Cutting The Costs Of Open Access Research

Is it feasible to run a high quality open access journal with operating costs of just $6 USD (£4.50 GBP) per paper?

Other open access journals often charge upwards of $500 USD to get a paper reviewed and published, but $6 USD per paper is the model that has been proposed by Kyle Niemeyer.

$6 USD Per Paper?

I came across an interesting presentation from Kyle given at SciPy 2017 and also documented in a more traditional paper where he discussed the design and development of the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS). This particular journal is used to archive software packages and largely exists within the $6 USD per paper cost range, although there’s no reason that a similar technique wouldn’t work for more traditional papers.

Kyle calculates the $6 USD per paper figure, which depends on the journal publishing 100 articles per year, as follows:

  • Crossref membership (needed for DOIs and journal indexing) = $275 USD per year + $1 USD per paper = $375 per year
  • Web hosting using Heroku = $19 USD per month = $228 per year

Total = $603 USD per year

(or $6.03 USD per paper)

The system looks to largely be dependent on GitHub.

As expected, many attendees at the open source conference where JOSS was discussed expressed positive views of the idea:

Subsequent discussion has however noted that there are some sacrifices needed to get the $6 USD per paper cost.

For instance, this requires heavily on volunteer labour, including from those people developing the software to “run” the journal in the first place. A lot of free work is put in by reviewers and editors, although that’s true of many open source journals. There may also be issues with creating redundancy in the system, which is something that’s important for the long-term archiving of academic papers.

At present, charges aren’t made directly to authors. The journal is relying on funding that has been put into it to cover the running costs. For this to be more sustainable in the longer-term, consideration to funding would need to be made, including all of the legal entity issues that come with handling money and the needs to guarantee service.

Alternative Approaches

There may also be ways to cut the costs still further. Martin Paul Eve suggests that CrossRef membership with 50 DOIs included could be possible for €75 per year (£66 GBP, $90 USD). He also recommends the use of the CLOCKSS archival service at $200 USD per year, which may solve the issue of needing reliable long-term service and archiving. He also suggests the use of Open Journal Systems, which could remove some of the technical complexity.

One idea that I’d like to see explored further would be more use of peer-to-peer hosting to archive academic papers. (Legal) torrent style services could be used which would also introduce some further redundancy into the system.

There could well be an interesting student project looking at putting these different approaches together in a way that is both cost-effective and allows for a new open access journal to be set up with the minimum possible technical complexity.

Taking all of these issues into account, it would be challenging for a journal to maintain a $6 USD publication point. But it should be possible to substantially cut the costs of open access publishing from the figures that researchers are charged by many journals today.

Plagiarism and Assessment

I regularly discuss issues relating to the assessment of student work when I give presentations on plagiarism, contract cheating and academic misconduct. Since good assessment design is essential to engage students and reduce the potential for cheating, I would find it very difficult to talk about plagiarism and not incorporate assessment into the mix.

It does seem that such an approach is not always true in general. Some work on plagiarism does incorporate assessment. However, work on assessment does not seem to as regularly to incorporate plagiarism.


Academic Papers Referring To Plagiarism And Assessment

The table below shows the number of matches on Google Scholar for the search terms assessment, plagiarism and assessment plagiarism. Patents and citations are excluded, so these searches generally map to academic publications.

all since 2013 since 2016 since 2017
assessment 5,570,000 996,000 371,000 104,000
plagiarism 312,000 31,400 29,100 13,100
assessment plagiarism 61,600 17,700 15,200 5,510


The overall figures suggest that 19.7% of papers on plagiarism also talk about assessment. However, only 1.1% of papers on assessment also talk about plagiarism.

This is, however, something of a simplistic measure, as academic papers use the word assessment to refer to subjects other than work with students. Topics cover such areas as the assessment of fish stock data sets, clinical assessments and the assessment of global warning. Looking through the first few pages of results, I’d estimate that around 1 in 10 uses of assessment actually refer to academic assessments.

By the same token, the rough numbers listed for plagiarism and assessment plagiarism are rather crude. Plagiarism, for instance, is used in other contexts, for instance when talking about plagiarism in books, in popular culture and as part of research misconduct. But this is relatively fair. I believe that it is fair to say that papers relating to plagiarism refer to assessment around twice as often as papers relating to assessment refer to plagiarism (20% compared with 11%).

The good news is that assessment and plagiarism research does seem to have more closely interlinked.

Making similar assumptions to those above:

  • since 2013, 56% of papers relating to plagiarism refer also to assessment, compared with 18% of papers on assessment referring to plagiarism
  • since 2016, 52% of papers relating to plagiarism refer also to assessment, compared with 41% of papers on assessment referring to plagiarism
  • since 2017, 42% of papers relating to plagiarism refer also to assessment, compared with 52% of papers on assessment referring to plagiarism

(the latter data set is relatively small, as 2017 is still in progress, so I would recommend treating that final result with caution)

The trend to relate these two areas does seem to be one that it moving in the right direction.


Academic Paper Titles Referring To Plagiarism And Assessment

To get an alternative measure, I repeated the search on Google Scholar looking for the words plagiarism and assessment in the paper titles.

You can do this using the useful intitle: search term, as below:

all since 2013 since 2016 since 2017
assessment 831,000 71,600 73,900 19,000
plagiarism 5,460 1,770 602 224
assessment plagiarism 60 30 8 2

(note that these figures suggest that papers on assessment were withdrawn between 2013 and 2016, but that is likely to be a glitch based on the way that Google estimates the size of large data sets like these – the overall trends still seem reasonable)


A quick verification of the matches suggests that the 10% figure for the proportion of the assessment results relating to education stills holds.

The results here are interesting in that, although the indications are that assessment and plagiarism are becoming increasingly mentioned in the same papers, this is not a strong link (it is rare to see both terms mentioned in the paper titles).

Looking at all four columns in the time period, the results are relatively similar:

  • between 0.9% and 1.7% of papers referring to plagiarism in the title also refer to assessment
  • between 0.07% and 0.4% of papers referring to assessment in the title also refer to plagiarism

There are few strong links between plagiarism and assessment in research papers. Where these strong links exists, they are almost always a paper on plagiarism that also incorporates assessment (not the other way around).

With that said, the relatively small number of papers demonstrating that they have closely considered plagiarism and assessment would look perfect to review for a focused literature review.


Research Flaws and Opportunities

The numbers here are very rough and ready. The approximation of the percentage of assessment papers relating to educational assessment is exactly that (a rough estimate) and may change from year-to-year. But I feel that there is enough here to illustrate general trends.

(there may also be some simple fixes for this – for instance, I wonder what the results would show if the word education was added to every search?)

Google Scholar, by its nature, is not a perfect system. It doesn’t record every paper, or with the same level of detail. And, sometimes non-papers slip in (I noticed a small number of assessment briefs with accompanying plagiarism statements in there).

It would be interesting to look at a corpus of abstracts to more accurately investigate the research links between plagiarism and assessment.

It would be useful to collect the results on a year-by-year basis to investigate trends, rather than rely on the general groups of dates that Google Scholar offers by default.

It would also be useful to examine alternative wording. For instance, is the term academic integrity linked with assessment research?

And, of course, similar techniques could be used to analyse research links between any two terms, even those completely outside of education.

Maybe I shall try some of those areas out when I have more time. Or, if anyone is interested in working with me on some data mining based research, let me know. There is certainly potential here as well to identify good terminology to use in academic paper titles (think search engine optimisation for academic research).


Web Pages on Assessment and Plagiarism

Even outside of pure academic research, these are rare.

Google finds only 953 web pages with both assessment and plagiarism in the title.

They are an interesting set of pages, many relating to regulations. Maybe I’ll talk more about that in a future post. The suggested related searches are also telling in many ways.

This can be plagiarism and assessment web page result #954.


Examining The State of Academic Integrity in Europe – Recommendations From SEEPPAI

This presentation focused on sharing the main results and recommendations from the South East European Project on Policies for Academic Integrity (SEEPPAI).

Everything is focused around academic integrity, with particular reference to Romania, where I spoke at an event organised by Turnitin. From my observations of the wider European challenges with regards to academic integrity and discussions in Romania itself, the findings of SEEPPAI are consistent with much of European Europe and South Eastern Europe.

You can see the slides used in the academic integrity presentation on my SlideShare account. They are also embedded below.

Some of the observations relate to what I see as a key challenge regarding student plagiarism. That is, educating students about academic writing and academic integrity and working with them to ensure that teaching is fit for purpose. That’s something I believe we can all work on, regardless of where in Europe or the wider world we’re based.

Building Student Digital Capability In Computing And Digital Technologies Through A Hackathon Community

My first Staffordshire University Teaching and Learning Conference proved to be a useful day and a good chance for me to find out more about the digital initiatives in progress around the institution.

I presented on the benefits of hackathons and community for students, based on my previous work and observations of developments since, which I’m pleased to say are driven directly by students. I also discussed how hackathons could provide for elements of authentic assessment, an initiative which is often recommended as a solution for contract cheating.

You can see the slides used in the presentation on my SlideShare account. They are also embedded below.

The conference itself was interesting, sharing much good work going on around Staffordshire University and featuring a keynote presentation from Eric Stoller. Eric reminded the audience how useful it is for them to be active on social media and many of the great discussions taking place on Twitter to improve teaching and learning. I was glad to see one of my contributions featured in what was really a portfolio of tweets.

It seems that social media can bring a new zest to teaching and learning for even the most seasoned academic. Tony Bickley used the phrase “Twitter has changed my life” in his discussion, where he talked about all the new connections he’d made and the new ideas he’d had. There is certainly real value to developing a learning and support community outside of an internal university group.

I’ve also collected together a Storify with many of the tweets from the day.

Contract Cheating and Essay Mills 2017 Findings Part 7 – Understanding Contract Cheating From The Student Viewpoint

This is Part 7 (the final part) of the 7 part series examining Findings From Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond 2017

It was really positive to see the views of students strongly represented at Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond 2017. There were some student participants (I’d like to see support for more students to attend), as well as presentations where the views of students were directly reported.

Why Do Students Resort To Contract Cheating?

The question about why students cheat, plagiarise and fail to demonstrate academic integrity is a long-standing one. The specific analysis of the motives behind students resorting to contract cheating is less developed, but many wider principles still seem to hold.

The issue of the marketisation of higher education was discussed at several points during the conference. Wendy Sutherland-Smith said how students perceived buying an essay as just a business deal, citing some of my work with Robert Clarke where we’ve observed similar behaviours. Other people said that the high cost of fees was a main cause of contract cheating.

Although I’m sure that there are elements of truth here, and I’ve referred many times to the cost of failure, where the prospect of having to repeat a year and pay high fees makes contract cheating into a risk that some will feel is worth taking, marketisation itself does not tell the whole story. I think this is a reason that some students are using to justify cheating, rather than the cause of it.

To back this idea up, I’d also refer to the SEEPPAI work I’ve been involved with in Europe, as well as developments I’m aware of in the wider world. Contract cheating still seems common in countries with no fees and even in places where students are awarded a grant. This means that discussions about the reasons why contract cheating takes place can’t be boiled down into a simple soundbite.

What Factors Contribute To Contract Cheating?

Several presentations considered why contract cheating takes place. Students in the Czech Republic, as surveyed by Veronika Kralikova, gave a single main reason which must also sum up a lot of quick turnaround advertisements made by the essay industry. Their reason for contract cheating was a lack of time.

Student advocates form Australia who worked alongside Wendy Sutherland-Smith identified multiple reasons why contract cheating took place. A main reason for contract cheating was fear of failure, an area that could be considered a possible consequence of a lack of time. Two more views from this work are also worth considering. The first was where students were said to have a goal of passing a subject, not learning about it, perhaps particularly relevant where they did not feel they would use the subject in the future. The second was where students were said to be not understand the seriousness of contract cheating. Those latter two views do not closely overlap, so it may be that there are several conceptions about contract cheating that need to be considered when working with students.

One of the main recommendations to come back from the work with student advocates in Australia is that students need specific modules on academic integrity. These modules need to be mandatory and a step change from the single lecture telling students not to plagiarise that is all that many students seem to get now.

Further, the teaching of academic integrity needs to be addressed on a global level. During our SE Europe research for SEEPPAI, we identified that many students are not even taught the basics about plagiarism, referencing or academic writing. These are core ideas that need to be taught as the basis for a strong commitment to academic integrity and reinforced for both staff and students continually throughout an academic career.

Working In Partnership With Students

I was very pleased to see the presentations and contributions about working in partnership with students to reduce contract cheating. Having a senior member of the National Union of Studies (NUS) in the UK attend the conference also showed how the issue is being considered as vital for discussion on a national level.

As well as providing something of a general theme, work with student advocates also provided the focus for Wendy Sutherland-Smith’s presentation.

Wendy also mentioned the fantastic work going on at Deakin University looking at contract cheating awareness, which has really led the way for activities going on in other countries. Deakin ran a contract cheating awareness week last year and plans to repeat it this year.

More widely, the first International Day of Action on Contract Cheating took place in 2016, with universities around the world participating to use local activities and social media to have a positive influence on academic integrity. I’m delighted to say that this activity is happening again in 2017.

The second International Day of Action on Contract Cheating will take place on 18 October 2017. I hope that many more universities can take part.

Page 1 of 25123456»1020...Last »