Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

How open are hybrid journals included in transformative agreements?

Najko Jahn

TL;DR

The paper investigates how open access uptake in hybrid journals evolves under transformative agreements from 2018 to 2022 by integrating open data sources (cOAlition S Journal Checker Tool, Crossref, OpenAlex, DOAJ, and related datasets). It finds that OA in hybrid journals grew from 4.3% in 2018 to 15% in 2022, driven largely by transformative agreements but not yet sufficient for a full global transition to OA. OA via transformative agreements is highly concentrated among Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley, with substantial variation across journals, disciplines, and countries (OECD vs BRICS). The study demonstrates a feasible, transparent open-data monitoring approach for evaluating OA policy outcomes, while acknowledging data gaps (invoicing, corresponding-author data) and urging price transparency and standardized reporting to support ongoing assessment.

Abstract

The ongoing controversy surrounding transformative agreements, which aim to transition subscription-based journal publishing to full open access, highlights the need for large-scale studies assessing the impact of these agreements on hybrid open access. By combining multiple open data sources, including cOAlition S Journal Checker, Crossref, and OpenAlex, this study presents a novel approach that analyses over 700 agreements. Results suggest a strong growth in open access, from 4.3% in 2018 to 15% in 2022. Over five years, 11,189 hybrid journals provided open access to 742,369 out of 8,146,958 articles (9.1%). Authors who could make use of transformative agreements contributed 328,957 open access articles (44%) during this period, reaching a peak in 2022 with 143,615 out of 249,511 open access articles (58%). While this trend was predominantly driven by the three commercial publishers Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley, open access uptake varied substantially across journals, publishers, disciplines, and countries. Particularly, the OECD and BRICS areas revealed different publication trends. In conclusion, this study suggests that current levels of implementation of transformative agreements is insufficient to bring about a large-scale transition to full open access.

How open are hybrid journals included in transformative agreements?

TL;DR

The paper investigates how open access uptake in hybrid journals evolves under transformative agreements from 2018 to 2022 by integrating open data sources (cOAlition S Journal Checker Tool, Crossref, OpenAlex, DOAJ, and related datasets). It finds that OA in hybrid journals grew from 4.3% in 2018 to 15% in 2022, driven largely by transformative agreements but not yet sufficient for a full global transition to OA. OA via transformative agreements is highly concentrated among Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley, with substantial variation across journals, disciplines, and countries (OECD vs BRICS). The study demonstrates a feasible, transparent open-data monitoring approach for evaluating OA policy outcomes, while acknowledging data gaps (invoicing, corresponding-author data) and urging price transparency and standardized reporting to support ongoing assessment.

Abstract

The ongoing controversy surrounding transformative agreements, which aim to transition subscription-based journal publishing to full open access, highlights the need for large-scale studies assessing the impact of these agreements on hybrid open access. By combining multiple open data sources, including cOAlition S Journal Checker, Crossref, and OpenAlex, this study presents a novel approach that analyses over 700 agreements. Results suggest a strong growth in open access, from 4.3% in 2018 to 15% in 2022. Over five years, 11,189 hybrid journals provided open access to 742,369 out of 8,146,958 articles (9.1%). Authors who could make use of transformative agreements contributed 328,957 open access articles (44%) during this period, reaching a peak in 2022 with 143,615 out of 249,511 open access articles (58%). While this trend was predominantly driven by the three commercial publishers Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley, open access uptake varied substantially across journals, publishers, disciplines, and countries. Particularly, the OECD and BRICS areas revealed different publication trends. In conclusion, this study suggests that current levels of implementation of transformative agreements is insufficient to bring about a large-scale transition to full open access.
Paper Structure (14 sections, 7 figures, 2 tables)

This paper contains 14 sections, 7 figures, 2 tables.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Methods
  3. Transformative agreement and hybrid journal data
  4. Article and author metadata
  5. Data analysis
  6. Results
  7. Overview
  8. Publishing market
  9. Journal subjects
  10. Comparing countries
  11. Discussion
  12. Competing interests
  13. Funding information
  14. Data and code availability

Figures (7)

  • Figure 1: Data collection workflow
  • Figure 2: Initial data characteristics. (A) Full open access journals included in transformative agreements by evidence source Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), OpenAlex and the Bielefeld GOLD OA list. (B) Number of articles in Crossref by journal types. The purple bars show the overall article volume of hybrid journals in transformative agreements, which were initially included in the study, in comparision with full open access journals according to OpenAlex. The remainder represents articles in subscription-based journals not covered by transformative agreements.
  • Figure 3: Relative growth of open access in hybrid journals in transformative agreements between 2018 and 2022 per publication year. The blue areas represent open access through transformative agreements, the grey areas depict open access articles where no link to an agreement could be established. (A) Proportion of open access articles in hybrid journals per year. (B) Percentage of hybrid open access via agreements per year. Boxplots show the proportion of open access articles by individual hybrid journals (C) and individual open access uptake rates by individual hybrid journals and open access funding (D) per publication year. The individual outliers are not shown. Note that data on transformative agreements ending before June 2021 were not available for this study.
  • Figure 4: Development of open access in hybrid journals included in transformative agreements between 2018 and 2022 by publishers. The blue areas represent open access through transformative agreements, the grey areas depict open access articles where no link to an agreement could be established. (A) Proportion of open access articles in hybrid journals per year and publisher. (B) Percentage of hybrid open access via agreements per year and publisher. Boxplots (C) show individual open access uptake rates by individual hybrid journals and open access funding per publication year and publisher. The individual outliers are not shown. Note that data on transformative agreements ending before June 2021 were not available for this study.
  • Figure 5: Development of open access in hybrid journals in transformative agreements between 2018 and 2022 by ASJC subject area. The blue areas represent open access through transformative agreements, the grey areas depict open access articles where no link to an agreement could be established. (A) Proportion of open access articles in hybrid journals per year and subject area. (B) Percentage of hybrid open access via agreements per year and subject area. (C) Boxplots show individual open access uptake rates by individual hybrid journals and open access funding per publication year and subject area. The individual outliers are not shown. Note that data on transformative agreements ending before June 2021 were not available for this study.
  • ...and 2 more figures