Do submissions entitled to an auto-waiver take more time to be accepted by open access journals?

BMC Research Notes

Riaz Uddin¹ 

[1] Department of Pharmacy, Stamford University Bangladesh, 51-Siddeswari Road, Dhaka 1217, Bangladesh

关键词: Transparency;    Publication ethics;    OA publication;    Article processing charge;   

Others  :  1133741
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-7-238

 received in 2013-07-30, accepted in 2014-04-09,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Open access initiative is a “talk of the town” in scientific community in recent years. Many open access publishers have an auto-waiver policy for resource limited countries. It is still not documented that whether submissions from auto- and non-waiver countries take the same time to be accepted by the editorial office or a sense of priority works for non-waiver groups.

Findings

Analyzing 248 articles published in BMC Research Notes in 2013 we have found that average 143.8 ± 5.134 and 138.4 ± 12.01 days respectively for non-waiver and auto-waiver countries were required by the editorial office to accept a submission (p = 0.6983).

Conclusion

From this current investigation it is quite evident that both categories of submissions, coming from auto- and non-waiver countries, are equally treated by the for-profit open access journals and thus it can be concluded that no sense of priority works in case of submissions those come from non-waiver countries.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Uddin; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Björk BC: Open access-are the barriers to change receding? Publications 2013, 1:5-15.
• [2]Guédon JC: The “green” and “gold” roads to open access: The case for mixing and matching. Serials Review 2004, 30:315-328.
• [3]Laakso M, Björk BC: Anatomy of open access publishing-a study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Med 2012, 10:124. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Hunt GE, Walter G, Malhi GS: ‘Open for business’: Do open-access psychiatry journals provide value for money? Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2013, 47:407-411.
• [5]Parker M: The ethics of open access publishing. BMC Med Ethics 2013, 14:16. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Rohrich RJ, Sullivan D: Trends in medical publishing: Where the publishing industry is going. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013, 131:179-181.
• [7]Neylon C: Science publishing: Open access must enable open use. Nature 2012, 492:348-349.
• [8]Björk BC, Solomon D: Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact. BMC Med 2012, 10:73. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Open access waiver fund BioMed Centralhttp://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/oawaiverfund webcite
• [10]Schwarte S, Brust H, Steup M, Tiedemann R: Intraspecific sequence variation and differential expression in starch synthase genes of Arabidopsis thaliana. BMC Res Notes 2013, 6:84. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Aime E: Annual acknowledgement of manuscript reviewers. BMC Res Notes 2013, 6:92.
• [12]Brouwer M, Gudo PS, Simbe CM, Perdigão P, van Leth F: Are routine tuberculosis programme data suitable to report on antiretroviral therapy use of HIV-infected tuberculosis patients? BMC Res Notes 2013, 6:23. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Brorson S, Eckardt H, Audigé L, Rolauffs B, Bahrs C: Translation between the Neer-and the AO/OTA-classification for proximal humeral fractures: Do we need to be bilingual to interpret the scientific literature? BMC Res Notes 2013, 6:69. BioMed Central Full Text