News & Views: The Nelson Memo – Charleston Perspectives

Heather Staines • November 30, 2022

The Nelson Memo – Charleston Perspectives


By Meg White


The annual November pilgrimage to Charleston, SC made its post-COVID return last month. While many topics were discussed, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) provided a last moment addition to the planned agenda, with the August 25th publication of a memorandum (aka the Nelson Memo) and accompanying report “Economic Landscape of Federal Public Access Policy."


There were three sessions during the Conference that focused specifically on the OSTP Memo, all taking slightly different formats and perspectives: The Nelson Memo: A Tipping Point for Open Access Science in the U.S., Ask the Chefs: The OSTP Memo, and the OSTP Public Access Guidance: Headlines, Details, and Impact. In this issue of News and Views, we’ll illuminate some important themes and takeaways from the Charleston discussions.


Theme #1: It’s Bigger, by A LOT


No matter how you define “big”, the Nelson Memo is bigger than its predecessor in scope and content. The headline from the new OSTP-issued policy is the elimination of the existing embargo, which currently allows a 12-month post-publication delay in public access to publications based on federally- funded research. The Nelson Memo also extends to all federal agencies and includes not only scientific data, but also “… peer-reviewed book chapters, editorials, and peer-reviewed conference proceedings published in other scholarly outlets that result from federally funded research.”


The “Tipping Point” panel agreed that while there are some existing standards in place to support public access to journal articles, there is little to no existing infrastructure to support the data requirements of the guidance at scale.


Daniel Sepulveda suggested that compliance by smaller agencies would be accomplished by leveraging processes established and built by larger agencies. Essentially, agencies for whom research is not a core function in terms of mission and priorities would simply ride the coattails of larger agencies that allocate more resources to fund research. This would include processes and support for more traditional research outputs such as journal articles, but would also extend to data and other content included in the expanded scope of the Nelson Memo.


Theme #2: Born in the U.S.A.


Looking at “Open Science” initiatives outside of the U.S. can provide context for this guidance, its attributes, and how it fits into the larger landscape.


Robert Kiley offered his perspective from his vantage point as one of the main supporters and implementers of Plan S in Europe. While advocating for Open Science to speed innovation and discovery, he cautioned against replacing “one inequitable system with another” and expressed his position that the Nelson Memo “provides a prime opportunity for the U.S. to accelerate the transition to full immediate open access, but also to play a leadership convening role in determining how publishing can become transparent, equitable and sustainable.”


Theme #3: One Size Does Not Fit All


Implications for publishers were front and center during the “Headlines, Details, and Impact” panel. The speakers agreed that publisher response to the Nelson Memo would likely vary widely based on multiple factors, including mission, size of portfolio, and subject area(s). Lori Carlin pointed out that market and customer intimacy has never been more critical and understanding the needs of your readers and authors must be top-of-mind when formulating future strategy and processes. Some of this information will be quantitative, saying “Publishers need to understand what their portfolio covers and who is funding their author’s research … what is your OA uptake now? … what is the culture of your community? … this is not one-size fits all.” Michael Clarke echoed Carlin, stating, “It’s [the impact] very much going to be dependent on the journal and the journal portfolio. Different journals have more or less funded research from different funding agencies.”


Theme #4: The Devil is in the Details


The Nelson Memo simply outlines the expectation that the agencies themselves will put plans and processes into place to ensure compliance with the new guidance. These details, large and small, were debated at varying levels by all three panels in Charleston and promise to drive conversations and decision-making well into 2025.


Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, speaking as part of the Scholarly Kitchen’s annual Charleston Q&A “Ask the Chefs” roundtable, noted that, since researching funding in higher education is an agreement between the funding agency and the institution, universities will be required to have mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with grant requirements. Will compliance with agency public access policies be part of future grant agreements between federal agencies and institutions that accept federal research funds? On the funder side of the compliance issue, Rick Anderson and Jerry Sheehan had a spirited exchange during the “Headlines, Details, and Impact” session about the resources required for federal agencies to ensure compliance … at the time of award and throughout the research process.


All OSTP-focused panels and associated audience Q&A zeroed in on numerous small but significant details mandated but not specifically defined by the guidance. The Nelson Memo makes no statement on which version of an article or other data must be made publicly available or where this content must be made available/hosted. It does not discuss who is responsible for compliance or potential repercussions for non-compliance. It makes no comment on what re-use licenses, if any, apply to publicly available research outputs.


Bottom line, the Nelson Memo outlines the “what” and the “when” but intentionally leaves the “how” up to the agencies, and by extension, the larger ecosystem(s) that supports the creation and dissemination of scholarly research.


Funding: The Elephant in the Room


Funding for the systems needed to support the requirements outlined in the Nelson Memo was top-of-mind in all three sessions. There was generally agreement on the increase in scope, but less on how to fund the infrastructure needed to support the expanded mandates of the new guidance.


As context, Delta Think’s 2022 OA Market Sizing Update documented that the global OA publishing landscape is estimated to be $1.6B, and Delta Think projects a 2021-2024 CAGR of 13% in OA output and 12% in OA market value, but these figures refer only to journal articles, just one research output included in the new guidance.


During the “Tipping Point” session Sepulveda used his extensive experience as a policy advisor to several senators to give an overview of how the U.S. appropriation process works, with various agencies petitioning the Congress for funding to support their activities and initiatives. Through appropriation, the agencies can request additional funds to support implementation of the OSTP guidance. Sheehan echoed this theme, commenting that “wouldn’t it be great if the NIH is able to get an increase in its budget for research.” So, one scenario is that additional federal dollars, provided by US taxpayers, are the source of funding needed to ensure public access. Rick Anderson suggested a related potential solution, suggesting that publication becomes part of the research process and therefore funding publication fees does not take money away from research. Other scenarios discussed in Charleston were institutions contributing resources, either via the library or on behalf of researchers, akin to existing “transformative” or “read and publish” agreements. It was also suggested that publishers absorb some or all of these additional costs as part of the traditional publication process, leveraging scale across their s larger portfolios.


There were multiple conversations concerning whether there is enough money in the system currently and simply re-aligning how these funds are allocated could enable processes and systems to support compliance. However, given the scope of the Nelson Memo, it is dubious at best to envision that its mandates can be fully met by the existing infrastructure in place, including and perhaps most critically, funding. Danielle Cooper echoed this concern as part of the “Tipping Point” panel, pointing out that the memo “signals the prioritization of open [data] sharing over costs … the idea that it’s OK for something to cost more and that not a lot of thought has been put into that yet.”


Stay Tuned


The level of effort associated with the creation and implementation of processes and infrastructure needed to support Nelson Memo mandates can be described as daunting. Carlin summed up what is perhaps the most critical component needed to ensure that scholarly publishing continues the march toward an open, seamless, connected, and sustainable future: collaboration, “This [discussion] points to the need for collaboration,” she said. “There are many stakeholders involved in this process and we all need to be working together to find the best solutions and options … it is not one solution or option across the board. But it is something that publishers, libraries, researchers, and funders need to come together and be talking about to see how we all move forward.”


Want to develop your Open Access strategy or talk more about the OSTP Memo and its impact on your organization? Get in touch!


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.

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.

Smart AI, Smarter Scholarship

By Lori Carlin & Meg White • September 25, 2025
Introduction: One question, two paths  A recent essay in The Conversation posed the question, “Is ChatGPT making us stupid?” The author examined emerging research suggesting that over-reliance on AI tools for writing can dull critical thinking, originality, and even memory retention. But as the author points out, AI has the potential to augment human intelligence when used well , acting as a catalyst for deeper thinking rather than a shortcut around it. We agree and seek to guide our clients in determining how to use AI to strengthen research and scholarship. From concern to opportunity When AI is approached as a collaborator, it sparks creativity, deepens inquiry, accelerates problem-solving, and amplifies creativity. It can strengthen teams, enhance services, and improve efficiencies across the publishing enterprise. Turning Ideas into Action Here’s how Delta Think can help you transform smart AI potential into purposeful, strategic action: Strategy and Market Research Focus: Identify where AI can deliver the most value for your organization, grounded in community needs and behaviors. Delta Think Approach: Gather and analyze evidence through quantitative and qualitative methods to uncover how your community – your researchers, authors, reviewers, and readers – are using AI now or, better yet, where and how they could be using it in the future. Marrying their unmet needs with your strategic goals creates your roadmap to future success. 2. Build vs. Buy Decisions for AI-Powered Products Focus: Develop proprietary AI solutions, partner with trusted vendors, or combine the best of both approaches to suit your needs. Delta Think Approach: Assess your current state and future needs, design decision frameworks that weigh cost, capability, risk, speed-to-market, and long-term scalability, and build the approach that will work best to support your business goals and community needs. 3. AI Policy and Governance Focus: Ensure responsible, transparent, and ethical AI use that safeguards scholarly integrity. Delta Think Approach: Facilitate the development of your AI governance with the creation of important guardrails and policies, working to mitigate bias and hallucination risks, safeguarding research integrity while enabling innovation. 4. UX/UI Testing for AI Products and Features Focus: Design AI experiences that enhance human engagement. Delta Think Approach: Test results, interfaces, prompts, and transparency signals to keep users informed, empowered, and confident in your products and tools. 5. Licensing and Partnership Strategy Focus: Leverage commercial arrangements to unlock AI potential while aligning with your mission and values. Delta Think Approach: Guide you through licensing agreements, proprietary data partnerships, and collaborations that create sustainable competitive advantage and strategic revenue streams. Turning Ideas into Impact By reframing the conversation from Can AI substitute scholarship? to How does AI amplify scholarship? , publishers can lead the next wave of innovation. Delta Think’s collaborative approach ensures that your organization’s adoption of AI enhances creativity, critical thinking, and trust. We can help you map out your bespoke AI-strategy roadmap, develop new products and services, test prototypes, and design governance guidelines. Reach out today or schedule some time at the Frankfurt Book Fair (10/14-16) to discuss how Delta Think’s expertise and proven methodologies can help your organization unlock key insights and drive innovation.

News & Views: How much will cuts to NSF funding affect the future of scholarly publishing?

By Dan Pollock and Heather Staines • September 9, 2025
How might planned cuts to funding of the US National Science Foundation affect scholarly output? In our last News & Views we analyzed how the headline cuts might apply to relevant activities. This month we examine how journals may be impacted and model some scenarios quantifying the impact on global scholarly output. Background The US National Science Foundation is an independent US federal agency that supports science and engineering across the US and its territories. In its 2024 financial year (FY) 1 , it spent around $9.4 billion, funding approximately 25% of all federally supported research conducted by US colleges and universities. In July we looked at how reported funding cuts and NSF budget cuts proposed by the US Government might affect the NSF’s output of research papers. We found that in the near term the effects would be limited, as the cuts focus on NSF activites that produce low volumes of papers. However, cuts proposed over the coming year may have a more profound effect as they are deep and affect research activities. We have also previously analyzed proposed cuts to funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). We noted how cuts to the world’s largest producer of biomedical research could have a profound effect on publication outputs. So how do cuts to the NSF stack up? The effects on journals As ever, the headlines and averages are unevenly distributed, so we looked at how individual journals might be affected. 

News & Views: Will cuts to National Science Foundation funding affect scholarly publishing activity?

By Dan Pollock & Heather Staines • July 29, 2025
The US Government has planned cuts to funding of the US National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2025 and 2026. Before we can undertake a full analysis of how these cuts might affect publishers, we must unpack some data. This month we put the cuts in context, looking at how the cuts impact research and the scale of NSF output. And we find they may not affect research in the ways the headlines suggest. We will follow up with a future analysis modelling specific scenarios of impacts on publisher submissions. Background The US National Science Foundation is an independent US federal agency that supports science and engineering across the US and its territories. In its 2024 financial year (FY) 1 , it spent around $9.4 billion, funding approximately 25% of all federally supported research conducted by US colleges and universities. In May 2025, the New York Times (NYT) published an article analyzing proposed cuts to NSF funding by the current US Government. The NYT’s analysis suggested a 51% cut in funding from 1 January through 21 May 2025, with a further 56% reduction proposed for next year 2 . We have previously analyzed effects of proposed cuts to funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The proposed cuts to the NSF are deeper, so might they have an even greater negative effect on publication volumes? Understanding what the cuts apply to The 51% cut in 2025 covers 140 days, equivalent to a 20% annualized cut. So could we see the same level of reduction in papers this year? And could this be followed be a 56% drop next year, as the 2026 cuts cover a full year? As with our analysis of the NIH, we need to understand how the changes in funding translate into research activities, and thence into corresponding volumes and timing of publication output. We therefore analyzed the NSF’s own budgetary figures to put the cuts into context. 

Delta Think’s Survey Results: What 13,000 Researchers Revealed About the Fallout from US Funding Cuts

By Lori Carlin and Meg White • July 24, 2025
This spring, Delta Think collaborated with 27 professional societies and associations to launch a Global Author/Researcher Survey to understand the ripple effect of US government research funding cuts. Our goal was to explore how researchers are navigating a rapidly evolving landscape, especially as US federal funding and policy decisions cast long shadows over the global research community.  More than 13,000 researchers across every major discipline and 135 countries shared their voices through our survey. While the detailed findings are deep and wide-ranging, one thing is clear: the ground is shifting. Uncertainty Is Driving Change in Research Behavior Delta Think deeply analyzed the data by six major disciplines: Health Sciences, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering & Technology, Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities. Nuances vary by each main field, but some factors were universal. US-based researchers are signaling deep concern – and they’re bracing for change. Many anticipate reductions across publishing output, participation in peer review, and conference attendance. For example, 62% of US authors across all disciplines expect to publish fewer articles in the next 1–2 years, citing policy and funding challenges . “My research progress is now in ‘conservative mode’ in case funding is pulled from us with no notice. We cannot plan further out and have lost our trust in the federal government.” Primary Investigator (PI) at a US Academic Medical Center But the concerning news isn’t limited to the US. International researchers indicated their intention to pull away from US-based journals, threatening to reshape the global flow of research. In fact, a full 50% of international authors across all disciplines indicated that it is now important to them to submit their manuscripts to non-US journals. “We're doing everything we can to reduce our connections to the US, including looking for journals to publish in that are not based in the US.” Mid-Career PI, Biological Sciences, Canada Top Concerns: What Keeps Researchers Up at Night? One of the clearest patterns that emerged is the contrast in what researchers view as their most urgent challenges: For US researchers , the top concern is straightforward: elimination of research funding . This fear extends beyond specific grants—it reflects a deep anxiety about career stability, institutional viability, and the future of scientific advancement. For international researchers , the primary worry is academic freedom and collaboration , with many expressing concerns about losing access to US research infrastructure, data, and professional networks if international cooperation is reduced. While these represent the top concerns, the survey results reveal many others by discipline, career stage, and other factors, including specific community details for each of the 27 participating societies and organizations upon which to develop their future strategies. Looking Ahead: Tracking Trends with Fall 2025 Survey This spring’s survey was just the beginning. Delta Think will conduct a follow-up survey in October/November 2025 to track how attitudes and behaviors continue to shift. This next phase will allow us and the participating organizations to move from snapshot to trend — providing deeper insight into the lasting impact of funding and policy uncertainty. Joining in for Survey 2 is NOT limited to Survey 1 participating organizations. All are welcome to participate in this next round and have access to the deep data behind these high-level insights and much more. Turning Ideas into Action The Delta Think team designed this initiative not just to gather data, but also to support our partners across the scholarly ecosystem. By combining rigorous research design with deep industry context, we’re helping publishers, societies, and institutions make informed, strategic decisions in uncertain times. If you're interested in learning more about the findings, discussing how they apply to your organization, or joining the Fall 2025 survey, we’d love to connect. Please email Lori Carlin to start the conversation.