Open Access, Hybrid Journals, and Transformative Agreements

Najko Jahn’s (2025) article, titled “How open are hybrid journals included in transformative agreements?“, offers a comprehensive, data‐driven examination of the impact of transformative agreements on hybrid open access (OA) publishing. By merging multiple open data sources (e.g., the cOAlition S Journal Checker, Crossref, and OpenAlex), Jahn provides an empirical overview of how such agreements have influenced OA uptake in nearly 9 million articles published in over 12,000 hybrid journals between 2018 and 2022.
Overview and Methodology
Jahn’s study is situated within the ongoing debate over how best to transition subscription‐based journal publishing to full OA. Transformative agreements—contracts that bundle subscription payments with OA publishing fees—are intended to drive this transition by incentivizing publishers to convert more articles to open access while preventing “double dipping” (i.e., receiving revenue both from subscriptions and from article processing charges). Using a novel methodology that combines metadata from several publicly available sources, Jahn distinguishes between OA articles made available via transformative agreements and those published by other means. The analysis reveals a steady increase in OA uptake in hybrid journals (from 4.3% in 2018 to 15% in 2022), with a substantial contribution from authors at institutions with active transformative agreements.
Economic Implications
From an economic perspective, Jahn’s findings shed light on the shifting financial landscape of scholarly publishing. The study demonstrates that while transformative agreements have boosted the OA share in hybrid journals, their benefits are largely captured by a small number of large commercial publishers—namely Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley. These publishers not only dominate the market but also exhibit different trajectories in OA uptake, which in turn affects overall pricing and market concentration (Butler et al., 2023; Jahn & Tullney, 2016). Moreover, the study raises concerns about the administrative and fiscal burdens associated with transforming subscription expenditures into OA payments. Such cost pressures may further entrench disparities between well‐funded institutions in high‐income countries and those with limited resources, potentially reinforcing existing economic inequities in access to scholarly communication.
Political Dimensions
Politically, the article is closely connected to global OA policy initiatives—most notably Plan S and the activities of cOAlition S—which have mandated that funding for hybrid OA should be channeled exclusively through transformative agreements (Schiltz, 2018). Jahn’s analysis indicates that while these policies have spurred growth in OA, they have not yet triggered a wholesale transformation of the publishing ecosystem. Instead, the persistence of market concentration among major publishers suggests that transformative agreements might serve more as a temporary solution than a definitive strategy for the transition to full OA. Additionally, the uneven adoption of transformative agreements across countries—highlighted by significant differences between OECD nations and BRICS countries—points to underlying political and funding disparities that shape the global landscape of scholarly publishing (Brainard, 2023).
Social and Cultural Implications
Socially and culturally, Jahn’s work has far‐reaching implications for the democratization of knowledge. On one hand, increased OA uptake—as facilitated by transformative agreements—promises to broaden public access to research outputs, thereby contributing to the global dissemination of scientific knowledge and supporting the principles of open science. On the other hand, the study reveals a geographic imbalance: institutions in high‐income, OECD countries benefit disproportionately from transformative agreements, whereas authors in many BRICS and other non‐OECD regions remain largely excluded from these benefits. This disparity not only impacts researchers’ ability to publish OA but also reinforces longstanding inequities in global knowledge production and access (Piwowar et al., 2018). Culturally, the shift toward transparency in OA practices—as exemplified by Jahn’s open data and reproducible methodology—reflects a broader movement within academia toward open science, collaboration, and a re‐evaluation of traditional publishing paradigms (Babini et al., 2022).
Integration with Scholarly Literature
Jahn’s study builds on a rich body of literature concerning hybrid OA models and transformative agreements. Earlier investigations by Björk (2012, 2017) documented the modest uptake of OA in hybrid journals prior to the advent of central funding mechanisms, while subsequent studies (e.g., Jahn & Tullney, 2016; Butler et al., 2023) have highlighted the role of large commercial publishers and the economic challenges associated with the OA transition. Moreover, the political and policy context provided by initiatives such as Plan S has been a critical factor in shaping these developments (Schiltz, 2018). By leveraging extensive bibliometric data, Jahn not only confirms many of these earlier findings but also extends them by quantifying the heterogeneous impact of transformative agreements across disciplines, publishers, and countries.
Conclusion
In sum, Jahn’s (2025) article offers a nuanced and methodologically robust contribution to our understanding of the current state and future prospects of hybrid OA publishing. While transformative agreements have catalyzed measurable growth in OA uptake, the study underscores that—due to persistent market concentration, economic disparities, and varying political and cultural contexts—the transition to full OA remains incomplete. These findings are significant not only for policymakers and institutional stakeholders but also for scholars concerned with the equitable dissemination of knowledge in a rapidly evolving publishing landscape.
References
Babini, D., Chan, L., Hagemann, M., Joseph, H., Kuchma, I., & Suber, P. (2022). The Budapest Open Access Initiative-20th Anniversary recommendations (BOAI20). Retrieved from https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/
Björk, B.-C. (2012). The hybrid model for open access publication of scholarly articles: A failed experiment? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1496–1504. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22709
Björk, B.-C. (2017). Growth of hybrid open access, 2009–2016. PeerJ, 5, e3878. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3878
Butler, L. A., Matthias, L., Simard, M. A., Mongeon, P., & Haustein, S. (2023). The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4), 778-799.
Jahn, N. (2025). How open are hybrid journals included in transformative agreements? Quantitative Science Studies. Advance Publication. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00348
Jahn, N., & Tullney, M. (2016). A study of institutional spending on open access publication fees in Germany. PeerJ, 4, e2323.
Piwowar, H., et al. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375
Schiltz, M. (2018). Science without publication paywalls: cOAlition S for the realisation of full and immediate open access. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, 656.
[Edited by Pablo Markin. The initial draft has been generated using ChatGPT, OpenAI (February 6, 2025).]
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pablo Markin (February 6, 2025). Open Access, Hybrid Journals, and Transformative Agreements. Open Access Blog. Retrieved March 24, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/139jo