arXiv subjects

Lisa Matthias

Publications and source records attributed to Lisa Matthias.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Estimating global article processing charges paid to 14 publishers for open access between 2019 and 2025

This study presents estimates of the global expenditure on article processing charges (APCs) paid to 14 publishers for open access (OA) between 2019 and 2025. APCs are charged for publishing in fully OA journals (gold) and making individual articles OA in subscription journals (hybrid), but how much is paid, and for which articles, is not publicly known. We therefore curated an open dataset of publicly listed APC prices from 14 academic publishers (ACS, CUP, De Gruyter, EDP, Elsevier, Frontiers, IEEE, IOP, MDPI, OUP, PLOS, Sage, Springer Nature, and Wiley) and combined it with counts of OA articles from OpenAlex. We estimate that \$15.08 billion (in 2025 USD) was spent globally on APCs between 2019 and 2025. Adjusted for inflation, annual spending quadrupled from \$0.9 billion in 2019 to \$3.7 billion in 2025, with >85% concentrated among a few large publishers. Hybrid OA fees exceed gold fees, and the median fee paid is higher than the median price listed for both. Our approach addresses major limitations in previous efforts to estimate APC spending, offering much-needed insight into an opaque aspect of scholarly publishing, especially as transformative agreements make it more challenging to understand the costs of publishing OA.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

A dataset of article processing charges from 14 scholarly publishers, 2019-2025

This paper introduces a dataset of APCs produced from the price lists of 14 large scholarly publishers between 2019 and 2025. APC price lists were downloaded from publisher websites each year as well as via Wayback Machine snapshots to retrieve fees per journal per year. The dataset includes journal metadata, APC collection method, and annual APC price list information in several currencies (USD, EUR, GBP, CHF, JPY, CAD, AUD) for 12,540 unique journals and 69,856 journal-year combinations. The dataset was generated to allow for more precise analysis of APCs and can support library collection development and scientometric analysis estimating APCs paid in gold and hybrid OA journals.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Diamond Fractures: Tracing Journal Transitions Away from Diamond Open Access

While much attention has been paid to journals transitioning toward Diamond Open Access (OA), comparatively little is known about those moving in the opposite direction. We introduce the concept of "diamond fractures"--instances in which journals that once published freely for both readers and authors subsequently abandoned that model, transitioning to subscription-based or article processing charge (APC)-funded publishing. Drawing on publisher OA portfolio records, historical APC lists, removal logs from the Directory of Open Access Journals, and a survey of journals using Open Journal Systems, we identified and characterized more than 440 journals that have undergone such fractures and analyzed how they are distributed across publisher types, disciplines, and regions; which models journals transition to and at what price points; how old journals are when they fracture; and how publication volume shifts in the period surrounding the transition. This paper reports on more than 440 confirmed fractures, the majority of which involve transitions to charging APCs, ranging from $8 to $5,300. These findings raise urgent questions about the stability of diamond OA as a publishing ecosystem. The transition to APCs--even at initially modest price points--follows well-documented warnings about the hyperinflationary tendencies of author-pays models, in which charges introduced as a pragmatic stopgap have repeatedly escalated over time. The rate of fractures are likely to intensify as APC-based publishing continues to be normalized through funder mandates and commercial OA incentives. Diamond fractures demand to be treated not as isolated institutional decisions but as a systemic risk--one that can only be addressed through sustained investment in community-governed infrastructure and funding models that reduce the conditions under which abandoning diamond OA becomes the path of least resistance.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

When Editors Revolt: Characterizing Journal Declarations of Independence

When editorial boards resign from their journals and publishers and declare their independence, two competing journals can result: the original journal under a new editorial board (a "zombie" journal), and a new journal established by the departing editors (a "breakaway"). The bibliometric community saw such an event when the board of Journal of Informetrics left Elsevier to found Quantitative Science Studies. We analyzed 39 breakaway-zombie journal pairs that have formed since 1989 and their declarations of independence to understand why and how they happen. Results show that declarations of independence were motivated by concerns related to governance and business model and overwhelmingly happened at journals owned by the Big Five publishers. Breakaway editors tended to found new journals at smaller publishers and adopt diamond publishing models. These findings suggest that dissatisfaction with commercial publishing models is growing, and that community-led alternatives can motivate change.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

Transparency to hybrid open access through publisher-provided metadata: An article-level study of Elsevier

With the growth of open access (OA), the financial flows in scholarly journal publishing have become increasingly complex, but comprehensive data and transparency into these flows are still lacking. The opaqueness is especially concerning for hybrid OA, where subscription-based journals publish individual articles as OA if an optional fee is paid. This study addresses the lack of transparency by leveraging Elsevier article metadata and provides the first publisher-level study of hybrid OA uptake and invoicing. Our results show that Elsevier's hybrid OA uptake has grown steadily but slowly from 2015-2019, doubling the number of hybrid OA articles published per year and increasing the share of OA articles in Elsevier's hybrid journals from 2.6% to 3.7% of all articles. Further, we find that most hybrid OA articles were invoiced directly to authors, followed by articles invoiced through agreements with research funders, institutions, or consortia, with only a few funding bodies driving hybrid OA uptake. As such, our findings point to the role of publishing agreements and OA policies in hybrid OA publishing. Our results further demonstrate the value of publisher-provided metadata to improve the transparency in scholarly publishing by linking invoicing data to bibliometrics.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2020

Open is not forever: a study of vanished open access journals

The preservation of the scholarly record has been a point of concern since the beginning of knowledge production. With print publications, the responsibility rested primarily with librarians, but the shift toward digital publishing and, in particular, the introduction of open access (OA) have caused ambiguity and complexity. Consequently, the long-term accessibility of journals is not always guaranteed, and they can even disappear from the web completely. The focus of this exploratory study is on the phenomenon of vanished journals, something that has not been carried out before. For the analysis, we consulted several major bibliographic indexes, such as Scopus, Ulrichsweb, and the Directory of Open Access Journals, and traced the journals through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. We found 174 OA journals that, through lack of comprehensive and open archives, vanished from the web between 2000 and 2019, spanning all major research disciplines and geographic regions of the world. Our results raise vital concern for the integrity of the scholarly record and highlight the urgency to take collaborative action to ensure continued access and prevent the loss of more scholarly knowledge. We encourage those interested in the phenomenon of vanished journals to use the public dataset for their own research.

cs.DL↗