The phenomenon of 'value extraction' in Open Access.

IF 4.4 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Giovanni Spitale, Federico Germani, Nikola Biller-Andorno
{"title":"The phenomenon of 'value extraction' in Open Access.","authors":"Giovanni Spitale, Federico Germani, Nikola Biller-Andorno","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2661668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Open Access (OA) agreements were introduced to remove financial barriers to scientific dissemination and promote equity in knowledge access. As Article Processing Charges (APCs) have shifted from individual researchers to institutions, access to OA publishing has become an institutional asset, unevenly distributed across institutions, countries, and career stages.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This article introduces and defines value extraction in OA - the use of access to APC coverage as leverage to obtain authorship or corresponding authorship without proportional intellectual contribution - and examines it as a structurally enabled integrity risk distinct from previously described forms of authorship abuse.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>We conduct a conceptual and normative analysis of the mechanisms by which OA agreements interact with metric-driven academic evaluation systems and existing research integrity frameworks, identifying governance gaps and distributional inequities produced by these interactions.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Value extraction in OA is enabled by the convergence of three factors: centralized APC control within institutions, performance metrics that privilege publication counts and corresponding authorship, and integrity frameworks that treat publishing infrastructure as an ethically neutral background condition. Researchers at less-resourced institutions, early-career researchers, and scholars in the Global South face heightened vulnerability. Existing authorship guidelines fail to address mechanisms in which infrastructural access - rather than hierarchy or prestige - functions as leverage for academic credit.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Safeguards are needed at institutional, publisher, and systemic levels, including procedural firewalls between APC decisions and authorship documentation, publisher-level monitoring of authorship patterns, and reform of evaluation frameworks to decouple infrastructural access from academic credit. Future research should investigate the prevalence of value extraction using bibliometric and network-based screening approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2661668"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2661668","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Open Access (OA) agreements were introduced to remove financial barriers to scientific dissemination and promote equity in knowledge access. As Article Processing Charges (APCs) have shifted from individual researchers to institutions, access to OA publishing has become an institutional asset, unevenly distributed across institutions, countries, and career stages.

Purpose: This article introduces and defines value extraction in OA - the use of access to APC coverage as leverage to obtain authorship or corresponding authorship without proportional intellectual contribution - and examines it as a structurally enabled integrity risk distinct from previously described forms of authorship abuse.

Approach: We conduct a conceptual and normative analysis of the mechanisms by which OA agreements interact with metric-driven academic evaluation systems and existing research integrity frameworks, identifying governance gaps and distributional inequities produced by these interactions.

Findings: Value extraction in OA is enabled by the convergence of three factors: centralized APC control within institutions, performance metrics that privilege publication counts and corresponding authorship, and integrity frameworks that treat publishing infrastructure as an ethically neutral background condition. Researchers at less-resourced institutions, early-career researchers, and scholars in the Global South face heightened vulnerability. Existing authorship guidelines fail to address mechanisms in which infrastructural access - rather than hierarchy or prestige - functions as leverage for academic credit.

Conclusions: Safeguards are needed at institutional, publisher, and systemic levels, including procedural firewalls between APC decisions and authorship documentation, publisher-level monitoring of authorship patterns, and reform of evaluation frameworks to decouple infrastructural access from academic credit. Future research should investigate the prevalence of value extraction using bibliometric and network-based screening approaches.

开放获取中的“价值抽取”现象。
背景:引入开放获取协议是为了消除科学传播的财务障碍,促进知识获取的公平性。随着文章处理费(apc)从研究人员个人转移到机构,获取OA出版已经成为一种机构资产,在机构、国家和职业阶段的分布并不均匀。目的:本文介绍并定义了开放获取中的价值提取——利用获取APC覆盖作为杠杆来获得作者身份或相应的作者身份,而没有成比例的智力贡献——并将其作为一种结构上的完整性风险进行检查,这种风险与先前描述的作者身份滥用形式不同。方法:我们对开放获取协议与指标驱动的学术评估系统和现有研究完整性框架相互作用的机制进行了概念和规范分析,确定了这些相互作用产生的治理差距和分配不公平。研究结果:OA中的价值提取是通过三个因素的融合实现的:机构内部的集中APC控制,特权出版计数和相应作者身份的绩效指标,以及将出版基础设施视为道德中立背景条件的完整性框架。资源匮乏机构的研究人员、职业生涯初期的研究人员和南半球的学者面临着更大的脆弱性。现有的作者资格指导方针未能解决基础设施准入——而不是等级制度或声望——作为学术信用杠杆的机制。结论:需要在机构、出版商和系统层面采取保障措施,包括APC决策和作者身份文件之间的程序防火墙,出版商层面的作者身份模式监测,以及评估框架的改革,以使基础设施访问与学术信用脱钩。未来的研究应该使用文献计量学和基于网络的筛选方法来调查价值提取的流行程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书