Difference between revisions of "Bjork (2012)"
(7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Source={{Source | |Source={{Source | ||
|Name of Study=Bjork (2012) | |Name of Study=Bjork (2012) | ||
− | |Author= | + | |Author=Björk, B.; |
− | |Title=The Hybrid Model for Open Access Publication of Scholarly | + | |Title=The Hybrid Model for Open Access Publication of Scholarly Articles – a Failed Experiment? |
− | Articles – a Failed Experiment? | ||
|Year=2012 | |Year=2012 | ||
|Full Citation=Björk, B.C., The Hybrid Model for Open Access Publication of Scholarly Articles–a Failed Experiment?. | |Full Citation=Björk, B.C., The Hybrid Model for Open Access Publication of Scholarly Articles–a Failed Experiment?. | ||
− | |Abstract= | + | |Abstract="Since 2004, mainstream scholarly publishers have been offering authors publishing in their subscription journals the option 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; 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." |
− | success of this business model. | ||
|Authentic Link=http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/hybrid/hybrid.pdf | |Authentic Link=http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/hybrid/hybrid.pdf | ||
|Link=http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/hybrid/hybrid.pdf | |Link=http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/hybrid/hybrid.pdf | ||
− | |Reference=Prosser (2003); Solomon and Bjork (2012); | + | |Reference=Prosser (2003);Solomon and Bjork (2012); |
− | |Plain Text Proposition= | + | |Plain Text Proposition=*Prospects for growth via addition of new titles in the near future appear to be low. Indeed, big publishers, university presses and society publishers have already offered a majority of their titles under hybrid OA. |
− | + | *Hybrid OA in the case of the major publishers and with current price level has failed to adding volumes of OA articles. Thus, a way to speedily increase the uptake of OA would be to drastically reduce the price level. However, this might put the subscription income at risk. | |
− | + | *The author observes a trend where many established publishers start new full OA journals, specifically journals with reasonable article processing charges (APCs) and very broad disciplinary coverage. | |
− | + | *The author concludes that in the scholarly publishing landscape, hybrid OA will continue to be a very marginal phenomenon. | |
− | |FundamentalIssue=3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors), 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption), 1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare | + | |FundamentalIssue=3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors),4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption),1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare |
− | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability), B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction), D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) | + | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability),B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction),D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) |
|Discipline=L17: Open Source Products and Markets, O33: Technological Change: Choices and Consequences • Diffusion Processes, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | |Discipline=L17: Open Source Products and Markets, O33: Technological Change: Choices and Consequences • Diffusion Processes, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | ||
− | |Intervention-Response=The | + | |Intervention-Response=The study does not make any explicit policy recommendations. |
− | |||
|Description of Data=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. | |Description of Data=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 Year=2009 | + | |Data Year=2009 - 2012 |
|Data Type=Primary data | |Data Type=Primary data | ||
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Quantitative data/text mining, Qualitative Collection Methods, Case Study, Qualitative content/text mining | |Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Quantitative data/text mining, Qualitative Collection Methods, Case Study, Qualitative content/text mining | ||
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Quantitative content analysis (e.g. text or data mining), Qualitative Analysis Methods, Textual Content Analysis | |Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Quantitative content analysis (e.g. text or data mining), Qualitative Analysis Methods, Textual Content Analysis | ||
|Industry=Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing; | |Industry=Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing; | ||
− | |Country=Global; United States; | + | |Country=Global;United States; |
|Cross-country=No | |Cross-country=No | ||
|Comparative=No | |Comparative=No | ||
Line 35: | Line 32: | ||
|Dataset={{Dataset | |Dataset={{Dataset | ||
|Sample Size=15 | |Sample Size=15 | ||
− | |Level of Aggregation=Publishers | + | |Level of Aggregation=Publishers |
|Data Material Year=2009 to 2012 | |Data Material Year=2009 to 2012 | ||
}}{{Dataset | }}{{Dataset | ||
|Sample Size=2017 | |Sample Size=2017 | ||
− | |Level of Aggregation=Journals | + | |Level of Aggregation=Journals |
|Data Material Year=2009 | |Data Material Year=2009 | ||
}}{{Dataset | }}{{Dataset | ||
|Sample Size=4381 | |Sample Size=4381 | ||
− | |Level of Aggregation=Journals | + | |Level of Aggregation=Journals |
|Data Material Year=2012 | |Data Material Year=2012 | ||
}}{{Dataset | }}{{Dataset | ||
|Sample Size=8095 | |Sample Size=8095 | ||
− | |Level of Aggregation=Articles | + | |Level of Aggregation=Articles |
|Data Material Year=2009 | |Data Material Year=2009 | ||
}}{{Dataset | }}{{Dataset | ||
|Sample Size=12089 | |Sample Size=12089 | ||
− | |Level of Aggregation=Articles | + | |Level of Aggregation=Articles |
|Data Material Year=2012 | |Data Material Year=2012 | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 16:31, 20 October 2020
Contents
Source Details
Bjork (2012) | |
Title: | The Hybrid Model for Open Access Publication of Scholarly Articles – a Failed Experiment? |
Author(s): | Björk, B. |
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
"Since 2004, mainstream scholarly publishers have been offering authors publishing in their subscription journals the option 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; 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
- Prospects for growth via addition of new titles in the near future appear to be low. Indeed, big publishers, university presses and society publishers have already offered a majority of their titles under hybrid OA.
- Hybrid OA in the case of the major publishers and with current price level has failed to adding volumes of OA articles. Thus, a way to speedily increase the uptake of OA would be to drastically reduce the price level. However, this might put the subscription income at risk.
- The author observes a trend where many established publishers start new full OA journals, specifically journals with reasonable article processing charges (APCs) and very broad disciplinary coverage.
- The author concludes that in the scholarly publishing landscape, hybrid OA will continue to be a very marginal phenomenon.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The study does not make any explicit policy recommendations.
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 |