Trends for open access to publications | European Commission

“On this page you will find indicators on how the policies of journals and funding agencies favour open access, and the percentage of publications (green and gold) actually available through open access.

The indicators cover bibliometric data on publications, as well as data on funders’ and journals’ policies. Indicators and case studies will be updated over time.”

Help us improving the indicators!

“The Open Science Monitor tracks the development of open science trends in Europe.

Initially launched in 2017 to support the EU policies, the OSM has been revamped in May 2018 with updated data and visual identity. But open science is continuously developing, and over the next months, new trends, indicators, and data will be added. 

We need the input of the open science community to improve the indicators and identify new data sources, as illustrated in the methodological note (pdf). Below, you can comment on the individual indicators of the OSM. Your comments will help improve the Open Science Monitor….

This consultation will remain open for the full duration of the project, but in order to actually improve the methodology, the deadline for contribution is August 31st, 2018….”

Open science monitor | European Commission

“The Open Science Monitor aims to

  • provide data and insight to understand the development of open science in Europe
  • gather the most relevant and timely indicators on the development of open science in Europe and other global partner countries

The Open Science Monitor will also support European Commission initiatives such as the Open Science Policy Platform and the Open Science Cloud….

The Open Science Monitor will be updated on a regular basis in the course of the project, until the end of 2019. Over the next months, new indicators and data will be uploaded….

The Open Science Monitor is a collaborative effort and welcomes the contribution of the community. You can read the methodological note below, and provide your comments online on how to improve the specific indicators….

Libraries Face a Future of Open Access – The Scholarly Kitchen

“When librarians prepare for a negotiation, they now routinely reach for the muscle. At least that’s how I read the news about the Swedish library consortium and its dealings with Elsevier. If you have been too preoccupied with the Royal Wedding to pay attention to news coming out of the world of STM publishing, you can get a good backgrounder here. Briefly, the Swedish consortium attempted to dictate terms to Elsevier, terms that Elsevier would not accept. The result is that Elsevier’s contract will be cancelled, meaning that there will be no authorized access to Elsevier content for the consortium users.

I have written previously about how the current landscape looks to publishers. In every negotiation, publishers are mindful that their ability to control access to their publications is compromised by unauthorized access from such sites as Sci-Hub and ResearchGate. How can Elsevier or any publisher shut off the Swedes or the Germans when Alexandra Elbakyan is waiting in the anteroom? Librarians have learned to reach for the muscle and now confidently demand terms that no publisher can or will accept. This raises the obvious question of whether librarians knowingly and actively seek the support of copyright pirates; or perhaps librarians simply are going about their business in their usual upbeat way, working diligently to make the world a better place, and the critical involvement of the shady characters is neither sought nor recognized. My own view has changed. I think the cynicism quotient in academic libraries, measured against other organizations and institutions, is very low. This is not, after all, Wall Street or, lord help us, the telecommunications business. But, like the populist governments that have now been installed in a number of Western democracies, the party of cynicism has taken control of some leading library organizations. Thus a nod to the likes of Luca Brasi no longer seems out of line. Having grown up in New Jersey, I have some qualms about what it means for anyone to form an alliance with unsavory characters. What do you do when they ask for a favor in return?

So it’s about time to consider what happens if the libraries win. By “win” I mean they refuse deals with publishers and turn their constituencies over to unauthorized sites. This will save them huge amounts of money, of course, money that they would surely like to put to other uses. Publishing is an ecosystem, however, and a significant change in one element can ripple across the entire field. If Sci-Hub becomes the default place to go for full-text content, what else will change?

…”

News & Views: Trendspotting in OA Spending – Delta Think

“The findings in the report are not surprising: they match closely with Delta Think’s numbers from October, and with those in similar reports. Open access is established; it now covers significant minority share of output, but its growth is slowing:

  • Globally, publishers offer OA options mainly through hybrid journals: 72% of journals are hybrid, 19% fully OA, and 9% of journals are subscription only.
  • Uptake, in terms of articles suggests that 19% of all articles published are available immediately on publication as OA, split between 15% in fully OA journals and just under 4% in hybrid journals.
  • The report explores delayed OA options, giving a read on Green OA, with an uptake of just under 5% in the year of publication.
  • The 2017 update reduces its OA estimates slightly compared with its 2015 version. The results are summarized in the table below. The variations speak to the challenges in gathering data, and the necessity to keep refining models over time….”
  • APCs now form a significant additional expense. For the payments that universities make to the seven largest publishers, the ratio between subscriptions and APCs is 5:1. This equates to a 17% share of revenue compared to a 31% share of output. As we have discussed in our previous market analyses, on average the revenue generated by OA is proportionately less than its share of output.
  • More than half the expenditure on APCs in 2016 went to the three major publishing groups, Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley, with a particularly sharp rise for Elsevier since 2014.
  • The report confirms the well-known finding that APCs for hybrid journals are more expensive that those in fully OA journals: 28% higher on average in 2016.
  • But, this gap may be closing: hybrid prices paid rose by 14% in the three years from 2013 (to £2,095 on average), but by 33% for fully-OA journals (to £1,640) in the same period. Delta Think’s market models suggest that, whilst hybrid prices are higher, they also bear higher discount levels, so it would appear that the gap between fully OA and hybrid prices is closing….
  • The number of APCs paid by a sample of 10 UK universities rose more than fivefold.
  • The average cost of an APC rose by 16% (as compared with a rise of 5% in the consumer price index; the CPI.)
  • Spending on subscriptions for the report’s sample rose by 20%.
  • Nuances within hybrid spending show the same quadrupling of APCs, with combined APC & sub spending up by one third…in other words, APC spending is eating share. The ratio between subscription and hybrid APC spending has fallen to 6:1 in 2016 from 19:1 3 years previously….”

Scholarly & Professional E-Book Publishing 2018-2022

“Electronic books are one of the fastest growing segments of scholarly and professional publishing. E-books offer creative possibilities for expanding access as well as changing learning behavior and academic research. Content can always be accessible, regardless of time or place, to be read on PCs or on portable book readers. Books need never go out of print, and new editions can be easily created. Scholarly & Professional E-Book Publishing 2018-2022 provides an overview and financial outlook for the global scholarly and professional e-book publishing markets based on specific research and analysis of the leading competitors’ performance. Company performance is projected through 2018. The overall market is divided into law, science and technology, medical, social science and humanities and business publishing. Market categories are projected through 2022….”

Study on open science: monitoring trends and drivers

“The proposed study will build on existing evidence collected by the pilot open science monitor as well as other relevant and available studies. The open science monitor provided a first analysis of trends, drivers, barriers and incentives to open science in Europe. It also makes available, tests and applies a methodology for the collection of hard empirical data on open science trends. Based on this preparatory work, the contractors will design, draft, execute and deliver a full-fledged monitoring system in order to determine open science scope, nature, impacts on science and scientific knowledge, and its socio-economic impacts. In turn, this will provide an evidence-based view of evolution of open science. It should be able to facilitate policy making….”

Study on open science: monitoring trends and drivers

“The proposed study will build on existing evidence collected by the pilot open science monitor as well as other relevant and available studies. The open science monitor provided a first analysis of trends, drivers, barriers and incentives to open science in Europe. It also makes available, tests and applies a methodology for the collection of hard empirical data on open science trends. Based on this preparatory work, the contractors will design, draft, execute and deliver a full-fledged monitoring system in order to determine open science scope, nature, impacts on science and scientific knowledge, and its socio-economic impacts. In turn, this will provide an evidence-based view of evolution of open science. It should be able to facilitate policy making….”

Project to monitor open science kicked off

“CWTS [Netherlands’ Centre for Science and Technology Studies] participates in a new project to stimulate and monitor the development of open science and scholarship. The project “Open sciece: Monitoring trends and drivers” celebrated its kick off meeting last January at the EC premises in the presence of jean Claude Burgelman (DG Research & Innovation, European Commission) and Paul Hofheinz (President and Co-Founder of The Lisbon Council). The aim of the study is to further develop the Open Science Monitor, that started as a pilot study. The project consortium is led by Lisbon Council (coordinator). The other two partners are ESADE , and CWTS. Elsevier participates as subcontractor….”

Project to monitor open science kicked off

“CWTS [Netherlands’ Centre for Science and Technology Studies] participates in a new project to stimulate and monitor the development of open science and scholarship. The project “Open sciece: Monitoring trends and drivers” celebrated its kick off meeting last January at the EC premises in the presence of jean Claude Burgelman (DG Research & Innovation, European Commission) and Paul Hofheinz (President and Co-Founder of The Lisbon Council). The aim of the study is to further develop the Open Science Monitor, that started as a pilot study. The project consortium is led by Lisbon Council (coordinator). The other two partners are ESADE , and CWTS. Elsevier participates as subcontractor….”