Name change: Unpaywall Journals is now Unsub

As of today, Unpaywall Journals is now called: Unsub! That’s the only change–all the functionality is still the same, and of course it’s still the same Our Research team behind it.

Why the change? Two reasons:

1. We added data beyond Unpaywall. We started this project with a modest goal: a journal-level analysis of Open Access rates, using data from our free Unpaywall database. So, Unpaywall Journals was a natural name.

However, as we talked to early users, we learned that understanding OA in isolation wasn’t that helpful. Users wanted OA data, yes, but they wanted it in the broader context of a decision support tool. That required us adding a lot of new data and forecasting features. Unpaywall become just one data source of many.

2. We focused on supporting unsubscription. Early users helped us understand, they are not exploring the data for fun. They’re making Big Decisions about keeping or cancelling their Big Deals. These Big Deals have been leaking value for years, even as prices keep going up. As the inevitable cuts are made this year, Big Deals are an attractive target.

But users emphasized that they needed better data to understand their alternatives to the Big Deal, and how cancellations would affect campus access. As we worked to supply this data, Unpaywall Journals evolved into an increasingly focused tool, one built to help libraries unsubscribe with confidence.

So: time for a new name! One that reflects these two changes.

The result: Unsub! A tool to help librarians forecast, explore, and optimize their alternatives to the Big Deal. We hope you like it!

Upcoming webinar: Intro to Managing Serials with Net Cost per Paid Use

Want to learn about the latest development in cost-effectiveness of academic journals?

Join Our Research co-founder Heather Piwowar for an ALA webinar: Intro to Managing Serials with Net Cost Per Paid Use on Wednesday Feb 26, 2020 at 2:00 PM-3:00 PM (Eastern).

This webinar will discuss a new metric for evaluating the cost effectiveness of Serials: Net Cost Per Paid Use (NCPPU). NCPPU goes beyond the standard Cost Per Use calculation to exclude free content (OA and back catalog), incorporate ILL costs, and value citation and authorship.

The webinar is part of the ALCTS series — thanks to ALCTS for hosting! Details on the webinar (content, connection details, fee) here: http://www.ala.org/alcts/confevents/upcoming/webinar/022620

The recording will be made freely available in 6 months — we’ll post the link again at that point. Stay tuned for more webinars and conference presentations about Unpaywall Journals in the next few months!

Interested in keeping up on news about Unpaywall Journals Dashboard and journal cost-effectiveness? We’re starting a newsletter to make that easier! Subscribe here.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us any time at team@ourresearch.org.

Update: In May 2020 we changed the name of Unpaywall Journals Dashboard to Unsub.

Stop by for a demo of Unpaywall Journals at ALA midwinter

We are at ALA Midwinter this weekend! If you are interested in data to help you reassess the value of your Big Deal, stop by table 867 for a demo of the new product, Unpaywall Journals!

Alternatively, you can book a time to make sure you have our undivided attention, or stop us in the halls any time you see us. We’ll be wearing our green Unpaywall t-shirts so we are hard to miss 🙂

Jason and Heather (CNI 2019)

If you don’t do collections or acquisitions, but you are a fan of the Unpaywall link resolver, browser extension, API, or integrations — stop by anyway and grab an Unpaywall sticker. Come and get them before they are gone! From what we’ve heard ALA midwinter is a little low on swag, so it’ll nice not go home empty handed….

Yes we have more than this, but not oodles, so come by early 🙂

Email us at team@ourresearch.org if email is better. Looking forward to a great conference! — Heather and Jason.

Update: In May 2020 we changed the name of Unpaywall Journals to Unsub.

Thankful for Repositories and OA advocates

It’s American Thanksgiving this week, and we sure are thankful. We’re thankful for so many people and what they do — those who fight for open data, those who release their software and photos openly, the folks who ask and answer Stack Overflow questions, the amazing people behind the Crossref API…. the list is long and rich.

But today I want to shout out a special big thank you to OA advocates and the people behind repositories. Without your early and continued work, it wouldn’t be true that half of all views to scholarly articles are to an article that has an OA copy somewhere, and even better this number is growing to 70% of articles five years from now. That changes the game. For researchers and the public who are looking for papers, and for the whole scholarly communication system in how we think about paying for publishing in the years ahead in ways that make it more efficient and equitable.

I gave the closing keynote at Open Repositories 2019 this year, and my talk highlighted how the success of Unpaywall is really the success of all of you — and how we are set for institutional repositories to be even more impactful in the years ahead. It’s online here if you want to see it. We mean it.

Thank you.

New: Open crowdsourced list of Society Journals

Unpaywall Journals needed data on whether a given journal is associated with an academic society, to help inform librarians in their subscription decisions. Alas there was no open source of this information.

There is now! Thanks to 60+ contributors over the last week, all Elsevier and Wiley journals have now been annotated with whether or not they are a society journal. Many also have the society name itself listed in the notes.

We are releasing this dataset CC0 in its Google Spreadsheet now, and will clean it up and host it in a stand-alone API endpoint in the coming weeks. It has already been pulled into Wikidata! Others are welcome and encouraged to use it however they’d like 🙂

Thanks so much to all of these contributors, some of whom annotated hundreds of journals:

  • Lauren Maggio
  • Eamon Costello
  • Hugo Gruson
  • Heather K Moberly
  • Sofie Wennström
  • josmel pacheco-mendoza
  • Kate O’Neill
  • Stefanie Haustein
  • Lisa Matthias
  • Kathryn Pelland
  • Camilla Lindelöw
  • Amanda Whitmire
  • Iara Vidal
  • Raquel Donahue
  • Sam Teplitzky
  • Steffi Grimm
  • Marianne Gauffriau
  • Anonymous Dinosaur Librarian (> 60 and still bringing it!)
  • Maximilian Heimstädt
  • Kendra K. Levine
  • Ranti Junus
  • Nicki Clarkson
  • KT Vaughan
  • Sarah Severson
  • Christie Hurrell
  • Philipp Zumstein
  • Lucy Carr Jones
  • Emma U.
  • Chris Rusbridge
  • Diana Wright
  • Biljana Kosanovic
  • Milica Sevkusic
  • Patricia Brennan
  • Emilio M Bruna
  • Bevan S Weir
  • Irene Barbers
  • Oskia Agirre
  • Sarah R. O. Santos
  • Olivier Pourret
  • Phil Gooch
  • FrĂ©dĂ©rique Bordignon
  • Jackie Proven
  • Tobias Steiner
  • Eleanor Colla
  • Aidy Weeks
  • George Matsumoto
  • Egon Willighagen
  • Rob Hooft
  • Iseult Lynch
  • Andrew Gray
  • Heather Lang
  • Ethan White
  • Sarah Steele Cabrera
  • Didier Torny
  • Bruce Caron
  • Eleta Exline
  • Teresa Schultz
  • Christy Caldwell
  • Richard Abdill
  • Anthony Hamzah
  • Marc Couture

This was a great community push, and it is all of ours, and we’re sure thankful.

Unpaywall Journals — helping librarians get more value from their serials budget

We’re thrilled to announce a new product:

Unpaywall Journals is a data dashboard that combines journal-level citations, downloads, Open Access statistics and more, to help librarians confidently manage their serials collections.

Learn more, join the announcement list, and help spread the word.

It’s going to be big.

Update: In May 2020 we changed the name of Unpaywall Journals to Unsub.

.

Green OA lag

Ok I know for maximum impact we should probably spread all these blog posts out over multiple days, but I’m way too eager to share — I think people interested in Green OA will be really interested in this, I know I am.

It’s from the supplementary information section of the preprint, Section 11.1:

In the figure below we plot the number of Green OA papers made available each year vs their date of publication. The first plot is a histogram of number of papers made available each year (one row for each year).

The next plot is the same, but superimposes the articles made available in previous years. This stacked area represents the total cumulative number of Green OA papers that are available in that year — if you were in that year and wondering what was available as Green OA that’s what you’d find.

The third plot is a larger version of the availability as of 2018, showing the accumulation of availability. It allows us to appreciate that less than half of papers papers published in, say, 2015, were made available the same year — most of the papers have been made available in subsequent years. The fourth plot is a slice in isolation, for clarity: the Green OA for articles with a Publication Date of 2015.

Again, this last plot is when articles that were published in 2015 were actually made available in repositories. As you can see at the bottom of the stacked bar, a very few articles that were published in 2015 were actually posted in a repository in 2014. Those are preprints. A lot of articles published in 2015 appeared in a repository in 2015, but even more had a delay and didn’t appear in a repository until 2016. A full 40% of articles had an OA lag of more than a year, including some with an OA lag of four years!

More details on data collection are in the paper — just wanted to dig this out of Supplementary Information so that fellow nerds who’d enjoy this data don’t miss it 🙂

The Future of OA: what did we find?

Here are some of the key findings from the recent preprint on the Future of OA:

  • By 2025 we predict that 70% of all article views will be to articles available as OA — only 30% of article view attempts will be to content available only via subscription.
    • This compares to 52% of views available as OA right now, so it’ll be a big change in the next five years.
  • The numbers of Green, Gold, and Hybrid articles have been growing exponentially, and growing faster than Delayed OA or Closed access articles:
    • articles by year of observation, with exponential best fit line:
  • The average Green, Gold, and Hybrid paper receives more views than its Closed or Bronze counterpart, particularly Green papers made available within a year of publication.
    • views per article, by age of article:
  • Most Green OA articles become OA within their first two years of publication, but there is a long tail.
    • articles made newly Green OA in each the last four years, histograms by year of publication:
  • One interesting realization from the modeling we’ve done is that when the proportion of papers that are OA increases, or when the OA lag decreases, the total number of views increase — the scholarly literature becomes more heavily viewed and thus more valuable to society. This is intuitive, but could be explored quantitatively in future work using this model or ones like it.

Anyway, there are more findings too, but those are some of the main ones.

New perspective for OA: Date of Observation

We’d like to share one of the fun parts of our recent preprint. It’s fun because the concept of Date of Observation helps to untangle issues around embargoes — and also because we think we came up with a neat way to explain what is otherwise a fairly complicated concept, and hopefully make it accessible to everybody.

See what you think — here is our description of the Date of Observation, from section 3.3 of the preprint:

Let’s imagine two observers, Alice (blue) and Bob (red), shown by the two stick figures at the top of the figure:

Alice lives at the end of Year 1–that’s her “Date Of Observation.” Looking down, she can see all 8 articles (represented by solid colored dots) published in Year 1, along with their access status: Gold OA, Green OA, or Closed. The Year of Publication for all eight of these articles is Year 1.

Alice likes reading articles, so she decides to read all eight Year 1 articles, one by one.

She starts with Article A. This article started its life early in the year as Closed. Later that year, though–after an OA Lag of about six months–Article A became Green OA as its author deposited a manuscript (the green circle) in their institutional repository. Now, at Alice’s Date of Observation, it’s open! Excellent. Since Alice is inclined toward organization, she puts Article A article in a stack of Green articles she’s keeping below.

Now let’s look at Bob. Bob lives in Alice’s future, in Year 3 (ie, his “Date of Observation” is Year 3). Like Alice, he’s happy to discover that Article A is open. He puts it in his stack of Green OA articles, which he’s further organized by date of their publication (it goes in the Year 1 stack).

Next, Alice and Bob come to Article B, which is a tricky one. Alice is sad: she can’t read the article, and places it in her Closed stack. Unbeknownst to poor Alice, she is a victim of OA Lag, since Article B will become OA in Year 2. By contrast, Bob, from his comfortable perch in the future, is able to read the article. He places it in his Green Year 1 stack. He now has two articles in this stack, since he’s found two Green OA articles in Year 1.

Finally, Alice and Bob both find Article C is closed, and place it in the closed stack for Year 1. We can model this behavior for a hypothetical reader at each year of observation, giving us their view on the world–and that’s exactly the approach we take in this paper.

Now, let’s say that Bob has decided he’s going to figure out what OA will look like in Year 4. He starts with Gold. This is easy, since Gold article are open immediately upon publication, and publication date is easy to find from article metadata. So, he figures out how many articles were Gold for Alice (1), how many in Year 2 (3), and how many in his own Year 3 (6). Then he computes percentages, and graphs them out using the stacked area chart at the bottom of the figure. From there, it’s easy to extrapolate forward a year.

For Green, he does the same thing–but he makes sure to account for OA Lag. Bob is trying to draw a picture of the world every year, as it appeared to the denizens of that world. He wants Alice’s world as it appeared to Alice, and the same for Year 2, and so on. So he includes OA Lag in his calculations for Green OA, in addition to publication year. Once he has a good picture from each Date Of Observation, and a good understanding of what the OA Lag looks like, he can once again extrapolate to find Year 4 numbers.

Bob is using the same approach we will use in this paper–although in practice, we will find it to be rather more complex, due to varying lengths of OA Lag, additional colors of OA, and a lack of stick figures.

The Future of OA: A large-scale analysis projecting Open Access publication and readership

We are excited to announce our most recent study has just been posted on bioRxiv:

Piwowar, Priem, Orr (2019) The Future of OA: A large-scale analysis projecting Open Access publication and readership. bioRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/795310

This is the largest, most comprehensive analysis ever to predict the future of Open Access. Importantly, we look not only at publication trends but also at *viewership* — what do people want to read, and how much of it is OA?

The abstract is included below, we’ll be highlighting a few of the cool findings in subsequent blog posts, and you can read the full paper here (DOI not resolving yet). All the raw data and code is available, as is our style: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3474007. Enjoy, and let us know what you think!


Understanding the growth of open access (OA) is important for deciding funder policy, subscription allocation, and infrastructure planning.

This study analyses the number of papers available as OA over time. The models includes both OA embargo data and the relative growth rates of different OA types over time, based on the OA status of 70 million journal articles published between 1950 and 2019.

The study also looks at article usage data, analyzing the proportion of views to OA articles vs views to articles which are closed access. Signal processing techniques are used to model how these viewership patterns change over time. Viewership data is based on 2.8 million uses of the Unpaywall browser extension in July 2019.

We found that Green, Gold, and Hybrid papers receive more views than their Closed or Bronze counterparts, particularly Green papers made available within a year of publication. We also found that the proportion of Green, Gold, and Hybrid articles is growing most quickly.

In 2019:

  • 31% of all journal articles are available as OA
  • 52% of all article views are to OA articles

Given existing trends, we estimate that by 2025:

  • 44% of all journal articles will be available as OA
  • 70% of all article views will be to OA articles

The declining relevance of closed access articles is likely to change the landscape of scholarly communication in the years to come.


Additional blog posts about this paper: