New study: "The current level of implementation of transformative agreements is insufficient to bring about a large-scale transition to fully #OpenAccess. A key finding…is that TAs maintain market concentration…The three largest commercial publishers #Elsevier, #SpringerNature & #Wiley dominate, particularly with regard to OA provided through TAs. Together, the 3 publishers accounted for 3/4 of OA articles through TAs."
https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.18255

#Hybrid #Monopoly #ReadAndPublishAgreements

How open are hybrid journals included in transformative agreements?

The ongoing controversy surrounding transformative agreements, which aim to transition subscription-based journal publishing to full open access, highlights the need for large-scale studies assessing the impact of these agreements on hybrid open access. By combining multiple open data sources, including cOAlition S Journal Checker, Crossref, and OpenAlex, this study presents a novel approach that analyses over 700 agreements. Results suggest a strong growth in open access, from 4.3% in 2018 to 15% in 2022. Over five years, 11,189 hybrid journals provided open access to 742,369 out of 8,146,958 articles (9.1%). Authors who could make use of transformative agreements contributed 328,957 open access articles (44%) during this period, reaching a peak in 2022 with 143,615 out of 249,511 open access articles (58%). While this trend was predominantly driven by the three commercial publishers Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley, open access uptake varied substantially across journals, publishers, disciplines, and countries. Particularly, the OECD and BRICS areas revealed different publication trends. In conclusion, this study suggests that current levels of implementation of transformative agreements is insufficient to bring about a large-scale transition to full open access.

arXiv.org
@petersuber But surely the end-game here is that when the TAs come to their end, the Plan S funders will look at what the result has been and simply refuse to re-up them. TAs are an opportunity for publishers to show they're fit for purpose in the long term. Those that have instead chosen to use them as a short-term revenue hike should not expect further charity.
@mike I understand that this is already the intention - no review will be necessary @petersuber
@paulwalk @petersuber In which case, so far a I can see, the TAs have done their jobs.

@paulwalk @petersuber This is why I don't understand why people are so down on TAs. To me, they were effectively notices of "you have X years ago get yourself into shape, or no more contracts for you". Those publishers that have elected not to bother transitioning will reap exactly what they were told.

(Or: they had BETTER. If the Plan S funders back down when it comes to it, I will be incandescent.)

@mike @paulwalk
#Plan_S put a time limit on its support for TAs (end of 2024). But that only applies to the funders who belong to #cOAlition_S. It doesn't apply to the many universities signing this kind of agreement. The uni agreements expire after x years (usually 3) but can be renegotiated and renewed indefinitely.

For my objections to these agreements, see #BOAI20, Recommendation 4.
https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/

BOAI20 – Budapest Open Access Initiative

@petersuber @paulwalk Right. But the same principle applies. Universities that signed "transformative agreements", presuambly in the expectation that they would result in transformation, are at liberty to — I would say EXPECTED to — refuse to extend such agreements when they don't do what it says on the tin.
@mike @paulwalk
Yes, we can hope. But my sense is that many universities will renew even without evidence of actual journal flipping. They're signing them now without evidence of actual flips from previous agreements.
@petersuber @paulwalk Let's hope enough do the right thing — enough to change the broader equation.