Update 2018-01-01-collective-action-in-science-diamond.md

_posts/2018-01-01-collective-action-in-science-diamond.md

@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ While this initiative can fail by not reaching the threshold, it will be a messa
 It relies on a payment scheme that disproportionately favors the profiteering of commercial publishers (e.g., [see van Noorden, 2013](https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=THE+TRUE+COST+OF+SCIENCE+PUBLISHING&btnG=#d=gs_cit&t=1670335357417&u=%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dinfo%3AFP6Y4PzaQPAJ%3Ascholar.google.com%2F%26output%3Dcite%26scirp%3D0%26hl%3Den)). Open access publishing, in specific, “has not lived up to the expectation that it would reverse the flow of public money to private publishers—that is, [it is] effectively subsidizing publishers with tax money.” (Essl et al., 2020, p. 202). Universities, which are publicly funded, both produce and peer review academic articles themselves whilst also paying out both to disseminate and access academic articles, diverting funds from research to private companies. Various sources have reported that the costs for publishers are in the region of $300 per article (and articles seem to be hosted by Archiv for $10 per article), yet publishers obtain a revenue of around $5000 per article (see van Noorden, 2013). Universities lose money to publishers through expensive article processing charges (APCs) and/or journal subscriptions, despite providing publishers with their products and quality control. 
 
 It diminishes global sharing of research, by only allowing researchers with institutional resources to participate in the global scientific publishing system. The unequal accessibility of the outcome of academic research prevents the public from a better understanding of current and future global issues and challenges. It also reduces diversity in science as not all researchers are able to pay open access article processing fees via their institutions. Even the ‘Gold’ version of Open Access, which was designed to help democratise academia, is suspected of having an unfair financial impact on developing countries ([Ellers et al., 2017](https://research.vu.nl/ws/files/41184625/2017ellerscrowther_harvey_Gold_Open_Access_Publishing_in_Mega_Journals.pdf)). This is a long-standing issue that has not been fully solved by the widespread move towards different forms of Open Access. 
-Commercial publishing has led to a corruption of the core scientific process itself, such as in the case of (rapid) open-access publishers (e.g., MDPI, Frontiers; e.g., see [Bloudoff-Indelicato, 2015](https://www.nature.com/articles/526613f), where it is increasingly reported that peer-reviewed processes were shallow, flawed or expert reviews ignored, so as to ensure rapid publishing at high quantities in order to collect article processing fees.  So-called ‘cascade journals’, which publish articles rejected from more prestigious journals in order to collect APCs, also play into this (Ellers, Crowther & Harvey, 2017). Furthermore, the peer-review policies of publishers are not transparent ([Klebel et al., 2020](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239518)).
+Commercial publishing has led to a corruption of the core scientific process itself, such as in the case of (rapid) open-access publishers (e.g., MDPI, Frontiers; e.g., see [Bloudoff-Indelicato, 2015](https://www.nature.com/articles/526613f), where it is increasingly reported that peer-reviewed processes were shallow, flawed or expert reviews ignored, so as to ensure rapid publishing at high quantities in order to collect article processing fees.  So-called ‘cascade journals’, which publish articles rejected from more prestigious journals in order to collect APCs, also play into this [Ellers, Crowther & Harvey, 2017](https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/gold-open-access-publishing-in-mega-journals-developing-countries). Furthermore, the peer-review policies of publishers are not transparent ([Klebel et al., 2020](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239518)).
 
 The pledge recognizes the above issues, and we, therefore, call for collective action through this pledge. The pledge constrains the signee to publish a minimum proportion of scientific papers under a Diamond Open Access agreement (i.e., with no costs to publish or to read the paper).