News & Views: Transformative Journals
Dan Pollock and Ann Michael • June 15, 2021
Overview
This month we look at Transformative Journals (TJs). We examine what their measures of compliance mean and how the criteria for growing OA in TJs compares with the typical growth of OA in hybrid journals.
Background
We have previously analyzed the proportions of papers that might be affected by Plan S, the European-led initiative “to make full and immediate Open Access to research publications a reality.” Researchers funded under the initiative must publish via one of four routes, which lay down rules for allowed access types. One allowed route is a Transformative Journal.
A TJ may have a subscription component, but must demonstrate increasing OA uptake of “at least 5% in absolute terms and at least 15% in relative terms, year-on-year…assessed either on a rolling 3-year historic basis or each calendar year.” It must reduce subscription payments to account for OA payments and flip to fully OA “when 75% of its research content is published Open Access.”
TJ Requirements
We contacted cOAlition S to clarify the definitions of the terms used, which are as follows:
- Absolute: the proportion of the journal’s output that is OA must increase by 5 percentage points every year. If 25% of a journal’s papers are OA this year, then 30% must be OA next year, then 35%, etc.
- Relative: the number of OA articles in the journal must increase by 15% each year. If a journal publishes 100 OA papers this year, then it must publish 115 OA papers next year, 132 the next, and so on.
cOAlition S kindly provided us with a calculator spreadsheet, which allowed us to model the numbers of OA papers needed each year to maintain a journal’s Transformative Journal status. Figure 1 shows the results.
Source: cOAlition S, Delta Think Analysis. © 2021 Delta Think Inc. All rights reserved.
Using average market values from Delta Think’s Open Access Data & Analytics tool (OA DAT), we modelled two scenarios. To allow us to see the trends, we ignored the 2024 expiration date of TJ support. The rules are such that the relative targets are always based on the previous year’s output. Therefore, where the absolute target is the driver, the relative target is increased each year to match it.
- To see the dynamics at work, we start with a hybrid journal where the total number of papers published is constant from year to year at roughly 1600 papers (Figure 1A).
- Around 8% (or 128 papers) of its output is OA in year one, the absolute growth criterion drives the growth target for the number of OA papers in the early years.
- Once around 40% of output has been reached (or 640 papers), the relative criterion becomes the more challenging target.
- By year 12 the journal would have exceeded 75% OA and had to flip to OA.
- For journals growing their total output at around 5% annually, from the same 8% OA starting point, the absolute targets remain a driver for longer, and the point of flipping gets later by one year.
For journals that have higher starting points of OA uptake, you can start reading from further to the right of the charts – e.g. for 50% uptake, start counting from year 9.
How Realistic Are the Targets?
cOAlition S’s website lists 2,266 Transformative Journals from 12 publishers (as of May 2021). By cross-referencing this list with our OADAT data, we can see how the journals’ performance over the past few years compares with the TJ requirements and put them in context. Figure 2 shows the results.
Source: cOAlition S, Crossref, Unpaywall, Delta Think Analysis. © 2021 Delta Think Inc. All rights reserved.
The data suggest that historically, the OA proportion of journals’ output has not grown as fast as TJ requirements require:
- Over the last three years, the total number of papers published across all journals currently marked as TJs is growing at roughly half the rate needed for them to continue to enjoy TJ status.
- The number of journals meeting TJ requirements of OA growth is small. Only a dozen or so (out of around 2,000) have met TJ targets for each of the last three years. However, around two thirds have met TJ targets for at least one year out of the last 3.
The data also showed that only 20 or so journals (less than 1%) had over 75% OA uptake, while two thirds (68%) had 20% OA uptake or less. Smaller journals show the fastest growth in OA. Most of the larger ones appear to be virtually static.
We can also compare journals’ output over time with the TJ target model to see which combinations of the two TJs targets the journals met, as shown in Figure 3.
Source: cOAlition S, Crossref, Unpaywall, Delta Think Analysis. © 2021 Delta Think Inc. All rights reserved.
Reading clockwise from 12 o’clock:
- Around one third (34%) met neither target.
- A further 28% did not meet the Absolute target, but met the Relative one.
- Only around 1.5% failed to meet Relative target but met the Absolute one.
- This is consistent with our finding, above, that the Absolute criterion is the tougher of the two criteria to meet for journals starting with lower OA uptake.
Our analysis has some caveats.
- The lack of ISSNs in cOAlition S’s TJs list made matching journals ambiguous, although we got around 95% of them.
- Given the commitment needed to implement TJs, it’s likely that publishers will intervene to promote OA uptake. Therefore, historical performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance.
- Three-year rolling averages can be used in the annual assessment of TJ status. The average might help a journal retain its status if earlier years (2021, 2022) lift its averages for later ones (2023, 2024). But the arithmetic suggests that rolling averages won’t help if a journal is fundamentally struggling to meet its OA targets.
Conclusion
The data suggest that the OA growth criteria for TJ status are aggressive, but not impossible. The current crop of TJs are on average growing OA proportions at around half the pace needed to be in compliance. (The average growth in OA uptake of hybrid journals from major publishers follows broadly similar patterns.) Many journals have previously met TJ targets for one year or even two, suggesting the challenges lie in adding to existing momentum, rather than building OA uptake from scratch.
However, the biggest caveat is timing. Support for TJs is due to be withdrawn completely in 2024, but two thirds of current TJs have less than 20% OA uptake. So many could meet their TJ targets, but still have only around one third OA uptake in 2024. Publishers would then be faced with a tough choice: flip minority-OA journals to fully OA, risk at least one third of output as zero-embargo Green impacting subscriptions … or fall out of Plan S compliance completely and lose one third of their submissions.
This article is © 2021 Delta Think, Inc. It is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Please do get in touch if you want to use it in other contexts – we’re usually pretty accommodating.
“I had a wonderful teacher about animal behavior.” – Jane Goodall Jane Goodall was renowned for her ability to understand chimpanzees in the wild simply by observing their day-to-day behaviors. Her subjects were her teachers. She immersed herself in their natural environment, which allowed her to gather authentic insights into her subjects’ social structures, tool use, communication, and cultural behaviors. This ethnographic style of research has now been adopted by the business world to gain deeper insights into customer needs, workflows, and challenges. What is Contextual Inquiry? Contextual Inquiry, as it’s frequently called in the commercial world, is a user-centered research method. Like Dr. Goodall in the field in Tanzania, Contextual Inquiry involves observing and interviewing users in their natural environments while they perform routine tasks, allowing market researchers to understand user behaviors, goals, motivations, and pain points in real-world contexts. The methodology is guided by four key principles: Context: Observations and interviews occur in the user’s actual environment. Partnership: Researchers collaborate with users to understand their processes. Interpretation: Insights are shared with users during the interview for clarification. Focus: The interaction is steered toward topics relevant to the research scope. Why Contextual Inquiry? Contextual Inquiry illuminates user behavior and workflows and can be used to inform solutions including product development, processes, and policies. 1. Deep Understanding of User Needs By observing users in their natural environment, contextual inquiry uncovers hidden needs, pain points, and behaviors that users may not articulate in surveys or traditional interviews. This identifies solutions that address real user challenges rather than assumed ones. 2. Authentic Data Collection Unlike lab-based studies or self-reported methods, Contextual Inquiry captures authentic behaviors as they occur. This helps reveal workarounds, unconscious habits, and environmental factors that influence user behavior. 3. User-Centered Design and Focus The method places users at the center, ensuring solutions are tailored to their needs and preferences. 4. Reduced Risk and Costs By identifying real-world user behaviors and challenges, Contextual Inquiry increases the likelihood that resulting solutions, products, processes, and policies meet user needs. 5. Informed Strategy Insights from contextual inquiry help prioritize users’ needs and challenges, identify new opportunities, and ensure alignment of product and strategy roadmaps with market demands. 6. Empathy Building Direct observation helps teams develop empathy for users by experiencing and understanding their challenges firsthand. Use Cases and an Idea Delta Think uses a Contextual Inquiry methodology to apply the principles above in several different types of projects: Understanding specialized work processes and designing complex systems or workflows Exploring new product opportunities Redesigning existing products Informing processes and policies One way Delta Think can use Contextual Inquiry to help publishers is around the use of AI by researchers and authors. For example, before developing any guidelines, it is critical that publishers first understand how these tools are being used. Using Contextual Inquiry to observe how researchers and authors are currently using AI allows you to build policies that address specific use cases and provide meaningful guidelines based on actual behaviors. At Delta Think, we know how powerful a tool Contextual Inquiry can be for creating a user-centered culture grounded in decisions based on real-world insights and observations. We specialize in uncovering evidence for our clients, discovering what that evidence means for them, and using the knowledge gained to build customer-driven products, policies, and actionable business and publishing strategies. Ready to start the conversation? Please reach out today to discuss how our market research expertise, including Contextual Inquiry, can help your organization unlock key insights to support development and growth.
In March 2025, we looked at the latest Article Processing Charges (APCs) . This month we focus on how prices have risen relative to inflation. As APC price increases fall back to trend, what does this mean in real terms? Background Each year we survey the list Article Processing Charges (APCs) of more than 30 major and significant publishers. Going back to 2015, the dataset includes more than 20,000 unique titles and 150,000 title per year combinations. Going into 2025, we saw price increases fall back to long-term trends from their unusually high increases in 2024. Fully OA (“gold”) journal list prices across our sample rose by around 6.5%, compared with a 9.5% increase this time last year. Hybrid list prices rose by an average of 3%, compared with 4.2%. Last year’s price rises were above long term trends, but overall we found they were rising below inflation. How does this hold for this year’s price increases? We again use the global Consumer Price Index (CPI) as our inflation index, as we consider it to represent the most realistic view of our marketplace. Prices exclude zero APCs, so we can see the effects for instances when publishers choose to charge APCs. Are APCs becoming cheaper or more expensive? The chart below shows how increases in all list APCs work out in real terms for both hybrid and fully OA journals.
We are proud to share a video recording of our March News & Views companion online discussion forum! Join us to hear the latest trends around APC data, including APCs for both fully OA and hybrid journals. We'll talk about what we're seeing in relation to recent years and discuss the broader context for the APC market. If you missed the session, or if you attended and would like to watch/listen again, or share forward with friends, please feel free!
Delta Think is currently spearheading an industry market research survey to authors and researchers across the scholarly community designed to provide insight into the impact of potential US federal funding reductions on their research. The survey addresses topics such as publication volume, their ability/allowance for peer review, conference participation and attendance, influence on their research scope and topics, and more. Working in collaboration with nearly 25 scholarly societies, we are launching this initiative to capture the real-world impact of these potential changes in order to help societies better plan and support their members, researchers, and authors. The results of the survey will provide scholarly publishers with systematic, quantitative voice-of-market data to inform evidenced-based strategy development and scenario planning in a rapidly changing funding landscape and policy environment. The survey opens this week, with each participating society distributing the link to their own communities. All participating societies will receive an in-depth analysis of the full survey results, filtered by various demographics such as country, career stage, and discipline, as well as options for Delta Think to analyze their specific community data or the raw data from their specific community so they can analyze it themselves. Delta Think has designed the survey and will conduct all the analysis of the results.
This month we look at our latest data about Article Processing Charges (APCs). Per article pricing is a fundamental building block for all paid publishing models, so our review provides an invaluable insight into how costs of open access continue to evolve. APC prices in general continue to increase, but at a slower rate compared with this time last year. Important nuances in the distribution of prices continue to affect the value and cost of paid publishing models. Background Each year we survey the list Article Processing Charges (APCs) of a sample of major and significant publishers. Covering more than 20,000 titles going back to 2016, our dataset represents one of the most comprehensive reviews of open access pricing. To compare like for like, we consistently analyze non-discounted, CC BY charges. We take a snapshot at the end of every January, so we can track yearly changes while controlling for the different times of year that publishers may update prices. Our statistics exclude zero or unspecified APCs, although these are included in our underlying data. This allows us to understand trends where publishers choose to charge APCs without skewing averages. We run separate analyses around APC-free models. Headline Changes Going into 2025, we have seen APC pricing increasing but falling back to long-term trends. Fully OA APC list prices across our sample have risen by around 6.5% compared with 9.5% this time last year. Hybrid APC list prices have risen by an average of 3% compared with 4.2% this time last year. Maximum APCs for fully OA journals remain at $8,900. Maximum APCs for hybrid journals now top out at $12,690 (up $400 from last year). Big jumps in prices happened last year, driven by high inflation. In 2020-2021 prices were driven up when high-impact journals began offering OA options for the first time. In both cases, increases subsequently fell back to averages. Underlying trends continue. There are around 2.6x more hybrid journals than fully OA ones, down from 2.9x a year ago. Hybrid journals follow (or, rather, set) a similar pattern to the market overall. On average, fully OA prices are around 64% of those of hybrids. This is a couple of percentage points higher than long term trends. Around 31% of our sample of fully OA journals charge no APCs. (We have separately analyzed the number of articles in OA journals.) Price rises vary significantly by discipline. Arts & Humanities and Social Sciences have seen particularly large average increases, especially in fully OA journal prices. Price Distribution Market-wide headline price changes mask important nuances. We have discussed previously that the most important nuance lies in the spread of prices within a given publisher’s portfolio. For example, if the bulk of a publisher’s journals lie toward the lower end of its pricing, with just a few journals priced at the high end, the average (mean) price will be higher than most authors pay. The following figures show how the spread of prices plays out in the market across our sample of publishers. The figures are outlines of histograms, showing how many titles sit in various price bands over the successive years of data we have curated. The red line shows the most recent year’s prices. The lines become greener as they go further back in time. Subscribers to Delta Think’s Data and Analytics Tool can see full details of axes. Hybrid Prices The spread of price bands for hybrid journals is shown in Figure 1 below.
User information needs as well as funding models are evolving rapidly, as evidenced by Clarivate’s recent move to phase out perpetual access purchases for print, eBooks, and digital collections by the end of 2025. Taking a hard look at how these assets contribute to your portfolio and overall organizational strategy has never been more critical. A holistic books program assessment can help you think intentionally about how books and book-based content can help meet customer and market needs. Publishing and Product Strategy A market-driven publishing and product strategy begins with an understanding of customer information needs. What markets, segments, information needs, and challenges are present? How can customer information needs be addressed? What role can our book content play? How can we differentiate our solutions? Can our book content contribute to a unique value proposition? Thinking creatively about how your content meets market needs is critical; think solutions, not printed pages and chapters. Commercial Strategy A detailed commercial strategy, supported by proper resources, is fundamental to success. Leveraging a clear understanding of customer preferences and delivering messaging that resonates with your specific market segments and use cases is essential. What are the best methods to generate market awareness? When and how should we communicate with key audiences? What messages resonate best? What sales and marketing capabilities do we have internally? Where do we need to partner to reach core audiences? How do we meet global needs? Do we have the appropriate access, pricing, and distribution models in place to meet customer expectations? What do we need to do directly? Where should we cultivate successful channel partnerships? And you don’t have to go it alone; a commercial strategy is best formulated and executed by a combination of internal and external resources. Technology Infrastructure Is your technology optimized to support your book program? From agile content management systems to product platforms to customer relationship management tools, the right tools enable your content and commercial strategy. What systems do we need to ensure efficiency in our publishing processes and quality and integrity in our content? What technologies and platforms do we need to build market-responsive products? What systems do we need to communicate effectively and meaningfully with our customers, including authors? Are we best served by building these systems or partnering? Successfully integrating and leveraging new technologies, such as AI, requires a fundamental understanding of markets and customer information needs . The Numbers Financial metrics are a key measure of the health of any program. An in-depth assessment of a program’s recent performance is a vital tool to help identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps, and help to surface areas for improvement and corrective action. A financial analysis will clarify: What is our book and content annual output? Is it sufficient to support our strategy and meet customer and market needs? What is our cost structure? Our pricing strategy? Do they align with industry and market norms and expectations? Do we have the appropriate mix of internal and external resources in place to support our strategy? How can we best align our financial performance to contribute to the organization’s larger strategy? Beyond red ink or black ink, financial analysis will provide answers to these questions. Assessing Your Book Program Delta Think partners with publishers to do the foundational analysis necessary to understand how your book and book-based content can be a vital part of your content portfolio and support your organization’s goals and objectives. Our processes, including program benchmarking, stakeholder interviews, surveys, and workshops, combined with expert landscape research and analysis ensure you are building a content strategy that is market-focused and customer-driven. Contact Delta Think at info@deltathink.com to set up a time for a video call to learn more. We will also be attending the London Book Fair, March 11-13, 2025, if you’d like to schedule an in-person chat.
Overview A recent post on the Open Café listserv posed a question about the true extent of fee-free open access publishing, but it noted the incomplete coverage of the data cited. We have more comprehensive data, but just as we started our analysis, DeepSeek’s release sent markets into turmoil. The stage was set for a timely experiment. We first answer the question using our data. Then we see how the AI did. Background What proportion of open access is not paid for by APCs? In discussing this, a recent Open Café listserv post cited studies by Walt Crawford – a librarian, well-known in the academic library and OA communities for his analysis of open access. He has paid particular attention to “diamond” OA journals, which charge neither readers nor authors. His studies are based on data from the Directory of Open Access journals ( DOAJ ). Excellent though both sources may be – and, full disclosure, we contribute to the DOAJ – the DOAJ’s remit covers only fully OA (“gold”) journals. As listserv founder Rick Anderson noted, “By counting only articles published in DOAJ-listed journals, Crawford’s studies radically _undercount_ the number of APC-funded OA articles published – because DOAJ does not list hybrid journals, which always charge an APC for OA and which produce a lot of genuinely OA articles (though exactly how many, no one knows).” Using our data Actually, we do know … or at least have some fair estimates of hybrid OA. Our data allows us to determine the share of open access output in APC-free journals, as follows.
Overview Following the 2024 US election, the new US administration has instructed employees in some key federal agencies to retract publications arising from federally funded research. This is to allow representatives of the administration to review the language used, to ensure it is consistent with the administration’s political ideology. In this special edition of News & Views, we quantify how many papers might be affected and estimate their share of scholarly publishers’ output. The initial numbers may be small, but we suggest the effects on scholarly publishing could be profound. Background On 20 January 2025, Donald J. Trump took office as the 47th President of the United States. Within hours he signed an Executive Order 1 (EO) 14168 proclaiming that the US government would only recognize two sexes, and ending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs inside federal agencies. The following day, his administration instructed federal health agencies to pause all external communications – “such as health advisories, weekly scientific reports, updates to websites and social media posts” – pending their review by presidential appointees. These instructions were delivered to staff at agencies inside the Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS), including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The events that followed are important, as they directly affect scholarly papers and our analysis. A memo on 29 January instructed agencies to “end all agency programs that … promote or reflect gender ideology” as defined in the EO. Department heads were instructed to immediately review and terminate any “programs, contracts, and grants” that “promote or inculcate gender ideology.” Among other things, they were to remove any public-facing documents or policies that are trans-affirming and replace the term “gender” with “sex” on official documents. By the start of February, more than 8000 web pages across more than a dozen US government websites were taken down . These included over 3000 pages from the CDC (including 1000 research articles filed under preventing chronic disease, STD treatment guidelines , information about Alzheimer’s warning signs, overdose prevention training , and vaccine guidelines for pregnancy). Other departments affected included the FDA (some clinical trials), the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (the OSTP, removing papers in optics, chemistry and experimental medicine), the Health Resources and Services Administration (covering care for women with opioid addictions, and an FAQ about the Mpox vaccine). Around this time, it further emerged that CDC staff were sent an email directing them to withdraw manuscripts that had been accepted, but not yet published, that did not comply with the EO. Agency staff members were given a list of about 20 forbidden terms, including gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, biologically female, and he/she/they/them. All references to DEI and inclusion are also to be removed. The effects of the EO Commenting on the merits of policy and ideology lies beyond our remit. However, when these matters affect the scholarly record – as they clearly do here – then they are of interest for our analyses. Specifically, what might the effects of the EO be on the publication of papers, and what effects might accrue from withdrawal of research funding? If federal agencies are being instructed to withhold or withdraw submissions, then, to quantify what this might mean to publishers, we have estimated the volume of output from a few key federal agencies. It is summarized in the following chart.
Emerging technologies are reshaping how we create, distribute, and consume content. Publishers face the critical task of making smart technology investments to stay competitive and enable strategic objectives. How do you ensure that your next tech purchase aligns with your organization's needs and goals? Enter the needs assessment process – your roadmap to making informed, strategic technology decisions. From defining clear objectives to creating a comprehensive RFP, these best practices will help you navigate the decision-making process with confidence and ensure that your investments deliver value for your organization and your customers. Technology is not a solution; it is a tool. The temptation to adopt technology without a clear definition of what you are trying to achieve is an all too common (and usually very costly) mistake. Does your strategy include delivering a more personalized experience for your users? A customer data platform may be the right technology. Interested in using AI to build research integrity into your editorial process? Perhaps it’s time to revisit the capabilities of your editorial management system. Looking to support education and learning for students, faculty, and professional learners? Maybe it is time to evaluate formal learning management systems. Once you are confident about what you are seeking to achieve, the real work begins. Here are the key components that will help lay the foundation for a successful process from inception to deployment: Analyze Current State: Audit existing systems and processes to understand current capabilities and limitations. Conduct a Gap Analysis: Identify gaps between current capabilities and desired future state. Collect and Analyze Data: Gather qualitative and quantitative data from staff, users, customers, industry benchmarks, and about existing systems. Consider Resources and Constraints: Assess available resources, including budget, skills, and time. Research Solutions: Investigate potential technologies and/or types of solutions that could address identified gaps. Prioritize Needs: Work with stakeholders to prioritize needs based on impact and feasibility. Create RFP: After identifying prioritized needs and potential solutions, develop an RFP that clearly outlines project objectives, specific requirements, evaluation criteria, budget, and timelines. Distribute the RFP: Identify vendors with fit for purpose solutions and capabilities and distribute. Evaluate Proposals: Review vendor responses against established criteria and prioritize them based on how well they meet your needs. Plan for Adoption and Training: Consider the change management aspects of introducing new technology and processes. Be sure to develop a plan for user adoption, training, and ongoing support in your new systems. Technology as a Strategic Ally A methodical needs assessment is not just a procurement exercise – it is a strategic opportunity to reimagine how technology can transform your organization. The most successful technology investments are those that solve real problems, align with organizational goals, and empower your team to work more efficiently and creatively. Don’t fall into the trap of just moving what you are currently doing over to a new system. This is an ideal occasion to think about how you would design workflows and processes if you were to start from scratch and use that framework to evaluate the new capabilities available. You don’t want to duplicate what you are doing today; you want to step back and take the opportunity to build something better whenever possible. Customer Data Platform? Editorial Management System? Learning Management System? Something Else? Delta Think partners with publishers to do the foundational and implementation work required to ensure that technology decisions match the organization’s capabilities, fit the budget, and are grounded in voice-of-customer data. Our processes, including stakeholder interviews, surveys, and workshops, combined with expert landscape research, analysis, and assessments, underpin technology decision-making that is market-focused and customer-driven. If your 2025 objectives depend on or are enabled by technology, we’d welcome the opportunity to help you learn, plan, achieve. Please contact us today to start the conversation.
A number of sources provide information about patterns in the overall scholarly journals market. However, as we so often mention in our analyses, important nuances lie beneath the headlines. This month we explore just how much variation exists and highlight the importance of specificity. Background As part of our annual market updates, we estimate the proportions of open vs. subscription access content each year. Over the last few years, we have observed how OA has approached 50% of output, but we note that it has yet to punch through that number. However, this headline varies greatly depending on your area of publishing. An example from physics The chart below shows the nuances across just a few of the 200+ subjects that we track.
