Reflections on COVID-19 and OA: materials now, advocacy later

Reflections on COVID-19 and open access, March 23, 2020:

The need to address common problems affecting all or much of humanity is one of the compelling reasons for open access. Given major issues of concern today, particularly climate change (and the short-term need to focus on the current pandemic), this makes OA, along with open data and other innovations in scholarly communication, urgent.

The immediate need is to open up access to scholarly material and data that is directly relevant to the epidemic, as well as to freely share cultural materials that will help people cope with social isolation. Many of my colleagues are already doing this. Thank you!

In my opinion, the best time to have a broader advocacy-oriented conversation for the public at large will be in a few months (except in countries like China and South Korea that are ahead in addressing the pandemic). This is because the immediate focus for most of us needs to be slowing the pandemic (flattening the curve) to avoid overwhelming health systems as much as possible, address shortages of medical equipment and supplies, and to allow time for research on treatments and development of vaccines. People in my country are undergoing unprecedented massive social change in a short period of time. Collectively, we need time to grasp that this really is serious, learn about the illness, how to prevent and deal with it, and adjust to the need for social distancing and isolation.

For the benefit of colleagues in the OA movement, following are copies of 2 posts that I wrote on this subject on The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics (in 2007, and 2012), with some links (that I haven’t checked).

Needed: Open Access, Open Science

Jim Till’s post on Open Access Science and Science Policy on Be Openly Accessible or Be Obscure, nicely sums up one of the most important reasons why we need open access.

The most rapid advances in science come with open sharing of information, and collaboration. That is how the world’s scientists accomplished the mapping of a human genome in a matter of years. If traditional publishing practices had been followed instead of open sharing, it seems likely that mapping the human genome would have taken decades, if not centuries.

Our world shares some issues on a global basis; some of these are, or will become, urgent. One example is global warming; surely this needs the kind of open sharing and focus on the problem that went into the human genome project.

Another example is bird flu. The more our neighbours know about viruses, the better equipped they are for early identification and dealing with an epidemic, the lesser the chances that the epidemic will arrive at our shores.

We will save money with an open scholarly communications system, as preventing people from reading has significant costs. However, even if it did cost more, the question would not be how could we afford OA, but rather how could we not.

Cite as:  Morrison, H. (2007). Needed: open access, open science. The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
(If citing Jim Till, please cite Till / Be Openly Accessible or Be Obscure.

Why accelerate discovery? reasons why we need open access now

One of the benefits of open access is accelerating discovery. This benefit is most evident with libre open access (allowing for re-use and machine assistance via text and data mining), and particularly in evidence with little or no delay from time of discovery to time of sharing of work.

There are always many reasons for accelerating discovery – here are just a few examples of why we need full, immediate, libre, OA, and why we need it NOW:

Multiple drug resistance: we have developed a range of drugs that has worked for us in the past few decades to combat bacteria, tuberculosis, and other diseases. Now we are seeing increasing levels of resistance to antibiotics and others drugs, including anti-malarial drugs. Maintaining the health gains of the past few decades will take more than continuing with current solutions; we need more research, and the faster we can do this, the better the odds of staving off the next epidemic.

Another example of why we need to accelerate discovery, and we need to move to accelerated discovery fast, is the need to find solutions to climate change and cleaner, more efficient energy. We literally cannot afford to wait.

So as much as some of us might wish to give current scholarly publishers time to adjust to a full libre open access environment, this is a luxury that we cannot afford.

These examples of acceleration will likely provide new business opportunities, too. If this happens, it is a welcome, albeit secondary, benefit.

Cite as:  Morrison, H. (2012). Why accelerate discovery? Reasons why we need open access now. The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics

Open peer review discussion

Thank you to Heather Staines from MIT’s Knowledge Futures Group for initiating this discussion in response to an invitation to participate in an open peer review process of the OA Main 2019 dataset and its documentation on the SCHOLCOMM list (the invitation was also sent to GOAL and the Radical Open Access List) and for permission to post her e-mails on Sustaining the Knowledge Commons.

Original e-mail (Heather Morrison to SCHOLCOMM, Jan. 7, 2020):


** January 15 suggested deadline **

This is a reminder that open peer review is being sought for the Sustaining the Knowledge Common’s project OA main 2019 dataset and its documentation. For those who may not have time for a thorough peer review, a set of 6 questions is provided and responses to any of the questions would be welcome. This is an opportunity to participate in an experimental approach to two innovations in scholarly communication: a particular approach to open peer review, and peer review of a dataset and its documentation. The latter is considered important to encourage and reward researchers for data sharing.

Although full open peer review is the default, if anyone would like to remain anonymous this should be reasonably easy to accommodate by having a friend or colleague forward your comments with an indication of their anonymity.

January 15 is the deadline but if anyone interested would like to participate and needs more time, just let me know. Thank you to those who have already provided comments.

Details and materials can be found here:


Dr. Heather Morrison
Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa
Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l’Information, Université d’Ottawa
Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight Project
Heather.Morrison at
[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020]

Heather Staines, first response, Jan. 8, 2020:

Hi Heather:

I took a look at your open peer review survey. Very interesting!

I did a blog post during peer review week on collaborative community review. I thought you might find it interesting:

[image omitted]

Collaborative Community Review on PubPub · The Knowledge Futures Commonplace

I interviewed the authors of three MIT Press books (coming 2020) who used open peer review on our open source platform, PubPub. If this would ever be helpful for you in pursuing future surveys or experiences, please do let me know.


Heather [Staines]
MIT Knowledge Futures Group

Heather Morrison response, Jan. 8, 2020:

Thank you, your blog post is very interesting.

I see tremendous potential for online collaborative writing and annotations. For example, last year I had students write crowdsourced online essays in class; students were asked to find one interesting recent article on privacy, prepare notes, and write a collaborative “current issues in privacy” in class. I have participated in online annotation peer review in the past.

However, I have some concerns about the annotation and collaborative writing approaches to peer review. My reasons, in case this is of interest:

An annotation approach, in my experience, invites and encourages wordsmithing and focus on minor issues and makes it difficult to contribute at a deeper level (e.g. issues of substance, critique of fundamental underlying ideas).

Depending on the project, individual, and group, the optimal approach might be collaborative writing or individual voice. In the area of open access and scholarly communication, I have a unique perspective and consider this my most important contribution. This gets lost in collaborative writing. For this reason, I write as an individual (or co-author as supervisor with students) in this area.

Although in the past I have participated in the online annotation approach to open peer review, I have been disappointed because my comments (well-thought-out comments by an expert in the field) have been ignored, not only dismissed but not even acknowledged in the final version. This is a waste of my time, and I argue that it is not appropriate to present a final version under such circumstances as having passed a peer review process. Also, in recent years I have noticed a tendency to require reviewers to agree to open licensing conditions that I have object to; this for me is sufficient reason not to participate. [A brief explanation of several key lines of argument on this topic can be found here].

One of my reasons and incentives for open peer review is to claim credit for this work; for example, this published peer review is an example of what I would like to gain from open peer review:
[Morrison, H. (2019). Peer review of Pubfair framework. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons. Retrieved from]

This is not for everyone, and I would not want to do this with every review, but occasional publication of such reviews opens up possibilities for study of the peer review process and allows me to appropriately claim my careful work in this area.

In the process of transforming scholarly communication I see fundamental questions about why we approach things the way we do, and how we might do things better, that I would like to see opened up for discussion. My blogpost / open invitation approach is deliberate; I consider development of platforms / checklist approaches as premature. This is developing technical solutions when, to me, we should be figuring out what the problems are.

This discussion should be part of the open peer review process. I am thinking of posting this response to my blog. May I post your e-mail as well?


Dr. Heather Morrison

Heather Staines, second response, Jan. 8, 2020:

Hi again:

Thank you for the quick and thoughtful response. Given some of your perspectives, you may also be interested in this companion piece, also from Peer Review Week, Making Peer Review More Transparent

I agree with you that there are challenges around an annotation-based approach. Prior to my role here at KFG, I was Head of Partnerships at Hypothesis (so I’m all about the annotation!). I continue to watch the evolution of annotation in the peer review space. Have you seen the Transparent Review in Preprints project:

I’m fine with your posting my previous (and current) emails, along with your responses. I hope we might cross paths sometime to discuss it further.


Heather [Staines]

[square brackets indicates minor changes from original e-mails]

Cite as:

Morrison, H. (2020). Open peer review discussion. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from
OR, if referring specifically to the contributions of Staines:
Staines, H. (2020). As cited in Morrison, H. (2020). Open peer review discussion. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Retrieved from

Dramatic Growth of Open Access 2019

2019 was another great year for open access! Of the 57 macro-level global OA indicators included in The Dramatic Growth of Open Access, 50 (88%) have growth rates that are higher than the long-term trend of background growth of scholarly journals an d articles of 3 – 3.5% (Price, 1963; Mabe & Amin, 2001). More than half had growth rates of 10% or more, approximately triple the background growth rate, and 13 (nearly a quarter) had growth rates of over 20%.

Newer services have an advantage when growth rates are measured by percentage, and this is reflected in the over 20% 2019 growth category. The number of books in the Directory of Open Access Books tops the growth chart by nearly doubling (98% growth); bioRxiv follows with 74% growth. A few services showed remarkable growth on top of already substantial numbers. As usual, Internet Archive stands out with a 68% increase in audio recordings, a 58% increase incollections, and a 48% increase in software. The number of articles searchable through DOAJ grew by over 900,000 in 2019 (25% growth). OpenDOAR is taking off in Asia, the Americas, Africa, and overall, with more than 20% growth in each of these categories, and SCOAP3 also grew by more than 20%.

The only area indicating some cause for concern is PubMedCentral. Although overall growth of free full-text from PubMed is robust. A keyword search for “cancer” yields about 7% – 10% more free full-text than a year ago. However, there was a slight decrease in the number of journals contributing to PMC with “all articles open access”, a drop of 138 journals or a 9% decrease. I have double-checked and the 2018 and 2019 PMC journal lists have been posted in the dataverse in case anyone else would like to check (method: sort the “deposit status” column and delete all Predecessor and No New Content journals, then sort the “Open Access” column and count the number of journals that say “All”. The number of journals submitting NIH portfolio articles only grew by only 1. Could this be backtracking on the part of publishers or perhaps technical work underway at NIH?

Full data is available in excel and csv format from: Morrison, Heather, 2020, “Dramatic Growth of Open Access Dec. 31, 2019”,, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V1


Price, D. J. de S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

Mabe, M., & Amin, M. (2001). Growth dynamics of scholarly and scientific journals. Scientometrics, 51(1), 147–162.

This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access Series. It is cross-posted from The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics.

Cite as:

Morrison, H. (n.d.). Dramatic Growth of Open Access 2019. The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics. Retrieved from Cross-posted to Sustaining the Knowledge Commons

Sabinet – Comprendre le fonctionnement de l’industrie de l’information en Afrique

De nos jours, les sites web constituent des supports importants pour la diffusion d’information. Les entreprises s’attèlent à donner une visibilité à leurs produits. Les plateformes sont les lieux où les compagnies proposent une variété de produits. L’industrie de l’information en Afrique dans leur conversion au numérique utilise des plateformes pour proposer des services. C’est l’exemple de Sabinet qui est une plateforme hybride qui publie des revues africaines en ligne depuis 2001 (Sabinet, 2019). Elle commercialise trois Produits:

  • Service bibliothécaire: Catalogage – l’interconnexion – gestion des bibliothèques, etc.  
  • Service d’information: 500 revues en ligne – 150 000 articles spécialisées de recherche complétée, de thèses & de Mémoires – Articles de médias et textes législatifs, etc.
  • Service de numérisation: Du scannage à la gestion des données.

La collection est composée de 10 suivantes disciplines: Business and Finance, Education, Labour, Law, Medicine and Health, Science – Technology and Agriculture, Religion, Social Sciences and Humanities et Juta’s Law Journals (Sabinet, (c), 2019).

Notre objectif dans ce travail est de présenter le fonctionnement de Sabinet en suivant les quatre principaux éléments de critères d’évaluations pour les ressources électroniques sur le Web de The Charleston Advisor (2019) (Contenu, Tarif, Options du contrat / caractéristiques, Possibilité de recherche) (The Charleston Advisor, 2019).

Nous allons découvrir le contenu de Sabinet en présentant dans un premier temps, le service bibliothécaire, le service d’information et le service de numérisation. Dans un deuxième temps, nous indiquons les dispositions contractuelles notamment, les dispositions relatives aux prêts entre bibliothèques, redistribution des informations, ou autres questions particulières qui accompagnent les différents services que Sabinet offre à ses clients. Notamment l’interface utilisateur et le moteur de recherche ainsi que quelles conditions d’accès aux produits.

1 – Présentation de Sabinet

Sabinet est une entreprise de l’industrie de l’information en Afrique du Sud. Sa mission est de faciliter l’accès à l’information et de faire en sorte que les bibliothèques en Afrique. La compagnie fonctionne par actionnariat (Institutions 49%, Personnel 37%, Fiducie 9%, Particuliers 5%). Le conseil d’administration est composé de 10 membres et une équipe de gestion de 8 membres. 213 éditeurs issus de 12 pays publient 500 revues (350 000 articles). De ses 500 revues, 164 sont en accès libre, 336 revues sont accédées par souscription (Sabinet, (b), 2019).

L’un des services que propose Sabinet à ses clients est la gestion des bibliothèques. Ce qui lui permet le catalogage et l’interconnexion.

Services aux bibliothèques

Sabinet fournit une variété de services à tous les types de bibliothèques. Elle offre le catalogage et l’acquisition de l’information pour les bibliothèques pour simplifier et soutenir leur processus de développement de leurs collections. Sabinet propose des services aux bibliothèques incluant l’interconnexion et les systèmes de gestion des bibliothèques. Elle procure des plateformes de collaboration de ressources entre les bibliothèques. Un service de partage de ressources basé sur le Web pour les bibliothèques de l’Afrique australe, «the ReQuest interlending service» facilite l’accès aux ressources hébergées par les bibliothèques, en permettant l’emprunt et le prêt entre les institutions. Le prêt inter-bibliothèque «WorldShare» d’OCLC relie les utilisateurs aux collections de milliers de bibliothèques via le plus grand réseau de prêts inter-bibliothèques au monde. Sabinet est un site de partage de documents d’échange d’articles. Elle fournit un emplacement unique et sécurisé où les bibliothèques de prêt du monde entier peuvent placer les documents. Hormis le service aux bibliothèques, Sabinet gère également un service d’information dans lequel les éditeurs peuvent publier leurs revues.

Services d’information

            Sabinet offre des revues en ligne provenant ou se rapportant à l’Afrique. Ce service est l’une des collections les plus complètes et consultables en ligne en texte intégral. Elle contient du contenu juridique sud-africain, ainsi qu’un service d’archivage des médias (SA Media). SA Media est un service de recherche de nouvelles et de coupures de presse qui couvre rétrospectivement les principales publications en Afrique du Sud, de 1978 à nos jours. La collection de presses SA Media comprend plus de 4,5 millions d’articles. Avec une moyenne de 2 500 nouveaux articles ajoutés chaque semaine, SA Media est un outil de recherche qui donne accès aux publications traditionnelles locales (Sabinet, (f) 2019).


Nombre Disciplines OA N S T Total
1 Social Sciences and Humanities 37 122 0 0 159
2 Science Technology & Agriculture 28 78 0 0 106
3 Medicine and Health 16 70 0 0 86
4 Business and Finance 14 75 0 0 89
5 African Journal Archive 127 54 0 0 181
6 Law 17 38 0 0 55
7 Labour 6 14 0 0 20
8 Religion 5 26 0 0 31
9 Education 3 13 0 0 16
10 Juta’s Law Journals 0 16 0 0 16
  Total 253 506 0 0 759

La collection de Sabinet est composée de 10 disciplines. Les champs de African Journal Archive (181) et de (Social Sciences and Humanities (159)) arrivent en tête du nombre des catégories de sujet et sont toutes évalués par les pairs (peer reviews). Sabinet s’adresse spécifiquement aux chercheurs et aux bibliothèques. Cette compagnie soutient les écoles secondaires et primaires à travers des dons de livres spécialisés. Dans ce contexte, Sabinet propose de numériser les documents papier des différentes institutions ou compagnies pour leur donner une visibilité en ligne.


Sabinet offre un service de numérisation personnalisé pour les besoins des bibliothèques. L’équipe chargée de la numérisation dispose d’un équipement de pointe qui leur permet de créer des répliques électroniques parfaites du matériel d’origine. Environ 13 000 pages A4 détachées ainsi que 1 200 pages liées peuvent être numérisées quotidiennement (Sabinet, (h) 2019). Sabinet dispose d’un système (CONTENTdm®) qui donne accès aux collections numériques sur le Web, plus rapidement. Il peut gérer tout format – archives d’histoire locale, journaux, livres, cartes, bibliothèques de diapositives ou audio / vidéo.  Ce système fournit une solution complète pour les archives historique, les bibliothèques de diapositives, les articles «nés-numériques», les journaux, les livres, les lettres, les cartes, les thèses et les dissertations électroniques et les fichiers audio / vidéo. Il permet l’interopérabilité. Autrement dit, il est compatible avec les systèmes existants, locaux, régionaux, nationaux et internationaux. Il est compatible aux normes ISO, notamment : Unicode, Z39.50, Dublin Core®, XML, JPEG2000, etc. (Sabinet, (i) 2019).

Ces services ont pour objectif de fournir et de garantir les meilleures conditions de travail pour les usagers. Les dispositions techniques de navigation et d’accès à la documentation sont proposées à tous les souscripteurs qui souhaitent travailler avec Sabinet.

2 – Dispositions contractuelles

La plateforme Sabinet est hybride, certains articles sont payants. L’accès aux documents payants est soit par abonnement soit directement (open accès). Pour gérer le flux de clients, une souscription avec un «username» et un mot de passe sont exigés. Il y a un panier dans lequel tout souscripteur peut collectionner les articles qu’il souhaite acheter (Sabinet (e), 2019). Le système de fonctionnement de Sabinet est entièrement basé sur des logiciels et des technologies Open Source. Par exemple, Counter fournit le code de pratique qui permet aux éditeurs et aux fournisseurs de signaler l’utilisation de leurs ressources électroniques de manière cohérente. Cela permet aux bibliothèques de comparer les données reçues de différents éditeurs et de fournisseurs. Counter maintient les registres de conformité qui répertorient les éditeurs et les fournisseurs qui ont passé une vérification indépendante de leurs statistiques d’utilisation.

EZproxy est un autre outil qui est installé sur un serveur. Il sert d’intermédiaire entre l’usager et le fournisseur de ressources numériques. L’adresse du serveur sur lequel est installé EZproxy est déclarée auprès des fournisseurs de contenus qui autorisent alors l’accès à tout utilisateur arrivant depuis ce serveur. L’authentification est confiée à l’établissement responsable d’EZproxy, via un annuaire LDAP. EZproxy fonctionne en modifiant dynamiquement les URL dans les pages Web fournies par le fournisseur. Il configure l’accès pour que l’interaction et l’engagement des utilisateurs avec la bibliothèque soient les mêmes, où qu’ils se trouvent et quand ils choisissent de travailler.

 Le processus d’installation est sécurisé pour les utilisateurs, il n’est pas nécessaire pour les utilisateurs de modifier les paramètres de leur navigateur ou de reconfigurer leur PC. L’utilisateur se connecte au contenu sans de multiples barrières. Le mot de passe est supprimé. EZproxy peut être configuré avec les principaux services d’authentification – LDAP, SIP et Shibboleth, de sorte que l’utilisateur n’ait pas à se souvenir de plusieurs mots de passe.

Les services de ce site sont compatibles avec les produits du «link resolvers/OpenURL» et des principaux systèmes de bibliothèque, y compris ceux de Serials Solutions, ExLibris, EBSCO et OCLC. Le «link resolvers/OpenURL» permet aux systèmes de bibliothèque de se lier au niveau de l’article du journal (ou aux titres de livres) en utilisant une syntaxe OpenURL. L’utilisation de cette méthode est avantageuse, en particulier lors de la liaison avec un contenu récemment publié puisqu’il ne nécessite pas que l’article soit préalablement téléchargé (Sabinet, (g) 2019). 

Cette initiative internationalement acceptée facilite l’enregistrement et la déclaration des statistiques d’utilisation en ligne de manière cohérente et crédible. Le service devient plus simple pour les clients afin de comprendre et d’analyser comment les livres électroniques et d’autres matériaux électroniques sont utilisés. Lorsque les rapports d’utilisation ont les mêmes types de données et sont formatés de la même manière, ils peuvent être comparés les uns aux autres et peuvent être automatiquement récupérés dans les systèmes locaux (NISO, 2019).

Outre ces dispositions techniques, Sabinet propose aux utilisateurs un moteur de recherche performant qui facilite la navigation.

L’interface utilisateur et le moteur de recherche

Le site web de Sabinet demande une inscription pour naviguer sans restrictions. Au niveau de la principale page qui est intitulée «Sabinet : Faciliting Access to Information», six (6) menus permettent de se connecter et de visiter le site. L’onglet «Home» raccourcit l’accès à cinq (5) menus. Par exemple, «About» présente entre autres la mission, l’équipe dirigeante, etc. «Products and Services» énumère le programme de ses trois services en l’occurrence : Library Solutions, Information Services and Digitization. Ensuite, le «Support» définit les différentes informations les politiques d’accès, d’authentification et des pratiques de prêts entre les autres bibliothèques. «New and Events» fournit les informations sur les activités et communications du site. Quant à «Corporate Social Investment», il décrit le projet de Sabinet.

En plus de ces menus sur la page, trois services (African Studies Collection, Online journal, News Services) sont proposés. African Studies Collection est une collection d’un large éventail de revues spécialisées, de médias et de contenus législatifs émanant du continent africain. Online journal propose des revues en ligne en provenance ou à destination de l’Afrique. Sabinet propose un nouveau service (News Services) personnalisé de recherche d’informations en ligne et de coupures de presse pour répondre aux divers besoins.

Ce nouveau service comprend:

La nouvelle base de données de African News Agency (ANA). Elle comprend : des rapports en texte intégral de novembre 2015 à ce jour sur l’actualité sud-africaine et africaine. Elle donne accès aux articles de presse importants de l’ancienne SAPA (ANA est le nouveau nom de SAPA). Ces articles  sont issus de cinq disciplines clés: la politique, l’économie, les entreprises et les marchés, le sport ainsi que l’actualité générale (qui comprend le mode de vie, les célébrités, les tribunaux et la criminalité). Les nouvelles des agences suivantes sont diffusées via l’Agence de presse africaine: ANA, ANA-Xinhau, ANA-dpa international et ANA-Associated Press.

Pour obtenir des informations sur les éditeurs, la collection, les publications, etc., il faut se rendre à la page intitulée «Sabinet African Journals» avec 7 menus : 

  • le menu «A-Z Publications» donne la liste des revues ou bien montre comment soumettre un article;
  • le menu «Collections» donne la liste des collections principales;
  • le menu «Open Access» indique les revues Open Access; de la politique d’accès, etc.
  • le menu «Publishers» dresse la liste des éditeurs;
  • le menu «For Librarians» présente les politiques d’accession aux informations pour les bibliothécaires;
  • l’onglet «Help» revient sur les conditions de souscription et du guide des utilisateurs;
  • enfin, le menu «Shopping Cat» permet de réserver les articles que l’on souhaite avoir.

En plus de ces menus sur la page, un autre onglet situé au-dessus de la bande à menus donne accès à «Advanced Search». Elle permet de filtrer les recherches par collection, par date, etc. (Sabinet, (d), 2019). Les utilisateurs de la bibliothèque peuvent récupérer des articles ou des chapitres de livres via un prêt entre bibliothèques. Cette possibilité d’accès est possible grâce à un dispositif technique diversifié, mais aussi, à un modèle d’affaires que propose Sabinet.


Le modèle d’affaires de Sabinet est basé sur trois possibilités d’accès à la collection. Il y a premièrement, des abonnés et deuxièmement des non-abonnés. Les abonnés ont accès à l’intégralité des revues et les non-abonnés payent pour accéder à des contenus. Troisièmement, on trouve les revues à accès libre. Les revues en accès libres sont divisées en trois modes d’accès : le «Gold Open Access» est dépourvu de toutes restrictions. Le «Green Open Access» est un accès semi-libre. Les éditeurs facturent des frais d’abonnement pour les récents numéros pendant une période donnée. Ensuite, l’accès devient gratuit.

Le troisième mode d’accès libre est «Article level Open Access». Ici, certains articles sont libres d’accès et d’autres sont payants. Pour soumettre un article à Sabinet, l’organisation demande à tout souscripteur de contacter directement un éditeur via leur site pour effectuer l’envoi. Il est accessible par ordinateur PC ou Machintosh. L’essentiel de sa clientèle est composé de bibliothèques locales et internationales, ainsi que des organismes publics et privés (Sabinet, (e) 2019). Les revenus de Sabinet proviennent aussi des frais de souscription ou des abonnements des bibliothèques.

       Modèle d’affaires

S Titles Subscribed To 0
OA Open Access Content 164
T Free Trial Content 0
N Titles Not Subscribed To 360


Sabinet a pour mission de promouvoir l’accès à l’information des recherches en Afrique. Dans ce sens, la plateforme remplit parfaitement ses objectifs. Elle diffuse 500 revues dont plus 164 en accès libre, 336 par souscription avec des frais pour le téléchargement. La grande partie des revues est issue de l’Afrique du Sud avec 184 sur 213 éditeurs. Sabinet offre une variété de services avec d’importantes possibilités d’accès. Cependant, l’accès renferme des imperfections qui ne facilitent pas l’utilisation des services. Une des  particularités est que les menus de l’interface ne donnent pas accès facilement aux revues. La fonctionnalité «Home» propose cinq menus dans lesquels il faut aller chercher pour trouver la liste des revues, des éditeurs, etc. De plus, l’on ne peut pas obtenir ces revues par pays sur une facette. Sabinet est une compagnie qui offre également d’autres services payants comme la numérisation, le catalogage, des documents des bibliothèques, etc.  Cependant, les frais de publication ou autres frais de service ne sont pas affichés.

Les produits compétitifs de Sabinet sont leurs trois services phares, notamment : la numérisation, le service d’information et le service aux bibliothèques. Ces produits permettent de soutenir leurs différents projets de bienfaisance aux établissements scolaires, à la création de l’emploi  et à la diffusion des produits de recherches de l’Afrique (Sabinet, (f), 2019). 


NISO, (2019). How the Information world Connects – SUSHI FAQs: General Questions Visité le 20/11/2019
Sabinet,  (2019) (a). Sabinet : Facilitating Access to Information Visité le 20/11/2019
Sabinet,  (2019) (b). Ownership. Visité le 20/11/2019
Sabinet, (2019) (c).Collection Contents Visité le 20/11/2019
Sabinet,  (2019) (d).  Sabinet African Journalsé le 20/11/2019
Sabinet,  (2019) (e). EZproxy
Visité le 20/11/2019
Sabinet, (2019) (f). SA Media Visité le 20/11/2019
Sabinet, (2019) (g). Librarian FAQ. s Visité le 20/11/2019
Sabinet, (2019) (h). Scannage services. Visité le 20/11/2019
Sabinet, (2019) (i). About Digitisation. Visité le 20/11/2019
The Charleston Advisor, (2019) (j). TCA Scoring Guide. Visité le 20/11/2019

OA APC longitudinal survey 2019

OA APC longitudinal survey 2019


This post presents results of the 2019 OA APC longitudinal survey and extends an invitation to participate in an open peer review process of the underlying data and its documentation. One thing that is not changing is that most OA journals in DOAJ do not charge APCs: 10,210 (73%) of the 14,007 journals in DOAJ as of Nov. 26, 2019 do not have APCs. The global average APC in 2019 is 908 USD. This figure has changed little since 2010, however this consistency masks considerably underlying variation. For example, the average APC in 2019 for the 2010 sample has increased by 50%, a rate three times the inflation rate for this time frame. The tendency to charge or not to charge, how much is charged and whether prices are increasing or decreasing varies considerably by journal, publisher, country of publication, language and currency. One surprise this year was the top 10 countries by number of OA journals in DOAJ. As usual, Europe, the US and Latin America are well represented, but Indonesia is now the second largest country in DOAJ and Poland, Iran, and Turkey are among the top 10, perhaps reflecting the work of the DOAJ ambassadors. Pricing per journal shows mixed trends; most journals did not change price between 2018 and 2019, but there were price decreases as well as increases. The UK’s Ubiquity Press stands out as having a relatively low APC (a fraction of Oxford’s, another UK-based publisher) and no price increases.

Documentation, link to dataset and open peer review invitation


The Sustaining the Knowledge Commons team has been gathering data on OA APCs since 2014 and merging data from DOAJ and other researchers into the main dataset. Singh & Morrison (2019) note that the majority of fully OA journals do not charge; of those that do, the global average APC is 908 USD, a figure that has changed very little since 2010. In contrast, the mode (most common APC) shows quite a bit of variation and the maximum has been increasing for both APC and APPC (article page processing charge). This suggests that there is something else going on.

Shi & Morrison’s (2019) findings illustrate that charging trends can vary considerable by publisher. 4 pairs of publishers and sub-publishers are compared. Two Wolters Kluwer imprints, Medknow and Lippincott, are quite different in APCs. Medknow journals tend not to charge, and those that have APCs tend to have relatively low APCs. Lippincott journals tend to charge, at above-average rates. Two universities, Indonesia’s Universitas Negeri Semerang (UNS) (now one of the largest publishers in DOAJ) and Oxford are compared. Oxford is one of the world’s oldest publishers, is UK based, and tends to charge APCs at above-average rates. UNS appears to be a newcomer to online publishing, uses the open source Open Journal System; UNS journals tend not to charge, and when they do charge, prices are relatively low. Oxford was also compared with another UK-based publisher, Ubiquity Press. Ubiquity Press is a new not-for-profit designed to produce OA works and also to achieve cost efficiency. It appears that Ubiquity is having success with the latter, as their average APC is a fraction of that of Oxford. MDPI and Hindawi are compared; both are new commercial APC-based publishers, but the average APC is much higher for Hindawi than for MDPI. This evidence supports the hypothesis that the global average APC masks considerable variation based on publisher history and strategy.

Avasthi & Morrison (2019) explore one of these publishers, Medknow, in more depth, and ask whether this approach is the best for India, the original home of the publisher before acquisition by Wolters Kluwer. It appears that the reason most Medknow journals do not have publication charges is because of numerous partnerships between Wolters Kluwer and scholarly societies and universities. Medknow has expanded beyond India, and has grown quite a bit in both 2018 and 2019. The number of “title not found” and a couple of “risky URL” (a code for when the URL on the publisher’s website leads to a website that is clearly not a journal and gives the appearance of a possible scam) raises some questions about whether the quality of service these journals receive are what they expect and deserve through a partnership with one of the world’s oldest EU-based commercial scholarly publishers.

Pashaei & Morrison (2019a) compare APCs by original currency. Over half of APC charging journals have USD as original currency, and 5 currencies account for more than 90% of APCs. Average prices by currency are translated into USD, and these prices vary quite a bit. APCs in GBP and more than twice as high as APCs in EUR.

Pashaei & Morrison (2019b) compare APCs (pricing and tendency to charge) by language. The tendency to charge varies quite a bit by language (first language listed in DOAJ). For example, 98% of journals in Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Czech do not have publication fees, while about a third of journals in English or Persian have APCs. The average APC for English-language journals is more than 3 times the second highest language-basis APC (Catalan).

Pashaei & Morrison (2019c) studied the correlation of country in DOAJ, OA journal publishing, and APC. As expected, Europe, the US, and Latin America are well represented in DOAJ. There were some surprises. Indonesia is now the second largest country in DOAJ, and Poland, Iran, and Turkey, are among the top 10. This may reflect the work of the DOAJ ambassadors’ program. Tendency to charge and average APC both vary quite a bit depending on the publisher in question.

Morrison (2019a) studied charging trends for journals with APC amounts for both 2018 and 2019 and found considerable variation. Most of these journals did not change in APC, but many decreased prices and many more increased prices. The tendency to increase prices was more marked for journals listed in DOAJ as of Jan. 31, 2019. An analysis of trends and average APCs for publisher with 2 or more journals in this set revealed very different patterns. A few publishers did not increase prices. Ubiquity Press stands out as having a relatively low price and no price increase. For some publishers, tendency to decrease and increase prices cancel each other out. 6 publishers had average price increases of more than 10%: Wolters Kluwer Medknow, MDPI, Oxford, Elsevier, BioMedCentral, and Frontiers.

Morrison (2019b) studied status and charging trends for journals included in Solomon & Björk’s (2012) 2010 study, limited to a sample of journals listed in DOAJ and charging APCs at that time. The majority of these journals are still active and charging. The average APC has increased in this time frame by 50%, more than 3 times the inflation. Not all journals have increased in price; some decreased and others remained the same price. Nearly a quarter of these journals have ceased or are not found. Most of this attrition appears to be due to new OA APC-based commercial publishers with a start-up strategy of publishing a wide range of journals, then retiring unsuccessful journals.

Kakou (2019) analyzes African based Sabinet using an approach inspired by The Charleston Advisor’s review series. Brief highlights: Sabinet’s mission is to promote access to information on African research. In this sense, the platform fills its objectives perfectly. It disseminates 500 journals of which 164 are open access, 336 subscription-based with pay-per-view. Most of the journals are from South Africa. Sabinet offers a number of services, including library management services.

Full documentation, link to open dataset, and invitation to participate in open peer review

Morrison, H. et al. (2019). OA Main 2019: Dataset, documentation and open peer review invitation. Sustaining the knowledge commons.

Dataset: Morrison, Heather, et al. 2019, “OA APC longitudinal study dataset 2019”,, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V1

Cite as: Morrison, H. et al. (2019). OA APC longitudinal survey 2019. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons.


Avasthi, N & Morrison, H (2019). Medknow 2019 – is this the best for India? Sustaining the Knowledge commons.

Kakou, T.L. (2019). Sabinet – Comprendre le fonctionnement de l’industrie de l’information en Afrique. Soutenir les savoirs communs.

Morrison, H. (2019a). APC price changes 2019 – 2018 by journal and by publisher. Sustaining the knowledge commons.

Morrison, H. (2019b). 2010 – 2019 APC update. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons.

Pashaei, H. & Morrison, H. (2019a). Open Access in 2019: Original currencies for article processing charge. Sustaining the knowledge commons.

Pashaei, H. & Morrison, H. (2019b). DOAJ 2019: Language analysis. Sustaining the knowledge commons

Pashaei, H. & Morrison, H. (2019c). Open Access in 2019: Which countries are the biggest publishers of OA journals? Sustaining the knowledge commons.

Shi, A & Morrison, H. (2019). APCs comparisons among different publishers in 2019. Sustaining the knowledge

Singh, S. & Morrison, H. (2019). OA journals non-charging and charging central trends 2010 – 2019. Sustaining the knowledge commons.

Solomon, D. J. and Björk, B. (2012), A study of open access journals using article processing charges. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec, 63: 1485-1495. doi:10.1002/asi.22673


2010 – 2019 APC update

by Heather Morrison


This is an update of the 2010 study of Solomon & Björk (2012) of a sample of 1,046 journals charging APCs listed in DOAJ at that time. 74% of these journals are still active and actively charging publication fees. The average APC reported by Solomon & Björk was 906 USD; the average in 2019 for the 739 journals for which we have APC data for both years is 1,363 USD. This represents a 50% price increase during this time frame, an increase that is 3 times the inflation rate. Not all journals increased in price; some decreased or remained the same price. Nearly a quarter of the journals (23%) are ceased or not found. Most of this attrition rate can be attributed to new OA APC-based commercial publishers with a start-up strategy involving roll-out of a broad range of journals, with unsuccessful journals being retired.

Download PDF:  2010 update

Research question: what is the status, charging tendency (to charge or not to charge) and pricing trends of these journals?


A subset of the OA Main 2019 Dataset (Morrison et al., 2019) containing Solomon & Björk’s 2010 data was used as the basis for this study. This sample was compared with the 2010 data and journals missing from OA Main (due to having been dropped from DOAJ prior to our study) were added to complete the sample. The current status of journals was developed using a pivot table. Pricing trends for 739 journals (tendency to increase or decrease in price) that are still charging APCs was calculated separately for journals with matching original currency (to avoid conflation with currency fluctuations) and non-matching currency in USD. An attempt was made to estimate APC for the 31 journals currently charging APPC but abandoned as the results did not match the APC trends and there is not enough detail in the 2012 study to be certain that the method of estimating APC was correct.



As illustrated in the following table and chart, the majority (779 or 74%) of the 2010 journals are still active and actively charging publication fees. 242 (23%) titles are ceased or not found. 25 (2%) have a status of other. Of these, 8 journals are now non-charging (no publication fee), for 11 journals it was not possible to determine whether or not there is a charge (no cost found), 2 journals are now hybrid, 3 are inactive, and one has been merged with another journal.

2010 journals by 2019 status
Actively charging 779 74%
Ceased or not found 242 23%
Other 25 2%
Grand Total 1,046

Active APC journals: trends analysis

The average APC reported by Solomon & Björk (2012) for 2010 was 906 USD. 779 of these journals are still active and charging publication fees; of these, 739 are still charging APCs and we were able to identify the amount. The average APC for these 739 journals in 2019 is 1,363 USD. This represents a 50% increase in the average APC for this group of journals. According to the Bank of Canada (n.d.) currency calculator, the cumulative inflation rate from 2010 – 2019 is 16.35% An average increase of 50% is more than 3 times the inflation rate.

Pricing direction trend

Not all journals increased in price. As the following table illustrates, 75% of journals increased in price, 18% decreased in price and 8% had no change in price. Where possible, original currency was used to avoid conflation with currency fluctuations.

Pricing trends by number of journals Matching currency Non-matching currency Total % of total
Journals decreasing in price 56 75 131 18%
No change in price 57 0 57 8%
Price increase 393 158 551 75%
Total l# of journals 506 233 739

Ceased / title not found analysis

Ceased journals

Based on knowledge of the history of pioneering APC OA based publishers, a publisher type analysis was conducted of the 210 ceased journals. 199 or 95% of these journals were developed by such publishers that pursued a strategy of starting out their business with a broad range of journals, then dropping journals that were not successful. 7 or 3% of these journals were started by publishers that have been acquired by other publishers that did not continue all of the others. No pattern was discerned for 4 (2%) of the journals.

2010 journals ceased as of 2019 – publisher type analysis
Publishers with broad range of journals start-up strategy
Bentham open 143
BioMed Central 12
Dove Medical Press 10
Frontiers Media S.A. 3
Hindawi Limited 31
Total broad range strategy 199 95%
Publishers that were acquired by other publishers
Co-Action Publishing 1
Libertas Academica 6
Total publishers acquired by other publishers 7 3%
Academic and Business Research Institute 2
SAGE Publishing 1
SpringerOpen 1
Total other 4 2%
Total ceased journals 210

Title not found

A similar analysis was conducted on the 32 “title not found” journals. There was some overlap in the results; Bentham Open, one of the publishers with a broad range of journals start-up strategy, accounts for half of the total, with BioMedCentral accounting for 3 of the titles.


Bank of Canada (n.d.) Currency calculator.

Morrison, H. et al. (2019). OA Main 2019: Dataset, documentation and open peer review invitation. Sustaining the knowledge commons.

Solomon, D. J. and Björk, B. (2012), A study of open access journals using article processing charges. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec, 63: 1485-1495. doi:10.1002/asi.22673

Cite as:  Morrison, H. (2019). 2010 – 2019 APC update. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons.

APC price changes 2019 – 2018 by journal and by publisher

by Heather Morrison


Pricing trends for 2018 – 2019 were compared on a per-journal and per-publisher basis. In contrast to the relatively unchanging global average APC, per-journal and per-publisher shows a mixture of trends. Most journals did not change in price from 2018 to 2019; 13% increased in price, 25% decreased. Journals included in DOAJ showed a greater tendency to increase in price (37%). Average price changes per publisher ranged from 0 (no change) to a 34% average increase in price. In some cases, price increases and decreases cancel each other out resulting in an average of 0 (no change) masking considerable change at the per-journal level. Only 2 publishers have APPCs; these have similar average prices. Average APC price by publisher ranges from 246 to 2,851 USD. UK-based not-for-profit publisher Ubiquity Press stands out as having the second-lowest average APC of 536 USD with no price increases.


As reported by Singh & Morrison (2019), the global average APC has shown little change between 2010 and 2019, but variation in the mode and a constant increase in maximum APC and APPC, along with case studies by the SKC team, suggests that this does not give the whole picture of what is happening. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether change in APC or APPC is more obvious at the per-journal or per-publisher level.

Research question

Are there observable changes in APC or APPC at the per-journal or per-publisher level from 2018 – 2019?


The data for this study is from the 2019 iteration of the APC longitudinal study; for documentation of the main study, a link to the dataset, and an invitation to open peer review, see Morrison et al. (2019). As reported by Singh & Morrison (2019), the majority of journals do not charge publication fees. Journals from the main spreadsheet were selected for which an APC or APPC amount is available for both 2018 and 2019. This resulted in a sample of 2,471 journals. Currencies were matched and original currency used for calculations wherever the same currency was listed in both years (2,255 APC journals). The reason for matching currency is to avoid conflation of currency fluctuations and pricing changes. For the remaining journals, APC in USD equivalent was done, using June 30, 2019 XE Currency Converter rates. The 2018 price was deducted from the 2019 price and the difference was divided into the 2018 price to determine the percentage of change.

A second sub-selection was drawn from this sample, limiting to journals that were listed in DOAJ on January 31, 2019, resulting in a sample of 1,514 journals. Of these, 1,394 match in currency in 2018 and 2019. Calculation of the numeric and percentage difference in price from 2018 to 2019 was calculated as described above. This eliminates journals by publishers that are no longer listed in DOAJ, newer journals that are not yet listed in DOAJ and other journals that are listed due to not meeting one of the DOAJ criteria, such as minimum number of articles published per year.

Per-publisher analysis was conducted using the second (DOAJ journals only) sample. For each publisher with more than one journal in the sample, the average APC or APPC was calculated as well as the average, minimum and maximum percentage change.


Journals with APC or APPC data in both 2018 and 2019

As illustrated in the table and chart below, pricing trends on a per-journal basis varied. The majority of journals (62%) did not change in price; 13% decreased in price and 25% increased in price.

2018 – 2019 APC or APPC price changes
# journals % journals
Price decrease 317 13%
No change in price 1,528 62%
Price increase 626 25%
Grand Total 2,471

Journals in DOAJ 2019 with APC or APPC data in both 2018 and 2019

The following table and chart illustrate a somewhat different trend when limiting to journals included in DOAJ. The percentage of journals with price decreases is the same at 13%, but the percentage of journals with price increases in higher at 37%. Half the journals (50%) did not change in price.

2018 – 2019 APC or APPC price changes, DOAJ journals only
# journals % journals
Price decrease 191 13%
No change 758 50%
Price increase 565 37%
Grand Total 1,514

Price change 2018 – 2019 by publisher

The following illustrates that pricing changes from 2018 – 2019 varied by publisher. 6 publishers had no price changes from 2018 – 2019. 16 publishers did have price changes from 2018 – 2019. For the publishers with price changes, there were differences in the pattern of change. Nature and Sage’s price increases and price decreases cancel each other out for an average of no change in price. A few publishers either kept prices the same or increased them, however most publishers have a mixture of price increases and decreases. In interpreting the pricing trends, it is important to consider the average price. A publisher with no price increases may have a higher average APC than a publisher with price increases. The average prices will be highlighting in the next table.


Publisher Average APC 2019 * Currency APC or APPC in USD ****  Average price change % 2018 – 2019 Min. price change 2018 – 2019 *** Max. price change 2018 – 2019
Publishers with no price changes 2018 – 2019
APC Average APC 2019 *
American Geophysical Union (AGU) 1,800 USD 1,800 0%
De Gruyter 1,045 EUR 1,188 0%
Karger Publishers 2,783 CHF 2,851 0%
Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2,428 USD 2,428 0%
Ubiquity Press** 536 USD 536 0%
APPC (per-age not per-article) Average APPC 2019 *
Copernicus Publications (APPC) per-page not per-article 64 EUR 73 0%
Publishers with price changes 2018 – 2019
APC Average APC 2019 *
BioMed Central 1,533 GBP 1,947 10% -42% 123%
Dove Medical Press 1,983 USD 1,983 1% 0% 18%
Elsevier ** 1,633 USD 1,633 13% -50% 567%
Frontiers Media S.A. 2,297 USD 2,297 10% 0% 100%
Hindawi Limited 1,161 USD 1,161 6% -24% 95%
MDPI AG 848 CHF 869 23% 0% 227%
Nature Publishing Group 2,031 GBP 2,579 0% -21% 28%
Oxford University Press ** 1,572 USD 1,572 22% -51% 61%
PAGEPress Publications 473 EUR 538 1% 0% 20%
SAGE Publishing ** 1,429 USD 1,429 0% -59% 67%
SpringerOpen 1,205 EUR 1,370 8% -37% 109%
Taylor & Francis Group ** 693 USD 693 6% -56% 500%
Wiley 2,331 USD 2,331 3% -27% 100%
Wolters Kluwer 2,433 USD 2,433 1% 0% 6%
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications ** 246 USD 246 34% -57% 602%
APPC (per-page not per-article)
AOSIS (APPC) per-page not per-article 1,196 ZAR 85 5% 0% 19%
* Average prices of journals listed in DOAJ in Jan 2019 and for which APC data is available for both 2018 and 2019.
** Prices converted to USD June 30, 2019 as APCs listed in different currencies.
*** Negative numbers reflect price decreases
**** Based on June 30, 2019 currency conversion rate, XE currency

The following table shows the average APC in USD by publisher in ascending order (starting with the lowest price), along with average, minimum and maximum price changes from 2018 – 2019 by percentage.

Publisher 2019 Average APC or APPC in USD Average price change 2018 – 2019 % Min. price change 2018 – 2019 *** Max. price change 2018 – 2019
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications ** 246 34% -57% 602%
Ubiquity Press** 536 0%
PAGEPress Publications 538 1% 0% 20%
Taylor & Francis Group ** 693 6% -56% 500%
MDPI AG 869 23% 0% 227%
Hindawi Limited 1,161 6% -24% 95%
De Gruyter 1,188 0%
SpringerOpen 1,370 8% -37% 109%
SAGE Publishing ** 1,429 0% -59% 67%
Oxford University Press ** 1,572 22% -51% 61%
Elsevier ** 1,633 13% -50% 567%
American Geophysical Union (AGU) 1,800 0%
BioMed Central 1,947 10% -42% 123%
Dove Medical Press 1,983 1% 0% 18%
Frontiers Media S.A. 2,297 10% 0% 100%
Wiley 2,331 3% -27% 100%
Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2,428 0%
Wolters Kluwer 2,433 1% 0% 6%
Nature Publishing Group 2,579 0% -21% 28%
Karger Publishers 2,851 0%
APPC (per-age not per-article)
Copernicus Publications (APPC) per-page not per-article 73 0%
AOSIS (APPC) per-page not per-article 85 5% 0% 19%

Discussion and conclusions

The data clearly demonstrate that the volume and direction of pricing changes varies by journal and by publisher. From 2018 to 2019, most journals did not change in price, some decreased in price, and others increased in price. Different APC based publishers display different tendencies and a wide range of average APCs, from 246 to 2,851 USD. The two APPC based publishers had similar pricing. The lowest average APC of 246 USD was for Wolters Kluwer Medknow. As noted by Avashti & Morrison (2019), most Medknow journals do not charge APCs; the average APC is likely impacted by the area served, as Medknow originated in India. It is not surprising that the 3 highest average APCs are associated with European based publishers (Wolters Kluwer, Nature, and Karger). However, the low average APC of UK based Ubiquity Publishing at 536 USD, combined with no price increases, is in marked contrast with Oxford University Press’ average APC of 1,572 USD and average price increase of 22%. This evidence of differences in APC / APPC and pricing trends by publisher supports, and is supported by, Shi & Morrison’s (2019) comparison of 4 pairs of publishers and sub-publishers.


Avasthi, N & Morrison, H (2019). Medknow 2019 – is this the best for India? Sustaining the Knowledge commons.

Morrison, H. et al. (2019). OA Main 2019: Dataset, documentation and open peer review invitation. Sustaining the knowledge commons.

Shi, A & Morrison, H. (2019). APCs comparisons among different publishers in 2019. Sustaining the knowledge Commons.

Singh, S. & Morrison, H. (2019). OA journals non-charging and charging central trends 2010 – 2019. Sustaining the knowledge commons.

Cite as:  Morrison, H. (2019). APC price changes 2019 – 2018 by journal and by publisher. Sustaining the knowledge commons.