Determinants of Downloads as Demand for Hybrid Journals

Rationale for bundling services

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.18689

Keywords:

download, journal demand, Pareto principle, Big Deal, transformative agreement

Abstract

Although Big Deal contracts that provide access rights to all electronic journals published by the publisher initially gained favor with university libraries, some libraries have terminated these contracts owing to increased charges since the 2010s. Consequently, they are faced with the problem of selecting journals for purchase within their limited budgets. This study investigates the factors affecting the number of downloads, representing journal demand, to provide libraries with guidance on journal selection. The download equation for 1485 hybrid journals published by Springer Nature is formulated using ordinary least squares. The results found that 5% and 50% of the 1485 journals generated approximately 30% and 85% of the downloads in 2022, respectively. Downloads are concentrated in fewer journals, although the Pareto principle does not apply to hybrid journals. Demand concentration implies that libraries do not need to maintain access rights to all journals. Recently, a few leading publishers have provided access rights to almost all electronic journals based on transformative agreements aiming to promote open access. Therefore, this study’s findings raise the issue of the rationale for bundling electronic journals in transformative agreements, which is similar to Big Deal. Moreover, the results of the download estimation reveal that hybrid journals with more open access articles, larger citation scores, and longer histories acquire more downloads. These findings indicate that open access accelerates the dissemination of research.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Asai, S. (2022). Access patterns of electronic articles: The case study of Scientometrics. Publishing Research Quarterly, 38(2), 295–307. https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09887-0

Bergstrom, T. C. (2001). Free labour for costly journals? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.4.183

Chamberlain, S. (2022). Lessons learned from reevaluating Big Deals with Unsub. Serials Review, 48(3–4), 234–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2022.2132090

Chressanthis, G. A., & Chressanthis, J. D. (1994). The determinants of library subscription prices of the top-ranked economics journals: An econometric analysis. The Journal of Economic Education, 25(4), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.1994.10844848

Congleton, R. D., Marsella, A., & Cardazzi, A. J. (2022). Readership and citations as alternative measures of impact. Constitutional Political Economy, 33(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-021-09333-x

Coomes, O. T., Moore, T. R., & Breau, S. (2017). The price of journals in geography. The Professional Geographer, 69(2), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2016.1229624

Davis, P. M. (2011). Open access, readership, citations: A randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. The FASEB Journal: Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 25(7), 2129–2134. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.11-183988

Davis, P. M. (2013). Public accessibility of biomedical articles from PubMed Central reduces journal readership – Retrospective cohort analysis. The FASEB Journal, 27(7), 2536–2541. http://doi.org/10.1096/fj.13-229922

Ding, Y., Dong, X., Bu, Y., Zhang, B., Lin, K., & Hu, B. (2021). Revisiting the relationship between downloads and citations: A perspective from papers with different citation patterns in the case of the Lancet. Scientometrics, 126(9), 7609–7621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04099-3

Edlin, A. S., & Rubinfeild, D. L. (2004). Exclusion or efficient pricing? The ‘Big Deal’ bundling of academic journals. Antitrust Law Journal, 72(1), 119–158.

Emrani, E., Moradi-Salari, A., & Jamali, H. R. (2010). Usage data, e-journal selection, and negotiations: An Iranian consortium experience. Serials Review, 36(2), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2010.10765289

Fernández-Ramos, A., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., & Diez-Diez, Á. (2023). Use of scientific journals in Spanish universities: Analysis of the relationship between citations and downloads in two university library consortia. Scientometrics, 128(4), 2489–2505, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04670-0

Loan, F. A., & Mushtaq, R. (2023). Pareto 80/20 rule: A new principle for serial subscription. Serials Review, 49(1-2), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2023.2179783

Moed, H. F. (2005). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1088–1097. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20200

Olsson, L., Lindelöw, C. H., Österlund, L., & Jakobsson, F. (2020). Swedish researchers’ responses to the cancellation of the big deal with Elsevier. Insights the UKSG Journal, 33, Article 25. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.521

Pedersen, W. A., Arcand, J., & Forbis, M. (2014). The Big Deal, interlibrary loan, and building the user-centered journal collection: A case study. Serials Review, 40(4), 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2014.975650

Petersen, H. C. (1992). The economics of economics journals: A statistical analysis of pricing practices by publishers (Research Note). College and Research Libraries, 53(2), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_53_02_176

Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Fernández-Ramos, A., De-la-Mano, M., & Vianello-Osti, M. (2021) The evolution and revision of big deals: A review from the perspective of libraries. El Profesional de la Información, 30(4), 1699–2407. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2021.jul.15

Schloegl, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2010). Comparison of citation and usage indicators: The case of oncology journals. Scientometrics, 82(3), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0172-1

Schlögl, C., Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Jack, K., & Kraker, P. (2014). Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1113–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1365-9

Vaughan, L., Tang, J., & Yang, R. (2017). Investigating disciplinary differences in the relationships between citations and downloads. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1533–1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2308-z

Wang, X., Liu, C., Mao, W., & Fang, Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(2), 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0

Watson, A. B. (2007). Measuring demand for online articles at the Journal of Vision. Journal of Vision, 7(7), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.7.i

Zhu, Q., & Xiang, H. (2016). Differences of Pareto principle performance in e-resource download distribution: An empirical study. The Electronic Library, 34(5), 846–855. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-05-2015-0068

Downloads

Published

2024-08-18

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Asai, S. (2024). Determinants of Downloads as Demand for Hybrid Journals: Rationale for bundling services. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 34(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.18689

Funding data