Get in touch
555-555-5555
mymail@mailservice.com
News & Views: OSTP Memo – Modeling Market Impact
Dan Pollock and Ann Michael • September 8, 2022
This month we look at the possible effects of the new OSTP Public Access policy on the value of the scholarly publishing market. We also suggest some ways that publishers can meet the challenges ahead.
Background
In August 2022, the US White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced a new policy (“the Nelson memo”) covering the results of US federally-funded research. The previous policy (“the Holdren memo”) has been in effect since 2013, and mandated that the published results of research funded by large federal agencies is made publicly accessible after a maximum 12 month embargo. The new policy, which applies to all US agencies that fund research, specifies a zero-length embargo on articles and data, that content is machine-readable, and specific metadata directives. There are interim dates indicated for agencies to publish and implement their plans (dates vary according to the amount of federal funding the agency provides), but for all agencies, January 2026 is the latest the changes can go into effect.
The details of the policies have been discussed at length, so we will not explore the nuances further here. Our focus is to investigate if a move to zero-embargo public access may lead to falling subscription revenues, whatever the mechanism used. The hypothesis is that content will become available that is free and good enough to replace paywalled Versions of Record (VoR), and so demand for subscriptions will fall.
Scenarios
At this stage it is not possible to predict the specific approaches the various federal agencies will choose. The policy does not rule out publication in hybrid journals and the economic impact assessment discusses the notion of publication charges. Issues around licenses, manuscript types, and manuscript location, are left open as well as requirements around data.
The models below consider a general case: What might happen if “open” content in some form is good enough to replace subscriptions? And is there an upside if the newly open content were paid for in some way?
Taking our currently projected market value as a baseline, we look at how the value of the market might shift from the baseline under a few different scenarios. We explore what might happen to the market overall and what this might mean for a publisher in practice.
The effects of the policy are heavily influenced by the proportion of scholarly articles that fall under it. The OSTP’s Economic Impact Statement (issued along with its new policy) puts this proportion at between 6.7% and 9.1% of global output. Our own analysis suggests a figure between 6.6% and 7.2%. The differences depend (largely) on what is included in total scholarly output. We will take the average of their figures as a baseline for our market-wide analysis: 7.9%.
It’s important to note that the charts below must be read alongside the analysis that follows. We found that the mechanism behind the charts yields important insights for publishers who want to understand the effects for them.
Effects on Market Value
We chose three scenarios for the overall scholarly journals market, spanning our view on worst to best case, as illustrated in Figure 1. It is critical to remember that the intent of this analysis is to show the overall effect on the total market.
Source: Delta Think Analysis. © 2022 Delta Think Inc. All rights reserved.
The chart above shows the relative difference between each of three scenarios and the projected market status quo. To illustrate, -1% on the chart means that the total market value (revenue for sellers, or costs to buyers) is 1% less that might otherwise be expected. Each scenario assumes that ALL papers arising from federally funded research (the 7.9% of global output noted above) are included in the scenario. We model a four-year S-shaped transition to 100% compliance from around 18 months after the policy’s 2026 start.
- Scenario 1: Publication fees are paid for all affected papers; there is no effect on subscription revenues
- This “best case” scenario is where researchers secure funds to pay publication charges to make papers open or public access. It assumes that the content remaining under the subscription models is sufficient to maintain subscription revenues.
- This will lead to a small increase in overall market value, as the new OSTP policy drives bolt-on publication fees.
- Scenario 2: Publication fees are not paid on affected papers; subscription revenues fall because of the zero embargo
- This scenario (aka the “worst case” for publishers) assumes that publicly available papers – Author’s Accepted Manuscript (AAM) or Version of Record (VoR) – are deemed good enough. Publishers must reduce subscription prices to reflect the increased proportion of content available free of charge.
- This will lead to a decrease in total market value of around 3.5%.
- Scenario 3: All affected papers are included in subscription fees, but subscription revenues fall to offset the openly available content
- This combines the upside of Scenario 1 (new publication fees) with the downside of Scenario 2 (decline in subs).
- Here, there is still a net reduction in market value of around 3%. The lower publication charges are outweighed by the loss of the higher priced subscription charges.
Effects on Publishers
Specific publishers will find their situation different to the broad market averages. One difference will be the share of their papers arising from US federally funded research. Delta Think has worked with publishers, predominantly US-based, where federally funded research accounts for 30-50% of their publications. A second difference is the size of the gap between the lower revenue generated per open access article, and the higher revenue generated per subscription access article. For many publishers, the difference is less than the market average. So as the balance of their publication output shifts towards OA, their subscription revenues won’t fall as quickly as market averages.
We ran three further scenarios looking at different proportions of papers affected. We based this on aggregated revenue per article data from our annual publisher survey. Could the smaller differences between OA and subscription revenues in our sample mitigate the effects of the larger proportions of papers affected?
Source: Delta Think Analysis. © 2022 Delta Think Inc. All rights reserved.
The chart above shows additional variations of Scenario 3 from Figure 1, assuming ALL articles affected by the new OSTP policy attract publication fees, but that subscription revenues decline to offset them. The variable is the proportion of papers affected.
- The new OSTP policy affects 9.1% of the publisher’s output.
- This is the high end of the OSTP’s estimate of the US government-funded share of all scholarly output. It could be a reality for a large publisher, with an international author base.
- It leads to a reduction in the publisher’s revenue of around 2%.
- The new OSTP policy affects 15% of the publisher’s output.
- Publishers with a tilt towards the US may find themselves dealing with this scenario.
- The higher proportion of affected papers leads to higher reductions in revenue, of just under 4%.
- The new OSTP policy affects 30% of the publisher’s output.
- This could be a reality for a society publisher that relies heavily on US government-funded submissions.
- The high proportion of affected papers leads to higher reductions in revenue, of just under 9%.
Other Factors
A few other important drivers are not immediately obvious from the charts:
- The US’s share of global output is declining slowly: 1 percentage point or less per year, depending on the data sources used. Therefore, the effects of the OSTP policy reduce over time. (Which is why the charts head back towards the horizontal axis.)
- Pricing policies are key. Understanding reduction in market value could help publishers to set price increases and help funders and buyers to understand likely cost implications. Publication fees can be optimized across a portfolio of journals and subscription prices raised further to offset softening revenues.
- As the difference in revenues per article between OA and subscription narrows, then the effects become less profound. We have long noted that publication charges are likely to rise to achieve parity with subscriptions.
- The models show revenue changes compounded over time. They don’t show annual revenue increases generated by increasing APC prices.
Conclusion
William Gibson’s famous quote has rarely been more apt: “The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed.” The market-wide effects of the OSTP policy may be modest at first glance, but the effects felt in practice will depend hugely on each publisher’s own circumstances.
The fundamental question for most, is at what threshold might subscriptions collapse? Or not? Could 10% of a subscription journal’s content (rounding the high OSTP number up) lead to mass subscription cancellation? What about 15% (if we then layer in Plan S)? Or 30% (which may be the reality for many societies)? Meanwhile, large publishers, with a global footprint of authors, may see fewer of their submissions affected. They may find modest price rises enough to counter small ill effects, especially if they already have well-developed open access portfolios. And born-open publishers, will, of course, see this as an opportunity. Your mileage may vary.
The OSTP’s mileage may vary too. Each agency will decide its specific requirements. Unlike Plan S, there is no mention of requirements related to Hybrid or license types or manuscript types. There is mention of metadata, which feeds speculation about Green. Researchers simply don’t want to scour the web for secondary versions at present. But could subscription revenues decline if the changes mean that “free and good enough” becomes readily discoverable through better search engines or aggregation services? Or would subscriptions be affected at all if AAMs cover agency policies, but researchers continue to prefer the VoR?
The answers lie in analyzing the specifics for your organization and planning a response. We chose a spread of scenarios here to illustrate what might happen for a range of different organizations. In practice, we work with publishers on a regular basis to tailor models to their situation and analyze the factors affecting them. Every publisher is different, and on close examination of their situation, they may find that things are not as bad as they may seem initially. Please contact Delta Think if you are interested in a custom analysis.
This article is © 2022 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.
User information needs as well as funding models are evolving rapidly, as evidenced by Clarivate’s recent move to phase out perpetual access purchases for print, eBooks, and digital collections by the end of 2025. Taking a hard look at how these assets contribute to your portfolio and overall organizational strategy has never been more critical. A holistic books program assessment can help you think intentionally about how books and book-based content can help meet customer and market needs. Publishing and Product Strategy A market-driven publishing and product strategy begins with an understanding of customer information needs. What markets, segments, information needs, and challenges are present? How can customer information needs be addressed? What role can our book content play? How can we differentiate our solutions? Can our book content contribute to a unique value proposition? Thinking creatively about how your content meets market needs is critical; think solutions, not printed pages and chapters. Commercial Strategy A detailed commercial strategy, supported by proper resources, is fundamental to success. Leveraging a clear understanding of customer preferences and delivering messaging that resonates with your specific market segments and use cases is essential. What are the best methods to generate market awareness? When and how should we communicate with key audiences? What messages resonate best? What sales and marketing capabilities do we have internally? Where do we need to partner to reach core audiences? How do we meet global needs? Do we have the appropriate access, pricing, and distribution models in place to meet customer expectations? What do we need to do directly? Where should we cultivate successful channel partnerships? And you don’t have to go it alone; a commercial strategy is best formulated and executed by a combination of internal and external resources. Technology Infrastructure Is your technology optimized to support your book program? From agile content management systems to product platforms to customer relationship management tools, the right tools enable your content and commercial strategy. What systems do we need to ensure efficiency in our publishing processes and quality and integrity in our content? What technologies and platforms do we need to build market-responsive products? What systems do we need to communicate effectively and meaningfully with our customers, including authors? Are we best served by building these systems or partnering? Successfully integrating and leveraging new technologies, such as AI, requires a fundamental understanding of markets and customer information needs . The Numbers Financial metrics are a key measure of the health of any program. An in-depth assessment of a program’s recent performance is a vital tool to help identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps, and help to surface areas for improvement and corrective action. A financial analysis will clarify: What is our book and content annual output? Is it sufficient to support our strategy and meet customer and market needs? What is our cost structure? Our pricing strategy? Do they align with industry and market norms and expectations? Do we have the appropriate mix of internal and external resources in place to support our strategy? How can we best align our financial performance to contribute to the organization’s larger strategy? Beyond red ink or black ink, financial analysis will provide answers to these questions. Assessing Your Book Program Delta Think partners with publishers to do the foundational analysis necessary to understand how your book and book-based content can be a vital part of your content portfolio and support your organization’s goals and objectives. Our processes, including program benchmarking, stakeholder interviews, surveys, and workshops, combined with expert landscape research and analysis ensure you are building a content strategy that is market-focused and customer-driven. Contact Delta Think at info@deltathink.com to set up a time for a video call to learn more. We will also be attending the London Book Fair, March 11-13, 2025, if you’d like to schedule an in-person chat.
Overview A recent post on the Open Café listserv posed a question about the true extent of fee-free open access publishing, but it noted the incomplete coverage of the data cited. We have more comprehensive data, but just as we started our analysis, DeepSeek’s release sent markets into turmoil. The stage was set for a timely experiment. We first answer the question using our data. Then we see how the AI did. Background What proportion of open access is not paid for by APCs? In discussing this, a recent Open Café listserv post cited studies by Walt Crawford – a librarian, well-known in the academic library and OA communities for his analysis of open access. He has paid particular attention to “diamond” OA journals, which charge neither readers nor authors. His studies are based on data from the Directory of Open Access journals ( DOAJ ). Excellent though both sources may be – and, full disclosure, we contribute to the DOAJ – the DOAJ’s remit covers only fully OA (“gold”) journals. As listserv founder Rick Anderson noted, “By counting only articles published in DOAJ-listed journals, Crawford’s studies radically _undercount_ the number of APC-funded OA articles published – because DOAJ does not list hybrid journals, which always charge an APC for OA and which produce a lot of genuinely OA articles (though exactly how many, no one knows).” Using our data Actually, we do know … or at least have some fair estimates of hybrid OA. Our data allows us to determine the share of open access output in APC-free journals, as follows.
Overview Following the 2024 US election, the new US administration has instructed employees in some key federal agencies to retract publications arising from federally funded research. This is to allow representatives of the administration to review the language used, to ensure it is consistent with the administration’s political ideology. In this special edition of News & Views, we quantify how many papers might be affected and estimate their share of scholarly publishers’ output. The initial numbers may be small, but we suggest the effects on scholarly publishing could be profound. Background On 20 January 2025, Donald J. Trump took office as the 47th President of the United States. Within hours he signed an Executive Order 1 (EO) 14168 proclaiming that the US government would only recognize two sexes, and ending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs inside federal agencies. The following day, his administration instructed federal health agencies to pause all external communications – “such as health advisories, weekly scientific reports, updates to websites and social media posts” – pending their review by presidential appointees. These instructions were delivered to staff at agencies inside the Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS), including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The events that followed are important, as they directly affect scholarly papers and our analysis. A memo on 29 January instructed agencies to “end all agency programs that … promote or reflect gender ideology” as defined in the EO. Department heads were instructed to immediately review and terminate any “programs, contracts, and grants” that “promote or inculcate gender ideology.” Among other things, they were to remove any public-facing documents or policies that are trans-affirming and replace the term “gender” with “sex” on official documents. By the start of February, more than 8000 web pages across more than a dozen US government websites were taken down . These included over 3000 pages from the CDC (including 1000 research articles filed under preventing chronic disease, STD treatment guidelines , information about Alzheimer’s warning signs, overdose prevention training , and vaccine guidelines for pregnancy). Other departments affected included the FDA (some clinical trials), the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (the OSTP, removing papers in optics, chemistry and experimental medicine), the Health Resources and Services Administration (covering care for women with opioid addictions, and an FAQ about the Mpox vaccine). Around this time, it further emerged that CDC staff were sent an email directing them to withdraw manuscripts that had been accepted, but not yet published, that did not comply with the EO. Agency staff members were given a list of about 20 forbidden terms, including gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, biologically female, and he/she/they/them. All references to DEI and inclusion are also to be removed. The effects of the EO Commenting on the merits of policy and ideology lies beyond our remit. However, when these matters affect the scholarly record – as they clearly do here – then they are of interest for our analyses. Specifically, what might the effects of the EO be on the publication of papers, and what effects might accrue from withdrawal of research funding? If federal agencies are being instructed to withhold or withdraw submissions, then, to quantify what this might mean to publishers, we have estimated the volume of output from a few key federal agencies. It is summarized in the following chart.
Emerging technologies are reshaping how we create, distribute, and consume content. Publishers face the critical task of making smart technology investments to stay competitive and enable strategic objectives. How do you ensure that your next tech purchase aligns with your organization's needs and goals? Enter the needs assessment process – your roadmap to making informed, strategic technology decisions. From defining clear objectives to creating a comprehensive RFP, these best practices will help you navigate the decision-making process with confidence and ensure that your investments deliver value for your organization and your customers. Technology is not a solution; it is a tool. The temptation to adopt technology without a clear definition of what you are trying to achieve is an all too common (and usually very costly) mistake. Does your strategy include delivering a more personalized experience for your users? A customer data platform may be the right technology. Interested in using AI to build research integrity into your editorial process? Perhaps it’s time to revisit the capabilities of your editorial management system. Looking to support education and learning for students, faculty, and professional learners? Maybe it is time to evaluate formal learning management systems. Once you are confident about what you are seeking to achieve, the real work begins. Here are the key components that will help lay the foundation for a successful process from inception to deployment: Analyze Current State: Audit existing systems and processes to understand current capabilities and limitations. Conduct a Gap Analysis: Identify gaps between current capabilities and desired future state. Collect and Analyze Data: Gather qualitative and quantitative data from staff, users, customers, industry benchmarks, and about existing systems. Consider Resources and Constraints: Assess available resources, including budget, skills, and time. Research Solutions: Investigate potential technologies and/or types of solutions that could address identified gaps. Prioritize Needs: Work with stakeholders to prioritize needs based on impact and feasibility. Create RFP: After identifying prioritized needs and potential solutions, develop an RFP that clearly outlines project objectives, specific requirements, evaluation criteria, budget, and timelines. Distribute the RFP: Identify vendors with fit for purpose solutions and capabilities and distribute. Evaluate Proposals: Review vendor responses against established criteria and prioritize them based on how well they meet your needs. Plan for Adoption and Training: Consider the change management aspects of introducing new technology and processes. Be sure to develop a plan for user adoption, training, and ongoing support in your new systems. Technology as a Strategic Ally A methodical needs assessment is not just a procurement exercise – it is a strategic opportunity to reimagine how technology can transform your organization. The most successful technology investments are those that solve real problems, align with organizational goals, and empower your team to work more efficiently and creatively. Don’t fall into the trap of just moving what you are currently doing over to a new system. This is an ideal occasion to think about how you would design workflows and processes if you were to start from scratch and use that framework to evaluate the new capabilities available. You don’t want to duplicate what you are doing today; you want to step back and take the opportunity to build something better whenever possible. Customer Data Platform? Editorial Management System? Learning Management System? Something Else? Delta Think partners with publishers to do the foundational and implementation work required to ensure that technology decisions match the organization’s capabilities, fit the budget, and are grounded in voice-of-customer data. Our processes, including stakeholder interviews, surveys, and workshops, combined with expert landscape research, analysis, and assessments, underpin technology decision-making that is market-focused and customer-driven. If your 2025 objectives depend on or are enabled by technology, we’d welcome the opportunity to help you learn, plan, achieve. Please contact us today to start the conversation.
A number of sources provide information about patterns in the overall scholarly journals market. However, as we so often mention in our analyses, important nuances lie beneath the headlines. This month we explore just how much variation exists and highlight the importance of specificity. Background As part of our annual market updates, we estimate the proportions of open vs. subscription access content each year. Over the last few years, we have observed how OA has approached 50% of output, but we note that it has yet to punch through that number. However, this headline varies greatly depending on your area of publishing. An example from physics The chart below shows the nuances across just a few of the 200+ subjects that we track.
This month’s topic: How much content can AI legally exploit? Scroll down to read about this topic, along with the latest headlines and announcements. Delta Think publishes this News & Views mailing in conjunction with its Data & Analytics Tool . Please forward News & Views to colleagues and friends, who can register to receive News & Views for free each month. Delta Think will be attending several upcoming conferences, including APE (Jan 14-15), NISO Plus (Feb 10-12), and Researcher to Reader (Feb 20-21). We would love to see you there – please get in touch or visit our Events page to see all the meetings we will be attending. How much content can AI legally exploit? O verview During the recent PubsTech conference , we were asked how much content could be legitimately used to train artificial intelligence systems without being specifically secured through a licensing agreement. In considering this question, we find some counterintuitive results. Background Generative AI (genAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that can create new content—text, images, music, and more – by analyzing patterns in massive datasets. These models are typically trained on publicly available data scraped from the web. In the US, developers often invoke the “Fair Use” copyright doctrine to justify this training, claiming it is limited to specific purposes (training) and transformative in nature (different from the original use). In reality, the legal position is complex and evolving , with many rights holders and their representatives – unsurprisingly – taking the opposite view. Even if legal clarity emerges, different geographies and jurisdictions will likely reach different conclusions. The legal complexities of AI and copyright law are beyond our scope. However, for scholarly publishers, particular issues apply. Half of our output is open access , and open access content is designed to be reusable. Open or not, content has varying restrictions on onward use – for example, non-commercial use is often allowed with attribution. How much scholarly content is exploitable? For the purposes of analysis, we will assume that the license under which content is published will have a material bearing on the legitimacy of its use to train AI systems. Therefore, looking at share of licenses, we might be able to answer our question.
Welcome to the next issue of Delta Think's Ideas in Action - ideas that spark your imagination and encourage creativity...information that makes you stop and THINK! Want to know more about partnering with Delta Think? Contact Delta Think at info@deltathink.com to set up a time to meet and learn more. Charleston Conference 2024 Reflections November always marks several noteworthy activities and events both personally and professionally, including one of our favorites – the Charleston Conference – where stakeholders from all areas of our industry – librarians, service providers, and publishers alike, get the opportunity to debate, collaborate, and share insights. Richard Charkin, OBE, described the Conference this way in his 2024 opening keynote remarks: “This meeting is incredibly important. Serious people debating serious issues.” We agree and add that the spirit of Charleston is also grounded in engagement – with colleagues and friends and making time for a bit of fun. Karaoke optional! Whether you were able to attend or not, here are some reflections on the 2024 Conference from the Delta Think Team. Libraries as Leaders – Lori Carlin The first thing that hit me was the energy of the conference overall; it was invigorating. Walking into the exhibit area on Vendor Day, you could sense a heightened level of interest from attendees eager to see and hear about new and interesting developments. Is it AI that is fostering this renewed energy? AI is certainly a hot topic, as stakeholders wonder how to best incorporate AI into their products, services, and workflows. Or perhaps the spotlight on Research Integrity and the various products that can help the scholarly community address these issues. Whatever the reason, I have always appreciated Charleston’s approach to exhibits, with a single dedicated day for vendors to showcase their wares, and the packed ballroom left no doubt that this concentrated attendee/vendor time was appreciated by all. As for sessions, the Opening Keynote featuring Katina Strauch and Richard Charkin was interesting – both bringing their own sense of wit to their description of their different but equally circuitous paths to scholarly publishing and their eventual role as community leaders. I also have to call out a session I moderated – “Keeping Libraries as Central Players in an Evolving Teaching and Learning Space,” and not because I moderated it! It was the librarian panelists as well as the interaction from the audience that made this session lively and interesting. What it reinforced for me is the leadership role librarians now play as not only information resource agents and gatekeepers in their communities, but data analysts, policy drivers, and educators, ensuring that advancements in teaching and learning are recognized and implemented. Books and eBooks in the Spotlight – Diane Harnish There was a noticeable “buzz” at Charleston around eBooks and book-based content. Whether for teaching and learning or research usage occasions, the value of book collections, or exploration of evolving funding models and roles, books were top-of-mind for librarians and publishers. For example, “Whose Future Is It? Practical Strategies for Supporting Community-led Open Access Book Publishing” focused on how libraries can take a leadership role in open access book publishing. The concurrent session was full of practical insights into how libraries develop effective strategies to support community-led and academy-owned OA book publishing, with an emphasis on equity. On a more macro-scale, Niels Stern, Managing Director, DOAB & OAPEN Foundation led a Neapolitan discussion entitled “Open Access Policies for Books: Librarian Roles in Nudging Institutional and National Change” which explored the work of the recently concluded PALOMERA Project, an initiative to examine and analyze the research policies and strategies for open-access books in 39 countries in the European research area. The project generated evidenced-based, actionable recommendations to “help ensure that books don't get ‘left behind’” in a global move toward open research. I found this session ideal for any stakeholder – library, funder, or publisher – interested in ensuring sustainable infrastructure for eBook, especially scholarly monographs. After more than 30 years in scholarly communication, this was my first Charleston and I will definitely be back! Research Integrity + AI and Copyright – Heather Staines Working closely with Dr. Elisabeth Bik and Dr. Ivan Oransky to explore research integrity issues was timely and enlightening. While there are many new tools to detect misconduct, both agreed that focusing on the human factor will be key—seeking change in research assessment and the kinds of publications that count. Their Neapolitan, “Challenges and Opportunities Around Research Integrity: A Conversation” session provided an informative overview of some of the most biggest challenges to research integrity (image manipulation, paper mills) and how Retraction Watch, COPE Guidelines, and other tools can be used by all stakeholders to raise awareness and help ensure the integrity of the scientific record. The other session which kept my interest was the “Long Arm of the Law” moderated by Ann Okerson. Copyright Clearance Center’s Roy Kaufman helped scope out the legal issues related to AI companies using copyrighted content to train their LLMs and shed some light on cases related to copyright and LLM training currently winding their way through the courts. ITHAKA’s Nancy Kopans followed JSTOR’s perspective as an aggregator working to balance the rights of copyright holders and publishers with the needs of students, faculty, and researchers. Definitely an area to watch! Katina’s Legacy – Meg White Charleston founder and convener Katina Strauch has passed the torch, but her legacy is a reminder that there is always more to discover, learn, and tackle. She never slows down and in many ways, defines what it means to always be evolving, embodying a true growth mindset. Katina and Richard Charkin kicked off the conference with a “Fireside Chat” Keynote moderated by Richard Gallagher, President and Editor-in-Chief of Annual Reviews (and the new owner of the Charleston Hub). As Lori mentioned, these two trailblazers were meeting for the first time, but they reflected on shared pivotal moments in their professional lives, including the intersection of publishing and librarianship, as we have moved from the internet to digitization of content and collections, and now to AI. I had the pleasure of interviewing Katina as part of the Charleston Leadership Interviews and the ATG Podcast, so watch for that conversation coming soon at the Charleston Hub. Her passion certainly informs many of the key values we strive for here at Delta Think as we work with the scholarly communications community to LEARN, PLAN, ACHIEVE. Bravo! Finally, we offer our congratulations to writer, director, producer, and star Heather Staines and her merry band of players. Thank you for an entertaining look at libraries, publishing, education, research, academia, and more in “Schmetadata: The Musical” a light-hearted start to the Conference’s final day. Next Steps What were your “aha moments” at Charleston 2024? What are your organization’s biggest priorities and challenges for 2025 and beyond? At Delta Think, we believe in the power of collaboration and innovation to drive progress. We can help you embrace change and unlock your potential. Reach out today to start the conversation and we look forward to hearing more. More Ideas News & Views: Market Sizing Update 2024: Has OA Hit A Peak? (Oct 2024) –Each year, Delta Think’s Market Sizing analyzes the value of the open access (OA) scholarly journals market. This is the revenue generated by providers or the costs incurred by buyers of content. We estimate the OA segment of the market to have grown to just over $2.2bn in 2023. This is only a marginal growth over the previous year… ( read more ) Content Licensing Do’s and Don’ts in the Age of AI (Oct 2024) – Artificial Intelligence’s (AI) seemingly endless capabilities and applications present great opportunities (and some challenges too) for publishers and societies across the publishing enterprise. One of the main areas of both growth and reason for caution to emerge is the potential to license scholarly content to AI providers—primarily to be used… ( read more ) Exploring AI (Sept 2024) – AI technologies have already sparked profound changes across our industry, enabling machines to perform tasks that previously required an abundance of human intelligence. AI algorithms can analyze vast datasets to uncover patterns, LLMs can generate coherent text, and genAI can simulate human-like creativity. Here we explore some of… ( read more ) Events We’ll be attending the following events. Please contact us at info@deltathink.com if you’d like to set up a time to chat. APE, January 14-15 Researcher to Reader, February 20-21 ER&L, March 3-6 London Book Fair, March 11-13 2025 NAS Journal Summit, March 19-20 Turn Your Ideas Into Action A partnership with Delta Think can provide the expert insights you need to meet your goals and amplify your ability to: Learn about new and evolving insights, perspectives, and possibilities Market Research and Intelligence Customer Insight and Experience Data Analytics and Market Evidence Plan your path forward to success Business and Product Strategy Commercial Optimization Brand, Marketing, and CDP Strategies Achieve your goals Manage Change Implement Projects, Products, and Partnerships Build Results Metrics and Analysis O ur insatiable curiosity, coupled with our expertise in data-driven, evidence-based analysis, and strategy development – TOGETHER – we will discover your best path forward. Want to know more? Schedule a call today or visit deltathink.com
We are proud to share a video recording of our October News & Views companion online discussion forum! Join us for our annual update of the market size and revenue share of Open Access and a lively conversation around the trends and the wider issues that may be informing the overall market in scholarly communications. If you missed the session, or if you attended and would like to watch/listen again, or share forward with friends, please feel free!
Overview Each year, Delta Think’s Market Sizing analyzes the value of the open access (OA) scholarly journals market. This is the revenue generated by providers or the costs incurred by buyers of content. We estimate the OA segment of the market to have grown to just over $2.2bn in 2023. This is only a marginal growth over the previous year. It is a small fraction of the long-term historical growth of the OA segment. A reduction in the output of the large OA-only publishers has had a profound effect on the market. It has benefited established publishers, who are seeing a growth in OA, even while the overall market softens. We expect this pattern to continue in 2024. Have we reached peak open access? Have the underlying drivers of OA changed? And are we now in an era of lower OA growth? Headline findings Our models suggest the following headlines for open access market sizing:
Artificial Intelligence’s (AI) seemingly endless capabilities and applications present great opportunities (and some challenges too) for publishers and societies across the publishing enterprise. One of the main areas of both growth and reason for caution to emerge is the potential to license scholarly content to AI providers—primarily to be used to “train” large language models (LLMs). While this type of licensing opportunity may be compelling, it requires thoughtful integration into the organization’s overall content portfolio management and revenue strategy. Recently announced licensing agreements between scholarly and academic publishers and technology companies highlight AI’s insatiable demand for primary, verified, reliable information. AI developers rely on this high-quality, vetted content to train models, refine algorithms, and enhance natural language processing capabilities. This demand can present a lucrative opportunity for publishers to license content – aka the knowledge needed for training. It also raises important strategic questions about ownership, sustainability, and long-term business models that should not be ignored in the process. Opportunity vs. Risk: Licensing Content Do’s and Don’ts If a partnership with an AI company seems intriguing, it is…as long as you proceed with an understanding of how this opportunity may play out for your organization and where on the classic innovation adoption curve you are comfortable. Here is a handy checklist to help you evaluate the opportunities and risks of licensing content to AI providers. Keep in mind, YMMV, as will your priorities. Do: Integrate Licensing into Overall Content Strategy – View AI licensing as part of a broader content portfolio management plan to align with business objectives and sustain long-term value. Prioritize Content Based on Value – Categorize content by demand and monetization potential to tailor licensing strategies for different segments (e.g., niche vs. broad appeal). Introduce Strategic Pricing Models – Experiment with flexible pricing strategies like volume-based, usage-based, or hybrid models to reflect content value and accommodate AI providers’ diverse needs. Complement and Enhance Existing Revenue Streams – Ensure that AI licensing supports rather than undermines other revenue channels (subscriptions, APCs, institutional licensing, etc.). Consider tiered access or differentiated pricing for recent vs. older content. Collaborate with AI Companies Ethically – Build partnerships that ensure responsible content usage. Establish guidelines for ethical AI content generation, labeling, and attribution. Protect Author Rights – Ensure that licensing agreements comply with existing contracts and protect authors’ rights. Proactively manage relationships with scholars to maintain trust and uphold their interests. Be Prepared for Market Shifts – Experimentation is the order of the day but the market and innovation is moving fast. Adopt flexible frameworks to quickly adjust to technological changes or shifts in demand for licensed content. Maintain Transparency and Communication – Keep authors, research communities, and internal stakeholders informed about how the organization’s content is licensed and used by AI firms. Consider Partnering with Other Content Providers – Strategically partner with publishing peers to offer a broader range of niche content. Collectively negotiate through a ‘power in numbers’ approach. Don’t: Rely Solely on AI-Driven Revenue – Avoid becoming over-reliant on revenue from AI licensing, as market shifts could jeopardize financial stability if demand for licensed content declines. Undermine Content Value – Be cautious of pricing models that risk devaluing content over time, especially as AI-generated content becomes more sophisticated. Ignore Unintended Consequences – Don’t overlook the potential for content devaluation or the blurring of lines between original research and AI-generated outputs. Neglect Author Concerns – Don’t disregard the potential for author questions, dissatisfaction, or misuse of their work. Always respect contractual obligations and maintain productive relationships with the academic community. Overlook Ethical Concerns – Avoid participating in licensing agreements without ensuring ethical guidelines for the use of AI-generated content, including issues like data privacy and security. Ignore the Long-Term Impact on Scholarly Publishing – Don’t assume AI-driven licensing won’t affect traditional publication models. Proactively assess how AI might impact and change peer review, publication demand, and researcher incentives. Final Thoughts Licensing content to AI providers is certainly a potential opportunity for publishers. That opportunity also comes with possible risks and the need for some caution. These Do’s and Don’ts serve as a starting point to help you begin to frame out how partnerships with AI providers may or may not “fit” with your strategy, mission, and organizational goals, while acknowledging the need to consider safeguards to protect the integrity of your content, author relationships, and long-term sustainability. Delta Think can help your organization understand the unique opportunities and challenges of integrating AI licensing into a comprehensive content portfolio management strategy. Ready to start the conversation? Contact us today. As Ideas in Action went to press, Ithaka S&R announced a Generative AI Licensing Agreement Tracker to help capture the details, impact, and strategy of these deals.
