IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i12d10.1007_s11192-021-04002-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open access uptake in Germany 2010–2018: adoption in a diverse research landscape

Author

Listed:
  • Anne Hobert

    (Göttingen State and University Library, University of Göttingen)

  • Najko Jahn

    (Göttingen State and University Library, University of Göttingen)

  • Philipp Mayr

    (GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
    University of Göttingen)

  • Birgit Schmidt

    (Göttingen State and University Library, University of Göttingen)

  • Niels Taubert

    (Bielefeld University)

Abstract

This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010–2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne Hobert & Najko Jahn & Philipp Mayr & Birgit Schmidt & Niels Taubert, 2021. "Open access uptake in Germany 2010–2018: adoption in a diverse research landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9751-9777, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04002-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04002-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04002-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-04002-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stahlschmidt, Stephan & Stephen, Dimity & Hinze, Sybille, 2019. "Performance and structures of the German science system," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 5-2019, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    2. Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2018. "Do authors comply when funders enforce open access to research?," Nature, Nature, vol. 562(7728), pages 483-486, October.
    3. Stephen Pinfield & Jennifer Salter & Peter A. Bath, 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 & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(7), pages 1751-1766, July.
    4. Holly Else, 2018. "Dutch publishing giant cuts off researchers in Germany and Sweden," Nature, Nature, vol. 559(7715), pages 454-455, July.
    5. Alexander Kohls & Salvatore Mele, 2018. "Converting the Literature of a Scientific Field to Open Access through Global Collaboration: The Experience of SCOAP3 in Particle Physics," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10, April.
    6. Frank Mueller‐Langer & Richard Watt, 2018. "How Many More Cites Is A $3,000 Open Access Fee Buying You? Empirical Evidence From A Natural Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(2), pages 931-954, April.
    7. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Costas, Rodrigo & van Leeuwen, Thed & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: A large-scale analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 819-841.
    8. Jürgen Goebelbecker, 2005. "The role of publications in the new programme oriented funding of the Hermann von Helmholtz Association of National Research Centres (HGF)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 173-181, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Najko Jahn & Lisa Matthias & Mikael Laakso, 2022. "Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher‐provided metadata: An article‐level study of Elsevier," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(1), pages 104-118, January.
    2. Niels Taubert & Anne Hobert & Najko Jahn & Andre Bruns & Elham Iravani, 2023. "Understanding differences of the OA uptake within the German university landscape (2010–2020): part 1—journal-based OA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3601-3625, June.
    3. Fernanda Morillo, 2020. "Is open access publication useful for all research fields? Presence of funding, collaboration and impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 689-716, October.
    4. Dulong de Rosnay, Mélanie & Stalder, Felix, 2020. "Digital commons," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-22.
    5. Isidore Komla Zotoo & Guifeng Liu & Zhangping Lu & Frank Kofi Essien & Wencheng Su, 2023. "The Impact of Key Stakeholders and the Computer Skills of Librarians on Research Data Management Support Services (Id so-21-1893.r2)," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.
    6. Mohamed Boufarss & Mikael Laakso, 2020. "Open Sesame? Open access priorities, incentives, and policies among higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1553-1577, August.
    7. Frank Mueller‐Langer & Richard Watt, 2021. "Optimal pricing and quality of academic journals and the ambiguous welfare effects of forced open access: A two‐sided model," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 1945-1959, December.
    8. Joshua Farley & Dakota Walker & Bryn Geffert & Nina Chandler & Lauren Eisel & Murray Friedberg & Dominic Portelli, 2024. "Creating a Transnational Green Knowledge Commons for a Socially Just Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-19, August.
    9. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Scheufen, Marc & Waelbroeck, Patrick, 2020. "Does online access promote research in developing countries? Empirical evidence from article-level data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    10. Abdelghani Maddi & David / Sapinho, 2022. "Article Processing Charges, Altmetrics and Citation Impact: Is there an economic rationale?," Post-Print hal-03552377, HAL.
    11. Kang, Yankun & Leng, Xuan & Liao, Yunxiang & Zheng, Shilin, 2024. "Information disclosure, spillovers, and knowledge accumulation," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    12. Vivek Kumar Singh & Rajesh Piryani & Satya Swarup Srichandan, 2020. "The case of significant variations in gold–green and black open access: evidence from Indian research output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 515-531, July.
    13. Carmen López-Vergara & Pilar Flores Asenjo & Alfonso Rosa-García, 2020. "Incentives to Open Access: Perspectives of Health Science Researchers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, May.
    14. Vivek Kumar Singh & Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2022. "ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1515-1542, March.
    15. Maja Jokić & Andrea Mervar & Stjepan Mateljan, 2018. "Scientific potential of European fully open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1373-1394, March.
    16. Anne K. Krüger, 2020. "Quantification 2.0? Bibliometric Infrastructures in Academic Evaluation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 58-67.
    17. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Business as Usual with Article Processing Charges in the Transition towards OA Publishing: A Case Study Based on Elsevier," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, January.
    18. Abdelghani Maddi & David Sapinho, 2022. "Article processing charges, altmetrics and citation impact: Is there an economic rationale?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7351-7368, December.
    19. Andre Bruns & Niels Taubert, 2021. "Investigating the Blind Spot of a Monitoring System for Article Processing Charges," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, September.
    20. Julie Baldwin & Stephen Pinfield, 2018. "The UK Scholarly Communication Licence: Attempting to Cut through the Gordian Knot of the Complexities of Funder Mandates, Publisher Embargoes and Researcher Caution in Achieving Open Access," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04002-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.