sign in sign up
<<
Home , Scientific literature

Scientific Authors in a Changing World of Scholarly Communication: What Does the Future Hold?

The Harvard community has made this openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters

Citation Baffy, Gyorgy, Michele M Burns, Beatrice Hoffmann, Subha Ramani, Sunil Sabharwal, Jonathan F Borus, Susan Pories, Stuart F Quan, and Julie R Ingelfinger. 2020. "Scientific Authors in a Changing World of Scholarly Communication: What Does the Future Hold?" The American Journal of 133, no. 1: 26-31.

Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42668883

Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP

Scientific Authors in a Changing World of Scholarly Communication: What Does the

Future Hold?

Running Head: Author Prospects in Scholarly Communication

Gyorgy Baffy, MD, PhD* 1,2,9, Michele M. Burns, MD3,9, Beatrice Hoffmann, MD, PhD4,9, Subha

Ramani, MBBS, PhD2,9, Sunil Sabharwal, MBBS5,9, Jonathan F. Borus, MD6,9, Susan Pories,

MD7,9, Stuart F. Quan, MD2,9, Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD8,9

1Department of Medicine, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; 2Department of Medicine,

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; 3Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children’s

Hospital, Boston, MA; 4Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical

Cente, Boston, MA; 5Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, VA Boston

Healthcare System, Boston, MA; 6Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women’s Hospital,

Boston, MA; 7Department of Surgery, Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, MA; 8Department of

Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; 9Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

*Corresponding Author: Gyorgy Baffy, MD, PhD, VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 S.

Huntington Avenue, Room 6A-46, Boston, Massachusetts 02130, USA. Email: [email protected]. Phone: 1-857-364-4327. Fax: 1-857-364-4179

Word Count ( + Main Text + Acknowledgment): 2,714

Contributions: GB conceived the paper and drafted the . All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and contributed important intellectual content. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Conflict of Interest Statement for All Authors: The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding Information: This work has received no funding.

Article Type: Narrative review

Key Words: Open access; self-archiving; ; predatory publishing; pre-print repository

1 CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

• Scholarly communication is being transformed by complex digital tools such as online

access, social media and big data management

• Scientific publishing, as a platform of scholarly communication to disseminate

findings and guide clinical practice, is facing major challenges and opportunities in this

era of transition

• Current trends in scientific publishing may require new strategies from the academic and

medical author community to protect enduring values and embrace promising

developments

2 ABSTRACT

Scholarly communication in , technology and medicine has been organized around journal-based scientific publishing for the past 350 years. Scientific publishing has unique business models and includes stakeholders with conflicting interests – publishers, funders, , and scholars who create, curate, and consume the literature. Massive growth and change in scholarly communication, coinciding with digitalization, have amplified stresses inherent in traditional scientific publishing as evidenced by overwhelmed editors and reviewers, increased retraction rates, emergence of pseudo-journals, strained budgets, and debates about the metrics of academic recognition for scholarly achievements. Simultaneously, several open access models are gaining traction and online technologies offer opportunities to augment traditional tasks of scientific publishing, develop integrated discovery services, and establish global and equitable scholarly communication through crowdsourcing, software development, big data management and machine learning. These rapidly evolving developments raise financial, legal and ethical dilemmas that require solutions while successful strategies are difficult to predict. Key challenges and trends are reviewed from the authors’ perspective about how to engage the scholarly community in this multifaceted process.

3 INTRODUCTION

Scientific publishing dates from 1665 when Henry Oldenburg founded Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society, the first journal serving its subscribers with a digest of scholarly reports,1 followed in 1684 by Medicina Curiosa, the first periodical entirely devoted to medicine.2 Today, journals represent a fundamental form of scholarly communication with over

42,000 peer-reviewed periodicals published worldwide.3 The digital revolution has created unprecedented opportunities for scientific publishing. Global search engines may find almost any of the more than 150 million scientific documents ever published.3 Nearly instantaneous communication has dramatically improved our ability to globally share, debate, endorse and reuse research methods and findings.4 An increasing fraction of peer-reviewed scholarly output is published as ‘Open Access’ (OA), allowing the user to read the articles at no charge and reuse their content in varying degrees. Similarly, vast online databases for genomics, proteomics and metabolomics research have become publicly available (‘’).

Additionally, various types of social media are used to promote scholarly work and engage a spectrum of professionals in conversations across the world. At the same time, sharply increasing subscription charges have put university libraries under financial pressure and have discouraged individual clinicians and from subscribing.5 Exponential growth in has overwhelmed journal editors and peer reviewers, many of whom donate substantial amounts of unpaid effort to evaluate the scientific value of submitted manuscripts. With online publishing, predatory journals and plagiarism have become an increasing concern.6,7 Furthermore, ‘pirate’ operations illegally posting millions of academic papers have emerged to meet the perceived needs of readers with limited online access.8

Key stakeholder groups have fixed priorities as they adapt to the changing world of scholarly communication. Authors pursue academic rewards and readership want free access, while many publishers pursue higher profit margins and libraries strive to their role as custodians of scientific literature. Some of these are conflicting goals that will require new strategies to

4 succeed. Here we review this process from the perspective of authors of scientific literature to explore answers to the following questions: 1) Who will pay for tomorrow’s scientific publishing?

2) How will current publishing trends impact the academic promotion process? 3) Will fairness and equity in scientific publishing be assured and sustained? and 4) How will key stakeholders and their priorities change scholarly communication?

Who will pay for tomorrow’s scientific publishing?

Scientific publishing is an industry with unusual business models. Unlike authors of literary articles and who are remunerated by publishers, academic authors who may or may not be supported by funding agencies offer their scholarly reports for publication without expectations of being paid by publishers. Traditionally, readers and libraries have financed the costs of scientific publishing via individual and institutional subscription or by paying access fees

(Figure 1A). Since 1996, one subscription model termed ‘Big Deal’ has been widely used to offer bundled journals of high and low impact to libraries rather than selling à la carte access.9

The model resulted in remarkable profits for certain large publishers but proved to be less practical for libraries as the bundles contained many titles of limited interest.10 While opting-out of bundles has been difficult without losing access to prestigious journals bundled into the mix, many libraries have reconsidered their costly subscription portfolios and engaged in bitter negotiations with academic publishers. For example, in February 2019, the University of

California system cancelled its multimillion-dollar contract with the publishing giant, Elsevier, cutting off institutional access to new articles in 2,500 journals.11

Scientific publishing can also be financed via up-front publication sponsorship or page charges paid by funders and/or authors. In one model, authors pay article-processing charges (APCs) and publishers grant Gold OA status to online versions of individual manuscripts, making them freely available immediately after publication (Figure 1B). APCs may shift the financial burden from readers and libraries to grant budgets funded by governments, non-profit and

5 pharmaceutical entities.12 Gold OA may disproportionately burden highly productive institutions and penalize authors without sufficient funding.13 Some publishers follow a ‘hybrid’ model in which a journal charges a subscription fee but authors also may opt to pay and make their paper OA, so that libraries and authors actually pay twice for the same product.14 Gold OA does not necessarily involve APCs and may be based on institutional support or sponsorship

(sometimes referred to as Platinum OA). For example, Projekt DEAL, an alliance of nearly 700

German institutions aiming to establish a licensing agreement with the largest scientific publishers, supports free access to scientific manuscripts (‘Publish and Read’).15 That financial model stipulates annual lump sum payments to publishers by the government or academic consortia in exchange for online access by anyone to all articles originating from eligible institutions (Figure 1C). It is unclear whether any specific payment paradigm will predominate in the scientific publishing community.

Green OA represents another model of publishing as it involves self-archiving of scientific articles by uploading the work into institutional repositories or personal websites to provide free access with or without an embargo period during which the publisher also may collect revenues

(Figure 1D). From a mere 88 entries at its launch in 2005, the Directory of Open Access

Repositories listed 4,233 scientific repositories worldwide as of July 2019.16 Similar to Gold OA, self-archiving improves visibility and results in figures twice as high as for paywalled papers.17 Remarkably, one study of global health research indicates that over 60% of authors do not use repositories even if doing so conforms to journal policy and costs nothing.17

Depending on the stage of publishing, manuscripts in OA repositories may have already benefited from peer review and in-house discussion, editorial processing, rewriting and statistical consultation as well as journal branding. Since self-archiving of papers may violate transfer agreements, over 80 universities worldwide adopted rights-retention OA policies to help the creation of legally compliant repositories.18 Copyright also provides many

6 publishers with major revenue from selling reprints and permissions to reuse content, marking a key distinction between subscription-based and OA publishing. As first articulated in 2001, the goal of OA publishing is to allow the reader to freely read, download, print, copy, distribute, search or link articles and build upon their data with recognition of authorship as the only requirement.19 This reader-centric principle corresponds to CC BY, the most accommodating copyright license developed by Creative Commons, an American non-profit organization that provides free copyright licenses allowing users to share the copyrighted work.20

How will current publishing trends impact the academic promotion process?

Because today’s academic success and promotion greatly depend on authors’ ability to publish in the most prestigious journals21, top-notch scientific journals are extremely competitive and have single-digit article acceptance rates. Without profound changes in the mechanisms of research funding and academic promotion guidelines, authors and academic systems will likely continue to focus on perceived journal prestige hierarchy rather than fully weigh the benefits of

OA publishing. Alternatively, academic institutions may ultimately choose to revise their current policies for promotion and tenure. A change from journal-based to paper-based recognition is being promoted by the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, developed in 2012 by a group of professional societies, publishers and research agencies, which recommends valuing what (the quality of the content), and not where (the journal), a manuscript has been published, with the number of times an article is cited by others rather than journal impact factors being the more valuable promotion parameter.22 Scientific authors’ publishing preference may shift as prestigious OA journals are increasingly developed either as new ventures or by greater open online access to traditional journals.23

Governmental and private funding agencies can also profoundly shape academic publishing practices. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust have already mandated that all research findings supported by their funds need to be published in OA

7 journals under CC BY license without embargo, thus blocking publication in several leading journals.24,25 , an ambitious but controversial project recently created by a coalition of research funders from twelve European countries with the support of the European

Commission, has set a goal of 2020 by which all state-funded scientific authors should use OA, preferably under CC BY, for their publications.26,27 Since the pharmaceutical industry prefers rapid publication and broad visibility, the balance may be further shifted towards OA publishing.

In another development, authors funded by the Biohub of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), an emerging supporter of basic science, are required to post pre-print manuscripts online before peer review.24 CZI strongly supports bioRxiv, an OA pre-print repository for biological research founded in 2013.28 Apparently, bioRxiv, medRxiv and other pre-print services eliminate any delay in publishing and provide free share, but do not benefit from peer review and greatly depend on authors’ self-discipline.

Will fairness and equity in scientific publishing be assured and sustained?

Recent estimates put the number of annually published scholarly articles at over 2.5 million.29

Most papers go through peer review by scientists, trialists and clinicians with sufficient expertise to assess the quality and importance of the given work. Peer review is without financial compensation, yet the typical reviewer volunteers 40 hours each year to this activity.3 Journal editors are further challenged by the facts that only one out of five scientists performs peer reviews regularly and that rapidly emerging scientific communities (e.g., in China) do not supply a proportionate number of reviewers.30 That peer review is not infallible is illustrated by growing retraction rates of papers, which seem to correlate with the of the journal.31

Innovative strategies may mitigate the challenges of the current peer review system. Natural language processing, machine learning and other artificial intelligence tools have begun to revolutionize peer review by facilitating tasks such as evaluating , validating statistics, and detecting plagiarism.32 Several journals already reward peer reviewers by waiving or

8 discounting submission fees, granting time-limited access to discovery services, or providing continuing medical education credit. Universities could provide peer reviewers with academic recognition for their contribution, captured by online services such as ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) or (Clarivate Analytics), which allow members to register and showcase their editorial and reviewer activity. There is some thought that post-publication peer review may invigorate scholarly communication and increase a paper’s value. OA publishing allows the originally posted version to be commented upon and corrected (or even re-posted) after being edited and annotated through community-based review, invited moderation and post-publication quality measures by a broad online readership (i.e., crowdsourcing).33

However, increasing use of post-publication corrections calls for validation and may also make it difficult to support an official for a given research contribution.34 A related question is whether English will remain the primary language of scientific publishing, as rapidly improving translational software capabilities may ultimately render the original language of a scholarly publication immaterial.

Easy availability of digital publishing platforms has encouraged the emergence of ‘predatory’ or

‘pseudo-journals’ on the fringes of mainline scientific publishing.6,35 These strictly online operations avoid the costs of printing and distribution, and aim to tap into the profit margin of

APC-based online publishing. Predatory publishers have aggressive solicitation practices by setting low APCs and promising rapid publication. Pseudo-journals are not indexed by legitimate search databases and discovery services, have a poorly defined or suspiciously broad scope, may falsely include experts on their editorial board, lack rigorous peer review and have unreliable or absent archiving services.36 Although predatory publishing venues primarily target academic communities in developing countries with scarce opportunities for their faculty to publish in major research journals, they have a globally disrupting effect that may jeopardize academic integrity and legitimate OA publishing.37 Curated lists such as the Directory of Open

Access Journals can guide authors to avoid dishonest publishing practices and their journals.16

9

How will key stakeholders and their priorities change scholarly communication?

Libraries may need to develop alternative strategies for survival in this rapidly changing world of scientific publishing.5 Leading universities have substantial endowments that may take further advantage of the global trends for digitization and shape the future of scholarly communication.

There have been initiatives to add value to traditional library services such as providing a single point of entry into a library’s collections such as that offered by ‘UCL Discovery’ at University

College of London or developing software to allow more interaction with research data such as

‘Living Figures’ by F1000Research or through LENS by eLife.9

Keeping thousands of disparate online repositories afloat may not be sustainable, and efforts to develop a comprehensive platform could conceivably yield only a handful of prominent participants and strategies. Self-archiving practices represent a challenge to for-profit publishers, some of which are trying to strengthen their position by moving from journal publishing into research data management and analytics.38 Elsevier has already acquired the discovery platform Mendeley, the and humanities repository SSRN, the research metrics company Plum Analytics, and Bepress (originally Berkeley Electronic Press).39 Bepress has attained substantial market penetration by offering the cloud-based repository Digital

Commons to universities that lack their own repositories.39

Today, almost 50% of online publications can be freely accessed in legally archived repositories.40 Searching through repositories can be made easier by using software such as

Unpaywall, which has over 20 million free-to-access research articles in its database.41 The start-up discovery platform Kopernio provides streamlined, one-click online access to journal articles by integrating PubMed, and other databases and directing users to OA versions.34 Researchers can create a library customized to reflect individual access entitlements and institutional subscriptions.38 In 2018, over 60% of the world’s population owned mobile

10 technologies and internet access that provide a rapidly growing potential consumer for online scholarly communication.42 Some authors fear today’s paywalls may turn into ‘datawalls’ once personal information is requested in exchange for free public access to research articles, a practice difficult to justify but perhaps even more difficult to avoid as repositories become centralized.43

It is hard to predict which of these trends will take hold and gain primacy. Start-up information companies continue to offer new ways to manage rapidly growing databases of scientific information while technology mergers and acquisitions abound. Since the use of complex digital tools and rapidly growing electronic databases require advanced computing skills, internet- based mega-companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple may become interested in spearheading further transformation and outcompete current stakeholders in scholarly communication and develop more user friendly tools.34 Such developments could potentially lead to a few large entities controlling the gateways to scientific knowledge, a sobering thought.

CONCLUSION

Longstanding problems in scientific publishing have been brought to the forefront by the digital revolution, which may also help create remedies to many of these challenges. If successes of other industries are any guide, the transition to global online scientific publishing will require constant adaptation by current stakeholders and may reward newcomers with expertise in computer technology and big data management. Scientific publishing has been a highly profitable industry, and there is little doubt that financial interests will continue to drive its transformation. However, the academic community has a fundamental stake in this process and should understand the trajectories of change to protect enduring values, embrace promising developments, and make scholarly communication increasingly inclusive and efficient.

11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Authors would like to thank all members of the Writing for Scholarship Innovation Group of The

Academy at Harvard Medical School for useful discussions during the preparation of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

1. Cook A. Academic Publications before 1940. In: Fredriksson EH, ed. A century of

science publishing: a collection of essays. Amsterdam; Washington, DC: IOS Press;

2001:15-24.

2. Colman E. The first English medical journal: Medicina Curiosa. Lancet.

1999;354(9175):324-326.

3. Johnson R, Watkinson A, Mabe M. The STM Report. An overview of scientific and

scholarly journal publishing. In: STM: International Association of Scientific TaMP, ed.

5th ed. The Hague: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical

Publishers; 2018.

4. Clarke M. Revisiting: Why Hasn’t Scientific Publishing Been Disrupted Already? [The

Scholarly Kitchen]. 2016; https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/10/26/revisiting-why-

hasnt-scientific-publishing-been-disrupted-already/. Accessed 14 July, 2019.

5. Burns P. publishing is headed for a day of reckoning. [The

Conversation ]. 2017; http://theconversation.com/academic-journal-publishing-is-

headed-for-a-day-of-reckoning-80869. Accessed 14 July, 2019.

6. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. . 2012;489(7415):179.

7. Plagiarism pinioned. Nature. 2010;466(7303):159-160.

8. Bohannon J. Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone. Science.

2016;352(6285):508-512.

12 9. Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques DC, Masuzzo P, Collister LB, Hartgerink CHJ. The

academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review

[version 3; referees: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] F1000Research. 2016;5.

10. Bergstrom TC, Courant PN, McAfee RP, Williams MA. Evaluating big deal journal

bundles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(26):9425-9430.

11. Gaind N. Huge US university cancels subscription with Elsevier. Nature.

2019;567(7746):15-16.

12. Warren M. Big pharma is embracing open-access publishing like never before. Nature.

2019.

13. Solomon DJ, Laakso M, Björk B-C. Converting Scholarly Journals to Open Access: A

Review of Approaches and Experiences. [DASH: Digital Access to Scholarship at

Harvard]. 2016; http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:27803834. Accessed 17

July, 2019.

14. Pinfield S, Salter J, Bath PA. A “Gold- centric” implementation of open access: Hybrid

journals, the “Total cost of publication,” and policy development in the UK and beyond. J

Assoc Inf Sci Tech. 2017;68(9):2248-2263.

15. Vogel G, Kupferschmidt K. Germany seeks 'big flip' in publishing model. Science.

2017;357(6353):744-745.

16. Directory of Open Access Journals a. https://doaj.org. Accessed 20 January, 2019.

17. Smith E, Haustein S, Mongeon P, Shu F, Ridde V, Lariviere V. Knowledge sharing in

global health research - the impact, uptake and cost of open access to scholarly

literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):73.

18. Suber P. Open Access ('the '). 2018;

https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Open_Access_(the_book). Accessed 14 July, 2019.

19. Budapest Open Access Initiative. 2002; https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org.

Accessed 14 July, 2019.

20. Creative Commons. https://creativecommons.org. Accessed 10 July, 2019.

13 21. Lawrence PA. The politics of publication. Nature. 2003;422(6929):259-261.

22. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. 2012; https://sfdora.org/read/.

Accessed 14 July, 2019.

23. Sutton C. Is free inevitable in scholarly communication?: The economics of open access.

College & Research Libraries News. 2011;72(11).

24. Williams T. Big Foundations Keep Making Strides for Open Access Research. [Inside

Philantropy]. 2017; https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2017/2/28/big-foundations-

keep-making-strides-for-open-access-research. Accessed 17 July, 2019.

25. Lariviere V, Sugimoto CR. Do authors comply when funders enforce open access to

research? Nature. 2018;562(7728):483-486.

26. Schiltz M. Science without publication paywalls: cOAlition S for the realisation of full and

immediate Open Access. Front Neurosci. 2018;12:1-3.

27. Haug CJ. No Free Lunch - What Price Plan S for Scientific Publishing? N Engl J Med.

2019;380(12):1181-1185.

28. Callaway E. BioRxiv server gets cash boost from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

Nature. 2017;545(7652):18.

29. White KE. Science and Publication Output Trends: 2017 Shows U.S. Output

Level Slightly Below That of China but the United States Maintains Lead with Highly

Cited Publications. 2019; https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19317/. Accessed July

18, 2019.

30. Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L. The Global Burden of Journal Peer

Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise. PLoS

One. 2016;11(11):e0166387.

31. Brembs B, Button K, Munafo M. Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank.

Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:291.

32. Heaven D. AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind. Nature.

2018;563(7733):609-610.

14 33. Casadevall A, Fang FC. Making the scientific literature fail-safe. J Clin Invest.

2018;128(10):4243-4244.

34. Schonfeld RC. The Supercontinent of Scholarly Publishing? [The Scholarly Kitchen].

2018; https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/05/03/supercontinent-scholarly-

publishing/. Accessed 14 July, 2019.

35. Harvey HB, Weinstein DF. Predatory Publishing: An Emerging Threat to the Medical

Literature. Acad Med. 2017;92(2):150-151.

36. Haug C. The downside of open-access publishing. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(9):791-793.

37. Shen C, Bjork BC. 'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and

market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015;13:230.

38. Worlock D. Take The Library Home at Night. [DavidWorlock.com]. 2018;

http://www.davidworlock.com/2018/03/take-the-library-home-at-night/. Accessed 18 July,

2019.

39. Schonfeld RC. Elsevier Acquires bepress. [The Scholarly Kitchen]. 2017;

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/02/elsevier-acquires-bepress/. Accessed 14

July, 2019.

40. Piwowar H, Priem J, Lariviere V, et al. The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the

prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4375.

41. Else H. How Unpaywall is transforming open science. Nature. 2018;560(7718):290-291.

42. Mobile phone internet user penetration worldwide from 2014 to 2019. [Statista 2019].

2019; https://www.statista.com/statistics/284202/mobile-phone-internet-user-penetration-

worldwide/. Accessed 22 January, 2019.

43. Hinchcliffe LJ. From Paywall to Datawall. The Scholarly Kitchen 2018;

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/10/11/from-paywall-to-datawall/. Accessed 14

July, 2019.

15 Figure Legends

Figure 1. Major business models in scientific publishing. Flow of money ($$$) and research access between authors, publishers, funders and consumers (readers and libraries) is shown.

(A) Traditional model: readers and libraries are required to pay for the articles by individual purchase or subscription. (B) Gold Open Access: publishers collect article-processing charges

(APCs) from authors or funders. (C) Publish and Read: publishers receive lump-sum periodic payments from funders (e.g., government or academic consortia) in exchange to unlimited access by eligible entities. (D) Green Open Access: authors self-archive different versions of their manuscripts by using repositories, thereby partially or totally avoiding payment for access

(dotted arrow).

16