Electronic Markets

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 101–109 | Cite as

Scholarly journal publishing in transition- from restricted to open access

  • Bo-Christer BjörkEmail author
Position Paper


While the business models used in most segments of the media industry have been profoundly changed by the Internet, surprisingly little has changed in the publishing of scholarly peer reviewed journals. Electronic delivery has become the norm, but the same publishers as before are still dominating the market, selling content to subscribers. This article asks the question why Open Access (OA) to the output of mainly publicly funded research hasn’t yet become the mainstream business model. OA implies a reversal of the revenue logic from readers paying for content to authors paying for dissemination in form of universal free access. The current situation is analyzed using Porter’s five forces model. The analysis demonstrates a lack of competitive pressure in this industry, leading to so high profit levels of the leading publishers that they have not yet felt a strong need to change the way they operate. OA funded by article publishing charges (APCs) might nevertheless start rapidly becoming more common. The driving forces of change currently consist of the public research funders and administrations in Europe, which are pushing for OA by starting dedicated funds for paying the APCs of authors from the respective countries. This has in turn lead to a situation in which publishers have introduced “big deals” involving the bundling of (a) subscription to all their journals, (b) APCs for their hybrid journals and (c) in the future also APCs to their full OA journals. This appears to be a relatively risk free strategy for the leading publishers to retain both their dominance of the market and high profit levels.


Scholarly publishing Business model Open access 

JEL Classification




Michael Jubb provided very useful comments to a draft version of this manuscript.


  1. Albandes, A. (2009). University of California libraries, Springer strike open access deal. Library Journal, January 22nd 2009.
  2. Auclair, D. (2015). Open access 2015: Market size, Forecast, and Trends. Conference presentation, Fiesole Collection Development Retreats, Berlin May 2015.
  3. Austrian Science Fund. (2014). Open Access Policy for FWF-funded projects, FWF web pages.
  4. Bird, C. (2010). Continued adventures in open access: 2009 perspective. Learned Publishing, 23(2), 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björk, B.-C. (2012). The hybrid model for open access publication of scholarly articles – A failed experiment? Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences and Technology, 63(8), 1496–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Björk, B.-C. (2015). Have the “megajournals” reached the limits to growth? PeerJ, 3(e981). doi: 10.7717/peerj.981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2014). Developing an effective market for open access article processing charges. Wellcome Trust, London, United Kingdom: Report Scholar
  8. Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2015). Article processing charges in OA journals – Relationship between price and quality. Scientometrics, 103(2), 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Björk, B.-C., Laakso, M., Welling, P., & Paetau, P. (2014). Anatomy of green open access. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Björk, B.-C., Shen, C., & Laakso, M. (2016). A longitudinal study of independent scholar-published open access journals. PeerJ, 4(e1990). doi: 10.7717/peerj.1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review. Science. 342:60–5. Vol., 342(6154), 60–65.Google Scholar
  12. Crotty, D. (2016). What should We make of secret open access deals? Blog item, Scholarly Kitchen blog, 16(2), 2016 . Google Scholar
  13. Economist. (2013). Academic publishing: Free-for-all, Open-access scientific publishing is gaining ground, The Economist, May 14th 2013.
  14. Edlin, A. and Rubinfeld, D. (2004). Exclusion or efficient pricing: The "big deal" bundling of Academic Journals. Antitrust Law Journal, 72(1).
  15. Eisen, M. (2015). The inevitable failure of parasitic green open access. Blog post, 25(5), 2015 . Google Scholar
  16. Estelle, L. (2014). Unravelling the true cost of publishing in open access. JISC, Blog site, 15(12), 2014 . Google Scholar
  17. Finch, J. (2012). Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: How to expand access to research publications. UK: Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings Scholar
  18. Frantsvåg, J. (2014). The new gold OA funding scheme from the Norwegian Research Council (NRC). NRC webpages, 10(7), 2014 . Google Scholar
  19. Frazier, K. (2001). The Librarians' dilemma - contemplating the costs of the "big deal". D-Lib Magazine, 7(3),
  20. Geisenheimer, S. (2014). Open Access Publishing and the role of the Royal Society of Chemistry.
  21. Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., Oppenheim, C., et al. (2004). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access. Serials Review, 30(4), 310–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Houghton, J., Rasmussen, B., Sheehan, P., Oppenheim, C., Morris, A., Creaser, C., Greenwood, H., Summers, M., & Gourlay, A. (2009). Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the costs and benefits. Jisc: Project Report Scholar
  23. Kiley, R. (2015). The reckoning: An analysis of Wellcome Trust open access spend 2013-2014. Blog item, Wellcome Trust, 3(3), 2015. Google Scholar
  24. Kingsley, D. (2014). Addressing the “double dipping “ charge. Australian Open Access Support Group Newsletter, 8.5.2014.
  25. Laakso, M. (2014). Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: A study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics, 99(2), 475–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laakso, M., & Björk, B.-C. (2012). Anatomy of open access publishing - a study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine, 10(124). doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-124.
  27. Laakso, M., & Björk, B.-C. (2013). Delayed open access – An overlooked high-impact type of openly available scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1323–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larivière, V., Haustein, S. and Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS ONE,10(e0127502). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McGuigan, G. and Russell, R. (2008). The business of academic publishing: A strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 9(3).
  30. Morrison, H. (2012). Freedom for scholarship in the internet age. Ph.D. dissertation: Department of Communication, Art & Technology, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, Canada Scholar
  31. Packer, A. (2009). The SciELO open access: A gold way from the south. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(3), 111–126 Scholar
  32. Peters, P. (2007). Going all the way: How Hindawi became an open access publisher. Learned Publishing, 20(3), 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pinfield, S., Salter, J., & Bath, P. A. (2015). The ‘total cost of publication’ in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology., 67(7), 1751–1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. Porter, M. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 78–93.Google Scholar
  36. Poynder, R. (2014). The open access interviews: Richard savory, JISC licensing manager. Open and shut blog, 10(12), 2014. Google Scholar
  37. Prosser, D. (2003). From here to there: A proposed mechanism for transforming journals from closed to open access. Learned Publishing, 16(3), 163–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Redhead, C. (2015). Growth of OA-only Journals Using a CC-BY License, blog post, 19.5.2015, Open Access Scholarly Publisher Association.
  39. RIN (2015). Monitoring the transition to open access, research information network, August 2015. Scholar
  40. Ritt, J. (2015a). Springer Compact: Make Researchers Comply with their Funders’ Open Access Policies, conference presentation, LIBER 2015 Sponsor Strategy, 13.7.2015.
  41. Ritt, J. (2015b) Springer Compact: Make Researchers Comply with their Funders’ Open Access Policies, conference presentation, LIBER 2015 Sponsor Strategy, 13.7.2015.
  42. Robinson, S. (2014). Elsevier issues academics thousands of takedown notices, doesn’t want any friends anyway. Blog post, 13(1), 2014. Google Scholar
  43. Royal Society (Great Britain), Knowledge, Networks and Nations Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century. London: The Royal Society, 2011.
  44. Schimmer, R., Geschuhn, K., & Vogler, A. (2015). Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access. A Max Planck Digital Library Open Access Policy White Paper, 28(4), 2015 . Google Scholar
  45. Shieber, S. (2014). A true transitional open-access business model. The occasional pamphlet blog, 28(3), 2014 . Google Scholar
  46. Solomon, D., Laakso, M., & Björk, B.-C. (2016). Converting Scholarly Journals to open access – A review of approaches and experiences. Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communication: Report Scholar
  47. Suber, P. (2008). Gratis and libre open access. Web resource: Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) Scholar
  48. Suber, P. (2012). Open access (230p). MIT Press.
  49. Tenopir, C., & King, D. (2000). Towards electronic journals: Realities for scientists, librarians, and publishers. Washington, D. C: Special Libraries association.Google Scholar
  50. Walters, W. (2007). Institutional journal costs in an open access environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 108–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2015). The STM report, an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. International Association of Scientific: Technical and Medical Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hanken School of EconomicsHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations