Abstract
Open access (OA) publishing is often viewed as a promising solution for the future of scholarly publishing, as it has the potential to reduce global inequalities in access to scientific literature by removing paywalls. However, the adoption of OA publishing may not necessarily lead to a decrease in the overall cost of knowledge dissemination, as Article Processing Charges (APCs) can create an additional financial burden for scholars, particularly those from develo** countries. Despite being intended as a way to disrupt the scholarly publishing oligopoly, OA publishing has faced challenges in achieving this goal. These challenges were revealed through a comprehensive analysis of OA publishing from 2008 to 2020, as detailed in this study.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The formula of HHI is.
$$HHI={\sum }_{i=1}^{n}{Si}^{2}$$where Si is the market share of a given publisher i, and n is the number of publishers in the market.
Ranked by both the number of OA publications and the number of OA publications indexed by Dimension and WoS respectively. These eight publishers are listed as the top 10 publishers in all four rankings.
Hindawi is an independent publisher during the period of investigation (2008–2020) in this study although it was acquired by Wiley-Blackwell in January 2021.
Web of Science Research Areas (SU) are used here. They consist of 5 major domains (Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Physical Sciences, and Technology), which are assigned at the journal level.
Only the countries with at least 100 publications in 2020 were ranked.
The library material expenditure consists of journal subscription, book and monograph purchase, electronic resource subscription and other expenditures; journal subscription accounts for the largest portion in the library material budget.
References
Association of Research Libraries. (2009–2019). ARL Statistics. ERIC
Basson, I., Simard, M.-A., Ouangré, Z. A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2022). The effect of data sources on the measurement of open access: A comparison of dimensions and the web of science. PLoS ONE, 17(3), e0265545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265545
Beall, J. (2013). The open-access movement is not really about open access. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 11(2), 589–597.
Bergstrom, T. C., Courant, P. N., McAfee, R. P., & Williams, M. A. (2014). Evaluating big deal journal bundles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(26), 9425–9430.
Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2014). Develo** an effective market for open access article processing charges. Retrieved 2014, from https://wellcome.figshare.com/articles/Develo**_an_Effective_Market_for_Open_Access_Article_Processing_Charges/4873532/files/8148665.pdf
Brainard, J. (2021). Open access takes flight. Science, 371(6524), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.371.6524.16
Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). Retrieved 2002, from https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/
Butler, L.-A., Matthias, L., Simard, M.-A., Mongeon, P., & Haustein, S. (2022). The oligopoly’s shift to open access publishing: How for-profit publishers benefit from gold and hybrid article processing charges. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators.
Cox, E. (2020). Open access article processing charge as epistemic injustice in the global south. The University of Texas.
Crow, R. (2009). Income models for open access: An overview of current practice. Retrieved 2009, from https://www.sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/incomemodels_v1.pdf
Else, H. (2020). Nature journals reveal terms of open-access option. Nature, 588(7836), 19–20.
Estakhr, Z., Sotudeh, H., & Abbaspour, J. (2021). The cost-effectiveness of the article-processing-charge-funded model across countries in different scientific blocks: The case of Elsevier’s hybrid, open access journals. Information Research, 26(2), 897.
Herzog, C., Hook, D., & Konkiel, S. (2020). Dimensions: Bringing down barriers between scientometricians and data. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00020%JQuantitativeScienceStudies
Johnson, R., Pinfield, S., & Fosci, M. (2016). Business process costs of implementing “gold” and “green” open access in institutional and national contexts. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2283–2295.
Khoo, S.Y.-S. (2019). Article processing charge hyperinflation and price insensitivity: An open access sequel to the serials crisis. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 29(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10280
Krauskopf, E. (2021). Article processing charge expenditure in Chile: The current situation. Learned Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1413
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0127502.
Lawrence, S. (2001). Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature, 411(6837), 521–521.
Lewis, C. L. (2018). The open access citation advantage: Does it exist and what does it mean for libraries? Information Technology and Libraries, 37(3), 50–65.
Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2021). Retraction note to: Predatory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differences. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04149-w
Ministry of Education of China, & Ministry of Science and Technology of China. (2020). Guan yu gui fan gao deng xue xiao SCI lun wen xiang guan zhi biao shi yong shu li zheng que ** jia dao xiang de ruo gan yi jian (On regulating the use of the number of SCI papers as well as bibliometric indicators on university research evaluation). Retrieved 2020, from http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A16/moe_784/202002/t20200223_423334.html
Ministry of Science and Technology of China. (2020). Guan yu po chu ke ji ** jia zhong “wei lun wen ”bu liang dao xiang de ruo gan cuo shi (On eliminating the abusive use of number of publications in research evaluation). Retrieved 2020,from http://www.most.gov.cn/mostinfo/xinxifenlei/fgzc/gfxwj/gfxwj2020/202002/t20200223_151781.htm
Oviedo-García, M. (2021). Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). Research Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab020
Panitch, J. M., & Michalak, S. (2005). The serials crisis: A white paper for the UNC-Chapel Hill Scholarly Communications Convocation (Vol. 3, p. 2006). University of North Carolina.
Pavan, C., & Barbosa, M. C. (2018). Article processing charge (APC) for publishing open access articles: The Brazilian scenario. Scientometrics, 117(2), 805–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2896-2
Pinfield, S., Salter, J., & Bath, P. A. (2016). The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(7), 1751–1766.
Pinfield, S., Salter, J., Bath, P. A., Hubbard, B., Millington, P., Anders, J. H., & Hussain, A. (2014). Open-access repositories worldwide, 2005–2012: Past growth, current characteristics, and future possibilities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(12), 2404–2421.
Predatory Reports. (2023). MDPI, Frontiers and Hindawi are Blacklisted by a University. Retrieved 2023, from https://predatoryreports.org/news/f/mdpi-frontiers-and-hindawi-are-blacklisted-by-a-university
Shu, F., Liu, S., & Larivière, V. (2022). China’s research evaluation reform: What are the consequences for global science? Minerva. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09468-7
Shu, F., Mongeon, P., Haustein, S., Siler, K., Alperin, J. P., & Larivière, V. (2018). Is it such a big deal? On the cost of journal use in the digital era. College & Research Libraries, 79(6), 785–798.
Simard, M.-A., Ghiasi, G., Mongeon, P., & Larivière, V. (2022). National differences in dissemination and use of open access literature. PLoS ONE, 17(8), e0272730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272730
Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. J. S. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science. Scopus and Dimensions: A Comparative Analysis, 126, 5113–5142.
Smith, E., Haustein, S., Mongeon, P., Shu, F., Ridde, V., & Larivière, V. (2017). Knowledge sharing in global health research–the impact, uptake and cost of open access to scholarly literature. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), 1–10.
Solomon, D. J., & Björk, B. C. (2012). A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1485–1495.
Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Creaser, C., Fry, J., & Willett, P. (2017). Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dum** ground? A Review. Journal of Documentation, 73(2), 263–283.
Tafuri, N. (2010). Prices of US and Foreign Published Materials. Book trade research and statistics (pp. 459–482). American Library Association.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2018). HERFINDAHL-HIRSCHMAN INDEX. Retrieved 2018, from https://www.justice.gov/atr/herfindahl-hirschman-index
Varian, H. R. (1996). Differential pricing and efficiency. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v1i2.473
Wilbanks, J. (2006). Another reason for opening access to research. BMJ, 333(7582), 1306–1308.
Young, P. (2009). The serials crisis and open access: A white paper for the Virginia Tech Commission on research (Working paper). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/11317
Yuan, X., Wang, Q., Jiang, M., Liu, Y., & Yang, X. (2020). Investigating the article processing charge of journals in the gold open access market: A game theory approach. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), e217. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.217
Zhang, L., Wei, Y., Huang, Y., & Sivertsen, G. (2022). Should open access lead to closed research? The trends towards paying to perform research. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04407-5
Acknowledgements
The present study is supported by National Science Foundations of China (Grant # 72274048).
Funding
This work was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, 72274048, Fei Shu.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Shu, F., Larivière, V. The oligopoly of open access publishing. Scientometrics 129, 519–536 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04876-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04876-2