1. INTRODUCTION

Open access policies have yielded multiple approaches to transforming academic publishing through alternatives to the traditional subscription model. However, there is growing criticism that these alternative models make it more difficult to keep track of financial flows to publishers and undermine cost transparency at research performing organizations (RPOs). Against this backdrop, the primary aim of this article is to present the methodology and results of a first-of-its-kind survey of RPOs in Germany on how they collect and use data on their publication-related expenditures. By way of contextualization, we preface this presentation with an overview of international and country-level initiatives and efforts to promote the open access transformation and the monitoring of publication output and costs.

1.1 Transformation of Academic Publishing to Open Access

In 2009, the European Heads of Research Councils (EUROHORCs) and the European Science Foundation (ESF) proposed the implementation of a common policy on open access to research results and declared: “The aim is a system of scientific publications in which free access to all (published) scientific information is guaranteed. This involves a move toward Full Open Access” (EUROHORCs & ESF, 2009, p. 17). The goal of the transition to open access was supported by the Council of the European Union in 2016. In what has been described as a “dramatic statement” (Enserink, 2016), the Council called on Member States, the Commission, and stakeholders “to remove financial and legal barriers” to “a full scale transition towards open access” (Council of the European Union, 2016, p. 7). Although lacking a specific timeline, this goal is also supported by many RPOs and research funding organizations (RFOs) worldwide through the OA2020 initiative, which was launched by the Max Planck Society in 2016. The 158 signatories of the OA2020’s “Expression of Interest in the Large-Scale Implementation of Open Access to Scholarly Journals” (as of November 2025) endorse the aim “to transform a majority of today’s scholarly journals from subscription to [open access] publishing” (OA2020, n.d.). This transformative approach is also supported by the RFOs that have endorsed Plan S (Coalition S, n.d.) and that require their beneficiaries to publish their funded research publications open access.

Transforming the academic publishing system to open access “means replacing the present reader-paid publication system with an author- or institution-paid one” (EUROHORCs & ESF, 2009, p. 17). Therefore, a core element of the open access transformation is changing the business models of academic journals (Suber, 2012). From the authors’ perspective, there are two primary business models for open access journals: One involves the payment of article processing charges (APCs) covered by institutions or funders; the other, known as diamond open access, does not. The APC model has gained traction since the early 2000s. The journal PLOS Biology, for example, adopted this model at the time of its launch in 2003 (New Science Mag Spikes Tradition, 2003). The acquisition of BioMed Central by Springer Science+Business Media (now Springer Nature) in 2008 (Cockerill, 2008) made it clear that APC-funded open access had established itself as a profitable business model, particularly in the science, technology, and medicine (STM) disciplines. However, a glance at the open access journal landscape as depicted by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) shows that the APC-based model is not the dominant business model overall: As of July 2025, only 36.5% of the journals listed in the DOAJ charged publication fees.⁴ Yet, most open access journal articles are published in journals that charge APCs (Crawford, 2019), and commercial publishers—particularly in Asia, the United States, Canada, and Western Europe—rely predominantly on this model (Bosman et al., 2021).

Publishing in journals that charge APCs requires institutional support. In 2009, the initial signatories of the Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE) committed to establishing “durable mechanisms for underwriting reasonable publication charges” for articles published by their faculty members in open access journals (COPE, 2009), thereby recognizing the APC-based model as equivalent to subscription-based models (Shieber, 2009). To streamline APC management and ensure centralized funding support for researchers—especially when RFOs do not reimburse APCs—RPOs have created dedicated open access publication funds (Solomon & Björk, 2012; Tananbaum, 2014). These funds are often linked to institutional open access policies and require that certain eligibility criteria be met (Pampel & Tullney, 2017). For example, some funds exclude publications in hybrid journals (i.e., subscription-based journals that offer authors the option of publishing open access for a fee) to avoid supporting “double dipping”, “where publishers collect money twice: once when subscriptions are paid by the universities and research organizations and once when authors are additionally charged open access fees” (Mittermaier, 2015).

These new funding models have led to the development of new types of agreements between publishers and RPOs. Initially referred to as offsetting models, most notably implemented through agreements with Springer Nature in the Netherlands (2015), the United Kingdom (2015), Austria (2016), and Sweden (2016) (Freedman, 2016), they later evolved under the label “Publish and Read” (PAR) agreements. These agreements aim to integrate the costs of subscriptions and open access publishing across a publisher’s portfolio. They are sometimes also referred to as “transformative agreements,” thus ascribing them a central role in facilitating the transformation of subscription-based journals to an open access business model (“journal flipping”). However, this objective has not yet been realized in practice (Mittermaier, 2025).

1.1 Monitoring Publication Output

Open access policies such as those mentioned above have led to the development of procedures and tools for monitoring open access publication output to track compliance. At an international level, the launch in 2017 of the Open Science Monitor, which was developed by RAND Europe and colleagues on behalf of the European Commission, marked a first major step in open access monitoring (RAND, n.d.). The Open Science Monitor was updated and expanded in 2018 by a consortium led by the Lisbon Council, with Elsevier as a subcontractor, which triggered public and methodological criticism (French Open Science Committee, n.d.; Moody 2018a, 2018b). The OpenAIRE Monitor, an on-demand service based on the OpenAIRE Research Graph, which was launched in 2020 and expanded in 2022 to include institutional dashboards (Pispiringas et al., 2022), marked a further major step in open access monitoring. As of June 2025, further development of open access monitoring was planned within the framework of the project EOSC Future (O’Neill, 2022). Since 2017, several European countries have launched national open access monitoring initiatives. Discussions on the need to monitor the development of open access began initially in Finland (Olsbo, 2017). Germany was likely the first to implement a fully operational national dashboard, the German Open Access Monitor (OAM), which was developed between 2018 and 2020 (Mittermaier; 2021; see also Barbers et al., 2021). France followed with the Baromètre français de la Science Ouverte in 2019 (Bracco, 2022); Switzerland launched its national dashboard in 2022 (Lib4RI, 2022); and Austria developed national coordination structures (Danowski et al. 2018), culminating in the 2024 beta release of the Austrian Datahub. Institutional open access monitoring differs between RPOs and RFOs. RPOs such as Forschungszentrum Jülich (n.d.), the University of Zurich (Roethlisberger, 2024), and Freie Universität Berlin (Duine et al., 2024) have implemented dashboards to visualize open access publication spending—the Open Access Barometer, the Open Access Monitor, and the Open Science Dashboard for Earth Sciences, respectively. RFOs rely on tools such as CHORUS (Dylla 2014; Poynder, 2013), the Europe PMC Funders’ Dashboard (Europe PMC, 2020), and the OpenAIRE dashboards (Brunschweiger, 2023), many of which are not operated by the funders themselves.

1.2 Monitoring Publication Costs

The open access transformation has always been accompanied by discussions on the financial dimension of publishing. In 2015, Schimmer et al. (2015) published a white paper with an estimate of the total costs associated with academic publishing, arguing that a full transition to open access was financially feasible. In recent years, the “big five” commercial publishers (Elsevier, Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley) have adopted the APC model (Butler et al., 2023). This has been accompanied by criticism, as APCs are increasing, and it is debatable whether they reflect the true costs of publishing research articles (Butler et al., 2024; Kemp & Skinner, 2024).

New funding models for academic publishing mean that RPOs are now confronted not only with subscription fees but also with transformative agreements, APCs, and additional publication-related expenditures. The administration of financial flows from RPOs to publishers is also changing, as library budgets are no longer the only funding sources. A survey of RPOs in Germany conducted in 2018 found that library funds, research grants, and departmental budgets were used to cover publication costs (Pampel, 2021). A survey of Springer Nature authors on the sources of their APC funding revealed a similar picture (Monaghan et al., 2020). However, prices are reported inconsistently, and information on costs is rarely made public (Kemp & Skinner, 2024). This fragmentation and obfuscation makes it increasingly difficult to obtain a comprehensive overview of all publication-related expenditures of RPOs.

Studies on the financial implications of the open access transformation at the level of RPOs have been conducted in the United Kingdom (Research Consulting, 2014; Swan, 2010; Swan & Houghton, 2012), the United States (Harlan & Rigby 2024; Smith et al., 2016), Germany (Barbers et al. 2018; Jahn & Tullney, 2016; Taubert, 2019), Sweden (Lovén, 2019), and Switzerland (Cambridge Economic Policy Associates Ltd, 2017). In addition, the topic was addressed in a study covering the EU Member States, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland, which was commissioned by the European Commission in 2024 (European Commission Directorate General for Research and Innovation, 2024). Other studies have analyzed the costs associated with RFOs’ support for open access publishing, for example, in Spain (Alonso-Álvarez et al., 2024) and Germany (Barbers et al. 2023, 2025).

Establishing a structured approach to managing publication fees such as APCs is key to supporting researchers in publishing open access while ensuring efficient cost management. The Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC) initiative is working on standardizing processes for handling APCs between RPOs and publishers (ESAC Initiative, 2017; Geschuhn & Stone, 2017). At the core of these efforts is the development of open access article workflows that enable the effective and efficient management of cost-related data. The challenges associated with establishing procedures for monitoring and processing open access publication costs have been the subject of several studies and practical case examples in Austria (Pinhasi et al., 2018), Germany (Beckmann, 2022; Eppelin et al., 2012; Frick, 2017; Schön et al., 2024; Sikora & Geschuhn, 2015), and Scotland (Nixon et al., 2013).

The disclosure of the costs of academic communication has been discussed as a measure to increase cost transparency for some years now (Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 2016; Science Europe, 2017). A recommendation issued by the European Commission in 2018 went beyond open access, stating that, “to enhance market transparency and fair competition” EU Member States should ensure that “information is published about agreements between public institutions or groups of public institutions and publishers on the supply of scientific information” (European Commission, 2018, p. L134/14).

Several initiatives are working to address the current lack of cost transparency. Notable examples include the OpenAPC initiative, which aggregates data on fees paid for open access journal articles by RPOs and RFOs (Pieper & Broschinski, 2018), as well as efforts to systematically collect and analyze information on APC pricing from the websites of major publishers (Butler et al., 2023; Haustein et al., 2024; Kendall, 2024). In addition, freedom of information requests have been used in Finland (Lahti & Lehtomäki, 2018), the United Kingdom (Lawson & Meghreblian, 2015), New Zealand (Wilson, 2014), and Switzerland (Gutknecht, 2018) to obtain information about RPOs’ journal subscription expenditures. Although these initiatives use different approaches to achieving cost transparency, they all involve significant manual effort.

As described above, RPOs are impacted by increasingly fragmented financial flows to publishers. If RPOs had a systematic overview of all income streams and expenditures relating to scientific information, they could more effectively evaluate the allocation of funds, compare their financial structures to those of other RPOs, and make informed decisions about future actions. In Germany, the idea of consolidating distributed data on all information-related income streams and expenditures within an RPO has been discussed for several years now under the label “information budget” (Mittermaier, 2022; Pampel, 2022; Taubert & Pieper, 2022; Woitschach, 2025). These discussions distinguish between “virtual” and “real” information budgets: A virtual information budget provides an overview of all available and allocated resources for the purpose of controlling, whereas a real information budget refers to the central management of these resources (Pampel & Mittermaier, 2024). The German Science and Humanities Council (WR; 2022, p. 70) recommended that research institutions in Germany establish an information budget by 2025. The information budget is a concept that has been discussed mainly in Germany.

However, as RPOs in other countries experience a similar fragmentation of publication-related funding streams (Kemp & Skinner, 2024), it could also prove useful elsewhere.

1.3 The Situation in Germany

Open access is firmly established in Germany. In 2024, 69.5% of the publication output of researchers at German RPO’s was freely accessible.⁵ Open access is also an explicit science policy goal, expressed, for example, in the joint guidelines on open access adopted by the Federal Government and the Länder in 2023 (Federal Ministry for Education and Research & Kultusministerkonferenz, 2023). As described above, in reaction to the increasing fragmentation of financial flows to publishers, some RPOs are trying to achieve a systematic overview of all income streams and expenditures relating to scientific information. To gain an insight into the status quo of these efforts in Germany, we conducted a survey among RPOs on how they collect data on publication costs, on the workflows and tools at their institutions, and the challenges they face. The survey is the first comprehensive study of the recording of publication costs at RPOs in Germany. Results of the survey have previously been published in German (Strecker et al. 2025b). As they may also be internationally relevant, we are now presenting them to a wider audience.

2. METHOD

The survey was conducted in 2024 as part of OA Datenpraxis, a project funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), which explores various aspects of data use in the context of the open access transformation (Pampel et al., 2024). One goal of this project was to survey the status quo of recording publication costs at RPOs in Germany. The survey was conceptualized in cooperation with the DEAL Consortium (formerly Projekt DEAL) initiated by the Alliance of German Science Organizations.⁶ Representatives of the DEAL Consortium were involved in the development of the questionnaire and promoted the survey among institutions participating in the DEAL transformative agreements and through other channels.

2.1 Survey Design

The survey was guided by the question: How are data on publication costs currently recorded at research performing organizations in Germany? The survey was implemented as a personalized online questionnaire.

2.2 Compilation of the Mailing List

As a first step, a list of RPOs in Germany was compiled between June and September 2024, based on existing directories. RPOs were defined as publicly funded organizations where research conducted by employed staff is a core activity of the organization. For the categories of universities and universities of applied sciences, the Hochschulkompass directory was used;⁷ for federal departmental research institutions, a list from the Association of Federal Research Institutions (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Ressortforschungseinrichtungen) was used;⁸ and for non-university research organizations, lists from the respective umbrella organizations (Fraunhofer Society,⁹ Helmholtz Association,¹⁰ Leibniz Association,¹¹ and Max Planck Society)¹² were used.

The resulting mailing list was reviewed and adjusted where necessary. For example, the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) was not classified as a Helmholtz Center, because it is also listed as a university, which aligns better with its self-designation as a “research university in the Helmholtz Association.” Fourteen entries were removed from the Max Planck Society list: Four were located abroad; one was only an associate member; five had two locations (only the headquarters were selected); and four other institutes had an unclear status. In the case of federal departmental research institutions, one entry was removed, as no contact details were available. Table 1 provides an overview of the institutions on the final mailing list by type.

After compiling the mailing list, contact information was researched. As the primary selection criterion for contact persons was proximity to relevant processes, open access officers, publication department staff, and library directors were prioritized. Individual target persons were preferred over departments or functional addresses (e.g., addresses representing a role). For individuals, first and last names were collected for the purpose of personalizing invitations to increase response likelihood. For all institutions on the mailing list, the ROR ID¹³ of the institution was recorded if available, using the data set “oa.atlas” (Kindling et al., 2024). This allowed responses to be linked to a specific institution, and survey data to be enriched with data from other sources. Figure 1 shows the locations of the institutions on the mailing list by institution type. Coordinates were retrieved from the ROR API.

2.3 Questionnaire Development

An initial draft of the questionnaire was developed after reviewing relevant literature, including workshop and practice reports and publications from related working groups (Mittermaier, 2022; Open Access Network focus group “Informationsbudget,” 2024; Schön et al., 2024). To align the questionnaire with current library practices, a collaboration agreement was concluded with the DEAL Consortium, which contributed to the questionnaire development by sharing challenges that libraries currently face, commenting on and improving the questionnaire draft, and promoting the survey.

Discussions with staff members from the University Library of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin who are responsible for recording publication costs yielded further insights into practical issues relating to data collection. In addition, a pretest was conducted with 11 respondents.

Representatives of each institution type participated in the pretest, as did an expert from an RFO. Based on feedback from the pretest participants, the questionnaire was revised.

The final questionnaire comprised 26 questions: 16 single-choice questions, 4 multiple-choice questions, 2 matrix questions, and 4 open-ended questions. Seventeen questions offered respondents the option to provide additional comments via free-text fields. Ten questions were administered to all respondents, and 16 were administered conditional upon previous responses. The full questionnaire can be found in the Online Appendix. The questionnaire was implemented bilingually (in German and English) using the LimeSurvey instance of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. The data protection statement was coordinated with the university’s data protection officer.

2.4 Field Phase

The survey was active from October 1 to November 12, 2024. During the field phase, two reminders were sent to invitees, on October 29 and November 5, 2024. Additionally, the survey was promoted via the mailing lists of the German Library Association (dbv) Sections 4 (academic universal libraries) and 5 (academic special libraries) and the mailing list of institutions participating in the DEAL agreements.

2.5 Response Rate

By the end of the field phase, 258 complete responses had been received, resulting in a response rate of 44.3%. With a population of 583 and a sample size of 258, the maximum sampling error was 4.56%. Table 1 shows the response rates for each institution type.

Table 1. Overview of invited institutions and response rates

Institution type	Institutions on mailing list	Invited institutions	Response rate1
University of applied sciences	186	186	39.8% (74)
Fraunhofer Society institute	76	76	6.6% (5)
Helmholtz Association center	18	17	58.8% (10)
Leibniz Association institute	96	95	48.4% (46)
Max Planck institute	91	77	40.3% (31)
Federal departmental research institution	45	44	50% (22)
University	88	88	78.4% (69)
N	600	583
Overall response rate			44.3% (258)

Note. ¹ Absolute numbers in parentheses.

2.6 Data Preparation and Analysis of Open Ended Questions

In preparation for the analysis, entries in open-text fields were reviewed and, where necessary, recoded. After examining the open-text fields, 103 comments were reassigned to an existing response option. Additionally, 71 responses to Question 16, which was open ended, were adjusted to yield numerical values where possible.

The survey included two substantive open-ended questions (Questions 4 and 9). As the number of responses and the volume of text were too small for a traditional qualitative content analysis, the response texts were first summarized and then assigned descriptive codes. This approach allowed for a systematic description of the content. Code frequencies are not reported.

3. RESULTS

The survey results in this section are presented by question in the order in which the questions appeared in the questionnaire. Responses to the final questions, Question 25 (“Do you have any additional remarks on collecting publication costs at your institution that you would like to share with us?”) and Question 26 (“Would you like to be informed when the results of this survey are published?”), are not reported here.

3.1 Respondents’ Areas of Work

In response to Question 1, “In which area of your institution do you work?” (n = 258), the vast majority (84.1%, n = 217) of respondents reported that they worked at the library, 6.6% (n = 17) stated that they worked in administration, and 6.2% (n = 16) that they were part of another central unit (e.g., research services or third-party funding office). Two respondents each (0.8%) worked at the finance department or in research and teaching (e.g., at a faculty, a department, etc.); 1.6% of respondents (n = 4) did not answer this question.

3.2 Monitoring Activities

Questions 2–4 addressed monitoring activities at the surveyed institutions. In response to Question 2, “Does your institution pursue a systematic overview of the publication output of its members, e.g. in the form of a bibliography?” (n = 258; see Figure 2A), 51.6% of respondents (n = 133) reported that this had already been achieved; 32.9% (n = 85) reported that a systematic overview was planned but had not yet been achieved; 6.6% (n = 17) stated that their institutions did not systematically record publication output but planned to do so in the future; 5% (n = 13) reported that their institutions neither recorded nor planned to record such data; and 3.9% (n = 10) did not answer this question. Analysis of the results by institution type showed that a systematic overview of publication output had been achieved at 90% of the Helmholtz Centers (n = 9), 81.8% of the federal departmental research institutions (n = 18), and 78.3% of the Leibniz Institutes (n = 36) represented in the survey.

In response to Question 3, “Does your institution pursue a systematic overview of publication costs?” (n = 258; see Figure 2B), 43.8% of respondents (n = 113) reported that an overview was planned but had not yet been achieved; 26.7% (n = 69) indicated that it was already in place; 13.2% (n = 34) stated that it was not planned; and 10.1% (n = 26) that it was planned. The remaining 6.2% (n = 16) did not answer this question. Analysis of the results by institution type revealed that a systematic overview of publication costs had been achieved at a minimum of 50% of institutions of a specific type only at federal departmental research institutions (72.7%, n = 16) and Helmholtz Centers (50%, n = 5).

Question 4, “Why does your institution not pursue a systematic overview of publication costs?” (n = 24), was an open-ended question administered only to respondents who selected the option “No, this is not planned” in Question 3. The most frequently cited reasons included a lack of necessity or resources at the institution. In some cases, processes or support from management were lacking, or the recording of publication costs was handled by a superordinate organization.

3.3 Open Access Publication Funds

Questions 5 to 10 of the questionnaire focused on publication funds. Responses to Question 5, “Can publication costs at your institution be paid fully or partially by a publication fund?” (n = 258), showed that the vast majority (74%, n = 191) of the institutions represented in the survey had a publication fund in place; 14.3% of respondents (n = 37) stated that the implementation of a publication fund was not planned; 7% (n = 18) reported that it was planned; and 4.7% (n = 12) did not answer the question. An analysis of the results by institution type revealed that publication funds had been set up at 92.8% of the universities (n = 64) and 77.4% of the Max Planck Institutes (n = 24) represented in the survey.

Questions 6–8 were administered only if respondents answered “Yes” to Question 5 (“Can publication costs at your institution be paid fully or partially by a publication fund?”). In response to Question 6, “Is partial funding of publication costs (cost splitting) possible at your institution?” (n = 184), 75% of respondents (n = 138) reported that cost splitting was possible; 13.6% (n = 25) reported that it was not planned at their institution; and 3.3% (n = 6) stated that it was planned. The remaining 8.2% (n = 15) did not answer this question.

Question 7 addressed the sources of funding for the publication fund (“Who provides the financial resources for the publication fund?” n = 184; multiple selection possible). By far the most frequently reported providers of financial resources were central service facilities (e.g., the library; 53.3%, n = 98) or the institution (47.8%, n = 88). Third-party funds acquired by central service facilities (26.1%, n = 48) or by the institution (22.8%, n = 42) were reported somewhat less frequently. Budget funds from research and teaching departments (14.7%, n = 27) and superordinate institutions (12%, n = 22)—for example, the Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL) in the case of the Max Planck Society—also contributed in some cases. Additionally, 8.2% of respondents (n = 15) selected the option “third-party funds [acquired by] research and teaching”; 6.5% (n = 12) selected “third-party funds [provided by a] federal state”; and 3.3% (n = 6) selected “third-party funds [raised by a] superordinate institution. The remaining 1.1% (n = 2) did not answer the question. Respondents selected up to six and on average two options, suggesting that publication funds are typically financed from two sources.

In response to Question 8, “In your opinion, to what extent do the resources of the publication fund cover the financial requirements of the members of the institution for publication costs?” (n = 184), 34.2% of respondents (n = 63) stated that the publication fund covered “75–100%” of members’ financial requirements for publication costs (see Figure 3). A similar share of respondents (28.3%, n = 52) selected the option “50–74%”; 14.1% (n = 26) selected “25–49%”; and 9.2% (n = 17) selected “0–24%.” The remaining 14.1% (n = 26) did not answer this question. An analysis of the results by institution type revealed that the publication fund covered 75–100% of institution members’ publication costs requirements at 86.7% of the federal departmental research institutions (n = 13). While not as high, above-average coverage of publication costs requirements was observed at 52.4 % of the surveyed Max Planck Institutes (n = 11), and 50% of the surveyed Helmholtz Centers (n = 3).

Questions 9 and 10 were administered only if respondents answered “No, but this is planned” or “No, this is not planned” to Question 5 (“Can publication costs at your institution be paid fully or partially by a publication fund?”). Responses to Question 9, “What funds are used to pay publication costs at your institution?” (n = 46), which was open ended, revealed that institutions without a publication fund used similar funding sources to those with a fund. These sources largely corresponded to the response options provided in Question 7 (see Appendix).

Among respondents from the 52 surveyed institutions without a publication fund, approximately one third agreed with the statement in Question 10, “My institution considers researchers responsible for organizing the funding of publications.” Specifically, 21.2% of respondents (n = 11) selected “agree”; 13.5% (n = 7) selected “strongly agree;” 28.8% (n = 15) were “undecided”; 19.2% (n = 10) disagreed strongly; and 7.7% (n = 4) disagreed. The remaining 9.6% (n = 5) did not answer this question.

3.4 Agreements With Publishers

Questions 11 and 12 of the questionnaire asked respondents about agreements with publishers. In response to Question 11 (“Does your institution participate in one or more of the DEAL contracts?”; n = 258), 91.9% of respondents (n = 237) answered “Yes.” Of the respondents that answered “No” (5.4%, n = 14), none reported plans to participate in the future; 2.7% (n = 7) did not answer this question.

In response to Question 12, “Has your institution signed contracts with publishers besides the DEAL contracts that affect publication costs?” (n = 258), 76.4% of respondents (n = 197) answered “Yes”; 16.3% (n = 42) answered “No, this is not planned,” and 1.9% (n = 5) answered “No, but it is planned.” The remaining 5.4% (n = 14) did not answer this question.

3.5 Role of Management

Question 13 (n = 242) was as a matrix question asking respondents to what extent they agreed with two statements regarding the attitude of management toward the recording of publication costs (see Figure 4). This question was administered only to respondents who did not identify as part of management (i.e., who did not select “Administration” in Question 1).

Asked to what extent they agreed with the statement in sub-question 13.1, “The leadership of the institution has a keen awareness of the problem of recording publication costs,” 23.1% of respondents (n = 56) selected “agree,” 21.1% (n = 51) “strongly agree,” 19.4% (n = 47) “undecided,” 13.6% (n = 33) “disagree,” and 11.2% (n = 27) “strongly disagree.” The remaining 11.6% (n = 28) did not answer the question.

Asked about the extent of their agreement with the statement in sub-question 13.2, “The leadership of the institution provides comprehensive support for the recording of publication costs at the institution,” 23.6% of respondents (n = 57) selected “agree,” 21.9% (n = 53) “strongly agree,” 17.8% (n = 43) “undecided,” 12.8% (n = 31) “disagree strongly,” and 12.4% (n = 30) “disagree.” The remaining 11.6% (n = 28) did not respond.

3.6 Workflows — Administrative Perspective

Questions 14 to 16 addressed administrative aspects of designing workflows to record publication costs. These questions were administered only if respondents selected “Yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “Yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in response to Question 3 (“Does your institution pursue a systematic overview of publication costs?”).

In response to Question 14, “Are procedures for collecting publication costs clearly defined at your institution?” (n = 178), 42.7% of respondents (n = 76) answered: “Yes, there are binding workflows, procedures or instructions”; 38.8% (n = 69) reported that workflows existed at their institution, but there were no binding specifications; 16.9% (n = 30) indicated that there were no workflows for recording publication costs at their institution; and 1.7% (n = 3) did not answer this question. Binding specifications for recording publication costs were in place at 88.2% of surveyed federal departmental research institutions (n = 15), at 52.5% of universities (n = 31), and 50% of Helmholtz Centers (n = 5). At all other surveyed institution types, binding specifications were in place at less than 50% of the respective institutions.

Responses to Question 15 (“How are publication costs collected at your institution?” n = 178; multiple selection possible; see Figure 5) showed that publication costs were recorded centrally by one department at 56.7% of the surveyed institutions (n = 101) and decentrally across multiple departments and systems at 33.1% (n = 59) of the surveyed institutions. A superordinate institution—for example, the Max Planck Digital Library (MDPL) in the case of the Max Planck Society—recorded publication costs centrally for 9.6% (n = 17) of the surveyed institutions. Additionally, 8.4% of respondents (n = 15) reported that costs were recorded decentrally across multiple departments but within a shared system. The remaining 3.9% (n = 7) did not answer this question. Respondents selected up to three and on average 1.1 options.

Publication costs were recorded centrally at one area within the institution at 87.5% of surveyed federal departmental research institutions (n = 14) and were recorded centrally at a superordinate facility at 77.8% of surveyed Max Planck Institutes (n = 14). At all other surveyed institution types, central recording of publication costs was below 75%.

Question 16, “How many publications by members of your institution do you estimate have incurred publication costs charged to your institution in 2023?” (n = 123), was an open-ended question. Respondents provided estimates ranging from 1 to 3,000 publications, with a median of 35 and an average of 226.4 (see Figure 6). At 407.6, the standard deviation was very high.

3.7 Workflows – Practice

Questions 17 to 21 on the specific design of workflows for recording publication costs. These questions were administered only to those respondents who selected the option “Yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “Yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in response to Question 3 (“Does your institution pursue a systematic overview of publication costs?”).

Responses to Question 17, “Which areas of your institution are involved in collecting publication costs?” (n = 178; multiple selection possible), show that the library (87.6%, n = 156) and the finance department (78.1%, n = 139) were involved in recording publication costs at most of the surveyed RPOs. Another central department (e.g., research services or third-party funding office) was involved at 38.2% (n = 68) of the institutions. Departments from the areas of research and teaching were involved at 25.3% of the institutions (n = 45), and management was involved at 9% of the institutions (n = 16). The remaining 1.1% of respondents (n = 2) did not answer this question. Respondents selected up to four and on average 2.4 options. This suggests that at least two departments at each institution were involved in recording publication costs.

Responding to Question 18, “How do you evaluate the cooperation of the areas involved regarding the collection of publication costs?” (n = 178), 43.3% of respondents (n = 77) rated it as “rather good,” 23% (n = 41) as “very good,” 19.1% (n = 34) as “average,” and 5.1% (n = 9) as “rather poor.” None of the respondents selected the option “very poor.”; 9.6% of respondents (n = 17) did not answer this question.

In response to Question 19, “Which tools are used at your institution to collect publication costs?” (n = 178; multiple selection possible), most respondents reported that their institutions used a spreadsheet program (74.2%, n = 132) or a financial management system (66.3%, n = 118) for this purpose. The use of dashboards, for example, those provided by publishers, was reported by 48.3% of respondents (n = 86); library management systems were reported by 33.7% (n = 60); and repositories or comparable collections of publications or publication data by 24.7% (n = 44). Further, 17.4% of respondents (n = 31) reported that a customized database had been created at their institution. Less commonly used tools included ticket systems (9.6%, n = 17), current research information systems (8.4%, n = 15), and wikis (2.8%, n = 5); 3.9% of respondents (n = 7) did not answer this question. Respondents selected up to eight and on average 2.9 options, suggesting that approximately three different tools were used at each institution to record publication costs.

Question 20, “How reliable do you consider the collection of publication cost data for the following sources of funding at your institution?” (n = 178), was a matrix question asking respondents to evaluate the reliability of data collection for specific types of funds (see Figure 7). Responding to sub-question 20.1, “funds that are managed by a central service facility (e.g. via a publication fund),” 74.2% of respondents (n = 132) rated the reliability of the collection of data on publication costs funded from this source as “very reliable,” 15.2% (n = 27) rated it as “reliable,” and 1.7% (n = 3) as “fair.” None of the respondents selected the options “unreliable” or “very unreliable”; 9% (n = 16) did not answer this sub-question.

Responding to sub-question 20.2, “third-party funding acquired by research and teaching departments (e. g. faculty, institute, department, section),” 33.1% of respondents (n = 59) rated the reliability of the collection of data on publication costs funded from this source as “fair,” 20.8% (n = 37) as “reliable,” 12.9% (n = 23) as “very reliable,” 10.7% (n = 19) as “unreliable,” and 5.6% (n = 10) as “very unreliable.” The remaining 16.9% (n = 30) did not answer this sub-question.

In response to sub-question 20.3, “budgetary resources allocated to research and teaching departments (e. g. faculty, institute, department, section),” 24.2% of respondents (n = 43) rated the reliability of the collection of data on publication costs funded from this source as “fair,” 19.7% (n = 35) as “very reliable,” 19.1% (n = 34) as “reliable” 15.7% (n = 28) as “unreliable,” and 2.8% (n = 5) as “very unreliable.” The remaining 18.5% (n = 33) did not answer this sub-question.

Responding to Question 21, “Does your institution pursue the continuous collection of publication costs during the reporting year?” (n = 178), 42.7% of respondents (n = 76) stated that it was pursued but had not yet been achieved (see Figure 8); 40.4% (n = 72) reported that this goal had already been achieved; 6.7% (n = 12) stated that it was not planned; and 5.6% (n = 10) indicated that it was planned. The remaining 4.5% (n = 8) did not answer this question.

3.8 Contribution to the Open Access Transformation

Questions 22 to 24 of the questionnaire addressed the perceived contribution of recording publication costs to the open access transformation overall. Question 22 was a filter question and was administered only if respondent selected “Yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “Yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in Question 3.

In response to Question 22, “Are the collected publication costs used for strategic decisions at your institution (e.g. as part of resource planning)?” (n = 178), 59% of respondents (n = 105) answered “Yes,” and 25.3% (n = 45) answered “No.” The remaining 15.7% (n = 28) did not answer this question.

Responding to Question 23, “How do you evaluate the contribution of collecting publication costs to shaping the open access transformation overall?” (n = 258; see Figure 9), 46.9% of respondents (n = 121) rated it as “very important,” 33.3% (n = 86) as “important,” 8.1% (n = 21) as “moderately important,” 3.9% (n = 10) as “slightly important,”, and 1.2% (n = 3) as “unimportant.”. The remaining 6.6% (n = 17) did not answer this question. The contribution of recording publication costs to shaping the open access transformation was considered “very important” by 80% of respondents from Helmholtz Centers (n = 8), 53.6% of respondents from universities (n = 37), and 51.4% of respondents from universities of applied sciences (n = 38).

In response to Question 24, “How realistic do you think it is to implement an information budget at your institution by 2025?” (n = 258; see Figure 10), 25.2% (n = 65) of respondents selected “rather unrealistic,” 23.3% (n = 60) “very unrealistic,” 16.3% (n = 42) “maybe”, 15.1% (n = 39) “rather realistic,” 7.8% (n = 20) “already implemented,” and 7% (n = 18) “very realistic.” The remaining 5.4% (n = 14) did not respond.

4. DISCUSSION

The fragmentation and obfuscation of financial flows in the context of academic publishing outlined in the Introduction poses a challenge to RPOs. Library budgets are no longer the only source of funding, and achieving a comprehensive overview and transparency of all publication-related income streams and expenditures requires new workflows and additional resources. The survey presented in this article was the first comprehensive study on the collection of data on publication costs at RPOs in Germany, where the topic has been discussed for several years now under the label “information budget.”

4.1 Establishing Monitoring Activities

The survey results indicate that monitoring activities—both for publication output and publication costs— are not yet universally established at German RPOs. Only about half of the respondents reported that their institutions had achieved a systematic overview of publication output, and just 26.7% reported that their institutions had achieved a systematic overview of publication costs. These monitoring activities are closely interlinked, as determining an institution’s publication output is a prerequisite for the reliable and comprehensive recording of publication costs. Therefore, both activities could be integrated at RPOs. Some institutions already do this. For example, they use their library management system or institutional repository to simultaneously add information on publication costs to a database of publications they already maintain.

4.2 Financing the Open Access Transformation

Open access publication funds at German RPOs have been supported by the DFG, Germany’s largest RFO, since 2010 (Fournier & Weihberg, 2013) and are now widely used, as evidenced by the fact that 74% of the institutions represented in the survey had a publication fund in place.

Libraries contribute significantly to financing these publication funds, both by allocating budget funds and acquiring third-party funding. This highlights the central role that libraries play in the financing of open access publications. At 62.5% of the surveyed RPOs with a publication fund, the fund covered between 50% and 100% of members’ financial requirements for publication costs. However, a sizable funding gap was apparent at the circa 23% of institutions where between 0% and 49% of financial requirements were covered. Pooling resources in publication funds seems to positively impact the reliability of recording publication costs, as publication costs covered by a publication fund are recorded more reliably compared with other sources of funding.

4.3 Fully Realizing the Potential Inherent in Recording Publication Costs

Eighty percent of respondents considered the recording of publication costs to be “very important” or “important” for the open access transformation. However, our survey results also revealed that they saw room for improvement in terms of management’s problem awareness and support for the collection of data on publication costs. Moreover, the fact that only 59% of surveyed institutions used the collected data in strategic decision-making suggests that the potential inherent in the recording of publication costs has not yet been fully realized.

RPOs pursue diverse approaches to recording publication costs. At many RPOs, these procedures could be further standardized in the future. Although procedures were often implemented at the surveyed institutions, they were not formally specified. It is notable that data collection tended to occur either centrally within one department or decentrally across several departments and systems. Data collected centrally, for example, by administrators of publication funds, were perceived as more reliable, whereas decentralized approaches were perceived as more prone to errors.

Recording publication costs is a collaborative task involving several departments within an institution, typically the library and the finance department. Although some respondents felt that interdepartmental collaboration could be improved at their institutions, it was generally rated as good. The survey results also indicate that spreadsheet programs are often used for recording publication costs. This is due in part to the fact that the DFG historically required RPOs to use an Excel spreadsheet to report funds received under its program “Open Access Publication Funding.” However, it also indicates that a significant amount of manual work is involved in the collection of data on publication costs, and that data exchange between systems is lacking. In summary, the results point to a clear need to further support workflows and develop tools for aggregating data on publication costs.

4.4 Developing Information Budgets

Although the concept of the information budget has not (yet) established itself internationally, it could prove useful in cases where libraries want to obtain an overview of all income streams and expenditures relating to scientific information. When discussing the financial dimension of open access, the fact that the subscription model still dominates the for-profit publishing market is sometimes overlooked (Pollock & Staines, 2025). Collating all scientific-information-related income streams and expenditures of an RPO in an information budget can help to relate them to each other.

Only a small percentage of respondents reported that their RPOs had already established an information budget. Despite the German Science and Humanities Council (2022) recommendation that RPOs should implement an information budget by 2025, the concept remains uncommon in Germany, and a large share of respondents considered the implementation of an information budget at their institution by 2025 unlikely. However, the survey also shows that some institutions have already established the necessary groundwork for an information budget. For instance, several institutions represented in the survey were monitoring publication output or costs or were working toward these goals. Many had established or were planning to implement continuous recording of publication costs during the fiscal year, which is another prerequisite for an information budget. Other factors—in particular the integration of data from different sources—were still lacking, which hinders the implementation of an information budget.

The survey results highlight the central role that libraries play in financing the open access transformation: At most institutions with publication funds, libraries were contributing to their financing. However, publication funds covered 75–100% of members’ financial requirements for publication costs at only around one third of the surveyed institutions. At some institutions represented in the survey, covering publication costs was still seen as the responsibility of individual authors, which could pose a challenge to achieving full cost transparency at RPOs.

4.5 A Global Initiative for Cost Transparency

Although the present survey focused solely on Germany, RPOs in other regions are facing similar challenges and are taking steps to establish workflows (Collister et al., 2025; Kemp & Skinner, 2024). As academic publishing is an international market, achieving cost transparency requires a global initiative. Initial steps in this direction have already been taken, as the initiatives described in the Introduction demonstrate. However, there are still considerable barriers to achieving full cost transparency. For example, subscription agreements with publishers often include non-disclosure clauses. In recent years, several RPOs and other stakeholders have published negotiating principles indicating that they will no longer accept this (ESAC Initiative, n.d.). And although RPOs and RFOs from many countries are participating in the data collection initiative OpenAPC, there are still gaps in geographic coverage (Asai, 2023, p. 6297).

4.6 Limitations

The present study has several limitations. Given the diversity of the German research system, the survey focused on a wide range of institution types, and the response rates varied across institution types (see Table 1). At 6.6%, the response rate for Fraunhofer Society Institutes was particularly low, and the survey results therefore offer limited insights for this institution type.

Additionally, the order of questions within a questionnaire can influence responses. For instance, it is possible that responses to Question 23 (“How do you evaluate the contribution of collecting publication costs to shaping the open access transformation overall?”) were more positive because it appeared toward the end of the survey.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present survey indicate that data on publication costs could be collected more precisely at German RPOs. Although the overwhelming majority of respondents recognized that recording publication costs was important for the open access transformation, data collection efforts at the surveyed institutions were complicated by a lack of mandatory workflows, institutional support, and interdepartmental collaboration.

RPOs could benefit from transforming existing instruments, such as open access publication funds, into information budgets. This would create a systematic overview of all information-related income streams and expenditures and could provide a basis for decision-making. A clear benefit would be that RPOs could consider various funding and business models and act more in line with their goals for transforming academic publishing.

In recent years, the dependency on commercial services for research information has been increasingly criticized. The signatories of the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information,¹⁴ among them many RPOs, commit to the openness of research information.

Collecting and publishing data on their publication-related expenditures could contribute valuable insights into the financial dimension of academic publishing to the growing open research information ecosystem.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Ida Mäder, Tanya Lackner, and Melanie Schreiber from the University Library of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Our thanks go also to the pretest participants, for their support in developing the questionnaire. Furthermore, we express our gratitude to Karin Ilg, Jochen Johannsen, Oliver Kohl-Frey, and Katrin Stump from the DEAL Consortium for their contributions to the development of the questionnaire.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors have no competing interests.

FUNDING INFORMATION

The survey was conducted as part of the project “Datenpraxis zur Gestaltung der Open-Access-Transformation – Analyse, Empfehlung, Training & Vernetzung [Data Practice to Shape the Open Access Transformation – Analysis, Recommendation, Training & Networking] (OA Datenpraxis),” which was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG; Project number 528466070). Heinz Pampel’s work was supported by the Einstein Center Digital Future (ECDF).

DATA AVAILABILITY

The survey data underlying this article have been anonymized and made available via Zenodo (Strecker et al., 2025a).

REFERENCES

Alonso-Álvarez, P., Sastrón-Toledo, P., & Mañana-Rodriguez, J. (2024). The cost of open access: Comparing public projects’ budgets and article processing charges expenditure. Scientometrics, 29, 6149–6166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04988-3

Asai, S. (2023). Which database with article processing charges should be used? Scientometrics 128(11), 6293–6298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04841-z

Barbers, I., Kalinna, N., & Mittermaier, B. (2018). Data-driven transition: Joint reporting of subscription expenditure and publication costs. Publications, 6(2), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6020019

Barbers, I., Mittermaier, B., Pollack, P., Lindstrot, B., & Schmiedicke-Hintzen, H. (2021). SynOA Synergien für Open Access – Open Access Monitoring Schlussbericht. FZJ-2021-01137. Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Zentralbibliothek. http://hdl.handle.net/2128/27226

Barbers, I., Pollack, P., & Herweg, D. (2023). Förderprogramm Open-Access-Publikationskosten: Bericht zum Förderjahr 2022. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.10089109

Barbers, I., Pollack, P., Herweg, D., & Mittermaier, B. (2025). Förderprogramm “Open-Access-Publikationskosten” – Bericht Zum Förderjahr 2023. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14809150

Beckmann, K. (2022, July 11). Bearbeitung und Monitoring von Article Processing Charges an Universitätsbibliotheken in Deutschland. Aktuelle Befunde und Herausforderungen. HTWK Leipzig. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.6817486

Bosman, J., Frantsvåg, J. E., Kramer, B., Langlais, P.-C., & Proudman, V. (2021). OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 1: Findings. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4558704

Bracco, L. (2022). Promoting open science through bibliometrics: A practical guide to build an open access monitor. LIBER Quarterly, 32(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.11545

Brunschweiger, A. (2023, November 30). New funders page added to OpenAIRE EXPLORE! OpenAIRE.  https://www.openaire.eu/new-funders-page-added-to-openaire-explore

Butler, L.-A., Hare, M., Schönfelder, N., Schares, E., Alperin, J. P., & Haustein, S. (2024). Open dataset of annual article processing charges (APCs) of gold and hybrid journals published by Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, PLOS, Springer-Nature and Wiley 2019-2023 (Version 1). Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CR1MMV

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): 778–99. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272

Cambridge Economic Policy Associates Ltd. (2017). Financial flows in Swiss publishing. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.240896

Coalition S. (n.d.). Plan S principles. Retrieved December 4, 2025, from https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/

Cockerill, M. (2008, October 21). BioMed Central acquired by Springer Science+Business Media. Research in progress blog. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2008/10/21/biomed-central-acquired-by-springer-sciencebusiness-media/

Collister, L., Lippincott, S., Kemp, J., Skinner, K., & Steinhart, G. (2025). Preparing for public access: Mapping institutional workflows for sponsored research success. Invest in Open Infrastructure. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17054497

Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE). (2009, September 14). Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity announcement. http://www.oacompact.org/news/2009/9/14/compact-for-open-access-publishing-equity-announcement.html

Council of the European Union. (2016). Council conclusions on the transition towards an Open Science system (No. 9526/16). https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9526-2016-INIT/en/pdf

Crawford, W. (2019). Gold open access 2013–2018 articles in journals (GOA4). Cites & Insights Books. https://waltcrawford.name/goa4.pdf

Danowski, P., Ferus, A., Hikl, A.-L., Kaiser, O., McNeill, G., Reding, S., Schnautz, M., Zarka, T., & Zojer, M. (2018). Report on “Open Access Monitoring – Approaches and Perspectives” (2-day-workshop, 09–10 April 2018, Vienna). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2415894

Duine, M., Iarkaeva, A., & Hübner, A. (2024, November 15). Initiating discipline-specific open science monitoring with the Open Science Dashboard for Earth Sciences. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14170751.

Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. (2016). Amsterdam call for action on open science. https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Amsterdam-call-for-action-on-open-science.pdf.

Dylla, F. (2014). CHORUS – A solution for public access. Information Services and Use, 34(3–4), 195–199. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-140740.

Enserink, M. (2016, May 27). In dramatic statement, European leaders call for ‘immediate’ open access to all scientific papers by 2020. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag0577.

Eppelin, A., Pampel, H., Bandilla, W., & Kaczmirek, L. (2012). Umgang mit Open-Access-Publikationsgebühren – Die Situation in Deutschland in 2010. GMS Medizin – Bibliothek – Information, 12(1), Doc04. https://doi.org/10.3205/mbi000240

ESAC Initiative. (2017). ESAC workflow recommendations for transformative and open access agreements. https://esac-initiative.org/about/oa-workflows/

ESAC Initiative. (n.d.) Negotiation principles. Retrieved November 25, 2025, from https://esac-initiative.org/guidelines/

EUROHORCs, and European Science Foundation. (2009). EUROHORCs and ESF vision on a globally competitive era and their road map for actions. https://web.archive.org/web/20220223170639/http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ esf/EUROHORCs-ESF-Road-Map-Report_2009.pdf.

Europe PMC. (2020, February 25). Europe PMC Funders’ Dashboard. Europe PMC News Blog. https://blog.europepmc.org/2020/02/europe-pmc-funders-dashboard.html.

European Commission. (2018). Commission recommendation (EU) 2018/790 of 25 April 2018 on access to and preservation of scientific information. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018H0790.

European Commission Directorate General for Research and Innovation. (2024). Study on scientific publishing in Europe: Development, diversity, and transparency of costs. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2777/89349.

Federal Ministry of Education and Research & Kultusministerkonferenz (2023). Open Access in Germany: Joint guidelines of the Federal Government and the Länder. https://www.bmftr.bund.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/FS/772970_Open_Access_in_ Deutschland_en.pdf? blob=publicationFile&v=4

Forschungszentrum Jülich. (n.d.) Open-Access-Barometer 2016. Retrieved May 22, 2025, from https://www.fz-juelich.de/de/zb/open-science/open-access/oa-barometer/oa-barometer-2016

Fournier, J., & Weihberg, R. (2013). Das Förderprogramm »Open Access Publizieren« der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Zum Aufbau von Publikationsfonds an wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen in Deutschland. Zeitschrift Für Bibliothekswesen Und Bibliographie : ZfBB, 60(5), 236–243. https://doi.org/10.3196/186429501360528

Freedman, P. (2016, October 27). Five facts about Springer Compact. The Researcher’s Source. https://www.springernature.com/de/researchers/the-source/blog/blogposts-getting-published/five-facts-about-springer-compact/16679192

French Open Science Committee. (n.d). Feedback on EC Open Science Monitor methodological note. Retrieved December 4, 2025, from https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Feedback-on-EC-Open-Science-Monitor-Methodological-note.pdf

Frick, C. (2017). Empfehlungen für Workflows zur Übernahme von Publikationsgebühren. In K. Söllner & B. Mittermaier (Eds.), Praxishandbuch Open Access (pp. 323–330). De Gruyter Saur. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110494068-037/html?lang=de

German Science and Humanities Council (WR). (2022). Recommendations on the transformation of academic publishing: Towards open access. https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/2022/9477-22_en.pdf?blob=publicationFile&v=0

Geschuhn, K., & Stone, G. (2017). It’s the workflows, stupid! What is required to make ‘offsetting’ work for the open access transition. Insights, 30(3), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.391

Gutknecht, C. (2018, June 23). Transparenz bei Subskriptionskosten in der Schweiz: Bilanz nach vier Jahren. Wisspub.net. https://wisspub.net/2018/06/23/transparenz-bei-subskriptionskosten-in-der-schweiz-bilanz-nach-vier-jahren/

Harlan, L., & Rigby, M. (2024). Open secrets: Exploring institutional spending on open access. International Journal of Librarianship, 9(4), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2024.vol9.4.394

Haustein, S., Schares, E., Alperin, J. P., Hare, M., Butler, L.-A., & Schönfelder, N. (2024=. Estimating global article processing charges paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2407.16551

Jahn, N., & Tullney, M. (2016). A study of institutional spending on open access publication fees in Germany.” PeerJ, 4, Article e2323. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2323

Kemp, J., & Skinner, K. (2024). The cost and price of public access to scholarly publications: A synthesis. Invest in Open Infrastructure. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14013059

Kendall, G. (2024). Are open access fees a good use of taxpayers’ money? Quantitative Science Studies, 5(1), 264–270. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_c_00305

Kindling, M., Martin, L., & Neufend, M. (2024). Oa.atlas: Datensatz und Datendokumentation. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.13234599

Lahti, L., & Lehtomäki, J. (2018). Costs of academic publishing in Finland 2010–2017. https://github.com/rOpenGov/Finland-Subscription-Costs/tree/master.

Lawson, S., & Meghreblian, B. (2015). Journal subscription expenditure of UK higher education institutions. F1000Research, 3, Article 274. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5706.3

Lib4RI. (2022, September 15). Swiss Open Access Monitor goes live. https://www.lib4ri.ch/swiss-open-access-monitor-goes-live?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

Lovén, L. (2019). Monitoring open access publishing costs at Stockholm University. Insights, 32(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.451

Mittermaier, B. (2015). Double dipping in hybrid open access – Chimera or reality? ScienceOpen Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-SOCSCI.AOWNTU.v1

Mittermaier, B. (2021). Rolle des Open Access Monitor Deutschland bei der Antragstellung im DFG-Förderprogramm ‘Open-Access-Publikationskosten.’ o-bib, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.5282/O-BIB/5731.

Mittermaier, B. (2022). Das Informationsbudget – Konzept und Werkstattbericht. O-Bib, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.5282/O-BIB/5864.

Mittermaier, B. (2025). Transformationsverträge sind eine Sackgasse: In Erinnerung an Irene Barbers (1966–2025). o-bib, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/6117.

Monaghan, J., Lucraft, M., & Allin, K. (2020). ‘APCs in the wild’: Could increased monitoring and consolidation of funding accelerate the transition to open access? Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11988123.v4

Moody, G. (2018a, July 9). Elsevier will monitor open science in EU using measurement system that favors its own titles. Techdirt. https://www.techdirt.com/2018/07/09/elsevier-will-monitor-open-science-eu-using-measurement-system-that-favors-own-titles/.

Moody, G. (2018b, April 3). Hated science publisher Elsevier to help EU monitor open science – Including open access. Techdirt. https://www.techdirt.com/2018/04/03/hated-science-publisher-elsevier-to-help-eu-monitor-open-science-including-open-access/

New science mag spikes tradition. (2003, October 12). Wired. https://www.wired.com/2003/10/new-science-mag-spikes-tradition/.

Nixon, W., Ashworth, S., & McCutcheon, V. (2013). Enlighten: Research and APC funding workflows at the University of Glasgow. Insights, 26(2), 159–167. https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/2048-7754.80.

O’Neill, G. (2022, December 19). Introducing the EOSC Observatory. OpenAIRE. https://www.openaire.eu/introducing-the-eosc-observatory.

OA2020. (n.d.). Expression of interest in the large-scale implementation of open access to scholarly journals. Retrieved December 4, 2025, from https://oa2020.org/mission/

Olsbo, P. (2017). Measurement of open access as an infrastructural challenge: The case of Finland. In L. Chan & F. Loizides (Eds.), Expanding perspectives on open science: Communities, cultures and diversity in concepts and practices (pp. 217–226). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-769-6-217.

Open Access Network focus group “Informationsbudget.” (2024). Workflow Publikationskosten: Publikation mit Einzelrechnung.Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11915411

Pampel, H. (2021). Strategische und operative Handlungsoptionen für wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen zur Gestaltung der Open-Access-Transformation [Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin] edoc-Server. https://doi.org/10.18452/22946.

Pampel, H. (2022). From library budget to information budget: Fostering transparency in the transformation towards open access. Insights, 35, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.576

Pampel, H., Jahn, N., Bertelmann, R., Horstmann, W., Rothfritz, L., Ferguson, L. M., Schmidt, B., & Stisser, A. (2024). Datenpraxis zur Gestaltung der Open-Access-Transformation – Analyse, Empfehlung, Training & Vernetzung (OA Datenpraxis). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10794298

Pampel, H., & Mittermaier, B. (2024). Open Access und Zeitschriften. In J. Johannsen, B. Mittermaier, H. Schäffler, & K. Söllner (Eds.), Praxishandbuch Bibliotheksmanagement (pp. 315–332. De Gruyter Saur. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111046341-020

Pampel, H., & Tullney, M. (2017). Open-Access-Publikationsfonds. In K. Söllner & B. Mittermaier (Eds.), Praxishandbuch Open Access (pp. 162–172). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110494068-019

Pieper, D., & Broschinski, C. (2018). OpenAPC: A contribution to a transparent and reproducible monitoring of fee-based open access publishing across institutions and nations. Insights, 31, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.439

Pinhasi, R., Blechl, G., Kromp, B., & Schubert, B. (2018). The weakest link – Workflows in open access agreements: The experience of the Vienna University Library and recommendations for future negotiations. Insights, 31, Article 27. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.419

Pispiringas, L., Grypari, I., Dimitropoulos, H., & Bardi, A. (2022, October 31). The new OpenAIRE Monitor: Brand new dashboards and features! OpenAIRE. https://www.openaire.eu/the-new-openaire-monitor-brand-new-dashboards-and-features

Pollock, D., & Staines, H. (2025, October 21). Market sizing update 2025 – Has OA recovered its mojo? Delta Think. https://www.deltathink.com/news-views-market-sizing-update-2025-has-oa-recovered-its-mojo

Poynder, R. (2013, July 23). Peter Suber on the state of open access: Where are we, what still needs to be done? Open and shut? https://poynder.blogspot.com/2013/07/peter-suber-on-state-of-open-access.html.

RAND. (n.d.). Monitoring open science trends in Europe. Retrieved April 17, 2025, from https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/2017/open-science-monitor.html.

Research Consulting. (2014). Counting the costs of open access: The estimated cost to UK research organisations of achieving compliance with open access mandates in 2013/14. https://www.ariessys.com/wp-content/uploads/Research-Consulting-Counting-the-Costs-of-OA-Final.pdf

Roethlisberger, M. (2024, October 15). Check your openness with the UZH OA-Monitor (with new feature!). Blog der UB Zürich. https://www.uzh.ch/blog/ub/2024/10/15/check-your-openness-with-the-uzh-oa-monitor-with-new-feature/?lang=en

Schimmer, R., Geschuhn, K. K., & Vogler, A. (2015). Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access. MPG.PuRe. https://doi.org/10.17617/1.3.

Schön, M., Barbers, I., & Mittermaier, B. (2024). Publikationskostenmonitoring: Aktueller Stand und Herausforderungen des Monitorings von Publikationskosten an deutschen wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.10810729

Science Europe. (2017, April 25). Science Europe recommendation for the disclosure of publication fees. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4980172

Shieber, S. M. (2009). Equity for open-access journal publishing. PLOS Biology, 7(8), Article e1000165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000165

Sikora, A., & Geschuhn, K. (2015). Management of article processing charges – Challenges for libraries. Insights, 28(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.229.

Smith, M., Anderson, I., Bjork, B.-C., McCabe, M., Solomon, D., Tananbaum, G., Tenopir, C., & Willmott, M. (2016, July 18). Pay it forward: Investigating a sustainable model of open access article processing charges for large North American research institutions [Final report]. University of California Libraries. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8326n305

Solomon, D. J., & Björk, B.-C. (2012). Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21660

Strecker, D., Pampel, H., & Höfting, J. (2025a). Datensatz zu: Erfassung von Publikationskosten an wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen in Deutschland. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14732554.

Strecker, D., Pampel, H., & Höfting, J. (2025b). Erfassung von Publikationskosten an wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen in Deutschland. Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis,

49(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/bfp-2025-0008

Suber, P. (2012). Open access. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9286.001.0001 Swan, A. (2010). Modelling scholarly communication options: Costs and benefits for universities. Jisc Repository. http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/442/

Swan, A., & Houghton, J. (2012). Going for gold? The costs and benefits of gold open access for UK research institutions: Further economic modelling. Report to the UK Open Access Implementation Group. Jisc Repository. https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/610/

Tananbaum, G. (2014). North American campus-based open access funds: A five-year progress report. SPARC. https://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/OA-Fund-5-Year-Review.pdf

Taubert, N. (2019). Open-Access-Transformation. Abschätzung der zur Verfügung stehenden Mittel für Publikationsgebühren in Forschungsorganisationen – Verfahren, Ergebnisse und Diskussion – Forschungsbericht. PUB. https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2933620

Taubert, N., & Pieper, D. (2022). Informationsbudget: Herausforderungen der lokalen Implementation – Stand der Diskussion. Bericht über einen Workshop vom 12.05.2022, Universität Bielefeld. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6784050

Wilson, M. C. (2014). Market failure in the research world. Public Address. https://publicaddress.net/speaker/market-failure-in-the-research-world/

Woitschach, F. (2025). Informationsbudgets an wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen: Ergebnisse einer Befragungsstudie. O-Bib, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/6114

NOTES

4. Directory of Open Access Journals: https://doaj.org (accessed July 13, 2025).
5. Open Access Monitor, Forschungszentrum Jülich; accessed: November 13, 2025; filters: source – OpenAlex, release date January 1, 2024, to December 12, 2024
6. About DEAL: https://deal-konsortium.de/en/about-deal/rationale-and-objectives
7. Hochschulkompass: https://www.hochschulkompass.de/; limited to public universities.
8. List of the Association of Federal Research Institutions: https://www.ressortforschung.de/de/ueber_uns/mitglieder/index.htm.
9. Fraunhofer Society Institutes: https://www.fraunhofer.de/de/institute/institute-einrichtungen-deutschland.html.
10. Helmholtz Association Centers: https://www.helmholtz.de/en/about-us/helmholtz-centers/.
11. Leibniz Association Institutes: https://www.leibniz-gemeinschaft.de/institute/leibniz-institute-alle-listen.
12. Max Planck Institutes: https://www.mpg.de/institute?tab=institutes.
13. https://ror.org/about/
14. Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information: https://barcelona-declaration.org

Online Appendix

Questionnaire of the Survey of Research Performing Organizations in Germany Conducted From October 1 to November 12, 2024, Within the Framework of the Project “OA Datenpraxis”

No.	Question text	Answer options	Type	Condition
01	In which area of your institution do you work?	central services: library central services: other (e.g. research services) administration finance department research and teaching (e.g. faculty, institute, department, section, individual researchers) prefer not to answer other	single choice	none
02	Does your institution pursue a systematic overview of the publication output of its members, e.g. in the form of a bibliography?	yes, a systematic overview is achieved yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved no, but this is planned no, this is not planned prefer not to answer other	single choice	none
03	Does your institution pursue a systematic overview of publication costs?	yes, a systematic overview is achieved yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved no, but this is planned no, this is not planned prefer not to answer other	single choice	none
04	Why does your institution not pursue a systematic overview of publication costs?	NA	free text	answered “no, this is not planned” in Question 3
05	Can publication costs at your institution be paid fully or partially by a publication fund?	yes no, but this is planned no, this is not planned prefer not to answer other	single choice	none
06	Is partial funding of publication costs (cost splitting) possible at your institution?	yes no, but this is planned no, this is not planned prefer not to answer other	single choice	answered “yes” in Question 5
07	Who provides the financial resources for the publication fund?	institution: budget funds institution: third-party funds central service facility (e.g. library) at the institution: budget funds central service facility (e.g. library) at the institution: third-party funds superordinate institution (e.g. the MPDL15 at the MPG): budget funds superordinate institution (e.g. the MPDL at the MPG): third-party funds research and teaching (e.g. faculty, institute, department, chair, section, individual researchers): budget funds research and teaching (e.g. faculty, institute,  department, chair, section, individual researchers): third-party funds federal state prefer not to answer other	Multiple choice	answered “yes” in Question 5
08	In your opinion, to what extent do the resources of the publication fund cover the financial requirements of the members of the institution for publication costs?	–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–100% prefer not to answer other	single choice	answered “yes” in Question 5
09	What funds are used to pay publication costs at your institution?	NA	free text	answered “no, but this is planned” or “no, this is not planned” in Question 5
10	To what extent do you agree with the following statement: My institution considers researchers responsible for organizing the funding of publications.	strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree prefer not to answer other	single choice	answered “no, but this is planned” or “no, this is not planned” in Question 5
11	Does your institution participate in one or more of the DEAL contracts?	yes no, but this is planned no, this is not planned prefer not to answer other	single choice	none
12	Has your institution signed contracts with publishers besides the DEAL contracts that affect publication costs?	yes no, but this is planned no, this is not planned prefer not to answer other	single choice	none
13	To what extent do you agree with the following statements: 13.1: The leadership of the institution has a keen awareness of the problem of recording publication costs. 13.2: The leadership of the institution provides comprehensive support for the recording of publication costs at the institution.	strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree prefer not to answer	matrix	did not answer “administration” in Question 1
14	Are procedures for collecting publication costs clearly defined at your institution?	yes, there are binding workflows, procedures or instructions yes, but there are no binding specifications no prefer not to answer other	single choice	answered “yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in Question 3
15	How are publication costs collected at your institution?	centralised at one area within the institution centralised at a superordinate facility (e.g. the MPDL at the MPG) decentralised at multiple areas in one shared system decentralised at multiple areas in multiple systems prefer not to answer other	Multiple choice	answered “yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in Question 3
16	How many publications by members of your institution do you estimate have incurred publication costs charged to your institution in 2023?	NA	free text	answered “yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in Question 3
17	Which areas of your institution are involved in collecting publication costs?	central services: library central services: other (e.g. research services) administration finance department research and teaching (e.g. faculty, institute, department, section, individual researchers) prefer not to answer other	Multiple choice	answered “yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in Question 3
18	How do you evaluate the cooperation of the areas involved regarding the collection of publication costs?	very good good fair poor very poor prefer not to answer	single choice	answered “yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in Question 3
19	Which tools are used at your institution to collect publication costs?	financial management system library management system research information system dashboard (e.g. publisher dashboards) spreadsheet software repository, publication server, publication database, institutional bibliography customised database order system, ticket system, online form wiki prefer not to answer other	Multiple choice	answered “yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in Question 3
20	How reliable do you consider the collection of publication cost data for the following sources of funding at your institution? 20.1: funds managed by a central service facility (e.g. via a publication fund) 20.2: third-party funding acquired by research and teaching departments (e.g. faculty, institute, department, section) 20.3: budgetary resources allocated to research and teaching departments (e. g. faculty, institute, department, section)	very reliable reliable fair unreliable very unreliable prefer not to answer	matrix	answered “yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in Question 3
21	Does your institution pursue the continuous collection of publication costs during the reporting year?	yes, this is already achieved yes, this is not yet achieved no, but this is planned no, this is not planned prefer not to answer other	single choice	answered “yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in Question 3
22	Are the collected publication costs used for strategic decisions at your institution (e.g. as part of resource planning)?	yes no prefer not to answer other	single choice	answered “yes, a systematic overview is achieved” or “yes, but a systematic overview is not yet achieved” in Question 3
23	How do you evaluate the contribution of collecting publication costs to shaping the open access transformation overall?	very important important moderately important slightly important unimportant prefer not to answer	single choice	none
24	How realistic do you think it is to implement an information budget at your institution by 2025?	this is already implemented very realistic rather realistic maybe rather unrealistic very unrealistic prefer not to answer	single choice	none
25	Do you have any additional remarks on collecting publication costs at your institution that you would like to share with us?	NA	free text	none
26	Would you like to be informed when results of this survey are published?	yes (please enter your email address in the comment) no	single choice	none