Open Access – DigitalKoans

“News & Views: Open Access Charges – Price Increases Back on Trend”

Going into 2025, we have seen APC pricing increasing but falling back to long-term trends.

Fully OA APC list prices across our sample have risen by around 6.5% compared with 9.5% this time last year.

Hybrid APC list prices have risen by an average of 3% compared with 4.2% this time last year.

Maximum APCs for fully OA journals remain at $8,900.

Maximum APCs for hybrid journals now top out at $12,690 (up $400 from last year).

https://tinyurl.com/mpdmd7vy

Paywall: “Challenges in Tracking Archive’s Data Reuse in Social Sciences”

Identifying data reuse is challenging, due to technical reasons, and, in particular, incorrect citation practices among scholars. This paper aims to propose an automatic method to track the reuse of data deposited in the archives joined to the CESSDA (Consortium of European Social Science Data Archives) infrastructure. The paper also offers an overview on the identified data to understand the characteristics of the most reused data sets.

https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-07-2024-0112

“openRxiv Launch to Sustain and Expand Preprint Sharing in Life and Health Sciences”

Since their launches in 2013 and 2019, respectively, preprint servers bioRxiv and medRxiv have transformed how scientific findings are communicated. They have hosted more than 325,000 reports of new discoveries, enabling scientists worldwide to collaborate, iterate, and build upon each other’s work at an unprecedented pace. . . .

Establishing openRxiv aims to accelerate the value of these preprint servers, making it easier for these resources to grow and adapt. Created as services of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in partnership with other institutions, bioRxiv and medRxiv now move under openRxiv’s researcher-driven governance, ensuring that preprint sharing remains independent, sustainable, and responsive to researchers’ evolving needs.

https://tinyurl.com/2auerw5t

“The Academic Impact of Open Science: A Scoping Review”

Open Science seeks to make research processes and outputs more accessible, transparent and inclusive, ensuring that scientific findings can be freely shared, scrutinized and built upon by researchers and others. To date, there has been no systematic synthesis of the extent to which Open Science (OS) reaches these aims. We use the PRISMA scoping review methodology to partially address this gap, scoping evidence on the academic (but not societal or economic) impacts of OS. We identify 485 studies related to all aspects of OS, including Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software, Open Evaluation and Citizen Science (CS). Analysing and synthesizing findings, we show that the majority of studies investigated effects of OA, CS and OFD. Key areas of impact studied are citations, quality, efficiency, equity, reuse, ethics and reproducibility, with most studies reporting positive or at least mixed impacts. However, we also identified significant unintended negative impacts, especially those regarding equity, diversity and inclusion. Overall, the main barrier to academic impact of OS is lack of skills, resources and infrastructure to effectively re-use and build on existing research. Building on this synthesis, we identify gaps within this literature and draw implications for future research and policy.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241248

“Frontiers introduces FAIR² Data Management”

FAIR² Data Management leverages AI-assisted curation to structure research data for publication, making it easier to find, reuse, and analyze—both by humans and machines—so researchers can focus on discovery rather than data preparation. By making datasets shareable and optimized for reuse, FAIR² Data Management enhances research efficiency and reproducibility, accelerating breakthroughs in global health, planetary sustainability, and scientific innovation. . . .

FAIR² (FAIR Squared) extends the FAIR principles by defining a formal specification that makes research data AI-ready, aligned with Responsible AI principles, and structured for deep scientific reuse. Compatible with MLCommons Croissant’s AI-ready format, it integrates essential elements for scientific rigor, reproducibility, and interoperability. FAIR² ensures data is richly documented and linked to provenance, methodology, and a detailed data dictionary, creating a context-rich representation of each dataset. It also integrates with TensorFlow, JAX, and PyTorch, enabling AI-driven analysis and easy sharing on Kaggle and Hugging Face, amplifying its impact across disciplines.

https://tinyurl.com/3bwjbsw6

“Project Alexandria: Towards Freeing Scientific Knowledge from Copyright Burdens via LLMs”

Paywalls, licenses and copyright rules often restrict the broad dissemination and reuse of scientific knowledge. We take the position that it is both legally and technically feasible to extract the scientific knowledge in scholarly texts. Current methods, like text embeddings, fail to reliably preserve factual content, and simple paraphrasing may not be legally sound. We urge the community to adopt a new idea: convert scholarly documents into Knowledge Units using LLMs. These units use structured data capturing entities, attributes and relationships without stylistic content. We provide evidence that Knowledge Units: (1) form a legally defensible framework for sharing knowledge from copyrighted research texts, based on legal analyses of German copyright law and U.S. Fair Use doctrine, and (2) preserve most (~95%) factual knowledge from original text, measured by MCQ performance on facts from the original copyrighted text across four research domains. Freeing scientific knowledge from copyright promises transformative benefits for scientific research and education by allowing language models to reuse important facts from copyrighted text. To support this, we share open-source tools for converting research documents into Knowledge Units. Overall, our work posits the feasibility of democratizing access to scientific knowledge while respecting copyright.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19413

Clarivate: “Our Letter to the Library Community”

After receiving feedback and guidance from our customers and partners, we would like to further clarify our intentions moving forward:

We remain unequivocally committed to preserving perpetual access to previously purchased Ebook Central titles.

We are committed to increased investment in Rialto as an ebook marketplace, enabling title-by-title ebook purchasing from publishers and other vendors.

We will work with vendors, such as EBSCO, to integrate with their book and purchasing platforms, to maximize choice and workflow efficiency for customers.

We will expand benchmark and collection development tools in Rialto, providing you with insights to more efficiently make book selection, purchase and access decisions.

To further support the changes announced:

We will extend the ability for customers to make perpetual purchases for both print and ebooks on all platforms, including Ebook Central, OASIS, Rialto and GOBI through June 30, 2026.

We reaffirm our commitment to always facilitate title-by-title perpetual access purchasing through the Rialto marketplace of ebooks from publishers and aggregators.

We will work with you and your vendors of choice to create migration toolkits, to make transitioning your workflows and profiles as efficient and seamless as possible.

We will provide the data and analytics you need, as well as regular updates and close communication with your local team.

https://tinyurl.com/9hbuheru

“An APC Trap?: Privilege and the Perception of Reasonableness in Open Access Publishing”

Four institutions from the U.S. participated in this research: The University of Colorado Boulder (CUB), the University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMass), the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt), and the University of Tennessee Knoxville (UTK). . . .

Grants were the largest source of APC funding across all institutions, with well over half (56%)of respondents who paid an APC using grant funding to pay for at least part of their APC (Figure 2). Eighty-six percent of respondents used grants, departments, and/or other university funding towards their APC. Overall, libraries were not a significant source of funding for paying these fees. In fact, fees were just as likely to be waived than to come from library funding sources 10% of respondents, each), and the library was ranked 5th overall out of 8 funding source options. . . .

Overall, more than two-thirds of respondents across institutions thought that fees less than or equal to US$1.5K were reasonable, with an additional 16% responding that no fees were reasonable (Figure 6).

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14394/55542

“The Economic Impact of Open Science: A Scoping Review”

This paper summarised a comprehensive scoping review of the economic impact of Open Science (OS), examining empirical evidence from 2000 to 2023. It focuses on Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Source Software (OSS), and Open Methods, assessing their contributions to efficiency gains in research production, innovation enhancement, and economic growth. Evidence, although limited, indicates that OS accelerates research processes, reduces the related costs, fosters innovation by improving access to data and resources and this ultimately generates economic growth. Specific sectors, such as life sciences, are researched more and the literature exhibits substantial gains, mainly thanks to OFD and OA. OSS supports productivity, while the very limited studies on Open Methods indicate benefits in terms of productivity gains and innovation enhancement. However, gaps persist in the literature, particularly in fields like Citizen Science and Open Evaluation, for which no empirical findings on economic impact could be detected. Despite limitations, empirical evidence on specific cases highlight economic benefits. This review underscores the need for further metrics and studies across diverse sectors and regions to fully capture OS’s economic potential.

https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/kqse5_v1

“Applying the COUP Framework to a Library-Sourced eTextbook Adoption: A Mixed Methods Study”

A growing number of studies have reported that using open educational resources benefits students, but few studies have investigated academic impacts of adopting library-sourced eBooks as the course textbook. This mixed-methods study utilizes the Open Education Group’s COUP Framework (Cost, Outcomes, Usage, Perceptions), which has previously been used to investigate the impact of OER adoptions, and applies it to the adoption of a library-sourced eBook for a large university course. Results are based on analysis of qualitative data obtained from a student survey and focus group, as well as quantitative student grade point average and drop/fail rates. Findings show that this library-sourced eBook adoption significantly reduced costs for students with no statistically significant impact on student success metrics. Additionally, students reported that cost savings were appreciated and beneficial; they further described the course eBook as high quality, easy to find and use, and supportive of their performance in class. The authors conclude that the potential benefits to students justify the time, cost, and effort expended by the library to facilitate and support eBook adoptions.

https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.86.2.235

“Affordable College Textbook Act Reintroduced in U.S. Congress”

The Affordable College Textbook Act was introduced today in the U.S. Senate by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Angus King (I-ME), Tina Smith (D-MN), and Ron Wyden (D-OR), with companion legislation sponsored by Representative Joe Neguse (D-CO) expected in the U.S. House. Although the bill’s prospects are tied to the broader Higher Education Act reauthorization process, its sponsors have worked to deliver immediate results for students by securing annual funding for the Open Textbook Pilot grant program. Distributed by the U.S. Department of Education, the Open Textbook Pilot has funded 28 projects since 2018, which are projected to save students an estimated $250 million—a substantial return on federal investment.

https://tinyurl.com/25vnn9r5

“The Economic Impact of Open Science: A Scoping Review”

This paper summarised a comprehensive scoping review of the economic impact of Open Science (OS), examining empirical evidence from 2000 to 2023. It focuses on Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Source Software (OSS), and Open Methods, assessing their contributions to efficiency gains in research production, innovation enhancement, and economic growth. Evidence, although limited, indicates that OS accelerates research processes, reduces the related costs, fosters innovation by improving access to data and resources and this ultimately generates economic growth. Specific sectors, such as life sciences, are researched more and the literature exhibits substantial gains, mainly thanks to OFD and OA. OSS supports productivity, while the very limited studies on Open Methods indicate benefits in terms of productivity gains and innovation enhancement. However, gaps persist in the literature, particularly in fields like Citizen Science and Open Evaluation, for which no empirical findings on economic impact could be detected. Despite limitations, empirical evidence on specific cases highlight economic benefits. This review underscores the need for further metrics and studies across diverse sectors and regions to fully capture OS’s economic potential.

https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/kqse5_v1

Paywall: “Implementing Read and Publish Agreements at the College of Charleston Libraries”

Focusing primarily on the Read and Publish agreements with Cambridge, Wiley, and Springer Nature, this article gives insight into managing Read and Publish agreements, specifically for academic libraries with no designated scholarly communications librarians.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2025.2471077

“Exploring Academic Librarian Support of Open Pedagogy: A Survey of U.S. and Canadian Perspectives”

Case studies have demonstrated various ways in which academic librarians support open pedagogy, but little has been done to look at the bigger picture of what this support entails. This study surveyed 145 US and Canadian academic librarians about how comfortable they are with the concept of open pedagogy and whether they have supported it, along with what that support has looked like. The study also sought to understand what factors might affect this support, as well as how these librarians themselves could be better supported. Results show that a majority of respondents are at least somewhat comfortable with open pedagogy and have even supported it in at least one course. Respondents also expressed an interest in supporting open pedagogy in the future, but many expressed a desire for more resources and professional development.

https://tinyurl.com/3jrrdryw

“Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: the CoARA Working Group publishes Its First Report”

The OI4RRA report stresses that transitioning to OIs requires institutions and stakeholders to identify the advantages that OIs offer in comparison with closed systems. These can be summarised in four key contributions.

In contrast to the traditional focus on publications and journal-based metrics, OIs support the consideration of a broad range of scholarly contributions in research evaluations.

OIs have the ability to integrate data-driven indicators with the nuance of contextual and narrative based information.

Thirdly, interoperability paired with community-driven governance for evaluations promote the uptake of best practices and foster trust.

Lastly, an emphasis on transparent data automation streamlines workflows, allowing researchers to devote more time to actual research.

https://tinyurl.com/vasmmrsh

Open Infrastructures for Responsible Research Assessment: Principles and Framework

“Data and Code Availability in Political Science Publications from 1995 to 2022”

In this paper, we assess the availability of reproduction archives in political science. By “reproduction archive,” we mean the data and code supporting quantitative research articles that allows others to reproduce the computations described in the published paper. We collect a random sample of quantitative research articles published in political science from 1995 to 2022. We find that—even in 2022—most quantitative research articles do not point a reproduction archive. However, practices are improving. In 2014, when the DA-RT symposium was published in PS, about 12% of quantitative research articles point to the data and code. Eight years later, in 2022, that has increased to 31%. This underscores a massive shift in norms, requirements, and infrastructure. Still, only a minority of articles share the supporting data and code.

https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/a5yxe_v2

“Peer Review of Data Papers: Does It Achieve Expectations for Facilitating Data Sharing and Reuse?”

This paper presents a qualitative study of open peer review reports of data papers in a data journal Earth System Science Data. We examine to what extent the actual review practices of data papers align with identifying the most valuable datasets and promoting data reuse. We conclude that peer reviewers adopted a variety of criteria to evaluate data papers, but it is still challenging for reviewers to identify the most valuable datasets that should be reused. In addition, our findings demonstrate the correlation between data paper evaluations and subsequent reuse of the underlying datasets.

https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5130257

U.S. Research Data Summit: Strengthening Cooperation Across Organizations and Sectors: Proceedings of a Workshop

On October 10-11, 2023, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine hosted the U.S. Research Data Summit at the National Academy of Sciences Building in Washington, DC. The summit was undertaken by a planning committee organized under the U.S. National Committee for CODATA. The summit was informed by input from 29 organizations, including leaders from federal government agencies, the private sector, public and nonprofit organizations, and research institutions. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussion of the summit.

https://tinyurl.com/yjbuhkwz

“Unveiling the Report Findings from IOI’s Study on the State of Open Research Software Infrastructure”

Key recommendations

Surface hidden information – One of the biggest challenges we discovered during the study is a scarcity of available, standardized, and meaningful data. This information gap limits the visibility of what is happening in research software and in the development of infrastructure to support it. There is a pressing need to give time and attention at the field level to identify and subsequently gather the needed data to fill the information gaps.

Strengthen the scaffolding – As the field matures, its actors need stronger scaffolding to support norms and activities. Scaffolding, in this instance, can be defined as elements that, with appropriate instantiation, might become the backbone (social, technical, administrative) infrastructure supporting the field. There is a need to shift the priority from creating to integrating and maintaining, and to encourage and enable consolidation, specialization, mergers, and handoffs.

Grow the market – One of the challenges we have noticed is that research software infrastructures are leaning on the same funding sources, and those funding sources may not last. We’ve seen this in other fields as well. There is a need to figure out how to identify the research software users and how those users connect to customers. Understanding how that user connects to the dollars necessary to keep the research infrastructures running is also essential. This is not about profit but keeping things running and having a dependable system.

Invest in coordination – Research software is still in its infancy and lacks well-established practices, scaffolding, and market structures. With these conditions, no single actor can succeed alone in this evolving field, especially amid today’s challenging fiscal and political landscape for open science. Philanthropic funders can step in with targeted investments that build the foundational architecture of research software infrastructure. Such investments would bolster individual projects, programs, and organizations and create the necessary environment — providing time, space, tools, and structured support — across training, packaging, hosting, socialization, and advocacy) to collaborate across disciplines and geographies.

https://tinyurl.com/bddnzd7c

The State of Open Research Software Infrastructure

“California Universities and Oxford University Press Sign Landmark Open Access Agreement”

The 10-campus University of California system (UC), 20 of 23 California State University (CSU) campuses, and 30 private academic and research institutions represented by the Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium (SCELC) have reached a comprehensive four-year transformative open access agreement with Oxford University Press (OUP). The agreement begins this month and will provide affiliated researchers with access to OUP’s world-leading journals and support for publishing their work open access. . . .

This major agreement harnesses the resources of research institutions, private liberal arts colleges, comprehensive universities, and special libraries across California by redirecting existing library subscription funds to support authors publishing open access. The agreement enables authors at the participating institutions to publish articles using an open access license at reduced or no cost in more than 500 hybrid and fully open access OUP journals. Authors with grant funds available will pay a discounted open access publishing fee across OUP’s hybrid and fully open access journals. Authors who do not have grant funds available will be able to publish open access in hybrid journals at no cost to them.

https://tinyurl.com/f5tjynus

“DeepGreen—A Data Hub for the Distribution of Scholarly Articles From Publishers to Open Access Repositories in Germany”

DeepGreen is an automated delivery service for open access articles. Originally conceived to take advantage of the so-called open access component—a secondary publication right in Alliance and National licences in Germany to promote green open access—it aims to streamline open access processes by automating the distribution of full-text articles and metadata from publishers to repositories.

The service, developed by a consortium and funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) in its initial phase, has successfully established itself as a national service, facilitating open access content distribution and contributing to Germany’s open access infrastructure.

As of December 2024, DeepGreen distributes articles from 14 publishers to 84 institutional repositories and 6 subject-specific repositories.

This article describes the role of the DeepGreen service in Germany, its collaboration with publishers and the potential of automated processes for storing articles in open access repositories, which, as publicly owned institutional infrastructures, ensure sustainable access and provide secure, redundant storage.

https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.70000

“Questioning the Predator of the Predatory Journals: How Fair Are Global Publishing Standards?”

What is concerning now is far from just publishing in predatory journals. It is the new emerging trend where academics and non-academics misuse the term ‘predatory’ by applying it to any lesser-known publishers or those publishers mentioned in blog lists of predatory journals. This oversimplification can blur the boundary between what is actually predatory and what is not. It prevents from having any possible scholarly discussions. It can delegitimise any legitimate emerging journal and even discourage researchers who lack funding from attaining any form of publication. Which means that this misuse of the term, even unintentionally, has the potential to marginalise academic communities. Considering this trend, it is vital to educate ourselves on the distinction between predatory journals and what is regarded as a new, lesser-known emerging journal.

https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1662

“Tracking Transformative Agreements through Open Metadata: Method and Validation Using Dutch Research Council NWO Funded Papers”

Transformative agreements have become an important strategy in the transition to open access, with almost 1,200 such agreements registered by 2025. Despite their prevalence, these agreements suffer from important transparency limitations, most notably article-level metadata indicating which articles are covered by these agreements. Typically, this data is available to libraries but not openly shared, making it difficult to study the impact of these agreements. In this paper, we present a novel, open, replicable method for analyzing transformative agreements using open metadata, specifically the Journal Checker tool provided by cOAlition S and OpenAlex. To demonstrate its potential, we apply our approach to a subset of publications funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and its health research counterpart ZonMw. In addition, the results of this open method are compared with the actual publisher data reported to the Dutch university library consortium UKB. This validation shows that this open method accurately identified 89% of the publications covered by transformative agreements, while the 11% false positives shed an interesting light on the limitations of this method. In the absence of hard, openly available article-level data on transformative agreements, we provide researchers and institutions with a powerful tool to critically track and evaluate the impact of these agreements.

https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/tz6be_v1

“Hurdles to Open Access Publishing Faced by Authors: A Scoping Literature Review from 2004 to 2023”

Over the past two decades, numerous widespread efforts and individual contributions to shift scientific publishing to open access (OA) faced a number of obstacles. Due to the complexity of knowledge production dimension and knowledge dissemination, the challenges encountered by researchers, publishers, and readers differ. While examples of such barriers exist across multiple parties, no attempt has been made to synthesize these for active researchers. Thus, this scoping review explores the barriers documented in the scientific literature that researchers encounter in their pursuit of publishing open access. After screening 1,280 relevant sources, 113 papers were included in the review. A total of 82 distinct barriers were identified and grouped into four subclusters: Practical Barriers, Lack of Competency, Sentiment, and Policy & Governance. The largest cluster in terms of barriers assigned was Sentiment, accounting for 51.2% (n=42) of all barriers identified, suggesting that perceived barriers are the strongest determinants of publishing OA, while the most frequently occurring barrier was “high article processing charges”, reported in 88 papers. Furthermore, burdens faced specifically due to the location of the researcher were identified. Understanding and acknowledging these barriers is essential for their effective elimination or mitigation.

https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/vzefj_v1

How Can We Achieve Sustainable Funding for Open Access Books?”

Is the biggest blocker to open access (OA) for books actually the economics of it all? Book processing charges (BPCs) do not scale but they remain a significant method of paying to produce OA monographs for many researchers and libraries. However, in the last few years, we have seen several new initiatives emerge that seek to solve the problem posed by funding via BPCs alone. There is a proliferation of collective funding models for OA books, including Opening the Future, Open Book Collective, MIT Press’s D2O, JSTOR’s Path to Open and others. They all work differently, but they all offer alternatives to BPCs. In this article we explore the theme of sustainable funding for OA monographs, presenting a range of new models, and suggest that their normalization is well overdue. We also present the work of the library at Lancaster University on their new strategy supporting open access. While this article takes a somewhat UK-centric path, what is happening in the UK may be replicated in other countries and contexts. With demand increasing for monographs to be open this is a timely topic. The authors welcome discussion from publishers, libraries and other stakeholders.

https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.673