Difference between revisions of "Bjork (2012)"
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
|Literature review=No | |Literature review=No | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | |Dataset= | + | |Dataset={{Dataset |
+ | |Sample Size=15 | ||
+ | |Level of Aggregation=Publishers, | ||
+ | |Data Material Year=2009 to 2012 | ||
+ | }}{{Dataset | ||
+ | |Sample Size=2017 | ||
+ | |Level of Aggregation=Journals, | ||
+ | |Data Material Year=2009 | ||
+ | }}{{Dataset | ||
+ | |Sample Size=4381 | ||
+ | |Level of Aggregation=Journals, | ||
+ | |Data Material Year=2012 | ||
+ | }}{{Dataset | ||
+ | |Sample Size=8095 | ||
+ | |Level of Aggregation=Articles, | ||
+ | |Data Material Year=2009 | ||
+ | }}{{Dataset | ||
+ | |Sample Size=12089 | ||
+ | |Level of Aggregation=Articles, | ||
+ | |Data Material Year=2012 | ||
+ | }} | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 16:45, 10 July 2016
Contents
Source Details
Bjork (2012) | |
Title: | The Hybrid Model for Open Access Publication of Scholarly
Articles – a Failed Experiment? |
Author(s): | Bo-Christer Björk |
Year: | 2012 |
Citation: | Björk, B.C., The Hybrid Model for Open Access Publication of Scholarly Articles–a Failed Experiment?. |
Link(s): | Definitive , Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | The study uses data from 15 publishers of hybrid journals. It covers two periods: the first in 2009 when a previous study found 2017 journals and 8095 articles available as hybrid publications, and a second period in 2011-12 which found 4381 journals and 12089 articles. |
Data Type: | Primary data |
Secondary Data Sources: | |
Data Collection Methods: | |
Data Analysis Methods: | |
Industry(ies): | |
Country(ies): | |
Cross Country Study?: | No |
Comparative Study?: | No |
Literature review?: | No |
Government or policy study?: | No |
Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
Funder(s): |
Abstract
Mainstream scholarly publishers have since 2004 started to offer authors in subscription journals the possibility to free their individual articles from access barriers against a payment (hybrid OA). This has been marketed as a possible gradual transition path between subscription and open access to the scholarly journal literature, and the publishers have pledged to decrease their subscription prices in proportion to the uptake of the hybrid option. The number of hybrid journals has doubled in the past couple of years and is now over 4,300, and the number of such articles was around 12,000 in 2011. On average only 1-2 % of eligible authors utilize the OA option, due mainly to the generally high price level of typically 3,000 USD. There are, however, a few publishers and individual journals with a much higher uptake. This article takes a closer look at the development of hybrid OA and discusses, from an author-centric viewpoint, the possible reasons for the lack of success of this business model.
Main Results of the Study
In just over two years the number of journals from major publishers offering hybrid Open Access has more than doubled, from approximately 2,000 to over 4,400. Since the overall numbers of journals from these publishers has remained on the same level, the hybrid share has risen from 25 % to around 50% of all eligible journals. In the same period the number of articles has increased from around 8,000 to 12,000. Roughly half of these articles have been deposited in PubMedCentral by the publishers and the share of articles in biomedicine is even higher. Among the lessons learnt is that at the 3,000 USD price level the overwhelming majority of authors do not pay the charges. It is difficult to know to what extent this is due to lack of awareness of the option and of the benefits of OA, unwillingness to pay at the prevailing price level or difficulties in funding the hybrid charge. The overall conclusion of this study must be that the hybrid experiment, at least in the case of the major publishers and with the current price level, has failed as a way of significantly adding to the volumes of OA articles, and that hybrid OA will remain a very marginal phenomenon in the scholarly publishing landscape.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The hybrid offering seems to have reached a state where the prospects for growth are low in the near future. The big publishers have already included around half their titles, probably most of the ones deemed to have better chances of uptake, and many university presses and society publishers already have a clear majority of their titles in their hybrid offering. Thus there is relative little scope for growth via the addition of new titles. The best chances of rapidly increasing the uptake would be to drastically reduce the price level. But that could in turn put the subscription income at risk. Since the marginal cost of keeping the hybrid offering running is almost zero publishers are likely to continue with this route in its current form in the near future. But in parallel the trend seems now to be for many established publishers to start wholly new full Open Access journals, and in particular journals with very broad disciplinary coverage and reasonable article processing charges.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
Sample size: | 15 |
Level of aggregation: | Publishers |
Period of material under study: | 2009 to 2012 |
Sample size: | 2017 |
Level of aggregation: | Journals |
Period of material under study: | 2009 |
Sample size: | 4381 |
Level of aggregation: | Journals |
Period of material under study: | 2012 |
Sample size: | 8095 |
Level of aggregation: | Articles |
Period of material under study: | 2009 |
Sample size: | 12089 |
Level of aggregation: | Articles |
Period of material under study: | 2012 |