News & Views: China’s New STM Policies: By the Numbers

Tao Tao and Lori Carlin • November 15, 2020

A series of new plans and policies that could potentially impact STM publishing in China in a major way over the next few years have attracted a great deal of global attention. In this article, we take a look at the financial forces driving these policies to better understand their impact. As the vast majority of stakeholders (i.e., researchers, publishers, libraries) in the Chinese STM publishing industry are publicly funded, we treat China as one entity. The assessment looks at online publications only as the mainstream format.


Expenditure on Reading


According to the Chinese Ministry of Education, a total of 2,663 higher education institutions (HEIs) were registered in China at the end of 2018. The Steering Committee for Academic Libraries (SCAL) maintains a database and encourages members to submit data on their annual spending. According to the latest SCAL University Library Development Report, 964 libraries spent a total of $473.5m USD in 2018 to purchase electronic content, with a median spending of $155k USD. This list includes most of the top schools (66%) offering graduate programs (Tier 1) as well as some colleges (26%) without these programs (Tier 2). Assuming that all the Tier 1 schools not included in this list had spending above the median, and that all Tier 2 schools not included spent below the median, 75% of Chinese universities had less than $155k USD to spend on electronic content.


Electronic content includes everything from databases, e-journals and e-books to proceedings published both locally and by foreign organizations. For the majority of Chinese schools, the library budget is allocated first to purchase domestic Chinese language databases such as Chinese National Knowledge Interface (CNKI), which carries a price tag of 100k to several million Ren Min Bi (RMB – the official currency of China). In the case of a school with a budget below the median, once Chinese journal databases have been paid for, there is not much left to buy foreign publications. In fact, we estimate that less than 20% of Chinese university libraries buy foreign language databases.


To verify this estimate, we checked the Chinese university library consortium DRAA’s website and found that the largest consortium deal (in terms of number of members) organized for foreign language journals included 497 participants, or less than 19% of Chinese universities. This means that over 80% of Chinese universities may have access to little or no content behind a paywall, including content they themselves produced as researchers. With library budget increases at less than 3% annually (anecdotally), there is no reason to believe that this picture would change in the foreseeable future. With this in mind, it appears Open Access (OA) STM publishing would significantly benefit China.


Expenditure on Publishing


The benefit of access to research published OA is only one side of the equation. In a 2016 article, Weihong Cheng and Shengli Ren estimated that China expended a total of $72.17m USD on Article Processing Charges (APCs) in 2015. The “2020 Blue Book on China’s Scientific Journal Development” (the Blue Book1) includes an estimate of China’s APC spend in 2019 using the same methodology; it shows that China spent a total of $140m USD (average: $2,054/article) to publish OA articles in pure Gold or Hybrid journals. Although these charges may be paid by the funder, the author’s institution, or the author, this estimate assumes that the APC is paid in full at list price and that only articles with at least one Chinese funder are counted.


The Blue Book1 also reveals that the number of Gold OA articles produced by Chinese authors increased by 101.7% between 2016 and 2019, faster than the increase in total number of articles published by Chinese authors (65.9%). The share of Gold OA articles as components of Chinese overall research output has increased slowly but steadily over the last 5 years, as shown in the figure below.

Source: Dimensions.ai/Digital Science. 


In an annualized projection (based on data from Dimensions), China is on track to publish 683k research articles (at least one of the authors’ organization is located in China) and fund more than 393k of them (at least one of the funders is a Chinese organization) in 2020. Of the 393k funded articles, fewer than 20% will likely be published in Gold and Hybrid journals.


Assuming the average cost per article remains the same as 2019, the total APC cost would be $159m USD. If all of these 393k 2020 China funded articles were published in Gold and Hybrid journals, total APC cost would surge to $808m USD. (Note: it is likely that funding information is not available for some articles and the actual number of articles funded by China is more than 393k.)


Revenue from Publishing


The third piece of this picture is publishers – specifically, publisher revenue. The bulk of English language STM journals published by domestic Chinese publishers are done so under a co-publishing agreement with an overseas publisher2, with revenue shared between partners. As revenue information remains unavailable, we make an educated guess on the basis of the number of published articles. A total of 359 English language titles were registered in China in 2019, of which 204 were indexed in SCI1. All the SCI indexed titles published a total of 26,754 articles1, or an average of 131 articles per title. If we do the math, the estimated total number of articles published by Chinese domestic English language titles was approximately 47k. We also know anecdotally that most of these titles are OA and, according to the Blue Book, more than 85% of the articles they published were written by Chinese authors. Again, basing our estimate on an average APC of $2,054 USD, the total revenue these titles would generate is $96.6m USD, to be shared between Chinese publishers and the international publishers they partner with.


Despite an increase in English language titles, the annual number of articles published by these titles remained nearly the same over the last decade (and decreased in some years). In contrast, articles produced by Chinese authors has been increasing rapidly, at an average annual rate of 15.7%. According to Dimensions, Chinese authors produced a total of 524k articles in 2019, resulting in a total number of articles published by domestic Chinese English language journals of less than 9% of this overall total.

The capacity of Chinese journals contrasts sharply with research output, as demonstrated by the figure below taken from the Blue Book. As the Blue Book is available in print only, the graphic above is a reproduction of the original with permission from the publisher, and with captions translated into English. Numbers shown in the graph were the numbers of articles indexed in SCI.


Source: 2020 Blue Book on China’s Scientific Journal Development (the Blue Book1).


Conclusion


Taking into account the cost of reading and publishing, compared to revenue from publishing, it is clear that while China will benefit greatly from Open Access, sufficient funding is currently not available to cover the costs of all articles when using an APC-based OA business model. Although there is great potential to increase China’s share of the global STM publishing market, it remains unclear just how to solve the inherent funding situation.


New plans and policies introduced in China recently have aimed to control and decelerate growth in article publishing cost on the one hand (setting limits on the number of qualified publications, capping publishing cost at 20k RMB per article, etc.), while growing domestic STM publishing capacity on the other (through continual financial support). The most eye-catching of these results is the mandate to publish one-third of representative articles in domestic Chinese journals, which could have the greatest impact on distribution of Chinese research by non-Chinese journals. However, China’s continued growth in R&D spending and research output could mitigate some of this reduction in distribution of research through non-Chinese publishers if overall volume continues to increase.


Dimensions shows that 2020 year-to-date article output by China is 584k and projected annual output is 683k. If Chinese 2021 output is just 600k, and one-third of these articles are published in domestic publications (assuming there is enough capacity) with a 20k RMB publishing cost cap ($3k), China could save $600m USD by publishing more of their research in domestic publications. This may be one mechanism to manage the cost of publication while also encouraging Open Access publication.


References:

1. 2020 Blue Book on China’s Scientific Journal Development, September 2020, published by Science Press on behalf of Chinese Association of Science and Technology

2. Zhang Y, Bao F, Wu J and Lin H, Reflections on the international impact of Chinese STM journals, doi: 10.1002/leap.1203, Learned Publishing 2019; 32: 126–136


This article is © 2020 Delta Think, Inc. It is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Please do get in touch if you want to use it in other contexts – we’re usually pretty accommodating.

From Research Integrity Expectations to Operational Reality: Unpacking the STM Research Integrity Report

By Lori Carlin & Meg White • February 26, 2026
Trust is what allows research to function. It enables collaboration, supports editorial decision-making, and underpins the credibility of the scholarly record. Today, that trust is increasingly being tested. Competitive pressures, new forms of manipulation, and rapidly evolving technologies are raising both the volume and complexity of integrity risks. And our community is responding with clearer standards, better training, smarter workflows, and responsible innovation, strengthening the systems that protect confidence in science and scholarly publishing.  The STM Research Integrity report makes clear that the community is fully engaged. Publishers have invested heavily in dedicated teams, screening technologies, and workflow integration, and are focused on proactive prevention. However, the report does highlight a persistent challenge: expectations around research integrity are rising faster than many organizations’ ability to define, implement, and operationalize them consistently The gap between expectation and execution is where many publishers and societies are now focused. Defining What “Good” Research Integrity Practice Looks Like One of the report’s central insights is the diversity of approaches publishers have taken to building research integrity capacity. Team size, tool adoption, workflow design, and policy scope vary widely—often for good reasons related to scale, discipline, and business model. However, this diversity also makes it difficult for organizations to answer basic questions internally: What does “good” look like for us? Which capabilities are essential now, and which can follow later? How do we know whether our current approach is proportionate to the risks we face? The STM report shows that effective integrity practice is about ensuring that policies, processes, and systems are coherent and fit for purpose. Translating this into action requires clear frameworks that help organizations define integrity expectations in ways that are realistic and aligned with their publishing context. Turning Policy into Day-to-Day Practice Integrity infrastructure only works if it is deployed consistently across the publication lifecycle. Clear policies must be supported by screening checkpoints, escalation pathways, investigation protocols, and well-defined roles for editors, integrity teams, and external partners. In practice, many organizations struggle at this stage. Policies may exist on paper but are unevenly applied. Screening tools may generate signals without clear guidance on interpretation. Editors may be unsure when and how to escalate concerns. The report illustrates how publishers who have made the greatest progress have focused on integration—embedding integrity checks into submission, peer review, revision, and pre-acceptance workflows, and ensuring that staff and editors understand how these pieces fit together. Achieving this level of operational clarity requires deliberate design. Investing in Technology Without Losing Human Judgement Technology plays a central role as an enabler rather than a solution. Tools surface signals; people make decisions. Managing false positives, avoiding workflow bottlenecks, and maintaining editorial confidence remain ongoing challenges. For publishers and societies, the practical questions are how to select, combine, and govern tools so that they best support existing processes. The report underscores a foundational tenet of Delta Think’s consultancy: evidence-based decision-making is paramount in understanding what tools will deliver in practice, what processes will best interact with workflows, and where additional human expertise is required. From Expectation to Implementation Research integrity is an operational capability that publishers and societies are defining, building, and most importantly, need to continuously refine. Research Integrity ‘success’ will depend on a combination of tools, services, processes, and training consistently refined and applied. This is where Delta Think’s focused, evidence-led approach can make a tangible difference. We work with publishers and societies to interpret sector expectations, assess current vs. best-in-class capabilities, and design innovative roadmaps. Reach out today to discuss how we can partner to ensure your research integrity practices and processes are performing at peak efficiency and effectiveness.

How Open Is “Open” Over Time?

By Dan Pollock & Heather Staines • February 10, 2026
This edition of News & Views looks at the changing patterns of license use over time. Are licenses becoming more or less permissive and what are the implications for scholarly publishers? Introduction Last month we compared the patterns of license use as reported by the members of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) with those observed in the wider scholarly journals market. Our comparison looked at the aggregated total numbers of licenses during the years 2015-2024. This showed a useful snapshot of the complete 10-year period spanned by the data. But how has the use of license types changed over that time? This month we dive into the temporal changes, focusing on the core scholarly journals market based on data in our Data and Analytics Tool (DAT). DAT allows for multiple comparisons and in-depth analysis, and, in this edition of News & Views, we highlight a couple of interesting examples of trends over time. The different types of OA licenses We start by focusing on only Open Access (OA) journal output. Many funders and institutions mandating OA also insist on certain OA license types, typically more permissive CC0 or CC BY licenses (to be consistent with the foundational Budapest Open Access Initiative ). However, more restricted licenses, such as those prohibiting commercial or derivative use, are also broadly used. For the purposes of our analysis, we define these as follows. “Permissive” refers to articles published under CC0 or CC BY licenses. These are the ones defined as required by major OA advocates, such as Plan S , Wellcome , HHMI , etc. “Restricted” refers to articles published under other licenses that allow limited reuse, such as CC BY-NC (non-commercial), CC BY-ND (no derivatives), or publisher-specific licenses. Although not conforming to the strictest OA mandates, such licenses are widely used and are consistent with many mandated OA requirements. Publishers sometimes charge lower APCs for these more restrictive licenses compared with their permissive counterparts. Data comparing the use of permissive vs. restricted licenses in open access output is shown below.

Analysis Is Underway: A First Look at our Second Author–Researcher Survey

By Lori Carlin & Bonnie Gruber • January 29, 2026
Building on last Spring’s survey of authors and researchers, we are once again analyzing responses from a large, global community to understand how shifts in the funding and policy environment are affecting research activity, priorities, and outlook. Conducted in partnership with 32 organizations, the Second edition of our Author–Researcher Survey was designed explicitly as a continuation of the work conducted in Spring 2025, allowing us to again take the pulse of authors-researchers, track emerging trends, and identify early signals related to real and perceived changes in U.S. science policy and research funding. With 12,122 completed responses from researchers in 125 countries , the Second survey again provides a robust and diverse dataset. Analysis is ongoing and the high-level structure of the respondent pool is already clear, closely mirroring, while subtly extending, what we observed in the Spring of 2025. A Global Community, with the U.S. at the Center of the Conversation The most recent respondent pool again reflects a truly global research community. Just over half of respondents are based in the United States, with others reporting from a broad range of countries worldwide. This near-even U.S./international split remains one of the defining features of the dataset and is particularly important given the survey’s focus on U.S. policy and funding dynamics. The results continue to underscore that changes originating in the U.S. research system are global in scope, closely watched and widely felt well beyond national borders. Science-Heavy Participation Anchored in Physical, Life, and Health Research Physical sciences represent the largest single area of engagement, alongside strong representation from the life sciences, health sciences, and engineering and technology. Social sciences and the arts and humanities account for a smaller share of responses, and as in prior responses, many participants report working across multiple fields. This pattern reflects both the interdisciplinary reality of modern research and the continuity needed to support meaningful year-over-year analysis. Insights Shaped Largely by Mid- and Senior-Career Researchers Mid- and senior-career respondents make up the majority of the sample, complemented by a substantial cohort of early-career researchers and representation from graduate and doctoral trainees. This reinforces that much of the insight emerging from the survey reflects the perspectives of researchers with long-term experience navigating funding cycles, institutional change, and strategic research planning. That experience is also evident in respondents’ professional roles. Faculty members and principal investigators account for the largest share of participants, alongside researchers, analysts, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students. Clinically active professionals—including physicians and other healthcare providers—are also represented. The overall role mix remains highly consistent as compared to the Spring group, strengthening confidence that shifts observed in attitudes or behavior are not driven by changes in who is responding. Why This Continuity Matters One of the most important features of this current dataset is how closely its underlying demographic structure aligns with the Spring survey results. This consistency strengthens our ability to interpret changes in sentiment, expectations, and reported actions as genuine signals rather than artifacts of sampling. The scale and international reach of the most recent responses allow us to surface new nuances, particularly around how researchers are adapting to evolving policy signals, funding uncertainty, and institutional responses. What Comes Next We are digging into the full results to explore how researchers’ outlooks have evolved, including: Whether perceptions of funding stability and risk are shifting How researchers are adjusting research scope, timelines, or collaboration strategies Persistent signals related to mobility, field-level vulnerability, and longer-term confidence in the research enterprise Decisions about research funding, policy, and scholarly communication increasingly require evidence, not assumptions. Delta Think’s research process is designed to provide the scholarly communication community with the rigor, scale, and transparency needed to build sustainable strategies in an uncertain environment. From survey design through analysis and reporting, our approach emphasizes methodological consistency, careful segmentation, and openness about what the data can support. By maintaining continuity year over year, we aim to surface credible trendlines that stakeholders across the research ecosystem can trust. The Delta Think team designed this initiative to gather data and to support our partners across the scholarly ecosystem. By combining rigorous research design with deep industry context, we help publishers, societies, and institutions make informed, strategic decisions during periods of significant change. If you’re interested in learning more about the findings or discussing how they apply to your organization, we’d welcome the conversation. Please email Lori Carlin to get started.

News & Views: How Open Is “Open”? What OASPA’s License Data Reveals About the OA Market

By Dan Pollock & Heather Staines • January 13, 2026
Overview This month we look at the changing mix of licenses in use among OASPA members and what these trends reveal for open access publishing more broadly. Introduction Each year OASPA surveys its member organizations to gather information about the volumes of output they publish in their fully OA and hybrid journals. These data provide a useful lens on how the most OA-committed publishers are approaching licensing and how that compares with the market as a whole. We’re delighted to be working with OASPA on its survey again this year. We process the raw data into consistent categories, normalize publisher names, and create visualizations of the data over time. We also produce a yearly blog post in cooperation with OASPA, outlining some of their results. Because space constraints limit what can be covered in OASPA’s own post, we explore additional angles here, placing OASPA member behavior in the context of Delta Think’s wider, market-level analysis. Subscribers to our Data and Analytics Tool can investigate the data further still. Our work with OASPA provides a complementary view into our market-wide analysis. Use of Licenses We can examine which common open access licenses are in use, as follows. 

Impelsys and Delta Think Join Forces to Expand Strategy and Technology Capabilities

By Lori Carlin • December 4, 2025
Impelsys and Delta Think Join Forces to Expand Strategy and Technology Capabilities for Publishing, Scholarly Communications, Education, and Healthcare Communities

News & Views: Market Sizing Supplement 2025 – Your Mileage May Vary

By Dan Pollock and Heather Staines • December 2, 2025
Overview Each year, our scholarly market sizing update and analysis goes way beyond open access headlines. One consistent finding is that market share of open and subscription access is highly dependent on subject area. This month we look at how to best use our Delta Think Data and Analytics Tool (DAT) to understand and analyze these variations. With coverage of approximately 220 detailed subject areas, the data shows that headlines can sometimes mask important detail. Background Since we began our scholarly journal market analyses in 2017, one of our core objectives has been to enable deep analysis of our headline findings. Our annual market share updates represent a summing of data – more than 200 detailed subject areas, 200 or so countries, also split by society vs. non-society journal ownership. This level of detail is clearly too much for our monthly short-form analyses, so we present the market-wide headlines in our annual updates. However, by picking one subject area as an example, we can see how much nuance lies beneath the surface, and why these variations matter. Subscribers to DAT can use our interactive tools to quickly and easily see each level of detail and filter for just those relevant to their organization. Market Share Variation by Subject Area Our latest market headlines suggested that open access (OA) accounted for just under 50% of article output in 2024. However, this headline proportion varies considerably by subject area.

Charleston Conference 2025 Reflections

By Lori Carlin & Meg White • November 19, 2025
Navigating Uncertainty, Innovation, and the Winds of Change As the Charleston Conference 2025 wrapped up, one thing was clear: scholarly communication continues to evolve against a backdrop of uncertainty: economic, technological, and policy-driven. Yet amid the turbulence, conversations throughout the week pointed toward resilience, adaptability, and even optimism. As Tony Hobbs observed during the Shifting Tides policy session, “the good news for scholarly communication is that due to technology advances, it is now possible to sail into the wind.” The Elephant in the Room: Doing More with Less Heather Staines Every conversation I had in Charleston seemed to circle back to one thing: budgetary uncertainty. Whether the concern was policy changes like potential caps on overhead or shifting grant funding or the ripple effects of declining enrollment, both domestic and international, everyone was asking how to do more with fewer resources. This theme ran through the plenary Leading in a Time of Crisis, Reclaiming the Library Narrative, and even the lightning sessions, a shared recognition that we’re all trying to redefine what “enough” looks like. What stood out was how data-driven decision-making has become essential. Libraries, publishers, and service providers are not just analyzing what to add, but what to let go of, all in an effort to find a new balance. And then there’s AI. We have moved beyond “sessions about AI” to “AI everywhere.” I will admit that I once thought AI was a solution in search of a problem, but now it’s woven through nearly every conversation. Librarians are leading the way on AI literacy, while publishers and service providers are using AI to innovate to meet changing research needs. The uncertainty is real but so is the shared determination to adapt, learn, and move forward together. The Long Arm of the Law and Its Reach into Scholarly Communication Meg White One of the things I love about Charleston is that there is always a moment that challenges me to reframe how I think about the work we do. This year’s Long Arm of the Law session did exactly that. It was a vivid reminder that the legal and policy currents swirling around us are not abstractions; they shape our ecosystem in ways we can’t afford to ignore. Paul Rosenzweig set the stage with a fascinating and lively walk through the history of executive orders. Hearing that Washington issued just eight while later presidents relied on them more frequently primarily to advance political agendas made the evolution very real. What stood out was the fine line between legitimate executive authority and overreach, and how easily those boundaries can blur. Nancy Weiss then brought the conversation directly into our lane with her analysis of an Executive Order directing the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to reduce its activities to the bare legal minimum. Her experience as former General Counsel gave us an inside view of what such a directive could mean for libraries, museums, and cultural programs, all places where so much of our community’s work takes root. Sessions like this are why Charleston continues to be invaluable to me. They stretch my understanding, give me new context, and remind me that staying informed is part of how we navigate change together. Data-Driven Insights: The 2025 Author and Researcher Survey Lori Carlin My week was cut unusually short (for me) by other meetings I had to fly off to, but I still managed to squeeze in 2.5 days of interesting sessions, discussions, and ‘business casual’ gatherings. The first two events I attended this year were definite highlights, both of which were the brainchild of and brilliantly orchestrated by my colleague, Heather Staines – the Vendor Meetup on Monday evening and the Leadership Breakfast on Tuesday morning. Both were jam packed and filled with lively conversation. If you’re not familiar, the Vendor Meetup is an open, casual gathering (sponsored this year by Get FTR) designed to give vendor representatives, especially early career attendees, who attend only for Vendor Day a chance to socialize and network, something they often miss when they’re in and out in a single day, but all are welcome to attend! The Leadership Breakfast, a smaller invitation-only event designed to give a more intimate networking experience within the larger Charleston Conference, is always a thoughtful session centered on a pressing issue of the day, and this year was no exception. The discussion focused on sustainability across the entire scholarly communication ecosystem—from funders to libraries to publishers. Frankly, no one can unhear the words of one of the panelists (a library director) when he commented that his budget has dropped from ~$7M to ~$5.4M in the last 24 months … with more to come. Finally, I’m a little biased, but I dare say I and my panelists were very pleased with the session I moderated focused on the impact of US research funding changes, which highlighted info from Delta Think’s Spring 2025 Author and Researcher Survey, along with how publishers who participated used the data to inform their strategies. We also had a librarian on the panel who informed the audience about the impact of these changes on universities overall and libraries in particular. As you may know, the survey data showed rising concern about institutional support, with many researchers rethinking how they publish and participate in conferences. Respondents also described how tightening budgets are straining peer review and research dissemination, while responses varied sharply between U.S.-based and international authors, reflecting distinct policy and institutional pressures, it also showed that the impact is being felt globally. In the tradition of Charleston, what made the session so powerful was the discussion. Colleagues from societies, publishers, and libraries focused on how they are using these insights to understand the challenges and to act on them. From adjusting publishing strategies to helping researchers to growing relationships in other markets, to shaping advocacy and outreach activities, organizations are using these insights to inform resource and budget direction in innovative ways. For me, that was the real takeaway: turning evidence into collaboration, and progress. Even in uncertain times. We’re running the survey again now with plans to compare results to the Spring version. If you’re interested, there is still time to sign up! End of An Era (Two, in Fact!) This year’s conference marked a pivotal moment: the first without the in-person presence of founder, Katina Strauch (though we were grateful for her virtual participation), and the well-earned retirement of longtime Conference Director Anthony Watkinson, who rang his iconic bell one last time. We would not be here without them and their visionary colleagues who built this community from the ground up. Thank you, Katina and Anthony. Charting What Comes Next If there was one metaphor that captured Charleston 2025, it was motion; not adrift, but deliberate progress in the face of resistance. From policy updates to AI integration to the enduring strength of the scholarly community, the week’s sessions affirmed that innovation often takes root during uncertainty. As Tony Hobbs reminded us, even headwinds can propel us forward — if we learn how to adjust our sails.

News & Views Webinar: Market Sizing Update 2025

By Heather Staines • November 6, 2025
We are proud to share a video recording of our October News & Views companion online discussion forum! Join us for our annual update on the volume and revenue associated with Open Access publishing. If you missed the session, or if you attended and would like to watch/listen again, or share forward with friends, please feel free!

News & Views: Market Sizing Update 2025 – Has OA recovered its mojo?

By Dan Pollock and Heather Staines • October 21, 2025
Overview After a rocky couple of years, the open access (OA) market may be finding its footing again. Each year, Delta Think's Market Sizing analyzes the value of the OA scholarly journals market—that is, the revenue generated by providers or the costs incurred by buyers of content. Our analysis estimates that the OA segment expanded to just under $2.4bn in 2024. Although growth has improved compared with last year’s deceleration, it continues to lag behind the broader historical trend for OA. The proportion of articles published as OA has declined slightly, likely driven by continued reduction in the output from the large OA publishers. This trend has benefited established publishers, who saw growth in OA activity and revenue as they continued to consolidate their positions. Looking ahead, OA could soon begin outpacing the broader journals market once again—but likely through different growth drivers than in the past. Read on to see what those shifts might look like. Headline findings Our models suggest the following headlines for the 2024 open access market:

Join the Fall 2025 Author/Researcher Survey

By Lori Carlin & Meg White • October 13, 2025
Collaborate with Delta Think to uncover how funding and policy uncertainty continue to reshape the research ecosystem — and gain tailored insights for your community.