DOCSLIB.ORG

Highly Cited Papers from India and China

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Highly Cited Papers from India and China GENERAL ARTICLES Highly cited papers from India and China Muthu Madhan, G. Chandrasekar and Subbiah Arunachalam* Research papers published by Chinese and Indian researchers during 1998–2007 and cited at least 100 times by end of 2009 are analysed. There were 776 papers with at least one author from India (amounting to 0.32% of all papers from India) and 2260 papers with at least one author from China (0.4% of all papers from China) that have gone on to be cited at least 100 times. We have identified prominent authors and institutions, journals used and fields of research. Although highly cited Chinese papers were cited on average less often than the highly cited papers from India, Chinese authors have been able to place their papers in high impact journals such as Nature and Science far more often than Indian authors. The Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Tata Insti- tute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai and Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Bangalore are the prominent Indian institutions, whereas universities in Hong Kong, Peking University, Tshing Hua University and several institutions under the Chinese Academy of Science dominate in China. In terms of citations, Chinese National Human Genome Centre Shanghai, Shanghai, tops the list. Keywords: Citations, impact factor, research papers, science and technology. THE geography of science is changing. Science and engi- Ronald Kostoff and his colleagues have estimated the neering research is becoming an increasingly interna- quantity, scope and quality of scientific research in both tional endeavour. More than ever before governments China and India12,13. According to Kostoff, from 1980 to around the world acknowledge the role of science and 2005, India’s output of research articles grew by a factor technology (S&T) in generating new jobs, economic of 2.5, from 10,000 to 25,000, and that during the same prosperity, response to national issues and global chal- period, Chinese research output grew by a factor of 100. lenges, and global competitiveness1. Today, in the output of research papers as seen from Web China and India are seen as emerging world leaders of Science, China is second only to USA. However, Kost- and there has been considerable interest in what happens off reports that if we look at INSPEC and Compendex, in the area of S&T in these two countries. A few years China has outpaced USA as well. This is because Web of ago, Demos, the London-based think tank, brought out a Science covers a large number of biomedical and life sci- series of reports on the theme Atlas of Science: Mapping ences journals and China’s strong suites are physics, the Geography of Science. Two of them were on science chemistry, materials science and engineering. in China and India2,3, and the third was on South Korea4. Shelton and Foland believe that although currently Together with Brazil and Russia the two Asian giants China lags behind USA and the European Union in most constitute the BRIC countries and together with Brazil S&T indicators (except the sheer output of research and South Africa they constitute the BASIC countries. papers), it will soon catch up and possibly excel USA and Thomson Reuters, the publishers of Web of Science and Europe14. It is not China alone that is expected to upset related databases, have brought out a series of studies on the current order in world science, and even displace science in the BRIC countries5–10. In his State of the USA from its position as the world’s number one, accord- Nation address delivered on 27 January 2010, the US ing to Leydesdorff and Wagner15. According to Leydes- President Barak Obama made a mention of both China dorff and Zhou16, China and South Korea are improving and India as countries trying hard to excel and he made a both in terms of the sheer volume of research publica- special reference to their emphasis on mathematics and tions and citation impact. science (education and research)11. A recent announcement from Nature Asia-Pacific pro- vides additional evidence, if any required, for China’s Muthu Madhan is in the Library at the National Institute of Technology, phenomenal growth in science. From a mere three papers Rourkela 769 008, India; G. Chandrasekar is in the National Institute of published by Chinese researchers in Nature and other Science Communication and Information Resources, New Delhi 110 012, monthly journals from the Nature Group in 1998, the India, and Subbiah Arunachalam is in the Centre for Internet and Society, No. 194, 2nd ‘C’ Cross, Domlur 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560 071, India. number rose to 93 in 2009. In contrast, India had *For correspondence. (e-mail: [email protected]) published two papers in 1998 and 18 in 2009. Over the 738 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 99, NO. 6, 25 SEPTEMBER 2010 GENERAL ARTICLES 12 years China had published 375 papers compared to 63 tutions where they were written, we downloaded all from India (http://www.natureasia.com/en/publishing- papers published in 1998–2007 with an author address in index/historical.php?). India and China from Science Citation Index – Expanded Arunachalam17 had shown that many papers published section of Web of Science. We selected papers that have by Indian researchers in high impact factor journals are been cited at least 100 times up to a given date. These data cited much less often than the average article in those were then analysed using Visual FoxPro. journals and thus actually bring down the impact factor of 18 those journals. Balaram pointed out that ‘journal impact Analysis of data factors can be misleading with most papers in high pro- file journals accumulating only a modest number of cita- In Table 1, we present the number of papers published by tions’. Recently, Meneghini et al.19 have shown that Indian and Chinese researchers in all of science as seen papers from Latin America published in high impact fac- from Web of Science in each one of the years 1998–2007. tor journals are cited on average less often than the jour- We have also shown the number of papers from these two nal average. Campbell20 has shown how a high journal countries that have been cited at least 100 times. To see impact factor can be the skewed result of many citations the performance of India and China in perspective we of a few papers rather than the average level of the majo- have included similar data from two other BASIC coun- rity, reducing its value as an objective measure of an in- tries, viz. Brazil and South Africa; three OECD countries, dividual paper. A better measure of an individual paper viz. France, Japan and South Korea, and Israel, a small would be the actual number of times the paper is cited. In country with a good record in scientific research. Citation this article, we have estimated the number of papers from data were collected up to 22 November 2009 for India, India and China published in 10 years, 1998–2007, that China, South Korea and Brazil and up to 25 January 2010 have been cited at least a hundred times. for Israel, South Africa, Japan and France. Here again, one has to be aware that the average num- In all, India had published 235,679 papers in the 10 ber of citations to papers differs from field to field, and in years, and of these 758 were cited at least 100 times. certain areas the normal citation rates are rather low. As China had published 529,856 papers during the same pointed out by Pudovkin and Garfield21,22, average impact period, and of these 2,142 were cited at least 100 times. factor values greatly differ among subject categories and Among the eight countries considered, India and China an average paper in mathematics is cited eight times less have the lowest proportion of papers receiving 100 cita- frequently than an average paper in molecular biology or tions, viz. 0.321% and 0.404% respectively. In contrast, genetics. Essential Science Indicators23 provide informa- Israel (1.737%), France (1.585%) and Japan (1.071%) tion on average number of citations per paper for 22 major have a much higher proportion of papers receiving at fields. Obviously there would not be many mathematics least 100 citations. South Africa (0.790%), South Korea papers from India or China that would have been cited (0.501%) and Brazil (0.419%) have recorded a slightly hundred times or more. higher proportion of papers receiving at least 100 cita- tions than India and China. Israel’s performance, better Methodology than that of the three OECD countries (France, Japan and South Korea) is striking. With a view to finding the highly cited papers from India In Table 2, we present data on the number of papers and China, the authors of these papers as well as the insti- from India and China, the number of papers with more Table 1. Comparison of number of papers published during 1998–2007 and number of highly cited papers from India, China, South Korea, Brazil, Israel, South Africa, Japan and France India* China* South Korea* Brazil* Israel** South Africa** Japan** France** Year Papers A Papers A Papers A Papers A Papers A Papers A Papers A Papers A 1998 17,629 101 20,621 165 11,822 96 10,277 92 10,025 339 4047 52 77,678 1551 53,989 1558 1999 18,073 92 24,639 190 13,683 134 11,732 93 10,364 307 4239 55 79,541 1545 54,790 1459 2000 18,137 109 31,028 255 15,116 165 12,978 83 10,688 294 3998 50 82,217 1432 54,753 1430 2001 19,141 113 36,505 267 17,505 160 13,736 83 10,576 274 4194 47 81,053 1311 53,948 1253 2002 20,656 90 41,354 336 19,371 156 15,888 92 11,336 231 4428 28 85,272 1099 55,383 1071 2003 22,846 91 50,954 314 22,729 137 16,749 81 11,748 201 4388 30 89,081 841 56,579 849 2004 24,783 67 61,432 264 27,025 118 18,362 65 12,229 143 4704 47 90,278 655 59,322 686 2005 27,482 51 74,257 229 29,392 80 19,465 65 12,323 111 5041 28 89,343 411 67,517 513 2006 30,979 34 90,737 81 32,342 45 21,911 34 12,640 69 5687 25 92,928 236 64,769 308 2007 35,953 10 98,329 41 33,570 23 27,661 19 12,555 20 6510 11 89,766 100 66,043 177 Total 235,679 758 529,856 2142 222,555 1114 168,759 707 114,484 1989 47,236 373 857,157 9181 587,093 9304 A, Number of papers receiving at least 100 citations; *Data collected on 22 November 2009; **Data collected on 25 January 2010.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2019 From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication Rob Johnson Research Consulting Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Johnson, Rob, "From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication" (2019). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 157. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/157 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Insights – 32, 2019 Plan S and the future of scholarly communication | Rob Johnson From coalition to commons: Plan S and the future of scholarly communication The announcement of Plan S in September 2018 triggered a wide-ranging debate over how best to accelerate the shift to open access. The Plan’s ten principles represent a call for the creation of an intellectual commons, to be brought into being through collective action by funders and managed through regulated market mechanisms. As it gathers both momentum and critics, the coalition must grapple with questions of equity, efficiency and sustainability. The work of Elinor Ostrom has shown that successful management of the commons frequently relies on polycentricity and adaptive governance. The Plan S principles must therefore function as an overarching framework within which local actors retain some autonomy, and should remain open to amendment as the scholarly communication landscape evolves.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing
    THE OPEN SCIENCE INITIATIVE WORKING GROUP Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing The Open Science Initiative (OSI) is a working group convened by the National Science Communi- cation Institute (nSCI) in October 2014 to discuss the issues regarding improving open access for the betterment of science and to recommend possible solutions. The following document summa- rizes the wide range of issues, perspectives and recommendations from this group’s online conver- sation during November and December 2014 and January 2015. The 112 participants who signed up to participate in this conversation were drawn mostly from the academic, research, and library communities. Most of these 112 were not active in this conversa- tion, but a healthy diversity of key perspectives was still represented. Individual participants may not agree with all of the viewpoints described herein, but participants agree that this document reflects the spirit and content of the conversation. This main body of this document was written by Glenn Hampson and edited by Joyce Ogburn and Laura Ada Emmett. Additional editorial input was provided by many members of the OSI working group. Kathleen Shearer is the author of Annex 5, with editing by Dominque Bambini and Richard Poynder. CC-BY 2015 National Science Communication Institute (nSCI) www.nationalscience.org [email protected] nSCI is a US-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization First edition, January 2015 Final version, April 2015 Recommended citation: Open Science Initiative Working Group, Mapping the Future of Scholarly
    [Show full text]
  • India's March Towards Open Access Subbiah Arunachalam 5 March 2004 Source: Scidev.Net
    SciDev.Net 28 June 2005 print India's march towards open access Subbiah Arunachalam 5 March 2004 Source: SciDev.Net Subbiah Arunachalam argues that the best way to make scientific research more available worldwide is to encourage scientists to self-archive their research. The author is a distinguished fellow at the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India. In December 2003, the Indian National Science Academy (INSA) held a one-day conference on access to scientific data and information as part of its annual meeting in Pune. The conference was held to address two key problems faced by Indian scientists — poor access to international journals and the low visibility of papers published by Indian scientists — and the possible solutions offered by electronic publishing and open archives. Inaugurating the conference, Raghunath A. Mashelkar, director-general of India's Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, spoke of how international organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) were helping developing countries improve electronic access to expensive journals through the HINARI and AGORA programmes, respectively. Unfortunately, however, India has not benefited from either of these programmes. Although journal publishers are willing to provide toll-free electronic access to researchers in countries where relatively few scientists read their journals, they are not prepared to do so in larger developing countries such as India, where they already have a considerable number of subscribers. Yet India's average gross domestic product (GDP) is, per capita, less than half the threshold agreed upon by the WHO and FAO when they set up the HINARI and AGORA programmes.
    [Show full text]
  • Comment Communication for Development. an Indian Experience
    SISSA – International School for Advanced Studies Journal of Science Communication ISSN 1824 – 2049 http://jcom.sissa.it/ Comment Communication for development. An Indian experience Subbiah Arunachalam “Knowledge and information are essential for people to respond successfully to the opportunities and challenges of social, economic and technological changes (…). But to be useful, knowledge and information must be effectively communicated to people”, says the Food and Agricultural Organization. India is home to a number of ICT-enabled development initiatives, and we will look at one of them to learn how an effective communication strategy is used. ICT makes a difference to a fishing village Veerampattinam is a fishing village ten kilometers south of Pondicherry on the eastern coast of southern India. It is a fairly clean village with rectangular roads and a wide beach and has a population of about 6,200 people, most of whom belong to the fishing community. At the centre of the village is the temple, surrounded by the water tank, the village school, a few shops, the marketplace, and the office of the local Panchayat (the traditional village government). Apart from the annual temple car festival, when the deity is taken round the main streets of the village on the decorated car pulled by hundreds of devotees, which attracts a few thousand pilgrims from far off places, nothing is noteworthy about this village. But that changed seven years ago when the villagers requested a non-governmental organization called the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) to set up a knowledge centre and provided space in one half of a rectangular room that serves as the Panchayat office.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemistry Research in India in a Global Perspective – a Scientometrics Profile
    Preprint submitted to arXiv on 8 February 2020 Chemistry research in India in a global perspective – A scientometrics profile Muthu Madhan,ac Subbiah Gunasekaran,b Rani M T,c Subbiah Arunachalamc* and T A Abinandananc aAzim Premji University, Bengaluru, India, 560100 bCentral Electrochemical Research Institute, Karaikudi, India, 630006 cDST-Centre for Policy Research, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India, 560012. Muthu Madhan [[email protected]]; Subbiah Gunasekaran [[email protected]]; Rani M T [[email protected]]; Subbiah Arunachalam [[email protected]]; T A Abinandanan [[email protected]] *Author for correspondence Abstract We measure India’s contribution to chemistry research in a global perspective. In the five years 2011-2015 Indian researchers have published 62,448 papers in 557 journals. In terms of % share, India (with 6.9% of the world’s publications) is behind only China (25%) and USA (17%). But only 0.86% of papers from India are among the top 1% of the most highly cited papers of the world, compared to 4.86% of papers from Singapore, 2.65% of papers from USA, 2.09% of papers from China, 1.87% of papers from the UK, 1.71% of papers from South Korea and 1.6% of papers from Germany. Papers from India are cited 14.68 times on average compared to cites per paper of 45.34 for Singapore, 30.47 for USA, 23.12 for China, 26.51 for the UK, 21.77 for South Korea and 24.77 for Germany. Less than 39% of papers from India are found in quartile 1 (high impact factor) journals, compared to 53.6% for China and 53.8% for South Korea.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access in India: Hopes and Frustrations
    Open Access in India: Hopes and Frustrations Subbiah Arunachalam <[email protected]> Subbiah Arunachalam 19 September 2007 Berlin 5, Padua, Italy India has a large S&T research community and Indian researchers perform research in a wide variety of areas. India trains a very large number of scientists and engineers and a large percent of the best graduates migrate to the West. One would think that everything is fine with science and technology in India. Far from it. In terms of the number of papers published in refereed journals, in terms of the number of citations to these papers, in terms of citations per paper, and in terms of international awards and recognitions won, India’s record is not all that encouraging. Subbiah Arunachalam 19 September 2007 Berlin 5, Padua, Italy Data from WoS for India Year No. of papers 2004 24659 2005 27340 2006 30641 India, after near stagnation, is now on the growth path. Subbiah Arunachalam 19 September 2007 Berlin 5, Padua, Italy Scientists do research and communicate results to other scientists. They build on what is already known, on what others have done – the ‘shoulders of giants’ as Newton said. Indian scientists face two problems common to scientists everywhere, but acutely felt by scientists in poorer countries : Access and Visibility 1. They are unable to access what other scientists have done, because of the high costs of access. With an annual per capita GDP well below US $1,000, most Indian libraries cannot afford to subscribe to key journals needed by their users. Most scientists in India are forced to work in a situation of information poverty.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Justice in Scholarly Publishing: Open Access Is the Only Way
    Post-print Published in American Journal of Bioethics http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1366194 Social Justice in Scholarly Publishing: Open Access is the Only Way Subbiah Arunachalam DST Centre for Policy Research Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru 560 012 India [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4398-4658 http://www.researcherid.com/rid/B-9925-2009 We live in an unequal world. There are tremendous differences between countries and between regions in a country in whatever characteristics we want to compare, be it the per capita income, educational opportunities, access to healthcare facilities or capacity to generate new knowledge. The difference is very pronounced in scientific and technical research, in terms of both volume and impact.1 Writing about the distribution of science among countries some three decades ago, Frame et al had shown that the distribution of land area, national population and GDP, as bad as they are, are not so poor as the distribution of mainstream scientific research as reflected by Science Citation Index.2 Back then just ten countries accounted for more than 83% of the world’s scientific literature. Added to these differences are the prejudices inherent to human beings. It is against this backdrop, I would like to view what Chattopadhyay et al have said on the happenings in global bioethics research.3 Chattopadhyay et al. describe the difficulty faced by Low and Middle Income Country (LMIC) researchers in accessing research literature produced/published in the West essential for them to be equal partners in research and getting their own published in journals published from the West.
    [Show full text]
  • The Changing Landscape and Future of Open Access in India
    ICDL(International Conference on Digital Libraries) 2016: Smart Future: Knowledge Trends that will Change the World. 13-16 Dec. 2016. IHC, New Delhi The Changing Landscape and Future of Open Access in India Leena Shah1, Vrushali Dandawate2 and Sridhar Gutam3 1Formerly, Nanyang Technological University; DOAJ Ambassador (South India) <[email protected]> 2AISSMS College of Engineering College Pune; DOAJ Ambassador (West India) <[email protected]> 3ICAR RCER Research Centre Ranchi; DOAJ Ambassador (East India) <[email protected]> Abstract The past few years has seen a tremendous change in information production and growth with new knowledge disciplines added into academics. With journal subscription costs increasing at 8-10% annually(Miller 2015), libraries worldwide are finding it difficult to sustain subscription costs to scholarly material. On the other hand making information and data available in interoperable electronic formats freely is a concept that is gaining momentum and OA (Open Access) holds promise to remove both price and permission barriers to scientific communication with the help of the internet. Scientists, policy makers, NGOs, government agencies and librarians are also collaborating together for OA implementation and making knowledge affordable to all. OA journals play a key role in making scholarly material immediately available on the internet. Keywords: open access, open access movement India, scholarly publishing, predatory publishers Introduction The OA movement in India started by advocates like Subbiah Arunachalam is more than a decade old. It is now gaining momentum with various organizations and departments under Government of India such as the DBT (Department of Biotechnology) and DST (Department of Science and Technology) adopting OA policies in 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Mainstream” and “Peripheral” Science1
    Open Access and the divide between “mainstream” and “peripheral” science1 Jean-Claude Guédon Université de Montréal 1 Introduction: scientific “fields” and scientific forms of power The discussions that have accompanied the development of Open Access have involved many different, actors, each with a particular point of view. As a result, the ensuing debates have been marked by the complex criss-crossing of various forms of discourse that often fly past each other without meeting. A fair degree of opacity has resulted from this situation, with the consequence that some of the concerns that should have been placed at the heart of the Open Access strategies have largely been neglected. For example, the stratified, competitive nature of science is largely admitted by most, but its evolution into what increasingly appears as an oligarchic power structure is less present in discussions and left unquestioned. Clearly, the structure of scientific power is affected by Open Access, and, as result, that structure should be kept in mind while framing strategies aimed at fostering Open Access. It is difficult to imagine, except rhetorically, how advocating for Open Access can be divorced from working for a different structuring of power in science. This issue is particularly important for developing and emerging countries. A theoretical detour will help set up the issue of power in science more sharply. Since the 1970's, Pierre Bourdieu, the well-known French sociologist, has argued that all cultural and intellectual activities should be analyzed in specific terms. The quest for success in literature may structurally be analyzed in terms that are structurally similar to those used to approach science, but the particulars are altogether different.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Indian Researchers Pay to Get Their Work Published?
    GENERAL ARTICLES Should Indian researchers pay to get their work published? Muthu Madhan*, Siva Shankar Kimidi, Subbiah Gunasekaran and Subbiah Arunachalam Paying to publish is an ethical issue. During 2010–14, Indian researchers have used 488 open access (OA) journals levying article processing charge (APC), ranging from US$ 7.5 to 5,000, to publish about 15,400 papers. Use of OA journals levying APC has increased from 242 journals and 2,557 papers in 2010 to 328 journals and 3,634 papers in 2014. We estimate that India is poten- tially spending about US$ 2.4 million annually on APCs paid to OA journals and the amount would be much more if we add APCs paid to make papers published in hybrid journals open access. It would be prudent for Indian authors to make their work freely available through interoperable re- positories, a trend that is growing in Latin America and China, especially when funding is scarce. Scientists are ready to pay APC as long as institutions pay for it and funding agencies are not ready to insist that grants provided for research should not be used for paying APC. Keywords: Article processing charge, hybrid OA journals, institutional repositories, OA policy, open access journals. MORE than two decades ago, Harnad posted his subver- used by Indian researchers is in the range INR 500 (~US$ sive proposal to a mailing list in which he called on re- 8)–US$ 5000. searchers ‘to make copies of all the papers they published OA journal publishing, particularly by commercial in scholarly journals freely available on the internet’1,2.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access to Legal Scholarship: Dropping the Barriers to Discourse and Dialogue
    JICLT Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology Vol. 7, Issue 1 (2012) Open Access to Legal Scholarship: Dropping the Barriers to Discourse and Dialogue Richard A. Danner Ruffy Research Professor of Law Senior Associate Dean for Information Services Duke Law School, Durham, N.C. Abstract: This article focuses on the importance of free and open access to legal scholarship and commentary on the law. It argues that full understanding of authoritative legal texts requires access to informed commentary as well as to the texts of the law themselves, and that free and open access to legal commentary will facilitate cross-border dialogue and foster international discourse in law. The paper discusses the obligations of scholars and publishers of legal commentary to make their work as widely accessible as possible. Examples of institutional and disciplinary repositories for legal scholarship are presented, as are the possible impacts of such initiatives as the Durham Statement on Open Access to Legal Scholarship. 1. The Free Access to Law Movement The Declaration on Free Access to Law states that: Public legal information from all countries and international institutions is part of the common heritage of humanity. Maximising access to this information promotes justice and the rule of law; Public legal information is digital common property and should be accessible to all on a non- profit basis and free of charge; Organisations such as legal information institutes have the right to publish public legal information and the government bodies that create or control that information should provide access to it so that it can be published by other parties.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dissenting Note on Article Processing Charges
    A dissenting note on Article Processing Charges Madhan Muthu and Arul George Scaria This note is intended to convey our disagreement (and the reasons for our disagreement) with Sec. 4A(4) of the draft recommendations made by TG-1 on Access to Knowledge and Resources. Current draft of Sec. 4A(4) reads as follows: Article Processing Charges: (a) (ST) APC payments by authors via grants is discouraged, but permitted for reputable journals only when there is no option. Green OA is preferred. The Government may negotiate with reputable Open Access publishers who charge APCs to remove the burden of APCs from researchers, either via a system where APCs are invoiced directly to the government, or via a subscription-like mechanism, so that Indian researchers can submit to such journals without being concerned about APCs. Predatory publishers must be strictly excluded. (b) (MT) The central payment system for APCs should be functional for all reputable APC-based journals, and payment of APCs directly by authors via grants should be discontinued, as payment by authors is not an acceptable policy. Sec. 4A(4) is referring to publication models wherein an author pays the article processing charges (“APC”) for publishing her manuscript and for making the manuscript open access through the publishers’ websites. There are different versions of this business model and this includes the gold open access model (wherein the journal follows this business model for all articles published in the journal) and the hybrid open access model (wherein a traditional subscription based journal makes certain articles open access in return for payment of APC).
    [Show full text]