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.

 

Contract Cheating and Essay Mills – Findings From Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond 2017

Much of my blog is devoted to discussions around contract cheating, the area of concern to academic integrity advocates as this sees students use a third party to have work completed for them.

Sessions at the 2017 international conference on Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond ended up heavily focused on contract cheating. Having been part of contact cheating research since the term first formed part of the research literature and having recently published a series of articles marking the 10 year mark for research into contract cheating, I’m always pleased to see how the field is developing, but still have some disappointment that this wider interest took so long to emerge.

I’ve already shared my conference presentation on contract cheating in examinations and provided general collected thoughts about Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond 2017.

It is the conference findings on contract cheating that are of most interest to me. In my next series of posts, I want to share some of the main ideas that have emerged from the collective brains at the conference. Rather than presenting these thoughts linearly, I’ve grouped them into seven thematic areas, although these areas do have some overlap.

Here’s a summary of some of the main contract cheating themes I observed at the conference.

Theme Number Theme Conference Highlights
01 Academic Integrity and Contract Cheating Terminology Some of the conference discussions were challenged by a lack of awareness of contract cheating and a lack of understanding of the main ideas and termninology. Even the term exam was used to mean different things in different contexts.
02 Inside The Contract Cheating Industry Understanding the operations of the essay industry is essential to knowing how the address the issues. In particular, the conference identified the role of large numbers of international ghost-writers in keeping the industry financially viable.
03 Contract Cheating by Academics The behaviours surrounding contract cheating have begun to be observed within groups of academics, particularly where these relate to misconduct in fulfilling research publication quotas.
04 Detecting Contract Cheating Computer scientists and linguistics have been making progress in detecting work that has not been written by the student submitting it. There are many approaches here, but recent developments have focused on stylometry.
05 Emerging Issues In Contract Cheating Wider challenges surrounding educational integrity also influence how contract cheating practice could develop. These include traditional areas of student plagiarism, the use of translation and essay spinning software, as well as the risks posed by students using smart drugs.
06 Which Students Are Contract Cheating And What Does This Mean For Assessment? Recent data collection from students has helped with an understanding of which types of students may need help to avoid contract cheating temptations and which assessment modalities should be considered in place of an essay-oriented curriculum.
07 Understanding Contract Cheating From The Student Viewpoint The views of students have not previously been consistently considered as part of the movement in favour of academic integrity, but there is now much good work going on in this area, including the use of events designed to engage students in discussions regarding contract cheating.

 

The observations from the conference cover a wide spectrum of contract cheating areas. One overall emerging challenge that occurs to me is that we need to know more about all of the players involved in the contract cheating industry, including how they are involved with the essay industry and what their motivation is.

My own summary of ideas and reflections from the conference, from which these posts are compiled, runs to nearly 8,000 words, so that just shows how much value there was in the presentations and discussions at Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond 2017.

Plagiarism Across Europe And Beyond 2017

The Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond conference series is now established as one of the top conferences in the world for practitioners and researchers interested in plagiarism, contract cheating and other academic integrity developments across the higher education sector.

The 2017 conference provided my first opportunity to attend and I joined a record number of delegates in Brno, Czech Republic to participate in the conference. As well as Europe, the kudos of the conference was evident with delegates attending from around the world.

From my role as a researcher into contract cheating, it was pleasing to see that this was a major theme of the conference, with two keynotes devoted to contract cheating, many presentations on contract cheating and other sessions bringing this area into their work. There is very promising work going on around the ghostwriting field right now.

I was active at the conference myself as an author for two research papers (I presented the one on contract cheating, the one on our SEEPPAI research was delivered by other members of the team), chairing a paper session and participating as a panel member for a discussion on contract cheating. There were also many useful sessions to be had outside of the scheduled activities and it was great to talk to members of the Turnitin team.

I have lots of notes and ideas from the conference. My notepad now tends to be my Twitter account, so you can see the notes from participants at the conference, including myself, collected together here:

You can view the other stories on the Storify account for Thomas Lancaster here.

Debora Weber-Wulff also provided excellent write-ups of each day of the conference on her blog. You can read her thoughts on day one, day two and day three.

As there were parallel sessions at several points during the conference, Deborah and I weren’t always in the same session, so I found her other summaries really useful. She also talks about the presentations I was involved with, as I couldn’t live tweet about this.

A lot of photography was taken during the conference and many sessions were captured on video (including, I believe, our panel discussion), so I shall look forward to seeing those. Plans for Plagiarism Across Europe and Beyond 2018 are already taking shape and that should be another awesome event. I’d also love to see more events taking place in the UK, so feel free to contact me if this is something that you’re interested in.

Rethinking Assessment By Examination In The Age Of Contract Cheating – Plagiarism Across Europe And Beyond Conference

I’ve been asked a lot recently about cheating in examinations, particularly where technology is involved. In some of the more sophisticated cases, this can be thought of as the latest development of contract cheating, where a student can hire someone to communicate with based outside an examination room. They can then receive answers from them.

I spoke about this topic at the Plagiarism Across Europe And Beyond conference, which looked at activities throughout the world of academic integrity.

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

The presentation also contains a number of fresh examples of people trying to outsource their examinations through contract cheating providers, including one person wanting their English language examination taking for them (actually a relatively common request).

One of the more interesting examples shown involves someone asking to have the exam for a job with an essay mill taken for them. As I’ve said before, these type of positions can be of great demand.

Plagiarism Across Europe And Beyond was an excellent conference and I’ll say more about it in future posts.

Page 1 of 512345»