News & Views: Open Access Market Sizing Update 2020 – Delta Think

“Delta Think’s OA Market Sizing (i.e., revenue generated by providers or, conversely, costs incurred to buyers of content) shows that the open access market continues to grow faster than the underlying journals publishing market. Based on current trends, we estimate it to have been worth around $763m in 2019 and on track to grow to around $850m in 2020….”

DOAB milestones: 30,000 OA books, 400 publishers

“We are pleased to share that the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) recently reached three key milestones in terms of book coverage, unique publishers and future financial sustainability. 

Over 30,000 books from more than 400 publishers 

The number of open access books included in DOAB has grown impressively from just over 10,000 books in 2018 to 31,917 as of today. In terms of publishers, we are happy to see that over 400 publishers are included in DOAB as we strive to improve the coverage of the directory….”

Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract:  The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a deluge of publications. For this cross-sectional study we compared the amount and reporting characteristics of COVID-19-related academic articles and preprints and the number of ongoing clinical trials and systematic reviews. To do this, we searched the PubMed database of citations and abstracts for published life science journals by using appropriate combinations of medical subject headings (MeSH terms), and the COVID-19 section of the MedRxiv and BioRxiv archives up to 20 May 2020 (21 weeks). In addition, we searched Clinicaltrial.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, EU Clinical Trials Register, and 15 other trial registers, as well as PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews. The characteristics of each publication were extracted. Regression analyses and Z tests were used to detect publication trends and their relative proportions. A total of 3635 academic publications and 3805 preprints were retrieved. Only 8.6% (n = 329) of the preprints were already published in indexed journals. The number of academic and preprint publications increased significantly over time (p<0.001). Case reports (6% academic vs 0.9% preprints; p<0.001) and letters (17.4% academic vs 0.5% preprints; p<0.001) accounted for a greater share of academic compared to preprint publications. Differently, randomized controlled trials (0.22% vs 0.63%; p<0.001) and systematic reviews (0.08% vs 5%) made up a greater share of the preprints. The relative proportion of clinical studies registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and EU Clinical Trials Register was 57.9%, 49.5%, and 98.9%, respectively, most of which were still “recruiting”. PROSPERO listed 962 systematic review protocols. Preprints were slightly more prevalent than academic articles but both were increasing in number. The void left by the lack of primary studies was filled by an outpour of immediate opinions (i.e., letters to the editor) published in PubMed-indexed journals. Summarizing, preprints have gained traction as a publishing response to the demand for prompt access to empirical, albeit not peer-reviewed, findings during the present pandemic.

 

Meta-Research: Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions | eLife

Abstract:The proportion of research outputs published in open access journals or made available on other freely-accessible platforms has increased over the past two decades, driven largely by funder mandates, institutional policies, grass-roots advocacy, and changing attitudes in the research community. However, the relative effectiveness of these different interventions has remained largely unexplored. Here we present a robust, transparent and updateable method for analysing how these interventions affect the open access performance of individual institutes. We studied 1,207 institutions from across the world, and found that, in 2017, the top-performing universities published around 80-90% of their research open access. The analysis also showed that publisher-mediated (gold) open access was popular in Latin American and African universities, whereas the growth of open access in Europe and North America has mostly been driven by repositories.

 

500 signatures collected and no sign of slowing down.. – Campaign to investigate the academic ebook market

“We have now collected and published 500 signatures to the open letter. This is a phenomenal result given this is only the first “working” day of the campaign. To quote one respondent “This evidences the current impasse with ebook acquisition in HE libraries. Review and culture shift is definitely required to drive change”

We all want to support our students as best we can. It is unacceptable and distressing that we cannot even provide the basics to our students due to the over-commodification of information and gross profiteering….”

Shared Investment in OSF Sustainability

“We launched the Open Science Framework (OSF) in 2012 as infrastructure to support our mission to change the research culture toward openness, integrity, and reproducibility. With OSF, our goal is to make rigor and transparency enhancing behaviors possible, easy, and efficient to ease onboarding of researchers who are responding to shifting cultural norms, incentives, and policies promoting open research. Like many other service providers in the open research community, we have been amazed at the enthusiasm and pace of the community adopting open research. For example, our user base has grown non-linearly every year and recently hit 250,000 registered users….

Google provides hosting services for OSF, and the bill for storage and hosting has been increasing an average of 5% per month, every month. At this rate, within a few years, the entire budget for the Center for Open Science would be going to Google.  

COS’s sustainability model begins with its $250,000 preservation fund, which ensures data hosted on OSF will remain should COS ever close its doors. We also actively collaborate with groups such as Internet Archive to distribute and steward long-term access to open research data by implementing sustainable infrastructure for libraries, open repositories, and other data curators….

Starting November 3, 2020, OSF will limit the storage capacity for private projects to 5 GB of OSF Storage, and 50 GB for public projects. Please take a moment to learn more and review what these storage changes may mean for you, your collaborators, and your existing storage workflows….”

News – The Open Library of Humanities Celebrates its 5th Birthday

“The Open Library of Humanities today celebrates its 5th anniversary since we launched our platform on 28th September 2015 with only 7 journals and 99 supporting institutions. Five years on, our sustainable business model has attracted nearly 300 supporting institutions, proving the success of its pioneering non-classical economic model, and enabling us to establish a thriving platform of 28 peer-reviewed journals.

The Open Library of Humanities (OLH) is a scholar-led charitable organisation dedicated to publishing world-leading open access humanities scholarship with no author-facing article processing charges. Launched five years ago, our free-to-read, free-to-publish model was established to challenge the costly, limited routes to open access publication in the humanities, and find a sustainable business model to enable academic journals to publish peer-reviewed research without charges to author or reader – making world-leading research accessible to anyone.

The platform was initially funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and now, five years after its launch, entirely covers its costs by payments from its international library consortium. The international consortium of libraries comprises nearly 300 institutions including Harvard Library, Cambridge, Yale, Princeton, and many others. With this model, the OLH has expanded from 7 journals in 2015 to 28 journals in 2020, has four full-time staff, and funds two external commercial university presses (Ubiquity Press and Liverpool University Press) to convert their journals to open access. The OLH also developed and launched Janeway in 2017, its own field-leading innovative open source publishing platform developed fully in-house….”

News – The Open Library of Humanities Celebrates its 5th Birthday

“The Open Library of Humanities today celebrates its 5th anniversary since we launched our platform on 28th September 2015 with only 7 journals and 99 supporting institutions. Five years on, our sustainable business model has attracted nearly 300 supporting institutions, proving the success of its pioneering non-classical economic model, and enabling us to establish a thriving platform of 28 peer-reviewed journals.

The Open Library of Humanities (OLH) is a scholar-led charitable organisation dedicated to publishing world-leading open access humanities scholarship with no author-facing article processing charges. Launched five years ago, our free-to-read, free-to-publish model was established to challenge the costly, limited routes to open access publication in the humanities, and find a sustainable business model to enable academic journals to publish peer-reviewed research without charges to author or reader – making world-leading research accessible to anyone.

The platform was initially funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and now, five years after its launch, entirely covers its costs by payments from its international library consortium. The international consortium of libraries comprises nearly 300 institutions including Harvard Library, Cambridge, Yale, Princeton, and many others. With this model, the OLH has expanded from 7 journals in 2015 to 28 journals in 2020, has four full-time staff, and funds two external commercial university presses (Ubiquity Press and Liverpool University Press) to convert their journals to open access. The OLH also developed and launched Janeway in 2017, its own field-leading innovative open source publishing platform developed fully in-house….”