This briefing paper aims to support decision makers at research organisations and research funders to develop new monitoring exercises or assess and improve existing processes to measure the Open Access status of publications.
The availability of data and information on the current state of scholarly publishing is invaluable to help advance Open Access. Given the complexity of the scholarly publishing system, this involves a multitude of decisions.
This briefing paper provides recommendations on the three main questions an organisation should answer to develop a monitoring exercise: Why, What, and How?
Examples of different monitoring exercises have been selected to represent different use cases, organisational setups, data sources, and strategies of interpretation.
“SPARC created the Automatic Textbook Billing Contract Library as a resource for advocates and institutions to understand the legal agreements behind automatic textbook billing. Known by brand names like “Inclusive Access” and “First Day,” these programs charge the cost of digital course materials directly to each student’s tuition and fee bill, often without confirming their consent. While vendors say this model provides access, many students think it limits their options. Colleges and universities have a responsibility to prioritize the needs of students—not vendors—and that starts with reading the fine print….”
“A large number of public and academic libraries are also looking at moderate to severe budget contractions due to unplanned COVID-related expenses, declines in tuition dollars, and/or local and state funding cuts. Many institutions are seeing or planning for permanent cuts between 9 and 13 percent to their base budget, a key difference from temporary cuts made after the Great Recession. Public libraries may fare better than academics: in an LJ survey of 223 public libraries across the United States, 84 percent reported an increase in FY21 total operating budgets for a rise of 2.9 percent. (See “The Price of a Pandemic.”) This was more modest than last year’s 3.5 percent increase, but represents continued, if uneven, gains….
Transformative agreements will make more content openly available, but they won’t pump any more money into library budgets or promise to make scholarly communications more sustainable. In the absence of national or statewide plans for funding OA (California being the notable exception), it’s difficult to see most “publish” universities in the United States agreeing to shoulder the costs of transformative agreements to make content open for all to read, particularly when faced with permanent budget cuts….
For the first time in a decade, libraries can anticipate subscription price increases of less than 6 percent: 3-4 percent is predicted for 2022. If a local serial portfolio skews toward large publishers, then the increase will be toward the 4 percent level. But with most institutions preparing for further collection cuts, even such a modest increase is not sustainable. Supported by faculty and emboldened by seeing the goals of Plan S and OA2020 start to come to fruition, libraries will be likely more prepared than ever to walk away from the table. Publishers will need to sharpen their pencils….
Although there were increases in the metrics for Impact Factor and Eigenfactor, the increases were not comparable to the increase in price. The average price ($6,637) for the most expensive journals was 18 times higher than the least expensive ($338), while the Impact Factor slightly more than doubled. The price increases for the more moderately priced titles were also lower than the more expensive titles, which showed close to a 4 percent increase. This analysis continues to show that higher priced titles do have higher Impact Factors and Eigenfactors, but the increase in the metrics is small when compared with the huge increase in costs….”
“We took a step back to speak with some of our partners about the rationale behind the need for a standardised, structured and validated data format, delivering real-time, situational authoritative data from the source. We’re grateful they agreed to share their views and experiences. These partners are Stacey Burke (American Physiological Society), Colleen Campbell (Max Planck Digital Library, ESAC, OA2020), Todd Carpenter (NISO), Helen Dobson (Jisc), Matthew Goddard (Iowa State University), Marten Stavenga (John Benjamins Publishing Company) and Ivo Verbeek (Elitex).
We asked our interviewees to answer five questions:
What is the underlying need for ‘reporting’?
What is the minimum set of metadata required to achieve that goal?
What sources (systems) capture and manage these (meta)data? Is it possible to extract the data?
What makes a ‘standard’? What’s the benefit of a ‘standard’? How to get there?
How does the OA Switchboard make reporting ‘easy’? How does it work, end-to-end and real-time? …”
From Google’s English: “The indicator is produced and launched annually by the Danish Agency for Education and Research, which is part of the Ministry of Education and Research. The indicator monitors the implementation of the Danish Open Access strategy 2018-2025 by collecting and analyzing publication data from the Danish universities.
OVERVIEW – National strategic goals and the realization of them at national and university level.
OA TYPES – Types of Open Access realization at national and local level.
DATA – Data for download as well as documentation at an overview and technical level.
GUIDANCE – Information to support the Danish universities’ implementation of Open Access, such as important dates and guidelines.
FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions….”
“The scholarly journal publishing market is in transition. While a great portion of publishers still operate their journals under the subscription paywall business model, open access publishing is keenly on the rise, as fully OA publishers and platforms are launched and come into maturity, scholarly publishers experiment a variety of new open access business models, and, not least, the number of research institutions and library consortia negotiating transformative agreements proliferates.
The visualizations below aim to inform the broader community of a number of key trends in the demographics and distribution of scholarly journal publishing in transition:
the relevance of publishers for scholars and scientists, as expressed in their share of scholarly articles published,
the growth of open access via transformative agreements and the impact these agreements have in enabling universal open access to the research articles produced on a local (country) and global (publisher) level, and
the costs and price points of article processing charges….”
It is difficult for people new to open scholarship ideas and practices to find and apply existing materials.
It is difficult for educators to bring open scholarship concepts and exercises into their courses.
The open scholarship landscape changes quickly, so materials can become outdated.
Our Project Roadmap outlines our approach: Build a knowledge base platform and a community of contributors to organize information on the what, why, and how of open scholarship so it is easy to find and apply. Contributors keep the information up-to-date and curate modules for self-learning or teaching….”
Abstract: Registered reports are a new publication workflow where the decision to publish is made prior to data collection and analysis, and thus cannot be dependent on the outcome of the study. An increasing number of journals have adopted this new mechanism; however, previous research suggests that submission rates are still relatively low. We conducted a census of journals publishing registered reports (N = 278) using independent coders to collect information from submission guidelines, with the goal of documenting journals’ early adoption of registered reports. Our results show that the majority of journals adopting registered reports are in psychology, and it typically takes about a year to publish the first registered report after adopting. However, many journals have still not published their first registered report. There is high variability in impact of journals adopting registered reports. Many journals do not include concrete information about policies that address concerns about registered reports (e.g., exploratory analysis); however, those that do typically allow these practices with some restrictions. Additionally, other open science practices are commonly recommended or required as part of the registered report process, especially open data and materials. Overall, many journals did not include many of the fields coded by the research team, which could be a barrier to submission for some authors. Though the majority of journals allow authors to be anonymous during the review process, a sizable portion do not, which could also be a barrier to submission. We conclude with future directions and implications for authors of registered reports, journals that have already adopted registered reports, and journals that may consider adopting registered reports in the future.