News & Views: Sustainable Open Access – What’s Next?

Ann Michael • August 24, 2020

This month we look at some factors driving publishers to consider a move toward Open Access publishing, explore business models to support OA beyond the now ubiquitous Article Processing Charge (APC), and share an interview with Raym Crow, an industry expert working with not for profit and commercial publishers to define alternative business models for OA publishing.

Is OA gaining momentum?

Several factors appear to be converging to accelerate the move toward Open Access. To start, as many publishers made their COVID-related content freely available, participants in the scholarly publishing ecosystem began to question why this content was not open from its inception, adding perceived pressure to move to open access publishing.

Then there is the perception of Plan S. While the reach of Plan S may be debated, it is difficult to deny the impact it has had on publishers, many of whom have considered funder mandates to foreshadow the industry “direction of travel.” When Plan S refined its criteria for Transformative Agreements, for example, there was an immediate response by Springer Nature to not only commit “the majority of our non-OA journals” to a transformative path, but to also include its flagship journal, Nature.

Additionally, earlier this year the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) held several discussions with publishers about how changes in their policies could impact U.S. academic publishing. One potential element of the OSTP policy was promoting zero-day embargo Green OA as a path to compliance with a policy requiring immediate OA. While OSTP has not taken any official positions, their consultation process triggered many publishers (several of our consulting clients included) to rethink (or move to establish) their OA strategy.

Business models 101

Delta Think tracks a multitude of business models. Most of the widely used business models are variations on a few core approaches.

There is subscription for access to content, with all its variations in bundling and deal sizes.
There are various Open Access models, but most (not all) rely on some payment or tracking of an Article Processing Charge. With few exceptions, what often varies is who pays the APC and how they pay it.
There are some sponsorship or subsidy models where a reader (in the subscription world) or an author (in the OA world) is not paying for their access or publication fees directly, but some other entity is funding the publication.

These issues and others have led some publishers to explore collective action models, most notably the “Subscribe to Open” model pioneered in academic publishing by Annual Reviews. Subscribe to Open was structured to retain subscribers while flipping Annual Reviews’ publications to a fully open model. It is based on collective action principles, but it is a specific instantiation of those principles for journals that have an existing subscription base.No business model is without limitations. While charging an APC is currently the most prevalent model used to sustain open access, its limitations are apparent. Depending on funding source, APC’s can be a barrier to participation in open access for some authors and research topics. Shifting to an APC funded OA model also means that the full burden of the cost of publication rests with producers (authors and/or those paying APC’s on their behalf). Consumers of research bear none of the cost burden but experience no reduced benefit.

Publishers experimenting with collective action models

Publisher

Collective Action Announcement

Annual Reviews

https://www.annualreviews.org/page/subscriptions/subscribe-to-open

Berghahn Books

https://berghahnbooks.com/blog/open-access-week-is-here

Brill Publishers

http://libraria.cc/program-areas/subscribe-to-open

EDP Sciences

https://www.edpsciences.org/en/news-highlights/2072-successful-subscribe-to-open-pilot-paves-the-way-for-a-ground-breaking-roll-out-across-the-edp-sciences-maths-portfolio

EMS Press

https://ems.press/subscribe-to-open

An interview with Raym Crow

We were interested in finding out more about the principles of collective action and how they can be applied to academic publishing. Do they require a subscriber base to be successful? Can a new journal be launched with a collective action model? Can a journal that is already open access “flip” to a collective action model? What are the limitations?

To explore these questions, we spoke with Raym Crow of Chain Bridge Group.

Raym Crow has over 30 years' experience in academic publishing and library information services, specializing in strategic business planning. He supports the development and ongoing operation of all types of nonprofit publishing and information initiatives by making them mission relevant and financially self-sustaining.

For over a decade, Raym has focused on collective models to support the provision of open access services. Here’s what we discussed.

1) How long have you been working with publishers to flip journals using a collective action model?

I’ve been consulting for about 20 years, working independently and—since 2002—as a consultant with SPARC. During that time, I’ve explored various models for opening access to research outputs, especially those sponsored by scholarly societies and university presses. Some collective-support models focused on launching new open access journals and others—like ‘Subscribe to Open’, developed with Annual Reviews—focused on flipping existing subscription journals.

2) Some folks wonder if a collective action model is sustainable. Why would someone pay for something they can get the benefit of for free? How would you address that concern?

That’s the gist of the collective funding problem: How to get institutions to contribute to the support of an open resource when it’s in their individual self-interest to let others pay to provide it.

Most public goods are provided by government via compulsory taxation, but that’s not really an option—at least, not directly—for many of the open resources we want to sustain.

Sometimes, small groups of institutions will come together to fund an open resource, such as an open-source software application. In those cases, the benefit to the contributing institutions, including direct influence on the end product, may be sufficient to justify the investment, even if the resource is eventually open to all.

Other initiatives rely on institutional altruism and social incentives to motivate contributions. While this approach can work on a limited basis—some portion of institutions might contribute—it can be cumbersome (and expensive) to coordinate and unstable over time. As a result, altruism alone tends to be a weak model for journals and other serial resources.

Another common approach is to provide some type of private benefit, exclusive to institutions that contribute to the open resource, as an inducement to provide support. This can work, as long as the private benefit is of sufficient value and doesn’t add appreciably to the cost of providing the open resource, not always an easy balance to achieve.

Another challenge when providing private benefits is that the offer may resemble a market transaction and be treated as such by libraries. This perception can undermine pro-social motivations for contributing, limiting the funds available for the resource.

Most collective support models probably fall somewhere on the continuum from pure altruism to compelling private benefits.

3) Are there any mature examples of this type of model in scholarly publishing or other industries?

Collective activity is everywhere—including cooperatives, credit unions, scholarly societies, and advocacy organizations. Again, much of this activity is driven by exclusive benefits to contributing members. There’s an additional challenge when collective action targets provision of open resources.

The small-group collective action I mentioned before represents one of the most common and successful approaches for developing open scholarly infrastructure resources. These initiatives often morph into user-based membership models for long-term operating support, with varying degrees of success.

4) It seems as though many of the applications of collective action are for "flips" where there is an existing subscriber base. Can this model be applied to a publication without existing subscribers?

Collective models can certainly be applied to publications without existing subscriber bases. Perhaps the simplest example would be the ‘conditional provision’ of a new journal, where the publisher makes publication of the journal contingent on securing sufficient long-term support. It’s a little more involved than that in practice, but the concept is simple.

Although its design was informed by collective action issues, ‘Subscribe to Open’ or S2O isn’t really a collective model, as it relies on subscribers acting in their economic self-interest and on existing subscription sales and procurement processes. As a result, S2O is more suitable to mature journals with readily identifiable subscriber bases.

5) What's next? How might collective action models evolve? Are you contemplating other business models for flipping or starting open publications?

There are several promising possibilities that we’re working on.

One is to coordinate ‘Subscribe to Open’ offers across multiple journals. The idea here is that multiple S2O offers can be linked so that participants in one offer can also enjoy the benefits of parallel offers. A major aggregator of nonprofit journals has expressed interest in exploring such an implementation, and that could provide an opportunity to extend S2O to a large number of society and university press journals that might not be in a position to act on their own.

Also, we’re working with Annual Reviews to help launch a community of practice for S2O. We hope that will provide publishers a channel for sharing their specific experiences with the model and provide a resource to encourage other publishers to explore S2O. That site will be launching soon.

SPARC continues to support efforts to design and implement a collective funding framework capable of providing ongoing operating funds for open resources. The framework’s objective is to maximize participation in collective funding initiatives, while reducing the costs of coordinating each funding action.

Conclusions (and Observations)

It will be interesting to see how these deals progress. Not only might 'Subscribe to Open' prove a viable model for certain publications, but collective action more broadly may be a model that supports flipping to Open Access or converting an existing Open Access publication from APC-based to an open subscription model.

With the diversity that exists in academic publishing on so many dimensions (subject area, geography, funding models, etc.), it is reasonable to believe that a variety of approaches to sustainability will be required. We look forward to following collective action models to understand what their contribution might be to the sustainability landscape.

TOP HEADLINES

PLOS and LibLynx partner to develop Open Access Analytics – August 11, 2020

"[LibLynx is] delighted to announce that we’re partnering with the Public Library of Science (PLOS) to develop ground-breaking analytics that better communicate the usage and impact of Open Access (OA) content… These new approaches will provide stakeholders with reports customized to meet their changing needs and underpin the development of new business models."

cOAlition S response to the ERC Scientific Council’s statement on Open Access and Plan S – July 21, 2020

"cOAlition S has taken note that the ERC Scientific Council wishes to pursue their joint efforts towards Open Access in a more independent way. The European Commission continues to support cOAlition S and Plan S. cOAlition S remains firm in its view that support for hybrid journals has failed to accelerate the transition to full and immediate Open Access over the past two decades."

ERC Scientific Council calls for open access plans to respect researchers’ needs – July 20, 2020

"During the past six months, the ERC Scientific Council has intensified its internal debate and reached a unanimous decision to follow a path towards Open Access implementation that is independent of cOAlition S activities. Therefore it has decided to withdraw as a supporter of cOAlition S."

Leaders agree on slimmed-down €80.9B for Horizon Europe – July 20, 2020

"EU leaders agreed on a pared-back budget of €80.9 billion for the Horizon Europe research programme, in the fifth day of a marathon summit to debate the EU’s long-term budget and a post-pandemic economic recovery plan. The final figure – a big blow to research advocates - is significantly lower than a proposal of €94.4 billion put forward by the European Commission in May."

ACS Publications announces new open science resource center – July 16, 2020

"Researchers, librarians and administrators who visit this resource will find information on open science and open access publishing, will learn how to comply with funder requirements and will be able to search ACS’ open access agreements to find out if they are eligible to have article publishing charges (known as APCs) waived. These new tools will speed the transition to an open science future by effectively communicating how open access publishing works for ACS’ extensive community of authors."

cOAlition S develops “Rights Retention Strategy” to safeguard researchers’ intellectual ownership rights and suppress unreasonable embargo periods – July 15, 2020

"Publishers commonly require authors to sign exclusive publishing agreements which restrict what authors can do with their research findings, including making articles Open Access in line with their funders’ requirements. To address this problem, cOAlition S has developed a Rights Retention Strategy, which will empower their funded researchers to publish in their journal of choice, including subscription journals, and provide Open Access in compliance with Plan S."

Simba Report: COVID-19 to Accelerate Transition to Open Access Publishing – July 7, 2020

"As the world grapples with a pandemic that has brought death and economic devastation, the crisis has demonstrated the value of open access (OA) to research articles, but also the need for a larger open infrastructure to share methodology, data and results more broadly—this according to the most recent report from media and publishing intelligence firm Simba Information."

OA JOURNAL LAUNCHES

August 17, 2020

Royal Society of Chemistry launches new open access atmospheric science journal

"The new journal, entitled Environmental Science: Atmospheres, is a cross-disciplinary journal spanning all aspects of atmospheric science... The new journal is fully gold open access, and article processing charges have been waived until mid 2023, meaning it is both free to read and free to publish in."

August 13, 2020

The Geological Society of London and Frontiers: Publishing Partnership Announcement

"Frontiers and the Geological Society of London are thrilled to announce that they have formed a publishing partnership to facilitate the launch of a new Gold Open Access journal Earth Science, Systems and Society (also known as ES3). Earth Science, Systems and Society (ES3), will publish timely and topical research of high importance across the breadth of the geosciences."

August 4, 2020

SAGE, Association for Computing Machinery Announce Collective Intelligence, New Open Access Journal in Collaboration with Nesta

"Collective Intelligence will be co-owned by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and SAGE Publishing with support from and in collaboration with the innovation foundation Nesta. The online-only, gold open access journal...will provide a home for theoretical and empirical results from many disciplines that can contribute to this cross-disciplinary body of knowledge about how, why, and when collective intelligence works and how it can be improved."

August 4, 2020

Oryx to become open access from January 2021

"Oryx – The International Journal of Conservation, is to become fully open access from 1 January 2021, making it free to read by anyone with an internet connection, anywhere in the world. New research submitted after 1 August will be published Open Access from next year. Thanks to a grant from long-time supporter, The Rufford Foundation, unfunded authors will benefit from a generous APC (article processing charge) waiver policy."

July 31, 2020

ACS announces nine gold open access journals launching in 2021

"ACS is announcing the expansion of the ACS Au portfolio with nine new fully open access journals to be launched in 2021. This expansion is a further example of ACS Publication’s commitment to open science and to improving the world through the transformative power of chemistry."

July 22, 2020

ScienceOpen and Compuscript collaborate to feature new open access journal, BIO Integration

"The interactive research and discovery platform, ScienceOpen, and publisher, Compuscript Ltd, have partnered to showcase a newly launched open access, biomedical sciences journal: BIO Integration (BIOI). As an open access journal, BIOI is an inclusiveforum that promotes communication between scientific ideas and clinical needs."

July 20, 2020

University of Buckingham Press launches The Buckingham Journal of Education

"University of Buckingham Press (UBP) has published the first Issue of The Buckingham Journal of Education, a new academic journal focussed on the evolution and future of education, published in association with the School of Education at the University of Buckingham. The Journal is available to all on Open Access."

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Join Our Mailing List

News & Views: Market Sizing Supplement 2025 – Your Mileage May Vary

By Dan Pollock and Heather Staines • December 2, 2025

Overview Each year, our scholarly market sizing update and analysis goes way beyond open access headlines. One consistent finding is that market share of open and subscription access is highly dependent on subject area. This month we look at how to best use our Delta Think Data and Analytics Tool (DAT) to understand and analyze these variations. With coverage of approximately 220 detailed subject areas, the data shows that headlines can sometimes mask important detail. Background Since we began our scholarly journal market analyses in 2017, one of our core objectives has been to enable deep analysis of our headline findings. Our annual market share updates represent a summing of data – more than 200 detailed subject areas, 200 or so countries, also split by society vs. non-society journal ownership. This level of detail is clearly too much for our monthly short-form analyses, so we present the market-wide headlines in our annual updates. However, by picking one subject area as an example, we can see how much nuance lies beneath the surface, and why these variations matter. Subscribers to DAT can use our interactive tools to quickly and easily see each level of detail and filter for just those relevant to their organization. Market Share Variation by Subject Area Our latest market headlines suggested that open access (OA) accounted for just under 50% of article output in 2024. However, this headline proportion varies considerably by subject area.

Charleston Conference 2025 Reflections

By Lori Carlin & Meg White • November 19, 2025

Navigating Uncertainty, Innovation, and the Winds of Change As the Charleston Conference 2025 wrapped up, one thing was clear: scholarly communication continues to evolve against a backdrop of uncertainty: economic, technological, and policy-driven. Yet amid the turbulence, conversations throughout the week pointed toward resilience, adaptability, and even optimism. As Tony Hobbs observed during the Shifting Tides policy session, “the good news for scholarly communication is that due to technology advances, it is now possible to sail into the wind.” The Elephant in the Room: Doing More with Less Heather Staines Every conversation I had in Charleston seemed to circle back to one thing: budgetary uncertainty. Whether the concern was policy changes like potential caps on overhead or shifting grant funding or the ripple effects of declining enrollment, both domestic and international, everyone was asking how to do more with fewer resources. This theme ran through the plenary Leading in a Time of Crisis, Reclaiming the Library Narrative, and even the lightning sessions, a shared recognition that we’re all trying to redefine what “enough” looks like. What stood out was how data-driven decision-making has become essential. Libraries, publishers, and service providers are not just analyzing what to add, but what to let go of, all in an effort to find a new balance. And then there’s AI. We have moved beyond “sessions about AI” to “AI everywhere.” I will admit that I once thought AI was a solution in search of a problem, but now it’s woven through nearly every conversation. Librarians are leading the way on AI literacy, while publishers and service providers are using AI to innovate to meet changing research needs. The uncertainty is real but so is the shared determination to adapt, learn, and move forward together. The Long Arm of the Law and Its Reach into Scholarly Communication Meg White One of the things I love about Charleston is that there is always a moment that challenges me to reframe how I think about the work we do. This year’s Long Arm of the Law session did exactly that. It was a vivid reminder that the legal and policy currents swirling around us are not abstractions; they shape our ecosystem in ways we can’t afford to ignore. Paul Rosenzweig set the stage with a fascinating and lively walk through the history of executive orders. Hearing that Washington issued just eight while later presidents relied on them more frequently primarily to advance political agendas made the evolution very real. What stood out was the fine line between legitimate executive authority and overreach, and how easily those boundaries can blur. Nancy Weiss then brought the conversation directly into our lane with her analysis of an Executive Order directing the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to reduce its activities to the bare legal minimum. Her experience as former General Counsel gave us an inside view of what such a directive could mean for libraries, museums, and cultural programs, all places where so much of our community’s work takes root. Sessions like this are why Charleston continues to be invaluable to me. They stretch my understanding, give me new context, and remind me that staying informed is part of how we navigate change together. Data-Driven Insights: The 2025 Author and Researcher Survey Lori Carlin My week was cut unusually short (for me) by other meetings I had to fly off to, but I still managed to squeeze in 2.5 days of interesting sessions, discussions, and ‘business casual’ gatherings. The first two events I attended this year were definite highlights, both of which were the brainchild of and brilliantly orchestrated by my colleague, Heather Staines – the Vendor Meetup on Monday evening and the Leadership Breakfast on Tuesday morning. Both were jam packed and filled with lively conversation. If you’re not familiar, the Vendor Meetup is an open, casual gathering (sponsored this year by Get FTR) designed to give vendor representatives, especially early career attendees, who attend only for Vendor Day a chance to socialize and network, something they often miss when they’re in and out in a single day, but all are welcome to attend! The Leadership Breakfast, a smaller invitation-only event designed to give a more intimate networking experience within the larger Charleston Conference, is always a thoughtful session centered on a pressing issue of the day, and this year was no exception. The discussion focused on sustainability across the entire scholarly communication ecosystem—from funders to libraries to publishers. Frankly, no one can unhear the words of one of the panelists (a library director) when he commented that his budget has dropped from ~$7M to ~$5.4M in the last 24 months … with more to come. Finally, I’m a little biased, but I dare say I and my panelists were very pleased with the session I moderated focused on the impact of US research funding changes, which highlighted info from Delta Think’s Spring 2025 Author and Researcher Survey, along with how publishers who participated used the data to inform their strategies. We also had a librarian on the panel who informed the audience about the impact of these changes on universities overall and libraries in particular. As you may know, the survey data showed rising concern about institutional support, with many researchers rethinking how they publish and participate in conferences. Respondents also described how tightening budgets are straining peer review and research dissemination, while responses varied sharply between U.S.-based and international authors, reflecting distinct policy and institutional pressures, it also showed that the impact is being felt globally. In the tradition of Charleston, what made the session so powerful was the discussion. Colleagues from societies, publishers, and libraries focused on how they are using these insights to understand the challenges and to act on them. From adjusting publishing strategies to helping researchers to growing relationships in other markets, to shaping advocacy and outreach activities, organizations are using these insights to inform resource and budget direction in innovative ways. For me, that was the real takeaway: turning evidence into collaboration, and progress. Even in uncertain times. We’re running the survey again now with plans to compare results to the Spring version. If you’re interested, there is still time to sign up! End of An Era (Two, in Fact!) This year’s conference marked a pivotal moment: the first without the in-person presence of founder, Katina Strauch (though we were grateful for her virtual participation), and the well-earned retirement of longtime Conference Director Anthony Watkinson, who rang his iconic bell one last time. We would not be here without them and their visionary colleagues who built this community from the ground up. Thank you, Katina and Anthony. Charting What Comes Next If there was one metaphor that captured Charleston 2025, it was motion; not adrift, but deliberate progress in the face of resistance. From policy updates to AI integration to the enduring strength of the scholarly community, the week’s sessions affirmed that innovation often takes root during uncertainty. As Tony Hobbs reminded us, even headwinds can propel us forward — if we learn how to adjust our sails.

News & Views Webinar: Market Sizing Update 2025

By Heather Staines • November 6, 2025

We are proud to share a video recording of our October News & Views companion online discussion forum! Join us for our annual update on the volume and revenue associated with Open Access publishing. If you missed the session, or if you attended and would like to watch/listen again, or share forward with friends, please feel free!

News & Views: Market Sizing Update 2025 – Has OA recovered its mojo?

By Dan Pollock and Heather Staines • October 21, 2025

Overview After a rocky couple of years, the open access (OA) market may be finding its footing again. Each year, Delta Think's Market Sizing analyzes the value of the OA scholarly journals market—that is, the revenue generated by providers or the costs incurred by buyers of content. Our analysis estimates that the OA segment expanded to just under $2.4bn in 2024. Although growth has improved compared with last year’s deceleration, it continues to lag behind the broader historical trend for OA. The proportion of articles published as OA has declined slightly, likely driven by continued reduction in the output from the large OA publishers. This trend has benefited established publishers, who saw growth in OA activity and revenue as they continued to consolidate their positions. Looking ahead, OA could soon begin outpacing the broader journals market once again—but likely through different growth drivers than in the past. Read on to see what those shifts might look like. Headline findings Our models suggest the following headlines for the 2024 open access market:

Join the Fall 2025 Author/Researcher Survey

By Lori Carlin & Meg White • October 13, 2025

Collaborate with Delta Think to uncover how funding and policy uncertainty continue to reshape the research ecosystem — and gain tailored insights for your community.

Smart AI, Smarter Scholarship

By Lori Carlin & Meg White • September 25, 2025

Introduction: One question, two paths A recent essay in The Conversation posed the question, “Is ChatGPT making us stupid?” The author examined emerging research suggesting that over-reliance on AI tools for writing can dull critical thinking, originality, and even memory retention. But as the author points out, AI has the potential to augment human intelligence when used well , acting as a catalyst for deeper thinking rather than a shortcut around it. We agree and seek to guide our clients in determining how to use AI to strengthen research and scholarship. From concern to opportunity When AI is approached as a collaborator, it sparks creativity, deepens inquiry, accelerates problem-solving, and amplifies creativity. It can strengthen teams, enhance services, and improve efficiencies across the publishing enterprise. Turning Ideas into Action Here’s how Delta Think can help you transform smart AI potential into purposeful, strategic action: Strategy and Market Research Focus: Identify where AI can deliver the most value for your organization, grounded in community needs and behaviors. Delta Think Approach: Gather and analyze evidence through quantitative and qualitative methods to uncover how your community – your researchers, authors, reviewers, and readers – are using AI now or, better yet, where and how they could be using it in the future. Marrying their unmet needs with your strategic goals creates your roadmap to future success. 2. Build vs. Buy Decisions for AI-Powered Products Focus: Develop proprietary AI solutions, partner with trusted vendors, or combine the best of both approaches to suit your needs. Delta Think Approach: Assess your current state and future needs, design decision frameworks that weigh cost, capability, risk, speed-to-market, and long-term scalability, and build the approach that will work best to support your business goals and community needs. 3. AI Policy and Governance Focus: Ensure responsible, transparent, and ethical AI use that safeguards scholarly integrity. Delta Think Approach: Facilitate the development of your AI governance with the creation of important guardrails and policies, working to mitigate bias and hallucination risks, safeguarding research integrity while enabling innovation. 4. UX/UI Testing for AI Products and Features Focus: Design AI experiences that enhance human engagement. Delta Think Approach: Test results, interfaces, prompts, and transparency signals to keep users informed, empowered, and confident in your products and tools. 5. Licensing and Partnership Strategy Focus: Leverage commercial arrangements to unlock AI potential while aligning with your mission and values. Delta Think Approach: Guide you through licensing agreements, proprietary data partnerships, and collaborations that create sustainable competitive advantage and strategic revenue streams. Turning Ideas into Impact By reframing the conversation from Can AI substitute scholarship? to How does AI amplify scholarship? , publishers can lead the next wave of innovation. Delta Think’s collaborative approach ensures that your organization’s adoption of AI enhances creativity, critical thinking, and trust. We can help you map out your bespoke AI-strategy roadmap, develop new products and services, test prototypes, and design governance guidelines. Reach out today or schedule some time at the Frankfurt Book Fair (10/14-16) to discuss how Delta Think’s expertise and proven methodologies can help your organization unlock key insights and drive innovation.

News & Views: How much will cuts to NSF funding affect the future of scholarly publishing?

By Dan Pollock and Heather Staines • September 9, 2025

How might planned cuts to funding of the US National Science Foundation affect scholarly output? In our last News & Views we analyzed how the headline cuts might apply to relevant activities. This month we examine how journals may be impacted and model some scenarios quantifying the impact on global scholarly output. Background The US National Science Foundation is an independent US federal agency that supports science and engineering across the US and its territories. In its 2024 financial year (FY) 1 , it spent around $9.4 billion, funding approximately 25% of all federally supported research conducted by US colleges and universities. In July we looked at how reported funding cuts and NSF budget cuts proposed by the US Government might affect the NSF’s output of research papers. We found that in the near term the effects would be limited, as the cuts focus on NSF activites that produce low volumes of papers. However, cuts proposed over the coming year may have a more profound effect as they are deep and affect research activities. We have also previously analyzed proposed cuts to funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). We noted how cuts to the world’s largest producer of biomedical research could have a profound effect on publication outputs. So how do cuts to the NSF stack up? The effects on journals As ever, the headlines and averages are unevenly distributed, so we looked at how individual journals might be affected.

News & Views: Will cuts to National Science Foundation funding affect scholarly publishing activity?

By Dan Pollock & Heather Staines • July 29, 2025

The US Government has planned cuts to funding of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2025 and 2026. Before we can undertake a full analysis of how these cuts might affect publishers, we must unpack some data. This month we put the cuts in context, looking at how the cuts impact research and the scale of NSF output. And we find they may not affect research in the ways the headlines suggest. We will follow up with a future analysis modelling specific scenarios of impacts on publisher submissions. Background The US National Science Foundation is an independent US federal agency that supports science and engineering across the US and its territories. In its 2024 financial year (FY) 1 , it spent around $9.4 billion, funding approximately 25% of all federally supported research conducted by US colleges and universities. In May 2025, the New York Times (NYT) published an article analyzing proposed cuts to NSF funding by the current US Government. The NYT’s analysis suggested a 51% cut in funding from 1 January through 21 May 2025, with a further 56% reduction proposed for next year 2 . We have previously analyzed effects of proposed cuts to funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The proposed cuts to the NSF are deeper, so might they have an even greater negative effect on publication volumes? Understanding what the cuts apply to The 51% cut in 2025 covers 140 days, equivalent to a 20% annualized cut. So could we see the same level of reduction in papers this year? And could this be followed be a 56% drop next year, as the 2026 cuts cover a full year? As with our analysis of the NIH, we need to understand how the changes in funding translate into research activities, and thence into corresponding volumes and timing of publication output. We therefore analyzed the NSF’s own budgetary figures to put the cuts into context.

Delta Think’s Survey Results: What 13,000 Researchers Revealed About the Fallout from US Funding Cuts

By Lori Carlin and Meg White • July 24, 2025

This spring, Delta Think collaborated with 27 professional societies and associations to launch a Global Author/Researcher Survey to understand the ripple effect of US government research funding cuts. Our goal was to explore how researchers are navigating a rapidly evolving landscape, especially as US federal funding and policy decisions cast long shadows over the global research community. More than 13,000 researchers across every major discipline and 135 countries shared their voices through our survey. While the detailed findings are deep and wide-ranging, one thing is clear: the ground is shifting. Uncertainty Is Driving Change in Research Behavior Delta Think deeply analyzed the data by six major disciplines: Health Sciences, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering & Technology, Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities. Nuances vary by each main field, but some factors were universal. US-based researchers are signaling deep concern – and they’re bracing for change. Many anticipate reductions across publishing output, participation in peer review, and conference attendance. For example, 62% of US authors across all disciplines expect to publish fewer articles in the next 1–2 years, citing policy and funding challenges . “My research progress is now in ‘conservative mode’ in case funding is pulled from us with no notice. We cannot plan further out and have lost our trust in the federal government.” Primary Investigator (PI) at a US Academic Medical Center But the concerning news isn’t limited to the US. International researchers indicated their intention to pull away from US-based journals, threatening to reshape the global flow of research. In fact, a full 50% of international authors across all disciplines indicated that it is now important to them to submit their manuscripts to non-US journals. “We're doing everything we can to reduce our connections to the US, including looking for journals to publish in that are not based in the US.” Mid-Career PI, Biological Sciences, Canada Top Concerns: What Keeps Researchers Up at Night? One of the clearest patterns that emerged is the contrast in what researchers view as their most urgent challenges: For US researchers , the top concern is straightforward: elimination of research funding . This fear extends beyond specific grants—it reflects a deep anxiety about career stability, institutional viability, and the future of scientific advancement. For international researchers , the primary worry is academic freedom and collaboration , with many expressing concerns about losing access to US research infrastructure, data, and professional networks if international cooperation is reduced. While these represent the top concerns, the survey results reveal many others by discipline, career stage, and other factors, including specific community details for each of the 27 participating societies and organizations upon which to develop their future strategies. Looking Ahead: Tracking Trends with Fall 2025 Survey This spring’s survey was just the beginning. Delta Think will conduct a follow-up survey in October/November 2025 to track how attitudes and behaviors continue to shift. This next phase will allow us and the participating organizations to move from snapshot to trend — providing deeper insight into the lasting impact of funding and policy uncertainty. Joining in for Survey 2 is NOT limited to Survey 1 participating organizations. All are welcome to participate in this next round and have access to the deep data behind these high-level insights and much more. Turning Ideas into Action The Delta Think team designed this initiative not just to gather data, but also to support our partners across the scholarly ecosystem. By combining rigorous research design with deep industry context, we’re helping publishers, societies, and institutions make informed, strategic decisions in uncertain times. If you're interested in learning more about the findings, discussing how they apply to your organization, or joining the Fall 2025 survey, we’d love to connect. Please email Lori Carlin to start the conversation.

News & Views: How much will cuts to NIH funding affect scholarly publishing activity?

By Dan Pollock and Heather Staines • June 24, 2025

Overview As the extent of proposed cuts to the US Government’s funding of US Federal research becomes apparent, we ask how this might affect scholarly publishers. US bodies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) produce significant volumes of research. A fall in their funding could lead to significant drops in research and may have negative implications for scholarly publishers around the world. Background The NIH is the world’s largest funder of biomedical research. We have previously noted that the NIH accounts for a significant share of papers published. At the time of writing (early June 2025), some notable reports about cuts to NIH funding have emerged: An open letter ( “The Bethesda Declaration” ) dated June 9, 2025, to the current head of the NIH, in which signatories (who are NIH staff) note that: Since January 20, 2025, the NIH has “terminated 2,100 research grants totaling around $9.5 billion and an additional $2.6 billion in contracts through end of April”. An analysis published by the New York Times in early June 2025 of the grants ended or delayed: From the January 20 Inauguration through April 2025, the administration ended 1,389 awards and delayed sending funding to more than 1,000 additional projects. The agency awarded $1.6 billion (20%) less compared with the same period last year. A proposal from the White House dated May 2, 2025, reduces the CDC’s budget by $3.6 billion and the NIH’s total budget by about $18 billion (a cut of almost 40%, according to the NYT ). Analysis from JAMA Network notes that Congress proposed cuts of 43% to NIH, or $20bn per year. “Assuming that some efficiencies are possible … a 40% cut in NIH spending will translate into a smaller change in effective distributions, we can … estimate that a 33% reduction in NIH funding would be associated with a 15.3% reduction in patents associated with new drugs…” Could these cuts to NIH funding have a noticeable effect on publication volumes? To answer this, we need to understand how the changes in funding translate into corresponding publication output. How deep do the cuts go? The first stage of our analysis puts the reports into the context of the parent funding, so we can estimate the best- and worst-case scenarios of the cuts.