The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How the Big Five Academic Publishers Profit from Article Processing Charges

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Quantitative Science Studies Pub Date : 2023-11-03 DOI:10.1162/qss_a_00272
Leigh-Ann Butler, Lisa Matthias, Marc-André Simard, Philippe Mongeon, Stefanie Haustein
{"title":"The Oligopoly’s Shift to Open Access. How the Big Five Academic Publishers Profit from Article Processing Charges","authors":"Leigh-Ann Butler, Lisa Matthias, Marc-André Simard, Philippe Mongeon, Stefanie Haustein","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study aims to estimate the total amount of article processing charges (APCs) paid to publish open access (OA) in journals controlled by the five large commercial publishers Elsevier, Sage, Springer-Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley between 2015 and 2018. Using publication data from WoS, OA status from Unpaywall and annual APC prices from open datasets and historical fees retrieved via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, we estimate that globally authors paid $1.06 billion in publication fees to these publishers from 2015–2018. Revenue from gold OA amounted to $612.5 million, while $448.3 million was obtained for publishing OA in hybrid journals. Among the five publishers, Springer-Nature made the most revenue from OA ($589.7 million), followed by Elsevier ($221.4 million), Wiley ($114.3 million), Taylor & Francis ($76.8 million) and Sage ($31.6 million). With Elsevier and Wiley making most of APC revenue from hybrid fees and others focusing on gold, different OA strategies could be observed between publishers. Peer Review https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00272","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This study aims to estimate the total amount of article processing charges (APCs) paid to publish open access (OA) in journals controlled by the five large commercial publishers Elsevier, Sage, Springer-Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley between 2015 and 2018. Using publication data from WoS, OA status from Unpaywall and annual APC prices from open datasets and historical fees retrieved via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, we estimate that globally authors paid $1.06 billion in publication fees to these publishers from 2015–2018. Revenue from gold OA amounted to $612.5 million, while $448.3 million was obtained for publishing OA in hybrid journals. Among the five publishers, Springer-Nature made the most revenue from OA ($589.7 million), followed by Elsevier ($221.4 million), Wiley ($114.3 million), Taylor & Francis ($76.8 million) and Sage ($31.6 million). With Elsevier and Wiley making most of APC revenue from hybrid fees and others focusing on gold, different OA strategies could be observed between publishers. Peer Review https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00272
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
寡头垄断向开放获取的转变。五大学术出版商如何从文章处理费中获利
摘要本研究旨在估算五大商业出版商Elsevier、Sage、Springer-Nature、Taylor &弗朗西斯和威利在2015年到2018年之间。使用WoS的出版数据、Unpaywall的OA状态、开放数据集的年度APC价格以及通过Internet Archive Wayback Machine检索的历史费用,我们估计2015-2018年全球作者向这些出版商支付了10.6亿美元的出版费用。黄金OA的收入为6.125亿美元,而在混合期刊上发表OA的收入为4.483亿美元。在这五家出版商中,施普林格-自然从开放获取中获得的收入最多(5.897亿美元),其次是爱思唯尔(2.214亿美元)、威利(1.143亿美元)、泰勒&弗朗西斯(7680万美元)和塞奇(3160万美元)。由于爱思唯尔和威利的大部分APC收入来自混合收费,而其他出版商则专注于金牌,因此可以看到出版商之间的开放获取策略不同。同行评议https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00272
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quantitative Science Studies
Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Technological Impact of Funded Research: A Case Study of Non-Patent References Socio-cultural factors and academic openness of world countries Scope and limitations of library metrics for the assessment of ebook usage: COUNTER R5 and link resolver The rise of responsible metrics as a professional reform movement: A collective action frames account New methodologies for the digital age? How methods (re-)organize research using social media data
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1