IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v3y2013i4p2158244013507271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open Access, Megajournals, and MOOCs

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Wellen

Abstract

The development of “open†academic content has been strongly embraced and promoted by many advocates, analysts, stakeholders, and reformers in the sector of higher education and academic publishing. The two most well-known developments are open access scholarly publishing and Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs), each of which are connected to disruptive innovations enabled by new technologies. Support for these new modes of exchanging knowledge is linked to the expectation that they will promote a number of public interest benefits, including widening the impact, productivity, and format of academic work; reforming higher education and scholarly publishing markets; and relieving some of the cost pressures in academia. This article examines the rapid emergence of policy initiatives in the United Kingdom and the United States to promote open content and to bring about a new relationship between the market and the academic commons. In doing so, I examine controversial forms of academic unbundling such as open access megajournals and MOOCs and place each in the context of the heightened emphasis on productivity and impact in new regulatory regimes in the area of higher education.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Wellen, 2013. "Open Access, Megajournals, and MOOCs," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:3:y:2013:i:4:p:2158244013507271
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244013507271
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244013507271
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244013507271?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 2001. "Free Labour for Costly Journals?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 183-198, Fall.
    2. Richard Van Noorden, 2013. "Open access: The true cost of science publishing," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7442), pages 426-429, March.
    3. Michael W Carroll, 2011. "Why Full Open Access Matters," Working Papers id:4638, eSocialSciences.
    4. Jason Priem, 2013. "Beyond the paper," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7442), pages 437-440, March.
    5. Katelyn Donnelly & Saad Rizvi & Michael Barber, 2013. "An Avalanche Is Coming. Higher Education and the Revolution Ahead," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 3, pages 152-229.
    6. Edlin, Aaron S. & Rubinfeld, Daniel L., 2004. "Exclusion or Efficient Pricing? The "Big Deal" Bundling of Academic Journals," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt9hc6n6ds, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    7. Michael W Carroll, 2011. "Why Full Open Access Matters," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-3, November.
    8. McCabe Mark J & Snyder Christopher M., 2007. "Academic Journal Prices in a Digital Age: A Two-Sided Market Model," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-39, January.
    9. William G. Bowen, 2013. "Higher Education in the Digital Age," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 10053.
    10. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2005. "Open Access and Academic Journal Quality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 453-459, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eberhard Feess & Marc Scheufen, 2016. "Academic copyright in the publishing game: a contest perspective," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 263-294, October.
    2. Mark Armstrong, 2010. "Collection Sales: Good Or Bad For Journals?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(1), pages 163-176, January.
    3. Oliver Budzinski & Thomas Grebel & Jens Wolling & Xijie Zhang, 2020. "Drivers of article processing charges in open access," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2185-2206, September.
    4. Frank Mueller‐Langer & Richard Watt, 2021. "Optimal pricing and quality of academic journals and the ambiguous welfare effects of forced open access: A two‐sided model," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 1945-1959, December.
    5. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    6. MARK J. McCABE & CHRISTOPHER M. SNYDER, 2014. "Identifying The Effect Of Open Access On Citations Using A Panel Of Science Journals," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(4), pages 1284-1300, October.
    7. Doh-Shin Jeon & Jean-Charles Rochet, 2010. "The Pricing of Academic Journals: A Two-Sided Market Perspective," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 222-255, May.
    8. Yuqing Zheng & Harry M. Kaiser, 2016. "Submission Demand In Core Economics Journals: A Panel Study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1319-1338, April.
    9. Frank Mueller-Langer & Marc Scheufen, 2013. "Academic publishing and open access," Chapters, in: Ruth Towse & Christian Handke (ed.), Handbook on the Digital Creative Economy, chapter 32, pages 365-377, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Philipp Kohlgruber & Christoph Kuzmics, 2017. "The distribution of article quality and inefficiencies in the market for scientific journals," Graz Economics Papers 2017-11, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    11. Doh-Shin Jeon & Domenico Menicucci, 2017. "The Benefits of Diverse Preferences in Library Consortia," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 105-135, March.
    12. Amy Forrester, 2015. "Barriers to Open Access Publishing: Views from the Library Literature," Publications, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-21, September.
    13. Jonathan P. Tennant & Harry Crane & Tom Crick & Jacinto Davila & Asura Enkhbayar & Johanna Havemann & Bianca Kramer & Ryan Martin & Paola Masuzzo & Andy Nobes & Curt Rice & Bárbara Rivera-López & Tony, 2019. "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-24, May.
    14. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2014. "Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour," ICER Working Papers 03-2014, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    15. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2015. "Does Online Availability Increase Citations? Theory and Evidence from a Panel of Economics and Business Journals," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(1), pages 144-165, March.
    16. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2018. "Open Access as a Crude Solution to a Hold‐Up Problem in the Two‐Sided Market for Academic Journals," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 301-349, June.
    17. Schmal, W. Benedikt & Haucap, Justus & Knoke, Leon, 2023. "The role of gender and coauthors in academic publication behavior," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    18. Mark Armstrong, 2015. "Opening Access to Research," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(586), pages 1-30, August.
    19. Campbell, James D., 2015. "Ownership and pricing of information: A model and application to open access," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 29-42.
    20. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "The open access citation premium may depend on the openness and inclusiveness of the indexing database, but the relationship is controversial because it is ambiguous where the open access boundary lie," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 995-1018, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:3:y:2013:i:4:p:2158244013507271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.