Publishing – DigitalKoans

“Portico to Preserve Clarivate’s Ebook Central”

Portico has signed an agreement with Clarivate to preserve books available to academic libraries through Ebook Central. This agreement ensures the long-term preservation of this expansive collection. Portico will also receive new books added to Ebook Central in the future.

https://librarytechnology.org/pr/31206

“A Master Class in Destroying Trust”

Clarivate’s dismissal of one-time purchases is alarming, but when you consider the company’s larger strategy, it makes sense. On the Q4 earnings call, Shem Tov refers to one-time purchases as “a drain.” He also says that Clarivate has “retained financial advisers to help us in evaluating strategic alternatives to unlock value. This may include divesting business units or an entire segment.” He goes on to say, “There is no guarantee that anything actionable will arise from this process,” but considering Clarivate will no longer sell books, Clarivate’s furthering its investment in data should make us wary.

https://tinyurl.com/y57tdkz3

“Making Your Repository (More) Accessible”

Introduction: As colleges and universities make increasing and overdue efforts under the auspices of access, equity, and inclusion to make their resources accessible to all users, these efforts must extend to the institution’s online presence, including its institutional repository. IR managers must first ask what “accessible” means for compliance with university policies as well as the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), immediately followed by plans for both remediating existing content and imposing best practices on new content, amid current workflows and budgetary restraints.

Literature Review: Literature on the topic of accessibility in IRs has mostly focused on the need to make collections accessible and the challenges for doing so. Advice on how to navigate the actual process is harder to come by.

Description of Service: The University of Mississippi established a goal that everything going into its IR would use OCR software to convert images of text into searchable text and create a process by which patrons could request remediation of older content from the IR, whether documents or recordings. A combination of shared tools (including Equidox and SensusAccess) and interdepartmental partnerships has made a significant difference in making these digital collections proactively accessible.

Next Steps: We continue to maintain partnerships with units around campus, made challenging by frequent turnover as in demand specialists take positions at other institutions. Despite our efforts to provide searchable text as a minimum level of service, OCR correction provides tags but not necessarily headings or alt-text. Hopefully future versions of OCR editors will include such features.

https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18308

“Making an Open Information Literacy Textbook: A Case Study in OER Collaborations Among Four Oklahoma Academic Librarians”

Springboarding from a statewide initiative, four academic librarians from three different universities collaborated to create an openly licensed textbook on the Pressbooks platform that could be easily embedded into one-shots or general education research courses. The project developed over the span of a year, which included: planning, exploring, creating, evaluating, sharing, and implementing. The first three steps taught the authors to set and agree upon shared expectations early, decide to either clone or create original content, and trust remixing material from other OER is firmly within the moral framework of sharing knowledge. In the final three stages the authors learned to recruit more reviewers/editors than needed, recognize when to turn off perfectionism and publish, and stay open to new collaborative opportunities. The authors experienced firsthand how OER transforms libraries from information gate-keepers to become content owners. This transformation brings libraries closer to their missions of access for all.

https://doi.org/10.33011/newlibs/18/2

“What Are Journals and Reviewers Concerned about in Data Papers? Evidence From Journal Guidelines and Review Reports”

The evolution of data journals and the increase in data papers call for associated peer review, which is intricately linked yet distinct from traditional scientific paper review. This study investigates the data paper review guidelines of 22 scholarly journals that publish data papers and analyses 131 data papers’ review reports from the journal Data. Peer review is an essential part of scholarly publishing. Although the 22 data journals employ disparate review models, their review purposes and requirements exhibit similarities. Journal guidelines provide authors and reviewers with comprehensive references for reviewing, which cover the entire life cycle of data. Reviewer attitudes predominantly encompass Suggestion, Inquiry, Criticism and Compliment during the specific review process, focusing on 18 key targets including manuscript writing, diagram presentation, data process and analysis, references and review and so forth. In addition, objective statements and other general opinions are also identified. The findings show the distinctive characteristics of data publication assessment and summarise the main concerns of journals and reviewers regarding the evaluation of data papers.

https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2001

“Elsevier Launches ScienceDirect AI to Transform Research with Rapid Mission-Critical Insights from Trusted Content”

Researchers grapple with an ever-growing and overwhelming volume of information and need to quickly get accurate insights they can rely on. Studies show that they spend 25%-35% of their time sifting through literature. ScienceDirect AI helps address this challenge by drawing on the broadest and deepest content set of millions of peer-reviewed full-text research articles and book chapters to generate instant accurate summaries and highlight key findings, while providing references to support reproducibility and integrity of research.

https://tinyurl.com/2s3m2hwp

“De Gruyter Brill Accelerates Open Access Transformation, Making 58 Journals Freely Available via Subscribe to Open”

De Gruyter Brill is expanding its Subscribe to Open program, DG2O, by immediately switching 37 additional journals to open access. In total, 58 journals from the De Gruyter portfolio will be published open access via DG2O in 2025, making approximately 2,300 research articles freely available to the global scholarly community. The transition is made possible through the continued commitment of libraries and institutions, whose renewed subscriptions helped meet the necessary funding threshold.

https://tinyurl.com/5n7z8z7k

“Springer Nature Achieves Revenue and Profit Targets and Projects Further Growth for 2025”

Revenue grew by 5% on an underlying[1] basis to €1,847 million and adjusted operating profit rose by 7% on an underlying[1] basis to €512 million

Research was main growth driver, posting underlying[1] 6% revenue increase following strong performance of the Open Access (OA) Journals portfolio

For the first time, Springer Nature published 50% of its primary research articles

https://tinyurl.com/bdd7umwm

“Cambridge to Conduct ‘Radical’ Review of Open Research ”

Cambridge University Press is to conduct a “radical, community-led” review of the open research publishing ecosystem. The review aims to identify bold and workable solutions that support innovation and researchers’ needs in a manner that’s sustainable for all major stakeholders.

The project will focus on four areas crucial to the future of open research:

The link between publishing, reward and recognition

Equity in research dissemination

Research integrity

Technological change and the future of research publishing

https://tinyurl.com/2879upe8

“Are Data Papers Cited as Research Data? Preliminary Analysis on Interdisciplinary Data Paper Citations”

Introduction. Research data sharing and reuse have become increasingly important in modern science, and data papers represent a new academic publication genre aimed at enhancing the visibility, sharing, and reuse of research data. However, whether citations to data papers reflect actual data reuse remains largely unexplored. This paper presents preliminary findings from a project designed to address this gap.

Method. we conducted a content analysis to manually annotate 437 citation sentences from 309 research articles referencing 50 data papers published in Data in Brief, a chief academic journal that only publishes data papers. The data papers were sampled from five knowledge domains based on a paper-level classification system.

Results. Our results show that most citations to all selected data papers (89%) are unrelated to the research data being described in the paper, instead focusing on the research findings or methodologies. This suggests that data papers are being cited similarly to traditional research articles, despite their unique purpose and content.

Conclusion. These findings raise questions about the effectiveness of data papers as representations of research data within the scholarly communication system, as well as their utility in quantitative studies on data reuse.

https://tinyurl.com/3f5u33fs

“Investing in the Future: A New Strategic Agreement for Diamond Open Access in Canada”

The Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN) and Érudit are proud to announce a new five-year agreement (2025–2029) for the Partnership for Open Access, with 57 participating libraries. . . .

Thanks to the ongoing engagement of participating libraries, the Partnership for Open Access (POA) provides financial support to 260 scholarly journals. Independent and diverse, these journals reflect the linguistic diversity and the impactful research conducted in Canada and beyond. They are also deeply rooted in their academic communities, as over 1,500 Canadian researchers publish their work in these journals annually, which are often based on Canadian university campuses. . . .

Through its 10+ years, the POA has established itself as a successful and sustainable model: it enables the distribution of over 2,000 articles per year without APCs, and has already helped 40 journals make the transition to open access.

https://tinyurl.com/yrwz2pkp

Royal Society at 71% OA: “Our Open Access Transition Enters the 70’sEra”

Looking back on the Royal Society journals’ progress over 2024, I am pleased to report that we have increased our open access output from 66% in 2023 to 71% across the research journals. . . .

Data from articles published in our Transformative Journals in 2022 shows that open access papers received on average 100% more citations and 116% more downloads than subscription articles. Of all articles published in 2022, 99 of the top 100 articles by Altmetric score were open access.

https://tinyurl.com/5a84jt5d

“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

“Elsevier Launches Sciencedirect AI to Transform Research with Rapid Mission-Critical Insights from Trusted Content”

ScienceDirect AI includes the following features:

Ask ScienceDirect AI – search and summaries of full-text articles and book chapters

Users can search and get answers from within the full-text of 14 million articles and book chapters, using their own words to describe what they need and why. ScienceDirect AI will search across the millions of documents in its index to provide a Summary Response with references, Source Snippets for each reference, and short Related Insights summaries while linking back to the original document.

Reading Assistant – chat with a document in ScienceDirect

This conversational feature answers questions about the content of a specific full-text article or book chapter and allows researchers to ask further questions of the document. Users can click on references within the summaries to jump to locations in the article where the answer comes from, it also suggests research questions.

Compare Experiments – experiment summary table

Comparing and synthesizing literature can be very time-consuming. ScienceDirect AI’s unique Compare Experiments tool takes a set of articles and creates a table breaking down each experiment within them, drawing out the key aspects of each including goals, methods and results.

https://tinyurl.com/mwnkar8u

“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

“Elsevier’s Pre-proof Policy Blocks Google Scholar Indexing”

Google Scholar is a vital tool for engineering scholars, enabling efficient literature searches and facilitating academic dissemination. Elsevier, as one of the largest publishers of engineering journals, produces essential research that scholars rely on. The pre-proof policy, adopted by Elsevier for certain journals, allows articles to be published online in their accepted draft form before final proofreading and formatting. However, this study empirically demonstrates that the pre-proof publication policy hinders comprehensive indexing by Google Scholar. Articles published under this policy are only partially indexed, often limited to titles and abstracts, while crucial sections such as introductions, methods, results, discussions, conclusions, appendices, and data availability statements remain unsearchable. This problem has persisted for years, resulting in reduced visibility and accessibility of certain Elsevier articles. To improve academic dissemination, both Elsevier and Google Scholar must address this problem by modifying publishing policies or enhancing indexing practices. Additionally, this paper explores strategies that authors can use to mitigate the issue and ensure broader discoverability of their research.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05550

“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

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

“Opinion: A Librarian’s Summary Of, and Response to, the Clarivate Announcement”

Furthermore, the transition to subscription-only access represents more than a change in purchasing models – it fundamentally undermines the ability of academic libraries to build collections that serve their specific institutional needs. . . . As the existing ProQuest One collections have demonstrated (causing great frustration), content can be removed without library input or prior announcement. Clarivate states: “We will continue our bi-annual schedule of title removals from subscriptions in June and December. There may be occasional off-cycle removals due to legal reasons or loss of publisher rights.” . . . The loss of Evidence-Based Acquisition (EBA) and Demand-Driven Acquisition (DDA) is also likely to be another blow to institutions whose budgets do not allow for the up-front purchase of all texts on lists.

https://tinyurl.com/4wy3eyc9

“Academic Databases and the Art of the Overcharge”

To help libraries avoid price discrimination, we gathered research library pricing for three popular academic databases: SciFinder from Chemical Abstract Services (a division of the American Chemical Society); Scopus from Elsevier; and Clarivate’s Web of Science. . . .

Using this data, we will examine a selection of pricing that demonstrates the range of prices paid by libraries and compare pricing across different institutional factors. We will conclude with tips on how to use pricing data in your library’s next negotiation.

https://tinyurl.com/ycyyyhuf

“AI Is Reigniting Decades-Old Questions Over Digital Rights, but Fair Use Prevails”

A publisher recently provided UC Berkeley’s Library with an elusive explanation for their AI ban on a subset of their licensed materials, claiming that they would “require new and different AI terms [that] would be significantly higher in price,” and that “individual client requests [would] need to be evaluated [to] determine whether or not they will be permitted.” However, when prompted to provide said new terms and price, the publisher was unable, or perhaps unwilling, to provide any additional information, noting that there is “no set pricing model or terms to share.” . . .

Charging extra to secure AI rights is likely to be cost-prohibitive due to increased financial burdens on libraries and institutions of higher education; if publishers are successful, it could lead to less academic output as researchers may have to independently foot the bill for the right to conduct research using AI.

https://tinyurl.com/42nmfwm2

“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

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