IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i6d10.1007_s11192-023-04716-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding differences of the OA uptake within the German university landscape (2010–2020): part 1—journal-based OA

Author

Listed:
  • Niels Taubert

    (Bielefeld University)

  • Anne Hobert

    (University of Göttingen)

  • Najko Jahn

    (University of Göttingen)

  • Andre Bruns

    (Bielefeld University)

  • Elham Iravani

    (Bielefeld University)

Abstract

This study investigates the determinants for the uptake of Full and Hybrid Open Access (OA) in the university landscape of Germany and distinguishes between three factors: The disciplinary profile, infrastructures and services of universities that aim to support OA, and large transformative agreements. The uptake of OA, the influence of the disciplinary profile of universities and the influence of transformative agreements is measured by combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 4.0 list, and lists of publications covered by transformative agreements). For infrastructures and services that support OA, a structured data collection was created by harvesting different sources of information and by manual online search. To determine the explanatory power of the different factors, a series of regression analyses was performed for different periods and for both Full as well as Hybrid OA. As a result of the regression analyses, the most determining factor for the explanation of differences in the uptake of both OA-types turned out to be the disciplinary profile. For the year 2020, Hybrid OA transformative agreements have become a second relevant factor. However, all variables that reflect local infrastructural support and services for OA turned out to be non-significant. To deepen the understanding of the adoption of OA on the level of institutions, the outcomes of the regression analyses are contextualised by an interview study conducted with 20 OA officers of German universities.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04716-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04716-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04716-3
    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/s11192-023-04716-3?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. Jennifer Rowley & Frances Johnson & Laura Sbaffi & Will Frass & Elaine Devine, 2017. "Academics' behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(5), pages 1201-1211, May.
    2. Tommaso Agasisti & Carsten Pohl, 2012. "Comparing German and Italian Public Universities: Convergence or Divergence in the Higher Education Landscape?," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33, pages 71-85, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Philippe Vincent-Lamarre & Jade Boivin & Yassine Gargouri & Vincent Larivière & Stevan Harnad, 2016. "Estimating open access mandate effectiveness: The MELIBEA score," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(11), pages 2815-2828, November.
    6. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Brunella Boselli & Fernando Galindo-Rueda, 2016. "Drivers and Implications of Scientific Open Access Publishing: Findings from a Pilot OECD International Survey of Scientific Authors," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 33, OECD Publishing.
    9. Yimei Zhu, 2017. "Who support open access publishing? Gender, discipline, seniority and other factors associated with academics’ OA practice," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 557-579, May.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    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. Schmal, W. Benedikt & Haucap, Justus & Knoke, Leon, 2023. "The role of gender and coauthors in academic publication behavior," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    3. Wei Ming & Zhenyue Zhao, 2022. "Rethinking the open access citation advantage: Evidence from the “reverse‐flipping” journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(11), pages 1608-1620, November.
    4. Mingyang Wang & Jiaqi Zhang & Guangsheng Chen & Kah-Hin Chai, 2019. "Examining the influence of open access on journals’ citation obsolescence by modeling the actual citation process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1621-1641, June.
    5. Li Yan & Wang Zhiping, 2023. "Mapping the Literature on Academic Publishing: A Bibliometric Analysis on WOS," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Tony Ross-Hellauer & Birgit Schmidt & Bianca Kramer, 2018. "Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea?," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(4), pages 21582440188, November.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Mario Pagliaro, 2021. "Preprints in Chemistry: An Exploratory Analysis of Differences with Journal Articles," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, February.
    11. Hajar Sotudeh & Zeinab Saber & Farzin Ghanbari Aloni & Mahdieh Mirzabeigi & Farshad Khunjush, 2022. "A longitudinal study of the evolution of opinions about open access and its main features: a twitter sentiment analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5587-5611, October.
    12. Fakhri Momeni & Philipp Mayr & Nicholas Fraser & Isabella Peters, 2021. "What happens when a journal converts to open access? A bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9811-9827, December.
    13. Shina Caroline Lynn Kamerlin & David J. Allen & Bas de Bruin & Etienne Derat & Henrik Urdal, 2021. "Journal Open Access and Plan S: Solving Problems or Shifting Burdens?," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 52(3), pages 627-650, May.
    14. Jacqmin, Julien, 2018. "Why are some online courses more open than others?," MPRA Paper 89929, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    16. de Oliveira, Thaiane Moreira & de Albuquerque, Sofia & Toth, Janderson Pereira & Bello, Debora Zava, 2018. "International cooperation networks of the BRICS bloc," SocArXiv b6x43, Center for Open Science.
    17. Tommaso Agasisti & Giuseppe Munda, 2017. "Efficiency of investment in compulsory education: An Overview of Methodological Approaches," JRC Research Reports JRC106681, Joint Research Centre.
    18. Jesse L. Reynolds & Edward A. Parson, 2020. "Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 323-342, May.
    19. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    20. Fu, Tsu-Tan & See, Kok Fong, 2022. "An integrated analysis of quality and productivity growth in China’s and Taiwan’s higher education institutions," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 234-249.

    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:128:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04716-3. 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.