Open Access Book Publishing 2020-2024 – Research and Markets

“In today’s global market, it’s more important than ever to understand the evolution of academic publishing. Rely on the Open Access Book Publishing 2020-2024 to build your strategy in this emerging market for this year and beyond.

This report explains the origins of the open access movement, gives a timeline for its development, but most importantly, Simba Information quantifies open access book publishing as a market segment. Simba used the information it gathered through primary and secondary research to develop a financial outlook for open access book publishing with market projections through 2024. This research was conducted in conjunction with a larger study of the overall market for scholarly and professional publishing. Open Access Book Publishing 2020-2024 contains separate chapters covering the market, notable publishers and programs, and issues and forecast that include:

Exclusive analysis of market size and structure
Title growth metrics
Open access book publishing by discipline
A look at key geographic markets that are pushing the development of open access books
Exclusive market projections to 2024 and more.

Publishers and investment professionals can trust Open Access Book Publishing 2020-2024 to provide the inside intelligence needed to evaluate growth potential, understand trends affecting the industry, and size up the competition. Examples of some of the issues discussed include:

The continued evolution of open access
The impact of open access in social science and humanities vs. scientific, technical and medical
Prevailing business models and experiments
Open access mandates spread to books
Opportunity for monographs and conference proceedings
Emerging markets fertile ground for open access….”

Open Research: Examples of good practice, and resources across disciplines

“Open research is best described as “an umbrella term used to refer to the concepts of openness, transparency, rigor, reproducibility, replicability, and accumulation of knowledge” (Crüwell et al., 2019, p. 3). Although a lot of open research practices have commonly been discussed under the term “open science”, open research applies to all disciplines. If the concept of open research is new to you, it might be difficult for you to determine how you can apply open research practices to your research. The aim of this document is to provide resources and examples of open research practices that are relevant to your discipline. The document lists case studies of open research per discipline, and resources per discipline (organised as: general, open methods, open data, open output and open education)….”

High-throughput analysis suggests differences in journal false discovery rate by subject area and impact factor but not open access status

Abstract:  Background

A low replication rate has been reported in some scientific areas motivating the creation of resource intensive collaborations to estimate the replication rate by repeating individual studies. The substantial resources required by these projects limits the number of studies that can be repeated and consequently the generalizability of the findings. We extend the use of a method from Jager and Leek to estimate the false discovery rate for 94 journals over a 5-year period using p values from over 30,000 abstracts enabling the study of how the false discovery rate varies by journal characteristics.

Results

We find that the empirical false discovery rate is higher for cancer versus general medicine journals (p?=?9.801E?07, 95% CI: 0.045, 0.097; adjusted mean false discovery rate cancer?=?0.264 vs. general medicine?=?0.194). We also find that false discovery rate is negatively associated with log journal impact factor. A two-fold decrease in journal impact factor is associated with an average increase of 0.020 in FDR (p?=?2.545E?04). Conversely, we find no statistically significant evidence of a higher false discovery rate, on average, for Open Access versus closed access journals (p?=?0.320, 95% CI ??0.015, 0.046, adjusted mean false discovery rate Open Access?=?0.241 vs. closed access?=?0.225).

Conclusions

Our results identify areas of research that may need additional scrutiny and support to facilitate replicable science. Given our publicly available R code and data, others can complete a broad assessment of the empirical false discovery rate across other subject areas and characteristics of published research.

Early Career Researchers Demonstrate an Awareness of Open Access, Country- and Discipline-Level Variation in its Adoption | Open Research Community

A recent international, collaborative study indicates that millennial-generation researchers are highly aware of both advantages and limitations of Open Access publishing.

Adoption of the open access business model in scientific journal publishing – A crossdisciplinary study

Abstract:  Scientific journal publishers have rapidly converted during the past 25 years to predominantly electronic dissemination, but the reader-pays business model continues to dominate the market. Open Access (OA) publishing, where the articles are freely readable on the net, has slowly increased its market share to near 20 percent but has failed to fulfill the visions of rapid proliferation predicted by many early proponents. The growth of OA has also been very uneven across fields of science. We report market shares of open access in 18 Scopus-indexed disciplines ranging from 27 percent (agriculture) to 7 percent (business). The differences become far more pronounced for journals published in the four countries that dominate commercial scholarly publishing (US, UK, Germany, and the Netherlands). We present contrasting developments within six academic disciplines. Availability of funding to pay publication charges, pressure from research funding agencies, and the diversity of discipline-specific research communication cultures arise as potential explanations for the observed differences.

 

Scrutinising what Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities | SpringerLink

Abstract:  In the current article, we tested our hypothesis by which high-impact journals tend to have higher Article Processing Charges (APCs) by comparing journal IF metrics with the OA publishing fees they charge. Our study engaged with both journals in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields and the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) and included Hybrid, Diamond and No OA journals. The overall findings demonstrate a positive relationship between APCs and journals with high IF for two of the subject areas we examined but not for the third, which could be mediated by the characteristics and market environment of the publishers. We also found significant differences between the analysed research fields in terms of APC policies, as well as differences in the relationship between APCs and the IF across periodicals. The study and analysis conducted reinforces our concerns that Hybrid OA models are likely to perpetuate inequalities in knowledge production.

 

Scrutinising what Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities | SpringerLink

Abstract:  In the current article, we tested our hypothesis by which high-impact journals tend to have higher Article Processing Charges (APCs) by comparing journal IF metrics with the OA publishing fees they charge. Our study engaged with both journals in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields and the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) and included Hybrid, Diamond and No OA journals. The overall findings demonstrate a positive relationship between APCs and journals with high IF for two of the subject areas we examined but not for the third, which could be mediated by the characteristics and market environment of the publishers. We also found significant differences between the analysed research fields in terms of APC policies, as well as differences in the relationship between APCs and the IF across periodicals. The study and analysis conducted reinforces our concerns that Hybrid OA models are likely to perpetuate inequalities in knowledge production.

 

Adoption of the Open Access Business Model in Scientific Journal Publishing: A Cross-disciplinary Study | Björk | College & Research Libraries

Abstract:  Scientific journal publishers have rapidly converted during the past 25 years to predominantly electronic dissemination, but the reader-pays business model continues to dominate the market. Open Access (OA) publishing, where the articles are freely readable on the net, has slowly increased its market share to near 20 percent but has failed to fulfill the visions of rapid proliferation predicted by many early proponents. The growth of OA has also been very uneven across fields of science. We report market shares of open access in 18 Scopus-indexed disciplines ranging from 27 percent (agriculture) to 7 percent (business). The differences become far more pronounced for journals published in the four countries that dominate commercial scholarly publishing (US, UK, Germany, and the Netherlands). We present contrasting developments within six academic disciplines. Availability of funding to pay publication charges, pressure from research funding agencies, and the diversity of discipline-specific research communication cultures arise as potential explanations for the observed differences.

 

Do open access journal articles experience a citation advantage? Results and methodological reflections of an application of multiple measures to an analysis by WoS subject areas | SpringerLink

Abstract:  This study is one of the first that uses the recently introduced open access (OA) labels in the Web of Science (WoS) metadata to investigate whether OA articles published in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) listed journals experience a citation advantage in comparison to subscription journal articles, specifically those of which no self-archived versions are available. Bibliometric data on all articles and reviews indexed in WoS, and published from 2013 to 2015, were analysed. In addition to normalised citation score (NCS), we used two additional measures of citation advantage: whether an article was cited at all; and whether an article is among the most frequently cited percentile of articles within its respective subject area (pptopX %). For each WoS subject area, the strength of the relationship between access status (whether an article was published in an OA journal) and each of these three measures was calculated. We found that OA journal articles experience a citation advantage in very few subject areas and, in most of these subject areas, the citation advantage was found on only a single measure of citation advantage, namely whether the article was cited at all. Our results lead us to conclude that access status accounts for little of the variability in the number of citations an article accumulates. The methodology and the calculations that were used in this study are described in detail and we believe that the lessons we learnt, and the recommendations we make, will be of much use to future researchers interested in using the WoS OA labels, and to the field of citation advantage in general.

 

 

Gold and Diamond open access journals landscape – Research Consulting

“The dashboard uses the dataset produced by Walt Crawford on OA journals (GOAJ), which is based on DOAJ data but with added information, for instance on the number of articles published and the types of publishers. Recently, the dataset has been updated with 2019 data and its results are extensively described in the book Gold Open Access 2014-2019.

The purpose of this dashboard is to stimulate usage of this dataset, as this is a resource which is, in our view, currently underused by the Scholarly Communication community. The dashboard is fully interactive and clickable, and, with the Ctrl key, it is possible to click several items simultaneously. With the symbol in the bottom right corner, it is possible to enlarge the dashboard for greater visibility (as circled in red below)….

The majority of OA titles are Diamond, but the number of articles published by Diamond journals is levelling off…

Diamond more titles, Gold more articles: Of the 13939 OA journal titles, over 70% of them are Diamond. However, most articles (>60%) are published by Gold journals.
Gold grows, Diamond levels off: The number of articles published by Gold journals is growing rapidly, while the number of articles published by Diamond journals is levelling off. The number of newly started Diamond journals has also been declining since 2013.

Prominence of Diamond differs dependent on subject…

SSH: In the Social Sciences and Humanities, Diamond journals are predominant, publishing more than three quarters of articles.
Biomedicine: The number of Gold and Diamond journals in Biomedicine is about the same but Gold journals publish many more articles.
Science: In Science, there are more Diamond than Gold journals but Gold journals publish many more articles….”

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 (gold, green, hybrid and bronze) 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.

You can download the chart and its data through the dedicated menu within each chart (top right of the image). …”

Chinese researchers’ perceptions and use of open access journals: Results of an online questionnaire survey – Xu – 2020 – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  This paper reports the results of a survey on Chinese researchers’ perceptions and use of open access journals (OAJs). A total of 381 Chinese researchers from different universities and disciplines were investigated through an online questionnaire survey in August and September 2018. The results showed that most Chinese researchers are familiar with and have positive attitude to OAJs. They know OAJs mainly through their peers, colleagues, and friends. PubMed Central, PLoS, and COAJ (China Open Access Journals) are the most well?known OAJ websites among Chinese researchers. As for use, most of the respondents read and cite OAJs frequently and have experience of publishing in OAJs. However, they strongly prefer to use OAJs indexed in reputable databases (e.g. Web of Science, WoS) when making publishing decisions. Significant differences can be seen among disciplines, with researchers in HSS areas using OAJs less frequently than researchers from other disciplines, although they have the same positive attitudes and are equally well informed about them. Younger researchers preferred to rely on prestigious institutions and authors when using OAJs.