What has the Open Lab learned this year?

Author: Rebecca Evans, Product Manager for Open Access at Emerald Publishing

When we introduced ourselves earlier this year, Emerald’s Open Lab committed to sharing our insights with the wider community.

After all, many of us are joined in the goal of achieving sustainable and equitable open access (OA) all while serving the needs of diverse communities and stakeholders. We’ve already shared the lessons learned in our first sprint, and shared analysis around Lower Middle Income Countries (LMIC) participation, but we’d like to share some of the other insights we’ve gleaned. 

About attitudes to open access

Academics told us that OA increased visibility and accessibility, particularly where research audiences lie outside of academia. Those in LMIC countries said it was essential for those who cannot afford paywalled content. However, cost remains a barrier to participation. 

For some, there are still negative perceptions: it is still difficult to escape associations with predatory journals. Even those authors who have access to OA through institutional or consortia agreements choose to opt-out for this reason. For others, OA remains too focused on the free-to-read and reuse elements, with rigid frameworks overshadowing the original goals of OA.  

Action: Publishers should continue to support and value OA – even as it falls out of discourse – as well as continue to combat negative perceptions around quality. Efforts must tackle broader issues of accessibility and transparency beyond OA, through clearer communication and inclusive frameworks.  

About industry interactions with research 

Through discussions with professionals in a variety of industries, we have learned that they generally value clarity, accessibility, and impact over academic prestige. They do not seek out or engage with academic journals due to the dense, academic language, theoretical content, and the lack of accessibility. Academics who are media-savvy and attuned to policy and/or contemporary issues are perceived by professionals as more influential.  

Action: If we truly want our research to reach those who can make an impact with it, publishers need to address inaccessible language and seek priorities other than prestige. OA would not be enough. 

About authors and open access licensing 

Towards the end of last year, we surveyed authors (n=1,791) on their attitudes towards OA licencing. Around 45% expressed a preference for liberal licencing - either CC BY, CC BY-SA, or CC 0. However, 54% preferred a licence with some element of restriction (46% chose a licence type with some form of non-commercial attribute, 22% some form of non-derivative attribute). These are figures worth paying attention to in a market where funders and consortia are increasingly demanding CC BY licencing. And, honestly, this isn’t a publisher bias. At Emerald, we have been offering CC BY licences on our gold OA articles for many years now, but we do need to acknowledge this feedback, particularly in current technological context.  

In addition, while understanding of Creative Commons licences seems quite good, there is still a significant minority that express they only understand OA licences a little (32%). 48% felt they did not understand their author rights under OA licences. In addition, authors were concerned about the commercial reuse of their work, its reuse in a manner which they did not agree with, and the misrepresentation of their ideas.  

Action: Discourse should move away from being CC BY-centric, and all publishers should do more to increase transparency about the terms of their licencing, as well as educate authors about Creative Commons licencing. 

About Green open access 

About Green open access In interviews, authors tended to express concern that institutional repositories do not provide sufficient visibility, and that Accepted Manuscripts may even be seen as lacking in authenticity when compared to the Version of Record.  

Data also presents a mixed picture with regards to green OA. Green content, as defined by Dimensions, has reduced since its peak in 2020 (that is, the height of Covid-19) in the Social Sciences, even at Emerald where we have a zero embargo, so less expectation of delayed take-up. Meanwhile, the number of repositories in ROAR continues to rise. However, it can increase the citation average and Altmetric of an article, more so than hybrid and full OA. 

Action: There needs to be more research into the value of green OA for all stakeholders, particularly as it is increasingly the direction of travel for many funders and institutions.  

About researcher attitudes to Transformative Agreements 

A smaller survey (n=49) found that publishers and institutions could do more to signpost and educate authors about transformative agreements. A third were unsure whether there were any agreements in place with their institution, while 20% were not confident that they could identify whether a journal was covered by an agreement.

Action: Publishers and institutions should work together to continue to improve messaging and signposting of agreements and eligible journals.  

Looking ahead

The Open Lab’s findings this year – through surveys, conversations, and data analysis – have reaffirmed the complexity of the OA landscape, and the nuance required when exploring open solutions, as well as the need to tackle broader issues beyond OA. Some of these insights confirmed our assumptions or supported conclusions others have also reached, whereas others genuinely surprised us. All have made it clear that supporting and promoting OA and its underlying principles continues to require dialogue, collaboration and clear action. These insights will guide our next steps as we continue to work towards sustainable and equitable solution for our stakeholders.