How does the growth of a particular publisher’s open access content factor into the relative value of a Big Deal? Part 2: The Findings – Delta Think

“Some final thoughts: (1) Overall usage was a stronger influence on the change in value than the small changes in the proportion of hybrid OA article usage. (2) Despite the range of research activity levels across our institutions, there wasn’t much difference in the proportion of the open versus controlled usage across the site-licensed institutions for either publisher. (3) COVID likely affected these trends, but precisely how was unclear. Did lockdown increase the usage or limit it? Did it affect our two publishers differently? We have no ‘non-COVID’ control unfortunately. (4) If the impact of transformative agreements on the rate of hybrid OA article output influenced these trends, the impact was quite small. Still, with more libraries negotiating transformative agreements, growth in the proportion of OA articles should accelerate. As long as usage in publisher packages continues to grow, cost per controlled use will increase more quickly than cost per use. This new cost per controlled use metric should help libraries track the return on investment from their journal package subscription payments as a growing proportion of underlying articles are free to read.”

The Vast Library of Life: 15 Years of the BHL Portal – Biodiversity Heritage Library

“It seems like we are on an anniversary splurge. In April, I marked my 10th year as BHL Program Director. Today is a more important date in BHL history. May 9, 2007 marked the official launch of BHL content on the web. We celebrated that day with one of our first BHL blog posts (Biodiversity Heritage Library and Encyclopedia of Life Launch!). On that launch date, BHL had 306 titles, 3,236 volumes, and 1,271,664 pages of taxonomic literature. Today, BHL has grown to become a global consortium of natural history, botanical, research, and national libraries and hosts over 60 million pages and more than 281,000 volumes….”

Dismantling the ivory tower’s knowledge boundaries

“The major shift to open access during the pandemic began with the Free Read initiative, which launched the petition “

Unlock Coronavirus Research” for scientists in early February of 2020 and to which highly reputable medical publishers quickly responded. Before the pandemic, up to 75 percent of scholarly publications were behind a paywall. By comparison, a preliminary study of over 5,600 articles on PubMed suggests that more than 95 percent of scholarly articles related to COVID-19 are now freely available. This increase in accessibility resulted from the rapid adaptation by biomedical journals and publishers, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Cell Press, New England Journal of Medicine, and The Lancet. These journals and publishers granted open access to research on COVID-19 research, often making it 

immediately accessible on the platform PubMed Central and similar public repositories. Free and open access to COVID-19 research quickly became the new normal for biomedicine, with available findings directly impacting the development of treatment protocols and vaccines. Yet the pandemic became more than a health crisis. Understanding the social, psychological, and economic implications of the pandemic were imperative to its continued management.

Social science research, which delivers insights into human behaviors, relationships, and institutions, was instrumental to policymaking and healthcare solution development during the COVID-19 pandemic. The importance of social science research to pandemic management was demonstrated by the 

shift in the topic of COVID-19 papers, from the initial focus on disease modeling, hospital mortality, diagnostics, and testing to an increasing focus on topics such as business closure, remote work, geographic mobility and migration, inequality, managerial decision-making, as well as accelerating innovation. Once the basic science on the virus were established, research on creating societal and economic resilience played an even larger role for beating the COVID-19 pandemic. One clear area that demonstrated the importance of social science research in informing COVID-19 management was the rollout of vaccines. Psychological, marketing, and information systems research played a central role in vaccine uptake across communities. A recent report by the National Institutes of Health called for the use of evidence-based strategies, such as 

behavioral nudges and strategic social norms, to increase vaccine uptake….”

 

 

Where is Open Access Publishing Heading? – ChemistryViews

“One of the first Gold Open Access (OA) titles published by Wiley, ChemistryOpen, has turned 10 years old! We are celebrating this milestone by taking the opportunity to reflect on the role of Gold OA in the current STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) publishing landscape.

Although many Open Access titles such as ChemistryOpen are now firmly established within chemistry journals, there are still some open questions about this publishing model in the community. This article attempts to address some of these frequently asked questions. Read more on the 10th birthday of ChemistryOpen and the history of the first society-owned Open Access title in general chemistry, the other types of OA publishing models, what is behind the payment of Article Publication Charges (APCs), and how publishing Open Access benefits you and your audience….”

GetFTR now supports half of global research output | Research Information

“Get Full Text Research (GetFTR), a free service that enables faster access for researchers to published journal articles, now supports access to more than half of global research output.

This year has already seen partnerships with aerospace publisher AIAA; the American Society for Microbiology ASM; digital library platform DeepDyve; scientific publisher IOP Publishing; research tool SciFinder; and Elsevier’s abstract and citation database Scopus, all go live. Holding partnerships with over 35 publishers and integrators, GetFTR now supports streamlined access to more than 51 per cent of global research output….”

Open Access Delivers Significant Increased Usage for All Pluto Journals 21 Publications in 2021 – Knowledge Unlatched

In January 2021 Pluto Journals took the step of flipping all 21 of their Journals into Open Access, which means that all articles are free to read. By the end of January 2022, the usage statistics of the portfolio of Journals had increased by a staggering 650%, over the figures in 2020 and by 850% over the figures for 2019.

Frontiers | Measuring Research Information Citizenship Across ORCID Practice | Research Metrics and Analytics

“Over the past 10 years, stakeholders across the scholarly communications community have invested significantly not only to increase the adoption of ORCID adoption by researchers, but also to build the broader infrastructures that are needed both to support ORCID and to benefit from it. These parallel efforts have fostered the emergence of a “research information citizenry” between researchers, publishers, funders, and institutions. This paper takes a scientometric approach to investigating how effectively ORCID roles and responsibilities within this citizenry have been adopted. Focusing specifically on researchers, publishers, and funders, ORCID behaviors are measured against the approximated research world represented by the Dimensions dataset….”

 

GetFTR | » GetFTR now supports streamlined access to over 51% of global research output

“Get Full Text Research (GetFTR) continues to strengthen its commitment on improving access for the research community through newly established partnerships. The start of the year has seen: aerospace publisher AIAA; the American Society for Microbiology  

ASM; digital library platform DeepDyve; scientific publisher IOP Publishing; research tool SciFinder; and Elsevier’s abstract and citation database Scopus, all go live. Holding partnerships with over 35 publishers and integrators, GetFTR now supports streamlined access to over 51% of global research output….”

Highlights from 5 years of publishing | Wellcome Open Research Blog

“2021 marked another successful year for the Wellcome Open Research (WOR) publishing platform. Publication output on WOR continued to grow, with the diversity of research outputs published increasing. The Platform showcases the broad portfolio of research that Wellcome funds.

In this blog, Hannah Hope, Open Research Lead at Wellcome Trust, provides an overview of WOR’s publishing activity of the past year as well as the initiatives we plan to implement in 2022….

This growth has enabled us to continue to be the most used publication venue (by volume of articles) for Wellcome-funded researchers according to Europe PMC and Dimensions data….”

 

Frontiers for Young Minds celebrates 15 million article views!

Reaching 15 million article views is an exciting moment for us at Frontiers for Young Minds. It means that we are reaching more and more kids, teachers, and other interested people around the world, who now have the opportunity to learn about topics they care about from a reliable scientific resource. This year our journal team went from a team of two to a team of six and we have launched our flagship Noble Collection, which are certainly the two biggest highlights. Did you know that Frontiers for Young Minds also has Hebrew (451 translated articles) and Arabic (150 translated articles) versions? More languages are certainly on our radar in the near future too!

Changes in Article Share and Growth by Publisher and Access Type in Journal Citation Reports 2016, 2018, and 2020

Abstract

 

 

Purpose

This study explored changes in the journal publishing market by publisher and access type using the major journals that publish about 95% of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) articles.

 

Methods

From JCR 2016, 2018, and 2020, a unique journal list by publisher was created in Excel and used to analyze the compound annual growth rate by pivot tables. In total, 10,953 major JCR journals were analyzed, focusing on publisher type, open access (OA) status, and mega journals (publishing over 1,000 articles per year).

 

Results

Among the 19 publishers that published over 10,000 articles per year, in JCR 2020, six large publishers published 59.6% of the articles and 13 publishers 22.5%. The other publishers published 17.9%. Large and OA publishers increased their article share through leading mega journals, but the remaining publishers showed the opposite tendency. In JCR 2020, mega journals had a 26.5% article share and an excellent distribution in terms of the Journal Impact Factor quartile. Despite the high growth (22.6%) and share (26.0%) of OA articles, the natural growth of non-OA articles (7.3%) and total articles (10.7%) caused a rise in journal subscription fees. Articles, citations, the impact factor, and the immediacy index all increased gradually, and the compound annual growth rate of the average immediacy index was almost double than that of the average impact factor in JCR 2020.

 

Conclusion

The influence of OA publishers has grown under the dominance of large publishers, and mega journals may substantially change the journal market. Journal stakeholders should pay attention to these changes.

 

 

 

Read and publish deals ‘drive increase in OA research content’ | Research Information

“‘Read and publish’ agreements have led to a significant increase in the proportion of open access research content in hybrid subscription journals, according to the Company of Biologists.

More than 400 institutions in 34 countries are now participating in the organisation’s Read and Publish Open Access initiative, with agreements signed with library consortia in Australia, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Spain, the UK and the USA. The Company of Biologists has also signed an agreement with EIFL (Electronic Information for Libraries), which enables researchers in 30 developing and transition economy countries to publish open access articles in its hybrid journals without paying an article processing charge (APC). …”

More journal articles and fewer books: Publication practices in the social sciences in the 2010’s

Abstract:  The number of scholarly journal articles published each year is growing, but little is known about the relationship between journal article growth and other forms of scholarly dissemination (e.g., books and monographs). Journal articles are the de facto currency of evaluation and prestige in STEM fields, but social scientists routinely publish books as well as articles, representing a unique opportunity to study increased article publications in disciplines with other dissemination options. We studied the publishing activity of social science faculty members in 12 disciplines at 290 Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States between 2011 and 2019, asking: 1) have publication practices changed such that more or fewer books and articles are written now than in the recent past?; 2) has the percentage of scholars actively participating in a particular publishing type changed over time?; and 3) do different age cohorts evince different publication strategies? In all disciplines, journal articles per person increased between 3% and 64% between 2011 and 2019, while books per person decreased by at least 31% and as much as 54%. All age cohorts show increased article authorship over the study period, and early career scholars author more articles per person than the other cohorts in eight disciplines. The article-dominated literatures of the social sciences are becoming increasingly similar to those of STEM disciplines.