Declarative commitments and editorial open access practices: an empirical study of Russian scholarly journals

Introduction. Open access to scholarly knowledge is a core element of contemporary scholarly publishing policy and is actively promoted at both international and national levels. At the same time, empirical research shows that principled support for open access is not always accompanied by a uniform interpretation or consistent institutional implementation. In this context, the position of journal editors is of particular interest, as they are the actors who directly shape editorial policy and the dissemination practices of scholarly publications.

Purpose. To identify which definitions and key features of open access dominate in the perceptions of editors of Russian scholarly journals, and how these perceptions are reflected in stated editorial policies and in journals’ actual practices.

Materials and Methods. The study draws on data from an online survey of editors of Russian scholarly journals (N = 138) representing a range of subject areas and serving as editors-in-chief, deputy editors, managing editors, and scientific editors. The questionnaire included closed- and open-ended items designed to elicit normative orientations and practices related to open access. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of open-ended responses.

Results. According to the survey (N = 138), most respondents declare support for open access, yet their understanding of it is heterogeneous: responses to the question about the definition of open access were distributed almost evenly between interpreting open access as free access to the full text and understanding it as a regime that entails additional reuse rights/licensing. At the level of implementation, the study identifies a persistent gap between the declared access model and its institutional articulation: although 89.9% of editorial teams characterize their content dissemination as immediate open access, 18.8% of journals provide no information about open access on their websites. Conceptual ambiguity is also evident in the classification of open access models: about one third of respondents do not distinguish the typology, which correlates with fragmented licensing and contractual practices and limited digital infrastructure. Publication fees are not the dominant mechanism and are generally viewed critically by editors.

Conclusion. The findings suggest that within the Russian editorial community, open access functions primarily as a normative orientation rather than as a fully institutionalized journal model. The study highlights the need to shift discussions of open access from declarative support toward the operationalization of legal, infrastructural, and organizational mechanisms that ensure the sustainability and reproducibility of open scholarly dissemination practices.

1. Elliott K.C., Resnik D.B. Making open science work for science and society. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2019;127(7):075002. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4808

2. Cavalli N., editor. Current trends in open science: will open science change the world? Milan: Ledizioni; 2025.

3. Suber P. Open access. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2012. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9286.001.0001

4. Björk B.-C., Solomon D. Developing an effective market for open access article processing charges. London: Wellcome Trust; 2014.

5. Tennant J.P., Waldner F., Jacques D.C., Masuzzo P., Collister L.B., Hartgerink C.H.J. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research. 2016;5:632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3

6. Piwowar H., Priem J., Larivière V., Alperin J.P., Matthias L., Norlander B., Farley, A., West, J., & Haustein, S. The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375.

7. Тихонова Е.В., Раицкая Л.К. Рецензирование как инструмент обеспечения эффективной научной коммуникации: традиции и инновации. Научный редактор и издатель. 2021;6(1):6–17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17.

8. Tikhonova E.V., Raitskaya L.K. Ensuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review. Science Editor and Publisher. 2021;6(1):6-17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17

9. Hall W., Pesenti J. Growing the artificial intelligence industry in the UK: an independent review. London: UK Government; 2017. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a824465e5274a2e87dc2079/Growing_the_artificial_intelligence_industry_in_the_UK.pdf

10. Cousijn, H., Kenall, A., Ganley, E., Harrison, M., Kernohan, D., Lemberger, T., Murphy, F., Polischuk, P., Taylor, S., Martone, M., & Clark, T. A data citation roadmap for scientific publishers. Scientific Data. 2018;5:180259. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.259

11. Кириллова О.В., Тихонова Е.В. Критерии качества научного журнала: измерение и значимость. Научный редактор и издатель. 2022;7(1):12–27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-39

12. Kirillova O.V., Tikhonova E.V. Journal quality criteria: Measurement and significance. Science Editor and Publisher. 2022;7(1):12-27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-39

13. Mirowski P. The future(s) of open science. Social Studies of Science. 2018;48(2):171–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718772086

14. Nicholas D., Watkinson A., Boukacem-Zeghmouri C., Rodríguez-Bravo,B., Xu J., Abrizah A., Świgoń M., Clark D., & Herman E. So, are early career researchers the harbingers of change? Learned Publishing. 2019;32(3):237–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1232

15. Melero R., Boté-Vericad J.J,. López-Borrull A. Perceptions regarding open science appraised by editors of scholarly publications published in Spain. Learned Publishing. 2023;36(2):178–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1511

16. Szüdi G., Bartar P., Weiss G., Pellegrini G., Tulin M., & Oomen T. New trends in science communication fostering evidence-informed policymaking. Open Research Europe. 2023;2:78. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14769.2

17. Segado-Boj F., Martín-Quevedo J., Prieto-Gutiérrez J.J. Attitudes toward open access, open peer review, and altmetrics among contributors to Spanish scholarly journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 2018;50(1):48–70. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.1.08

18. Delikoura E., Kouis D. Open research data and open peer review: perceptions of a medical and health sciences community in Greece. Publications. 2021;9(2):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9020014

19. Malički M., Aalbersberg I.J., Bouter L., Mulligan A., & ter Riet G. Transparency in conducting and reporting research: a survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One. 2023;18(3):e0270054. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270054

20. Москалева О.В., Акоев М.А. Прогноз развития российских журналов. Российские журналы открытого доступа. Наука и научная информация. 2021;4(1–2):33–62. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24108/2658-3143-2021-4-1-2-29-58

21. Moskaleva O.V., Akoev M.A. Forecast of the Development of Russian Scientific Journals: Open Access Journals. Scholarly Research and Information. 2021;4(1-2):33-62. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24108/2658-3143-2021-4-1-2-29-58

22. Яночкина ЮВ. Модели открытого доступа российских научных журналов. Управление наукой: теория и практика. 2024;6(2):188–202. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2024.6.2.13

23. Yanochkina Y.V. Open access models of Russian academic journals. Science Management: Theory and Practice. 2024;6(2):188-02. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2024.6.2.13

24. Fyfe A., Coate K., Curry S., Lawson S., Moxham N., Røstvik C.M. Untangling academic publishing: a history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research. Zenodo; 2017. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.546100

25. Ross-Hellauer T., Deppe A., Schmidt B. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0189311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311

26. Ancion Z., Borrell-Damián L., Mounier P., Rooryck J., Saenen B. Action plan for diamond open access. Science Europe. 2022. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6282402

27. Pinfield S., Salter J., Bath P.A. A “Gold-centric” implementation of open access: hybrid journals, the “total cost of publication,” and policy development in the UK and beyond. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2017;68(9):2248–2263. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23742