Russian scientific journals in the era of open access to knowledge: problems of adaptation
https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2017-2-4-64-70
Abstract
The advancement of open access to scientific knowledge has become a determining strategy in the sphere of scientific communication. Open access implies, along with a free access to full-text information online, the creation of a legal basis for the results of research to be used fairly by all interested bodies. The Directory of Open Access Journals, DOAJ, as well as other similar institutions, carries the mission of providing and guaranteeing the quality of open access. Russian journals are increasingly become part of this project, which is considered to be a positive trend. Currently, about 163 Russian titles are listed in DOAJ. However, some journals face difficulties in bringing their publication standards in compliance with the DOAJ quality criteria, which has become a reason for suspending 15 Russian titles from this esteemed international database. This article investigates the process of open access advancement inRussia, in particular, the implementation of international quality standards in the sphere of Russian scientific periodicals. Main DOAJ acceptance criteria are analyzed, as well as those problems that Russian titles experience adapting to them.
About the Author
N. G. Popova
Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia G. Popova, PhD (Sociology), Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head of Foreign Languages Department; Lecturer of the Academy of the Association of Science Editors and Publishers, member of the National Association of English Teachers in Russia, member of the Russian Consortium of Writing Centres (RWCC)
Ekaterinburg
References
1. Federal Research Public Access Act. 2006. URL: http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/issues/frpaa2006/.
2. RCUK policy on open access. URL: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/.
3. Finch J. Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to Expand Access to Research Publications. Executive Summary. Int. Microbiol. 16(2),125–132.
4. Резолюция 6-й международной научно-практической конференции «Научное издание международного уровня-2017: мировая практика подготовки и продвижения публикаций» URL: http://rasep.ru/images/docs/2017%20Резолюция_фин.pdf.
5. Crawford W. Ethics and access. Cites&Insights. 2015;15(11):1–58.
6. Fund S. Will Open Access Change the Game? BIBLIOTHEK— Forschung und Praxis. 2015;39(2):206–209. DOI: 10.1515/bfp-2015-0025.
7. Beall J. The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access. TripleC. 2013;11(2):589–597. URL: http://www.triple-c.at.
8. Beall J. What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica. 2017;27(2):273–9. DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.029.
9. Кириллова О. В. Конкурс программ развития журналов как зеркало состояния редакционно-издательской системы российской научной периодики. Научная периодика: проблемы и решения. 2015;5(2):56–74.
10. Базанова Е. М. Научная публикация: писать на английском языке или переводить? Научный редактор и издатель. 2016;1(1-4):17–24. DOI: 10.24069/2542-0267-20161-4-50-68. 1
11. Olijhoek T., Mitchell D., Bjornshauge L. Criteria for open access and publishing. ScienceOpen Research. 2015. DOI: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AMHUHV.v1.
12. European Commission Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020. 2017. Version 3.2. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/ h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf.
13. Vence T. On whitelists and blacklists. Scientist. 17 July, 2017. URL: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49903/title/On-Blacklists-and-Whitelists/.
14. Olijhoek T. Open access development in Russia and other important regions in the world. Results of the DOAJ Ambassador Program 2016–2017. 6th International and Practical Conference: World-class scientific publication-2017. URL: http://conf.neicon.ru/materials/26Domestic0417/170420-12-Olijhoek.pdf.
15. Rew D. Challenges in academic publishing: Predators and traps. 6th International and Practical Conference: Worldclass scientific publication-2017. URL: http://conf.neicon.ru/materials/28-Sem0417/170417_1115_Rew.pdf.
16. Pringle J. Do Open Access journals have impact? Nature [blog], July, 2017. URL: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/19.html.
17. Taylor M. Better ways to evaluate research and researchers. A SPARC Europe briefing paper. The Royal Society. 2015. The future of scholarly scientific communication Conference 2015. URL: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/events/2015/04/FSSC1/FSSC-Report.pdf.
18. Williams C., Padula D. The evolution of impact indicators: From bibliometrics to altmetrics. E-book. URL: http://www.opda.cam.ac.uk/file/evolution-of-impact-indicators.pdf.
Review
For citations:
Popova N.G. Russian scientific journals in the era of open access to knowledge: problems of adaptation. Science Editor and Publisher. 2017;2(2-4):64-70. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2017-2-4-64-70
Views: 1509
Email this article 
