (OAJs) offer immediate, free and unrestricted online access to the scholarly literature. The purpose of this study is to trace the status and characteristics of OAJs published across the globe. Various trends that have evolved in OAJ market have been studied.Design/methodology/approachThe study is based on data collected from one of the largest OA journal directory – Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The data were downloaded on 02 January 2018 and details of OAJs added to DOAJ till 31 December 2018 were harvested, codified and further analyzed in SPSS software. A Microsoft-Excel template application – MAKESENS – developed by Finnish Meteorological Institute (Finland) in 2002, was explored to perform Mann–Kendall Test and Sen’s Slope Estimates.FindingsA less score of OAJs offer access to their archival content. An increasing trend is witnessed in the OAJ publishing with Elsevier, Sciendo and BioMed Central (BMC) as the top publishers. Majority of publishers are from high-income zone countries, followed by upper-middle and lower-middle zone countries. Majority of OA publishers are from the UK, Indonesia and Brazil. A lesser score of journals offer article processing charges and/or author submission charges. Majority of OAJs from high- and lower-middle-income zone countries levy submission/processing charge to authors compared to OA journals from upper-middle- and lower-income zone countries (p < 0.01). OJS stays a prioritized platform for hosting OA journal content. Portico and CLOCKSS/LOCKSS are mostly used for long-term preservation purposes. Majority of OAJs from high-income zone countries participate in digital arching initiatives compared to ones from other income zones. Majority of the journals adopt a peer review (double-blind peer review, blind peer review, peer review and open peer review) process for validation of their scholarly content. The time lag between submission and publication ranges from one to 53 weeks, with majority of OAJs having a time lag of 11-20 weeks. Creative Commons Licenses are mainly adopted by OAJs.Research limitations/implicationsAs the study is based on the data offered by DOAJ, any gaps in the DOAJ data will also get reflected in the study. Further, there might be other OAJs also that have yet to show compliance with DOAJ standards and get indexed with it.Originality/valueThe study tries to showcase the current status and characteristics of OAJs.

The number of articles published in open access journals (OAJs) has increased dramatically in recent years. Simultaneously, the quality of publications in these journals has been called into question. Few studies have explored the retraction rate from OAJs. The purpose of the current study was to determine the reasons for retractions of articles from OAJs in biomedical research. The Medline database was searched through PubMed to identify retracted publications in OAJs. The journals were identified by the Directory of Open Access Journals. Data were extracted from each retracted article, including the time from publication to retraction, causes, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Trends in the characteristics related to retraction were determined. Data from 621 retracted studies were included in the analysis. The number and rate of retractions have increased since 2010. The most common reasons for retraction are errors (148), plagiarism (142), duplicate publication (101), fraud/suspected fraud (98) and invalid peer review (93). The number of retracted articles from OAJs has been steadily increasing. Misconduct was the primary reason for retraction. The majority of retracted articles were from journals with low impact factors and authored by researchers from China, India, Iran, and the USA.

This case study explores the role of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) in increasing the visibility and accessibility of Ukrainian academic journals. Ukrainian journals face numerous challenges due to economic constraints and the ongoing war. The article presents how open infrastructures play an important role in supporting journals during conflict, invasion or major disruption, using DOAJ as a case study. It analyzes what has worked and what could have been improved in DOAJ's approach, including its collaborative efforts with the Supporting Ukrainian Editorial Staff (SUES) project, the Open Ukrainian Citation Index (OUCI) and Research4Life as initiatives to increase the visibility, transparency and impact of all digitized Ukrainian academic journals, despite the ongoing war with Russia. Recommendations are presented to increase the quality and visibility of Ukrainian journals and to guide open infrastructures in supporting journals from conflict areas.

Some scholars who are skeptical about open-access mega journals (OAMJs) have argued that low-quality papers are often difficult to publish in more prestigious and authoritative journals, and OAMJs may be their main destination. This study aims to evaluate the academic quality of OAMJs and highlight their important role in clinical medicine. To achieve this aim, authoritative journals and representative OAMJs in this field were selected as research objects. The differences between the two were compared and analyzed in terms of their level of disruptive innovation. Additionally, this paper explored the countries and research directions for which OAMJs serve as publication channels for disruptive innovations. In this study, the journal information, literature data, and open citation relationship data were sourced from Journal Citation Reports (JCR), Web of Science (WoS), InCites, and the OpenCitations Index of PubMed Open PMID-to-PMID citations (POCI). Then, we calculated the disruptive innovation level of the focus paper based on the local POCI database. The mean Journal Disruption Index (JDI) values for the selected authoritative journals and OAMJs were 0.5866 (SD 0.26933) and 0.0255 (SD 0.01689), respectively, showing a significant difference. Only 1.48% (861/58,181) of the OAMJ papers reached the median level of disruptive innovation of authoritative journal papers (MD ). However, the absolute number was roughly equal to that of authoritative journals. OAMJs surpassed authoritative journals in publishing innovative papers in 24 research directions (eg, Allergy), accounting for 40.68% of all research directions in clinical medicine. Among research topics with at least 10 authoritative papers, OAMJs matched or exceeded MD in 35.71% of cases. The number of papers published in authoritative journals and the average level of disruptive innovation in each country showed a linear relationship after logarithmic treatment, with a correlation coefficient of -0.891 (P<.001). However, the number of papers published in OAMJs in each country and the average level of disruptive innovation did not show a linear relationship after logarithmic treatment. While the average disruptive innovation level of papers published by OAMJs is significantly lower than that of authoritative journals, OAMJs have become an important publication channel for innovative research in various research directions. They also provide fairer opportunities for the publication of innovative results from limited-income countries. Therefore, the academic community should recognize the contribution and value of OAMJs to advancing scientific research.

The Diamond Open Access (OA) model—characterized by the absence of fees for both authors and readers—has gained increasing attention in recent years. A wide range of scholarly journals are using this model, as emerged while mapping the Diamond OA landscape worldwide; however, some still depend on hybrid revenue streams such as print sales, subscriptions, and marginal APCs. A number of recent initiatives underlined the need to increase quality assurance, sustainability, and cooperation within the Diamond OA ecosystem. Among them, the Diamond OA Standard (DOAS), a framework comprising detailed guidelines and a self-assessment tool to facilitate Diamond OA publishing practices, was created by the DIAMAS project, sponsored by the European Commission. Annali dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità, the official journal of the Italian leading public health research institution, is a Diamond OA journal. To improve transparency and quality, the editorial team used the DOAS self-assessment tool to evaluate its compliance with the standards proposed by DIAMAS and to identify potential areas for improvement. This article presents the process and findings of the DOAS self-assessment tool conducted on Annali ISS, with the aim of sharing insights and support with other journals seeking to align with the DOAS framework.

Researchers depend on consultation with previous work in their field, most of which is published in scientific journals. The open access movement has affected journals and articles, providing new alternatives for accessing scientific content, and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is the most specialized and multidisciplinary database of open access journals. The main goal of this study is to analyze publications that include \"DOAJ\" in their keywords, to determine how researchers in the areas of Library and Information Science and Social Science are studying it. The specific objectives are: a) to describe the characteristics of journals indexed in the Web of Science, DOAJ, or SCOPUS that have published articles with \"DOAJ\" as a keyword; b) to identify the institutional affiliations of the authors of those articles; and c) to classify the articles according to subject area. We identified 39 articles from 29 journals. The countries with the largest numbers of journals are the United States and theMost of the journals were open access, of which universities were the biggest publishers. The countries with the largest numbers of authors were India (12), and Italy and Russia (11 each), and the journal that published the most articles was the University of Nebraska's Library Philosophy and Practice (four articles). Most articles analyze the quality (65.5%), followed by the growth (25.6%), of the Open Access Movement. An analysis of the subject areas covered revealed significant gaps, as the economic, legal and technological aspects of DOAJ were not represented. [Publisher's text]

Much of the debate on Plan S seems to concentrate on how to make toll-access journals open access, taking for granted that existing open access journals are Plan S-compliant. We suspected this was not so and set out to explore this using Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) metadata. We conclude that a large majority of open access journals are not Plan S-compliant, and that it is small publishers in the humanities and social sciences (HSS) not charging article processing charges (APC) that will face the largest challenge with becoming compliant. Plan S needs to give special considerations to smaller publishers and/or non-APC based journals.

The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect those who carry out the research, usually early career researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits, including reputational gains, increased chances of publication, and a broader increase in the reliability of research. The increased chances of publication are supported by exploratory analyses indicating null findings are substantially more likely to be published via open registered reports in comparison to more conventional methods. These benefits are balanced by challenges that we have encountered and that involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time, and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality of research. We review 3 benefits and 3 challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices, which we believe scientists and institutions at all levels would do well to consider.

With the advent of open access movement, open access journals (OAJs) being the prodigious source of academic and research information have been gaining significant magnitude. The electronic age has made it easier and more convenient than ever to break barriers to research information. The present study aims to study and analyse the status of 497 OAJs in Agriculture indexed in Directory of Open Access Journals. Specified traits such as Geographic and language wise distribution, coverage of Indexing/Abstracting databases, ranking of journals according to Impact Factor (IF), OA licensing model adopted, policy of plagiarism, visibility on social media and related issues of the OAJs in Agriculture are evaluated in the paper. Results indicated the dominance of De Gruyter Open as a publisher with highest number of OAJs, English as a content language, Indonesia with highest number of OAJs, Google scholar with highest journals indexed. The study observes the increasing migration of journals from commercial practice to OA. Frontiers in Plant Science found with highest Impact Factor among OAJs in Agriculture.