Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 127 references

This survey finds that German research institutions record publication costs only partially and mostly through non-binding workflows, despite viewing such data as important for the open access transition.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 10:50 UTC pith:7QLQ555M

load-bearing objection Straightforward, transparent survey write-up whose main caveat is that the results already appeared in German; the variable response rates are a real but secondary limitation. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.08340 v2 pith:7QLQ555M submitted 2026-01-13 cs.DL

Pursuing transparency: How research performing organizations in Germany collect data on publication costs

Dorothea Strecker , Heinz Pampel , Jonas H\"ofting This is my paper
classification cs.DL
keywords open access transformationpublication costscost transparencyinformation budgetresearch performing organizationsGermanysurveymonitoring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reports the first comprehensive survey of how German research-performing organizations record their publication costs. Based on 258 responses from 583 invited institutions, it claims that a majority record publication costs at least in part, but that procedures are often non-binding and data reliability varies sharply by funding source. Only about one in four institutions has a systematic overview of publication costs, and fewer than half of those have binding workflows. Although 80% of respondents call cost recording important for the open access transformation, only 59% of institutions with such data use it for strategic decisions. The paper concludes that the information budget concept, recommended for 2025, remains largely unrealized.

Core claim

The central empirical claim is that German research-performing organizations lack uniform, binding cost-transparency practices. As of 2024, 26.7% of surveyed institutions report having achieved a systematic overview of publication costs, and 43.8% say one is planned but not yet achieved. Among institutions with at least some overview, only 42.7% have binding workflows, while 38.8% have workflows without binding specifications. Reliability ratings are high for funds managed centrally—74.2% call them very reliable—but much lower for third-party funds acquired by research departments and for departmental budget funds. The paper also shows that 80% of respondents view collecting publication cost

What carries the argument

The survey questionnaire itself is the key instrument, built around three loaded concepts: 'systematic overview of publication costs' (Question 3), 'binding workflows, procedures or instructions' (Question 14), and a funding-source reliability matrix (Question 20). These operationalizations let the authors measure transparency along two axes—whether data are collected at all, and whether collection is mandatory and reliable across different funding channels. The institution-type sampling frame and response-rate table carry the argument that the results approximate the German research landscape, despite uneven participation.

Load-bearing premise

The survey assumes that the 258 responding institutions represent all 583 invited German research-performing organizations, and that a single respondent—most often a library staff member—can accurately report how costs are recorded across finance, research departments, and central administration.

What would settle it

Compare survey answers against actual financial records for a random sample of both responding and non-responding institutions: if a substantial share of non-respondents or departmental finance offices turn out to have binding cost-recording workflows, the paper's conclusion that procedures are 'often non-binding' would not hold.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the survey's estimates are correct, Germany's open access transformation is proceeding without a reliable national baseline for total publication expenditures.
  • Cost figures based only on centrally managed publication funds understate true spending because third-party and departmental funds are recorded far less reliably.
  • Most collected cost data are not yet feeding into strategic decisions, so the potential of transparency for reshaping publisher negotiations remains unrealized.
  • The 2025 information budget recommendation will not be met on a broad scale without stronger mandates or institutional support.
  • Integrating publication-output monitoring with cost monitoring could improve both, since output tracking is more advanced and can serve as a scaffold for cost data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Interpretation: the large gap between perceived importance (80%) and actual strategic use (59%) suggests that reported attitudes may overstate institutional commitment; testing actual behavior against survey answers would sharpen the picture.
  • Extrapolation: because response rates vary widely by institution type, non-response bias may be substantial; a quick audit of non-responding institutions' finance offices could shift the headline percentages.
  • Implication: pooled, centrally managed funding channels are where transparency is easiest; expanding such pooling, even before full information budgets exist, would directly improve data reliability.
  • Consequence: national or international cost-transparency aggregators will likely have incomplete data as long as departmental and third-party funds are not consistently captured at the source.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 2024 survey of German research performing organizations (RPOs) on how they record publication costs. Among 583 invited institutions, 258 completed the questionnaire (44.3%). The authors describe their sampling frame, questionnaire development (including an 11-person pretest), field phase, and open-ended coding. Main findings: 26.7% of respondents report a systematic overview of publication costs already achieved (Q3), 42.7% of those with an overview have binding workflows (Q14), 59% use the collected data for strategic decisions (Q22), and 80% view cost recording as important for the open access transformation (Q23). The paper interprets these results as evidence that German RPOs lack uniform, binding cost-transparency workflows, while central publication funds are recorded more reliably than departmental or third-party funds (Q20). The anonymized data are deposited on Zenodo.

Significance. This is a well-documented empirical contribution to the open access cost-transparency debate. The survey is, to my knowledge, the first comprehensive attempt to map cost-recording workflows across all major German RPO types. The methodology is transparent: the mailing-list construction is described in detail, the questionnaire was pretested and is provided in an online appendix, the field phase is documented, and the data are openly deposited. The results, if generalizable, would be directly useful for science policy and for institutions considering information budgets. The main caveat is that the population-level generalizability of the unweighted percentages is not established, given strongly heterogeneous response rates and the reliance on a single respondent per institution.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.5, Table 1; §3.2; §3.6; §3.8] The central descriptive claims (Q3: 26.7% systematic cost overview; Q14: 42.7% binding workflows; Q22: 59% strategic use) are reported as simple unweighted percentages. Table 1 shows response rates from 6.6% (Fraunhofer) to 78.4% (universities). The raw sample overrepresents universities (69/258 = 26.7%) relative to their population share (88/583 = 15.1%) and underrepresents Fraunhofer institutes (5/258 = 1.9% vs 76/583 = 13.0%). If cost-recording practices are correlated with institution type, these unweighted estimates may not generalize to 'RPOs in Germany.' §4.6 acknowledges variable response rates but does not provide design-weighted estimates or a non-response analysis; the 'maximum sampling error' of 4.56% (§2.5) assumes simple random sampling and is not directly applicable. Please add weighted estimates or a bounding exercise (e.g., worst-case assumptions for non-responders) and
  2. [§2.2; §2.4; §3.1; Q20 (Figure 7)] Single-respondent validity is a second load-bearing issue. §3.1 reports that 84.1% of respondents are library staff, and §2.2 prioritized open access officers, publication department staff, and library directors. Q20 asks about reliability of data collection for departmental and third-party funds; the 16.9–18.5% non-response on those sub-items suggests limited knowledge outside the library domain. Additionally, 91.9% of respondents are in DEAL contracts (§3.4), and the survey was promoted via DEAL mailing lists (§2.4), likely oversampling institutions already engaged with centralized cost workflows. The manuscript should discuss how single-respondent error and this selection channel could bias the reliability ratings and the Q3/Q14 distributions, and ideally validate a subset of responses against independent institution-level data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1.4] Typo: 'RPO’s' should be 'RPOs' in 'researchers at German RPO’s'.
  2. [Table 1] The 'Institutions on mailing list' column sums to 600 while 583 were invited; the text describes removals, but a brief note in the table caption would help readers understand the discrepancy.
  3. [§3.6] Q14 percentages (42.7%, 38.8%, 16.9%) are conditional on respondents who had at least a planned or achieved overview (n=178). A sentence clarifying the conditional denominator when these figures are cited in the abstract or discussion would prevent misinterpretation.
  4. [References] In the reference list, 'Haustein et al. (2024=' contains a typo ('2024=' should be '2024').
  5. [§3.7, Figure 6] The estimated number of publications with costs has a median of 35, a mean of 226.4, and a standard deviation of 407.6; consider reporting a trimmed mean or a log-scale visualization to reduce the impact of outliers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: descriptive survey study with no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a descriptive survey report, not a derivation-based study. There is no fitted parameter, predictive model, or formal argument whose conclusion is equivalent to an input by construction. The headline findings (e.g., 26.7% of respondents report a systematic overview of publication costs, 42.7% report binding workflows) are direct tabulations of questionnaire responses. The survey does not assume its conclusions: question routing and filters are transparently stated, and the limitations section acknowledges variable response rates and possible question-order effects. The only self-references are citations to the authors' prior German-language publication of the same survey, the linked Zenodo dataset, and the OA Datenpraxis project description. These are disclosures of provenance and data availability, not load-bearing evidence that forces a result. The paper's claim to be the 'first comprehensive study' is a scope claim about prior literature, not a circular reduction. No self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or renamed empirical pattern is used to generate the findings. Therefore the appropriate verdict is no circularity, score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a descriptive survey with no fitted model parameters or invented entities. Its claims depend on the sample being representative and on self-reports being accurate; both are only partially supported, as noted in the axioms above.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Respondents' self-reports accurately reflect each institution's actual publication-cost recording practices
    All descriptive findings are based on a single informant per institution (84.1% library staff, §3.1); library staff may not know departmental or finance-office data flows.
  • domain assumption The mailing list of 583 institutions adequately operationalizes 'research performing organizations in Germany'
    Compiled from selected directories with manual exclusions (§2.2); coverage of Fraunhofer is weak (6.6% response, Table 1).
  • domain assumption The sample is not systematically biased by DEAL-affiliated promotion
    The survey was promoted via DEAL mailing lists (§2.4) and 91.9% of respondents are in DEAL contracts (§3.4), suggesting possible over-representation of institutions engaged with transformative agreements.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20937 in / 12619 out tokens · 117143 ms · 2026-08-03T10:50:28.204959+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This article presents the results of a survey conducted in 2024 among research performing organizations (RPOs) in Germany on how they collect data on publication costs. Of the 583 invitees, 258 (44.3%) completed the questionnaire. This survey is the first comprehensive study on the recording of publication costs at RPOs in Germany. The results show that the majority of surveyed RPOs recorded publication costs at least in part. However, procedures in this regard were often non-binding. Respondents' ratings of the reliability of the collection of data on publication costs varied by the source of publication funding. Eighty percent of respondents rated the contribution of collecting data on publication costs to shaping the open access transformation as "very important" or "important." Yet, these data were used as a basis for strategic decisions in only 59% of the surveyed RPOs. Moreover, most respondents considered the implementation of an information budget at their institutions by 2025 unlikely. We discuss the implications of these findings for the open access transformation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.08340 by Dorothea Strecker, Heinz Pampel, Jonas H\"ofting.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Locations of institutions on the mailing list by institution type. 13 https://ror.org/about/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Extent of coverage of members’ publication costs requirements by publication funds. Questions 9 and 10 were administered only if respondents answered “No, but this is planned” or “No, this is not planned” to Question 5 (“Can publication costs at your institution be paid fully or partially by a publication fund?”). Responses to Question 9, “What funds are used to pay publication costs at your institution?” … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Assessment of (1) problem awareness of and (2) support from management for the recording of publication costs. Asked to what extent they agreed with the statement in sub-question 13.1, “The leadership of the institution has a keen awareness of the problem of recording publication costs,” 23.1% of respondents (n = 56) selected “agree,” 21.1% (n = 51) “strongly agree,” 19.4% (n = 47) “undecided,” 13.6% (n = … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Recording of publication costs. Question 16, “How many publications by members of your institution do you estimate have incurred publication costs charged to your institution in 2023?” (n = 123), was an open￾ended question. Respondents provided estimates ranging from 1 to 3,000 publications, with a median of 35 and an average of 226.4 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Estimated number of publications incurring publication costs charged to the institution in 2023. 3.7 Workflows – Practice Questions 17 to 21 on the specific design of workflows for recording publication costs. These questions were administered only to those respondents who selected the option “Yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “Yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in response to Que… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Assessment of the reliability of the recording of data on publication costs financed from (1) funds managed by a central service unit, (2) third-party funds raised by research and teaching, and (3) institutional budget funds allocated to research and teaching. Responding to sub-question 20.2, “third-party funding acquired by research and teaching departments (e. g. faculty, institute, department, section),… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Continuous recording of publication costs during the reporting year. 3.8 Contribution to the Open Access Transformation Questions 22 to 24 of the questionnaire addressed the perceived contribution of recording publication costs to the open access transformation overall. Question 22 was a filter question and was administered only if respondent selected “Yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “Yes, but a… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Assessment of the contribution of recording publication costs to shaping the open access transformation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Assessment of the likelihood of the implementation of an information budget by 2025. 4. DISCUSSION The fragmentation and obfuscation of financial flows in the context of academic publishing outlined in the Introduction poses a challenge to RPOs. Library budgets are no longer the only source of funding, and achieving a comprehensive overview and transparency of all publication￾related income streams and ex… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Which database with article processing charges should be used? , volume =

    Asai, Sumiko , date =. Which database with article processing charges should be used? , volume =. doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04841-z , pages =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04841-z

  2. [2]

    On the challenges of open access monitoring , volume =

    Salamoura, Athanasia and Tsakonas, Giannis , date =. On the challenges of open access monitoring , volume =. doi:10.1629/uksg.641 , pages =

    work page doi:10.1629/uksg.641

  3. [3]

    Library Involvement in Faculty Publication Funds , volume =

    Monson, Jane and Highby, Wendy and Rathe, Bette , date =. Library Involvement in Faculty Publication Funds , volume =. doi:10.1080/10691316.2014.933088 , pages =

    arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    Monaghan, Jessica and Lucraft, Mithu and Allin, Katie , date =. '

  5. [5]

    Das Informationsbudget - Konzept und Werkstattbericht , volume =

    Mittermaier, Bernhard , date =. Das Informationsbudget - Konzept und Werkstattbericht , volume =. doi:10.5282/O-BIB/5864 , pages =

    work page doi:10.5282/o-bib/5864

  6. [6]

    Are open access fees a good use of taxpayers’ money? , volume =

    Kendall, Graham , date =. Are open access fees a good use of taxpayers’ money? , volume =. doi:10.1162/qss_c_00305 , pages =

    work page doi:10.1162/qss_c_00305

  7. [7]

    Library Consortia and Article Processing Charges: An International Survey , volume =

    Horava, Tony and Ward, Monica , date =. Library Consortia and Article Processing Charges: An International Survey , volume =. doi:10.1080/00987913.2016.1237928 , pages =

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Gold Open Access output and expenditures in the United States in the past decade , doi =

    Halevi, Gali and Van Leeuwen, Thed N and Milićević, Nemanja and Fry, Ryan , date =. Gold Open Access output and expenditures in the United States in the past decade , doi =. 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (

  9. [9]

    When researchers pay to publish: Results from a survey on APCs in four countries

    Gallardo, Osvaldo and Milia, Matías and Appel, André Luiz and Team, Grip-. When researchers pay to publish: Results from a survey on. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.12144 , publisher =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.12144

  10. [10]

    , publisher =

    Study on scientific publishing in Europe: development, diversity, and transparency of costs. , publisher =

  11. [11]

    Commission Recommendation (

  12. [12]

    Modelling Scholarly Communication Options: Costs and benefits for universities , url =

    Swan, Alma , date =. Modelling Scholarly Communication Options: Costs and benefits for universities , url =

  13. [13]

    The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges , volume =

    Butler, Leigh-Ann and Matthias, Lisa and Simard, Marc-André and Mongeon, Philippe and Haustein, Stefanie , date =. The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges , volume =. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00272 , pages =

    work page doi:10.1162/qss_a_00272

  14. [14]

    In dramatic statement, European leaders call for ‘immediate’ open access to all scientific papers by 2020 , issn =

    Enserink, Martin , urldate =. In dramatic statement, European leaders call for ‘immediate’ open access to all scientific papers by 2020 , issn =. doi:10.1126/science.aag0577 , journaltitle =

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aag0577 2020

  15. [15]

    Open dataset of annual Article Processing Charges (

    Butler, Leigh-Ann and Hare, Madelaine and Schönfelder, Nina and Schares, Eric and Alperin, Juan Pablo and Haustein, Stefanie , editora =. Open dataset of annual Article Processing Charges (. doi:10.7910/DVN/CR1MMV , publisher =

    work page doi:10.7910/dvn/cr1mmv

  16. [16]

    An open dataset of article processing charges from six large scholarly publishers (2019-2023) , url =

    Butler, Leigh-Ann and Hare, Madelaine and Schönfelder, Nina and Schares, Eric and Alperin, Juan Pablo and Haustein, Stefanie , date =. An open dataset of article processing charges from six large scholarly publishers (2019-2023) , url =

    2019

  17. [17]

    The cost of open access: comparing public projects’ budgets and article processing charges expenditure , doi =

    Alonso-Álvarez, Patricia and Sastrón-Toledo, Pablo and Mañana-Rodriguez, Jorge , date =. The cost of open access: comparing public projects’ budgets and article processing charges expenditure , doi =

  18. [18]

    Datentracking und

    Altschaffel, Robert and Beurskens, Michael and Dittmann, Jana and Horstmann, Wolfram and Kiltz, Stefan and Lauer, Gerhard and Ludwig, Judith and Mittermaier, Bernhard and Stump, Katrin , urldate =. Datentracking und. doi:10.5771/2699-1284-2024-1-23 , pages =

    work page doi:10.5771/2699-1284-2024-1-23 2024

  19. [19]

    Mittermaier, Bernhard , date =

  20. [20]

    Pampel, Heinz and Tullney, Marco , editor =. 3b. Open-Access-Publikationsfonds , isbn =. Praxishandbuch Open Access , publisher =

  21. [21]

    Mittermaier, Bernhard , editor =. 2b. Hybrider Open Access , isbn =. Praxishandbuch Open Access , publisher =

  22. [22]

    Positionen zur Schaffung eines wissenschaftsadäquaten Open-Access-Publikationsmarktes

    Bruch, Christoph and Deinzer, Gernot and Geschuhn, Kai and Hätscher, Petra and Hillenkötter, Kristine and Kreß, Ulrike and Pampel, Heinz and Schäffler, Hildegard and Stanek, Ursula and Timm, Arnulf and Wagner, Alexander , date =. Positionen zur Schaffung eines wissenschaftsadäquaten Open-Access-Publikationsmarktes. Positionspapier der Ad-hoc-

  23. [23]

    Empfehlungen zur Transformation des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens zu Open Access , doi =

    Wissenschaftsrat , date =. Empfehlungen zur Transformation des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens zu Open Access , doi =

  24. [24]

    Umgang mit Open-Access-Publikationsgebühren – die Situation in Deutschland in 2010 , volume =

    Eppelin, Anita and Pampel, Heinz and Bandilla, Wolfgang and Kaczmirek, Lars , date =. Umgang mit Open-Access-Publikationsgebühren – die Situation in Deutschland in 2010 , volume =. doi:10.3205/mbi000240 , pages =

    work page doi:10.3205/mbi000240 2010

  25. [25]

    Open Access in Deutschland Gemeinsame Leitlinien von Bund und Ländern , url =

  26. [26]

    Strategische und operative Handlungsoptionen für wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen zur Gestaltung der Open-Access-Transformation , institution =

    Pampel, Heinz , urldate =. Strategische und operative Handlungsoptionen für wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen zur Gestaltung der Open-Access-Transformation , institution =

  27. [27]

    Plan S for Shock: Science

    Smits, Robert-Jan and Pells, Rachael , urldate =. Plan S for Shock: Science. Shock. Solution. Speed. , isbn =

  28. [28]

    Open Access in Deutschland

    Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung , date =. Open Access in Deutschland. Die Strategie des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung , url =

  29. [29]

    Open Access am Standort D – erweiterte Perspektiven für die Wissenschaft , volume =

    Schmidt, Birgit and Ilg-Hartbecke, Karin , date =. Open Access am Standort D – erweiterte Perspektiven für die Wissenschaft , volume =. doi:10.3205/mbi000133 , pages =

    work page doi:10.3205/mbi000133

  30. [30]

    Trapped in Transformative Agreements? A Multifaceted Analysis of >1,000 Contracts

    Rothfritz, Laura and Schmal, W. Benedikt and Herb, Ulrich , date =. Trapped in Transformative Agreements? A Multifaceted Analysis of. doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.20224 , publisher =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.20224

  31. [31]

    Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities , url =

    Max-Planck-Gesellschaft , urldate =. Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities , url =

  32. [32]

    Die Open-Access-Förderung des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung , pages =

    Klingbeil, Bettina and Weber, Cäcilie , editor =. Die Open-Access-Förderung des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung , pages =. Offene Zusammenhänge , publisher =

  33. [33]

    How to build an Open Science Monitor based on publications? A French perspective , doi =

    Bracco, Laetitia and Jeangirard, Eric and L'Hôte, Anne and Romary, Laurent , date =. How to build an Open Science Monitor based on publications? A French perspective , doi =

  34. [34]

    Open Secrets: Exploring Institutional Spending on Open Access , volume =

    Harlan, Lydia and Rigby, Miriam , date =. Open Secrets: Exploring Institutional Spending on Open Access , volume =. doi:10.23974/ijol.2024.vol9.4.394 , pages =

    work page doi:10.23974/ijol.2024.vol9.4.394 2024

  35. [35]

    Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review , volume =

    Borrego, Ángel , date =. Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review , volume =. doi:10.1002/leap.1558 , pages =

    work page doi:10.1002/leap.1558

  36. [36]

    Abschätzung der zur Verfügung stehenden Mittel für Publikationsgebühren in Forschungsorganisationen – Verfahren, Ergebnisse und Diskussion – Forschungsbericht , author =

    Open-Access-Transformation. Abschätzung der zur Verfügung stehenden Mittel für Publikationsgebühren in Forschungsorganisationen – Verfahren, Ergebnisse und Diskussion – Forschungsbericht , author =

  37. [37]

    Journal subscription expenditure of

    Lawson, Stuart and Meghreblian, Ben , date =. Journal subscription expenditure of. doi:10.12688/f1000research.5706.3 , number =

    work page doi:10.12688/f1000research.5706.3

  38. [38]

    Opening the Black Box of Scholarly Communication Funding: A Public Data Infrastructure for Financial Flows in Academic Publishing , volume =

    Lawson, Stuart and Gray, Jonathan and Mauri, Michele , date =. Opening the Black Box of Scholarly Communication Funding: A Public Data Infrastructure for Financial Flows in Academic Publishing , volume =. doi:10.16995/olh.72 , number =

    work page doi:10.16995/olh.72

  39. [39]

    Lahti, Leo and Lehtomäki, Joona , date =

  40. [40]

    Understanding differences of the

    Taubert, Niels and Hobert, Anne and Jahn, Najko and Bruns, Andre and Iravani, Elham , date =. Understanding differences of the. doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04716-3 , pages =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04716-3

  41. [41]

    From library budget to information budget: fostering transparency in the transformation towards open access , volume =

    Pampel, Heinz , date =. From library budget to information budget: fostering transparency in the transformation towards open access , volume =. doi:10.1629/uksg.576 , pages =

    work page doi:10.1629/uksg.576

  42. [42]

    A study of institutional spending on open access publication fees in Germany , volume =

    Jahn, Najko and Tullney, Marco , date =. A study of institutional spending on open access publication fees in Germany , volume =. doi:10.7717/peerj.2323 , pages =

    work page doi:10.7717/peerj.2323

  43. [43]

    Transparenz bei Subskriptionskosten in der Schweiz: Bilanz nach vier Jahren , url =

    Gutknecht, Christian , urldate =. Transparenz bei Subskriptionskosten in der Schweiz: Bilanz nach vier Jahren , url =

  44. [44]

    Intransparenz bei den Bibliotheksausgaben von Schweizer Hochschulen , url =

    Gutknecht, Christian , urldate =. Intransparenz bei den Bibliotheksausgaben von Schweizer Hochschulen , url =

  45. [45]

    Financial Flows in Swiss Publishing , institution =

  46. [46]

    Investigating the Blind Spot of a Monitoring System for Article Processing Charges , volume =

    Bruns, Andre and Taubert, Niels , date =. Investigating the Blind Spot of a Monitoring System for Article Processing Charges , volume =. doi:10.3390/publications9030041 , pages =

    work page doi:10.3390/publications9030041

  47. [47]

    Who Pays? Comparing Cost Sharing Models for a Gold Open Access Publication Environment , volume =

    Bruns, Andre and Rimmert, Christine and Taubert, Niels , date =. Who Pays? Comparing Cost Sharing Models for a Gold Open Access Publication Environment , volume =. doi:10.1080/01930826.2020.1820275 , pages =

    arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Open Access Monitor Germany: Best Practice in Providing Metrics for Analysis and Decision-Making , volume =

    Barbers, Irene and Stanzel, Franziska and Mittermaier, Bernhard , date =. Open Access Monitor Germany: Best Practice in Providing Metrics for Analysis and Decision-Making , volume =. doi:10.1080/00987913.2022.2066968 , pages =

    arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Data-Driven Transition: Joint Reporting of Subscription Expenditure and Publication Costs , volume =

    Barbers, Irene and Kalinna, Nadja and Mittermaier, Bernhard , date =. Data-Driven Transition: Joint Reporting of Subscription Expenditure and Publication Costs , volume =. doi:10.3390/publications6020019 , pages =

    work page doi:10.3390/publications6020019

  50. [50]

    Congress on Financing Mechanisms for Open Access Publishing of Federally Funded Research , url =

    Updated Report to the U.S. Congress on Financing Mechanisms for Open Access Publishing of Federally Funded Research , url =

  51. [51]

    Management of article processing charges – challenges for libraries , volume =

    Sikora, Adriana and Geschuhn, Kai , date =. Management of article processing charges – challenges for libraries , volume =. doi:10.1629/uksg.229 , pages =

    work page doi:10.1629/uksg.229

  52. [52]

    Publikationskostenmonitoring: Aktueller Stand und Herausforderungen des Monitorings von Publikationskosten an deutschen wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen , author =

  53. [53]

    doi:10.1629/uksg.439 , pages =

    Pieper, Dirk and Broschinski, Christoph , date =. doi:10.1629/uksg.439 , pages =

    work page doi:10.1629/uksg.439

  54. [54]

    Das Förderprogramm »Open Access Publizieren« der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft

    Fournier, Johannes and Weihberg, Roland , date =. Das Förderprogramm »Open Access Publizieren« der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Zum Aufbau von Publikationsfonds an wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen in Deutschland , volume =. doi:10.3196/186429501360528 , pages =

    work page doi:10.3196/186429501360528

  55. [55]

    Open-Access-Publikationskosten

    Barbers, Irene and Pollack, Philipp and Herweg, Daniel and Mittermaier, Bernhard , date =. Förderprogramm "Open-Access-Publikationskosten" – Bericht zum Förderjahr 2023 , institution =

    2023

  56. [56]

    and Hosking, Richard and Rigoni, Richard and Roelofs, Aniek and Chien, Tuan-Yow and Napier, Kathryn and Wilson, Katie and Huang, Chun-Kai (Karl) and Handcock, Rebecca N

    Diprose, James P. and Hosking, Richard and Rigoni, Richard and Roelofs, Aniek and Chien, Tuan-Yow and Napier, Kathryn and Wilson, Katie and Huang, Chun-Kai (Karl) and Handcock, Rebecca N. and Montgomery, Lucy and Neylon, Cameron , date =. A User-Friendly Dashboard for Tracking Global Open Access Performance , volume =. doi:10.3998/jep.3398 , number =

    work page doi:10.3998/jep.3398

  57. [57]

    Informationsbudgets an wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen: Ergebnisse einer Befragungsstudie , volume =

    Woitschach, Franziska , date =. Informationsbudgets an wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen: Ergebnisse einer Befragungsstudie , volume =. doi:10.5282/o-bib/6114 , pages =

    work page doi:10.5282/o-bib/6114

  58. [58]

    and Schares, Eric , date =

    Dixon, Philip M. and Schares, Eric , date =. Bayesian and frequentist statistical models to predict publishing output and article processing charge totals , volume =. doi:10.1002/asi.24981 , issue =

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.24981

  59. [59]

    Aktuelle Befunde und Herausforderungen , rights =

    Bearbeitung und Monitoring von Article Processing Charges an Universitätsbibliotheken in Deutschland. Aktuelle Befunde und Herausforderungen , rights =. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.6817486 , author =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6817486

  60. [60]

    Open Access Monitoring: Verzerrende Datenquellen und unbeabsichtigte Leerstellen – eine explorative Studie , volume =

    Stricker, Marius , urldate =. Open Access Monitoring: Verzerrende Datenquellen und unbeabsichtigte Leerstellen – eine explorative Studie , volume =. doi:10.1515/bfp-2023-0015 , shorttitle =

    work page doi:10.1515/bfp-2023-0015 2023

  61. [61]

    Informationsbudget: Herausforderungen der lokalen Implementation - Stand der Diskussion

    Taubert, Niels and Pieper, Dirk , urldate =. Informationsbudget: Herausforderungen der lokalen Implementation - Stand der Diskussion. Bericht über einen Workshop vom 12.05.2022, Universität Bielefeld , url =

    2022

  62. [62]

    Counting the Costs of Open Access: The Estimated Cost to

  63. [63]

    The weakest link – workflows in open access agreements: the experience of the Vienna University Library and recommendations for future negotiations , volume =

    Pinhasi, Rita and Blechl, Guido and Kromp, Brigitte and Schubert, Bernhard , urldate =. The weakest link – workflows in open access agreements: the experience of the Vienna University Library and recommendations for future negotiations , volume =. doi:10.1629/uksg.419 , shorttitle =

    work page doi:10.1629/uksg.419

  64. [64]

    It’s the workflows, stupid! What is required to make ‘offsetting’ work for the open access transition , volume =

    Geschuhn, Kai and Stone, Graham , urldate =. It’s the workflows, stupid! What is required to make ‘offsetting’ work for the open access transition , volume =. doi:10.1629/uksg.391 , pages =

    work page doi:10.1629/uksg.391

  65. [65]

    Using Functional Cost Analysis to Evaluate the

  66. [66]

    Monitoring open access publishing costs at Stockholm University , volume =

    Lovén, Lisa , urldate =. Monitoring open access publishing costs at Stockholm University , volume =. doi:10.1629/uksg.451 , number =

    work page doi:10.1629/uksg.451

  67. [67]

    Enlighten: research and

    Nixon, William and Ashworth, Susan and. Enlighten: research and

  68. [68]

    Frick, Claudia , urldate =. 7. Empfehlungen für Workflows zur Übernahme von Publikationsgebühren , rights =. Praxishandbuch Open Access , publisher =

  69. [69]

    and Ylönen, I

    Linna, A.-K. and Ylönen, I. and Salmi, A. , date =. Monitoring Organisational Article Processing Charges (. doi:10.53377/lq.13361 , shorttitle =

    work page doi:10.53377/lq.13361

  70. [70]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.4980172 , author =

    Science Europe Recommendation for the Disclosure of Publication Fees , url =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4980172 , author =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4980172

  71. [71]

    Open Access , isbn =

    Suber, Peter , urldate =. Open Access , isbn =

  72. [72]

    Pay It Forward: Investigating a Sustainable Model of Open Access Article Processing Charges for Large North American Research Institutions [Final Report] , url =

    Smith,. Pay It Forward: Investigating a Sustainable Model of Open Access Article Processing Charges for Large North American Research Institutions [Final Report] , url =

  73. [73]

    Förderprogramm Open-Access-Publikationskosten: Bericht zum Förderjahr 2022 , institution =

    Barbers, Irene and Pollack, Philipp and Herweg, Daniel , editora =. Förderprogramm Open-Access-Publikationskosten: Bericht zum Förderjahr 2022 , institution =

    2022

  74. [74]

    Amsterdam Call for Action on Open Science , url =

  75. [75]

    Estimating global article processing charges paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023 , doi =

    Haustein, Stefanie and Schares, Eric and Alperin, Juan Pablo and Hare, Madelaine and Butler, Leigh-Ann and Schönfelder, Nina , date =. Estimating global article processing charges paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023 , doi =

    2019

  76. [76]

    Monitoring Open Science Trends in Europe , date =

    Rand , urldate =. Monitoring Open Science Trends in Europe , date =

  77. [77]

    Hated Science Publisher Elsevier To Help

    Moody, Glyn , urldate =. Hated Science Publisher Elsevier To Help

  78. [78]

    Elsevier Will Monitor Open Science In

    Moody, Glyn , urldate =. Elsevier Will Monitor Open Science In

  79. [79]

    Pispiringas, Leonidas and Grypari, Ioanna and Dimitropoulos, Harry and Bardi, Alessia , urldate =. The New

  80. [80]

    Introducing the

    O’Neill, Gareth , urldate =. Introducing the

Showing first 80 references.