Public Knowledge Project

Despite growing interest in Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature, there is an unmet need for large-scale, up-to-date, and reproducible studies assessing the prevalence and characteristics of OA. We address this need using oaDOI, an open online service that determines OA status for 67 million articles. We use three samples, each of 100,000 articles, to investigate OA in three populations: (1) all journal articles assigned a Crossref DOI, (2) recent journal articles indexed in Web of Science, and (3) articles viewed by users of Unpaywall, an open-source browser extension that lets users find OA articles using oaDOI. We estimate that at least 28% of the scholarly literature is OA (19M in total) and that this proportion is growing, driven particularly by growth in Gold and Hybrid. The most recent year analyzed (2015) also has the highest percentage of OA (45%). Because of this growth, and the fact that readers disproportionately access newer articles, we find that Unpaywall users encounter OA quite frequently: 47% of articles they view are OA. Notably, the most common mechanism for OA is not Gold, Green, or Hybrid OA, but rather an under-discussed category we dub Bronze: articles made free-to-read on the publisher website, without an explicit Open license. We also examine the citation impact of OA articles, corroborating the so-called open-access citation advantage: accounting for age and discipline, OA articles receive 18% more citations than average, an effect driven primarily by Green and Hybrid OA. We encourage further research using the free oaDOI service, as a way to inform OA policy and practice.

Despite growing interest in Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature, there is an unmet need for large-scale, up-to-date, and reproducible studies assessing the prevalence and characteristics of OA. We address this need using oaDOI, an open online service that determines OA status for 67 million articles. We use three samples, each of 100,000 articles, to investigate OA in three populations: 1) all journal articles assigned a Crossref DOI, 2) recent journal articles indexed in Web of Science, and 3) articles viewed by users of Unpaywall, an open-source browser extension that lets users find OA articles using oaDOI. We estimate that at least 28% of the scholarly literature is OA (19M in total) and that this proportion is growing, driven particularly by growth in Gold and Hybrid. The most recent year analyzed (2015) also has the highest percentage of OA (45%). Because of this growth, and the fact that readers disproportionately access newer articles, we find that Unpaywall users encounter OA quite frequently: 47% of articles they view are OA. Notably, the most common mechanism for OA is not Gold, Green, or Hybrid OA, but rather an under-discussed category we dub Bronze: articles made free-to-read on the publisher website, without an explicit Open license. We also examine the citation impact of OA articles, corroborating the so-called open-access citation advantage: accounting for age and discipline, OA articles receive 18% more citations than average, an effect driven primarily by Green and Hybrid OA. We encourage further research using the free oaDOI service, as a way to inform OA policy and practice.

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study is to contribute to the understanding of how the potential of altmetrics varies around the world by measuring the percentage of articles with non-zero metrics (coverage) for articles published from a developing region (Latin America). Design/methodology/approach This study uses article metadata from a prominent Latin American journal portal, SciELO, and combines it with altmetrics data from Altmetric.com and with data collected by author-written scripts. The study is primarily descriptive, focusing on coverage levels disaggregated by year, country, subject area, and language. Findings Coverage levels for most of the social media sources studied was zero or negligible. Only three metrics had coverage levels above 2 per cent – Mendeley, Twitter, and Facebook. Of these, Twitter showed the most significant differences with previous studies. Mendeley coverage levels reach those found by previous studies, but it takes up to two years longer for articles to be saved in the reference manager. For the most recent year, coverage was less than half than what was found in previous studies. The coverage levels of Facebook appear similar (around 3 per cent) to that of previous studies. Research limitations/implications The Altmetric.com data used for some of the analyses were collected for a six month period. For other analyses, Altmetric.com data were only available for a single country (Brazil). Originality/value The results of this study have implications for the altmetrics research community and for any stakeholders interested in using altmetrics for evaluation. It suggests the need of careful sample selection when wishing to make generalizable claims about altmetrics.

Despite growing interest in Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature, there is an unmet need for large-scale, up-to-date, and reproducible studies assessing the prevalence and characteristics of OA. We address this need using oaDOI, an open online service that determines OA status for 67 million articles. We use three samples, each of 100,000 articles, to investigate OA in three populations: 1) all journal articles assigned a Crossref DOI, 2) recent journal articles indexed in Web of Science, and 3) articles viewed by users of Unpaywall, an open-source browser extension that lets users find OA articles using oaDOI. We estimate that at least 28% of the scholarly literature is OA (19M in total) and that this proportion is growing, driven particularly by growth in Gold and Hybrid. The most recent year analyzed (2015) also has the highest percentage of OA (45%). Because of this growth, and the fact that readers disproportionately access newer articles, we find that Unpaywall users encounter OA quite frequently: 47% of articles they view are OA. Notably, the most common mechanism for OA is not Gold, Green, or Hybrid OA, but rather an under-discussed category we dub Bronze: articles made free-to-read on the publisher website, without an explicit Open license. We also examine the citation impact of OA articles, corroborating the so-called open-access citation advantage: accounting for age and discipline, OA articles receive 18% more citations than average, an effect driven primarily by Green and Hybrid OA. We encourage further research using the free oaDOI service, as a way to inform OA policy and practice.

Abstract Editor's Summary Traditional citation counting for evaluating scholarly impact unfairly benefits those in North America and Europe and shortchanges the alternative scholars of the developing world. Alternative metrics more accurately measure the impact of scholarly writings, better serve all scholars and can foster a research culture that supports national development goals. The current system favors dominant journals and topics of interest to the prevailing scientific community, captured by the leading bibliographic databases. Yet publishing on platforms more open to underrepresented journals and scholars in developing nations would promote a greater range of ideas and scholarly exchange. With facilitating international development in mind, scholarly communication should encourage research on topics of local and national relevance and be presented through globally accessible channels, disseminated by social media. Publishing technology barriers to participation must be lowered. The value of altmetrics will be evident, providing advantages to alternative scholars, serving public needs and revealing scientific contributions long underrepresented in the standard literature.

While exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) has been associated with increased lung cancer risk for more than 50 years, the chemical is not currently regulated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on the basis of its carcinogenicity. The agency was petitioned in 1993 and sued in 1997 and 2002 to lower the workplace Cr(VI) exposure limit, resulting in a court order to issue a final standard by February 2006. Faced with the threat of stronger regulation, the chromium industry initiated an effort to challenge the scientific evidence supporting a more protective standard. This effort included the use of "product defense" consultants to conduct post hoc analyses of a publicly-funded study to challenge results viewed unfavorably by the industry. The industry also commissioned a study of the mortality experience of workers at four low-exposure chromium plants, but did not make the results available to OSHA in a timely manner, despite multiple agency requests for precisely these sorts of data. The commissioned study found a statistically significant elevation in lung cancer risk among Cr(VI)-exposed workers at levels far below the current standard. This finding changed when the multi-plant cohort was divided into two statistically underpowered components and then published separately. The findings of the first paper published have been used by the chromium industry to attempt to slow OSHA's standard setting process. The second paper was withheld from OSHA until it was accepted for publication in a scientific journal, after the rulemaking record had closed. Studies funded by private sponsors that seek to influence public regulatory proceedings should be subject to the same access and reporting provisions as those applied to publicly funded science. Parties in regulatory proceedings should be required to disclose whether the studies were performed by researchers who had the right to present their findings without the sponsor's consent or influence, and to certify that all relevant data have been submitted to the public record, whether published or not.

Polluters and manufacturers of dangerous products have waged sophisticated campaigns to manufacture uncertainty about the scientific evidence used to support public health protection and victim compensation. As a result, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has virtually ceased issuing regulations that would limit potential exposure to causes of disease or other workplace hazards, even in the face of compelling scientific evidence. Unfortunately, following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which requires federal judges to act as gatekeepers of expert testimony, courts have also been susceptible to this campaign. Given the demise of OSHA's regulatory activities, litigation pursued by injured workers is likely to play an increasingly important role in eliminating or reducing workplace hazards and therefore, in preventing occupational illness and death. This article examines the responses of the legal and regulatory systems to workplace hazards, and explores the impact of litigation and regulation on the prevention of work-related disease in the United States.

To the Editor: To put in accurate context the article by Birk et al that concludes that the study's findings suggest "a possible threshold effect of occupational hexavalent chromium exposure on lung cancer,"1 three points should be considered: 1) these data were withheld from a federal rulemaking proceeding, 2) these data were actually part of a larger study that refutes the authors' conclusion, and 3) after examining the study, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rejected the authors' conclusion. The issue of the carcinogenicity of hexavalent chromium (Cr[VI]) is one of great public health and regulatory interest. In October 2004, OSHA issued a proposed standard that would have greatly reduced workplace exposures to Cr(VI).2 The proposed rule included a risk assessment that was based on data from workers with generally higher exposure levels than those seen in the Birk et al article. Throughout the rulemaking proceeding, OSHA asked for epidemiologic data on workers with lower exposure to Cr(VI), but neither the chromium industry nor the epidemiologists who conducted this study provided it to the agency at the public hearings or during the public comment period.3 In fact, the data presented by Birk et al were part of a larger multiplant study done for the chromium industry, completed more than 2 years before OSHA issued its proposed standard, but never published or given to OSHA by its authors.3 That study, in which workers from four low-exposure facilities (two German facilities and two U.S. ones) were combined into one cohort reported significantly elevated lung cancer risk at both high and intermediate exposure levels, along with a clear dose–effect relationship4 (see Table 1). Despite repeated emphasis in the study protocol and the final report on the need to maximize statistical power by combining data from the four facilities,4,5 the investigators subsequently divided this study into two components and published two statistically underpowered studies.1,6 In their logistic regression in the second of these papers, Birk et al combined the low and intermediate exposure categories from the final report into a single referent category. The result was the disappearance of the finding of greatest regulatory importance: the increased risk of lung cancer among those in the intermediate exposure group whose exposures were well below the OSHA standard in effect at the time and close to the exposure limit OSHA was contemplating. The dose–effect relationship vanished as well, because only a single nonreferent exposure category remained (see Table 2).3 In comments to OSHA, two industry groups cited the supposed lack of a positive finding at low exposures in the German data as evidence the proposed OSHA standard was unnecessarily stringent.7,8TABLE 1: Elevated Lung Cancer Mortality Risk in Intermediate and High Exposure Groups in Original Unpublished StudyTABLE 2: Increased Risk of Lung Cancer Mortality Risk Among Workers With Intermediate Exposure Disappears in JOEM Publication of German Component of StudyThe authors justify their straying from their own protocol and dividing the study into two smaller, underpowered studies by noting that exposure history was estimated using airborne Cr(VI) levels in the U.S. facilities and urinary chromium levels in the German plants. In the final report, provided to the chromium manufacturing companies that paid for the study, these data were combined, using, ironically, a conversion factor9 that is cited in the present paper when comparing the measured urinary Cr(VI) levels to OSHA's permissible exposure limit. It is important to note that OSHA has rejected Birk et al's conclusion that "these data suggest a possible threshold effect" of Cr(VI) exposure on lung cancer. The agency's scientists explained in the final standard that the Birk et al study's "small cohort size, few lung cancer cases (eg, 10 deaths in the three lowest exposure groups combined) and limited follow up (average 17 years) severely limit the power to detect small increases in risk that may be present with low cumulative exposures."10 %The Occupational Safety and Health Act instructs the agency to use the "best available evidence."11 We believe that failure to provide the original study to OSHA, as well as the decision to bifurcate the study into two separate, underpowered publications, made after the final report was complete and the results were known, are inconsistent with the obligation of scientists to fully and promptly report findings of public health importance, even those that may trouble the sponsors of their study. David Michaels, PhD, MPH Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy George Washington University School of Pubic Health & Health Services Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Washington, DC Peter Lurie, MD, MPH Public Citizen Health Research Group Washington, DC Celeste Monforton, MPH Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy George Washington University School of Pubic Health & Health Services Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Washington, DC

Reanalysis and reinterpretation occur when a person other than the original investigator obtains an epidemiologic data set and conducts analyses to evaluate the quality, reliability or validity of the dataset, methods, results or conclusions reported by the original investigator. We propose ethical guidelines with regard to the duty of original investigators to cooperate with competent impartial reanalysis and for the sponsors of reanalysis and reinterpretation and the epidemiologists who carry it out. The rights and interests of these parties and of the public interest need to be protected.

This study investigates the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs around Open Access (OA) publishing among academic faculty and administrators who sit on tenure and promotion committees.

Opponents of public health and environmental regulations often try to "manufacture uncertainty" by questioning the validity of scientific evidence on which the regulations are based. Though most identified with the tobacco industry, this strategy has also been used by producers of other hazardous products. Its proponents use the label "junk science" to ridicule research that threatens powerful interests. This strategy of manufacturing uncertainty is antithetical to the public health principle that decisions be made using the best evidence available. The public health system must ensure that scientific evidence is evaluated in a manner that assures the public's health and environment will be adequately protected.

Argumenta-se neste artigo que muitos acadêmicos e sistemas científicos na América Latina e no Caribe compartilham motivações éticas e epistemológicas a respeito da importância de se aumentar a "presença pública" da pesquisa acadêmica e que muitos deles estão bem posicionados para se valer da crescente infra-estrutura de tecnologias de informação e comunicação (TIC)e dos movimentos de Acesso Livre (AL) para que a ciência produzida na região circule e se compartilhe amplamente. A existência de exemplos latino-americanos para a classificação dos dez modelos de Willinsky para artigos de periódicos é vista como indicação de que o AL já se instalou na região.

Despite growing interest in Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature, there is an unmet need for large-scale, up-to-date, and reproducible studies assessing the prevalence and characteristics of OA. We address this need using oaDOI, an open online service that determines OA status for 67 million articles. We use three samples, each of 100,000 articles, to investigate OA in three populations: (1) all journal articles assigned a Crossref DOI, (2) recent journal articles indexed in Web of Science, and (3) articles viewed by users of Unpaywall, an open-source browser extension that lets users find OA articles using oaDOI. We estimate that at least 28% of the scholarly literature is OA (19M in total) and that this proportion is growing, driven particularly by growth in Gold and Hybrid. The most recent year analyzed (2015) also has the highest percentage of OA (45%). Because of this growth, and the fact that readers disproportionately access newer articles, we find that Unpaywall users encounter OA quite frequently: 47% of articles they view are OA. Notably, the most common mechanism for OA is not Gold, Green, or Hybrid OA, but rather an under-discussed category we dub Bronze: articles made free-to-read on the publisher website, without an explicit Open license. We also examine the citation impact of OA articles, corroborating the so-called open-access citation advantage: accounting for age and discipline, OA articles receive 18% more citations than average, an effect driven primarily by Green and Hybrid OA. We encourage further research using the free oaDOI service, as a way to inform OA policy and practice.

Metadata are crucial for discovery and access by providing contextual, technical, and administrative information in a standard form. Yet metadata are also sites of tension between sociocultural representations, resource constraints, and standardized systems. Formal and informal interventions may be interpreted as quality issues, political acts to assert identity, or strategic choices to maximize visibility. In this context, we sought to understand how metadata quality, consistency, and completeness impact individuals and communities. Reviewing a sample of records, we identified and classified issues stemming from how metadata and communities press up against each other to intentionally reflect (or not) cultural meanings.

This collection of papers, published in the American Journal of Public Health (Vol. 95, p. S1-S150, 2005) is the product of a symposium on Scientific Evidence and Public Policy convened March 2003 by the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) in Coronado, California. In June 1993, the US Supreme Court ordered federal trial judges to become gatekeepers of scientific testimony. Under Daubert and two related rulings, trial judges are now required to evaluate whether any expert testimony is both relevant and reliable. What began as a well-intentioned attempt to improve the quality of evidentiary science has had troubling consequences. The symposium provided a forum for scientists, philosophers and science studies scholars to have a dialog with legal scholars and federal judges about Daubert's philosophical underpinnings and impacts, and on the use (and misuse) of science in the legal and regulatory arenas. The Coronado Conference papers provide an important assessment of Daubert. Science is more subtle and less rigid than Daubert characterizes it. Whether applied in the courts or by regulatory bodies, Daubert's demand for scientific certainty runs counter to the workings of science, as well as to the basic principle that policy decisions should be made with the best evidence currently available.

Deux projets de lois recemment introduits au Senat des Etats-Unis devraient augmenter de facon consequente l'acces public aux resultats de la recherche financee au niveau federal. Il s'agit du Federal Research Public Access Act de 2006, introduit par J. Cornyn et J. Lieberman, et de l'American Center for CURES Act de 2005. Ils fournissent notamment un acces en ligne gratuit a toutes les publications apres un delai de six mois, sans toucher au systeme d'evaluation inter-pair des journaux ni a la loi sur le droit d'auteur.

Deciding on the educational path to pursue to arrive at one’s preferred career destination is important. Based on a survey that adapted Germeijs and Verschueren’s (2006) Study Choice Task Inventory (SCTI) to gather relevant data from 1,006 senior high school student respondents, this research assesses the decisional process of how senior high school students choose programmes of study in higher institutions and explores the career guidance and counselling services senior high schools in Ghana provide for their students. Our findings showed that high school students in Ghana were well-oriented about the study choice task and quite decided about the programmes of study to pursue in higher education. The study also found that senior high schools lack the career guidance and counselling infrastructure needed to support students in their efforts to make informed educational career decisions. Also, to a large extent, students relied on themselves for information as they consider the options available in their choices of programmes to study in higher education. Keywords: Career choice, high school students, Ghana, guidance and counselling, decisional tasks DOI: 10.7176/JEP/12-10-10 Publication date: April 30 th 2021

To the Editor: We are writing in response to “The Beryllium Occupational Exposure Limit: Historical Origin and Current Inadequacy”1 by Jonathon Borak. As Assistant Secretary of Energy for ESH, one of us (D.M.) was the federal official responsible for overseeing the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program final regulation, which lowered the level triggering protection for beryllium-exposed workers in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex from 2.0 μg/m3 to 0.2 μg/m3. We share Dr Borak's conclusion that the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) occupational exposure standard (OEL) of 2.0 μg/m3 is inadequate to protect workers from chronic beryllium disease (CBD). The scientific literature summarized by Dr Borak, particularly the cases among workers and community residents exposed to levels well below the current standard,2,3 strongly suggests that there is no safe level of exposure to beryllium. One clear policy implication of this literature is that the OSHA OEL needs to be dramatically strengthened and that beryllium exposure must be eliminated whenever possible to prevent CBD. Beryllium plays an important role in national security but given the metal's severe and well-established health effects, it is hard to justify using beryllium in golf clubs, bicycle frames, and other consumer products. Even if the workers manufacturing these products could be protected from all beryllium exposure, recent reports of CBD cases among metal recycling workers4 underscore the need to remove beryllium from commerce. The primary limitation of Dr Borak's editorial is his failure to recognize that OELs are shaped not only by science, but also by the actions of individuals and corporations, who wield political and economic power. In our view, one of the primary reasons the inadequate OEL for beryllium has remained unchanged is that Brush Wellman, the sole North American beryllium producer, has relentlessly opposed more protective standards for exposed workers. In 1975, OSHA proposed a comprehensive standard to protect beryllium-exposed workers, including a plan to lower its workplace exposure limit to 1 μg/m3, on the basis of beryllium's carcinogenicity.5 OSHA's effort was foiled, however, by a collaboration of the DOE, the Department of Defense, and the beryllium industry.6 (Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, acknowledged the industry–government intervention, explaining “Priority one was production of our nuclear weapons … [the] last priority was the safety and health of the workers that build these weapons.”7) By the late 1980s, the existence of CBD cases among workers exposed to beryllium at levels below the existing standard led Dr Merril Eisenbud, the author of the Atomic Energy Commission's original (1949) standard, to end his support of the 2 μg/m3 OEL.8 This evidence also prompted the DOE to begin, in 1991, the administrative process of lowering the OEL applied in nuclear weapons facilities. Brush Wellman opposed the change, contending that DOE had no evidence “that the existing standard is unsafe or that the new proposed standard affords any greater degree or [sic] safety.”9 Despite the compelling and growing evidence, Brush Wellman defended the 2 μg/m3 OEL with a tautologic argument, essentially: “We will examine the work history of all workers with CBD; even if we do not find evidence they were exposed to levels above the standard, we will assume they have been, since CBD is only associated with excessive exposure levels.” This can be seen in Brush's 1991 talking points, which advised its executives to defend the 2 μg/m3 as follows: “(1) Experience over several decades has, in our view, demonstrated that levels of airborne beryllium within the OSHA threshold limit value afford a safe workplace. (2) In most cases involving our employees, we can point to circumstances of exposure (usually accidental), higher than the standard allows. In some cases, we have been unable (for lack of clear history) to identify such circumstances. However, in these cases we also cannot say that there was not excessive exposure”10 (emphasis in original). Around the same time, Brush Wellman also opposed the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists's (ACGIH's) efforts to lower the beryllium threshold limit value (TLV), writing “We feel the evidence for retaining the presently adopted TLV is compelling” [and] “… there is still no evidence of any diagnosed cases of CBD where the exposure level can be reasonable demonstrated to have been at or below the 2 μg level.”11 Dr Borak states that in 1996 Brush Wellman (in a notice for customers) “expressed uncertainty that the OSHA PEL was adequately protective.”1 In its communications with regulatory officials, however, the manufacturer retained its traditional opposition. For example, in a meeting on the proposed DOE standard, an executive asserted that the company “is unaware of any scientific evidence that the standard is not protective. However, we do recognize that there have been sporadic reports of disease at less than 2 μg/m3. Brush Wellman has studied each of these reports and found them to be scientifically unsound.”12 By 1999, the ever increasing number of CBD cases rendered the claim that the old standard was safe less and less plausible. Yet, this did not compel Brush to endorse a more protective OEL. Rather, the manufacturer asked DOE to delay issuing a new standard, claiming that “important research is underway which may provide a scientific basis for a revision to the occupational standard for beryllium” and pointing to studies on particle size, particle number, and particle surface area.13 In retrospect, it is clear that Brush's interpretation of the evidence supporting the adequacy of the OEL was incorrect; independent experts recognized this inadequacy more than 15 years ago. The beryllium industry had a strong financial incentive to challenge the mounting evidence and to oppose regulatory action that would result in a lower exposure limit. It appears this incentive shaped the interpretation given to scientific evidence by scientists employed by the beryllium industry. A policy lesson here is that regulatory agencies should discount the interpretation of data by parties with financial conflict of interest. Although the past cannot be changed, much can be done to better protect current and future workers from beryllium exposure. Now that Dr Borak, with the support of Brush Wellman, has acknowledged the current OSHA standard is inadequate, we sincerely hope that Brush Wellman will devote its resources and political muscle to urge OSHA to strengthen its OEL so that chronic beryllium disease becomes a disease of the past. David Michaels, PhD, MPH Celeste Monforton, MPH Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy Department of Environmental & Occupational Health School of Public Health and Health Services The George Washington University Washington, DC

With a review of recent policies and recommendations, an overview of metadata formats used in long-form publishing, specific metadata requirements mandated by international aggregators, and a formulation of a two-tiered metadata framework for books and chapters. Executive Summary This report provides a comprehensive review of international metadata standards and requirements for open access books and chapters. It aims to support small-to-medium sized independent scholar-led, as well as institutional, publishers of open access books in implementing effective metadata management practices, thereby improving the discoverability, interoperability and sustainability of open access books. The report situates Thoth Open Metadata within a broader movement towards open, community-owned infrastructure for scholarly publishing, responding to persistent challenges faced by independent and institutional publishers navigating proprietary metadata systems and fragmented technical standards. By consolidating research from major initiatives, including the ongoing work within the Copim Community as well as now-completed European initiatives such as DIAMAS, CRAFT-OA, and PALOMERA, and the corresponding emergence of the journals-focused Diamond Open Access Standard (DOAS), the report outlines current policy landscapes, identifies key gaps, and proposes a harmonised approach to metadata for open access books. Key findings include: Metadata openness and interoperability are critical for inclusion of books (open access and non-open access) in research assessment, policy development and monitoring, and equitable dissemination. Legal and accessibility frameworks (e.g. EU GPSR, Americans With Disabilities Act) increasingly necessitate the provision of richer metadata, including funder data, licensing, and accessibility fields, flowing through degradation-free metadata supply chains. Fragmentation of metadata standards and formats (ONIX, MARC, KBART, etc) in use across stakeholders and intermediaries active in the supply chain impedes visibility and reuse of open access books, while also impinging on the reuse of the metadata itself Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) such as DOI, ORCID, and ROR are essential for tracking, attribution, and interoperability – yet adoption remains uneven, particularly in the Humanities and Social Sciences, and particularly within the wide archipelago of small-to-medium-sized publishers across the globe. The highly fragmented nature of the book supply chain – with an existing multiplicity of distribution channels and correspondingly fragmented metadata requirements that is substantially different to that of journal publishing – means that policy and technical maturity for open access books has traditionally lagged behind that of journals. In response, the report proposes a two-tiered metadata framework: Essential: essential bibliographic and access data including information on title and subtitle, contributors, copyright holders, subjects classifications, landing page and full-text URLs and/or DOIs at book and chapter level, licence, publisher details, publication date. Releasing metadata into the public domain and making this explicit in the metadata record (e.g. via a CC0 dedication) to facilitate easy re-use e.g. across libraries. Desirable: includes elements such as a fuller set of Persistent Identifiers (ORCID, ROR), usage of a broader set of controlled vocabularies, multilingual metadata, abstracts, cover images, tables of contents, and funder details. A fuller description of the two-tiered metadata framework is available in Section X of this report, and the PDF attached here as a supplement. The proposed metadata framework aligns with emerging international quality standards and policy documents (e.g., Diamond Open Access Standard (DOAS), the German Working Group of University Publishers’ [AG Universitätsverlage] Quality Criteria, NISO recommendations, and policies such as the Swedish National Open Access or UKRI Open Access policy ). The report at hand also provides guidance for stakeholders, and with a particular view on small-to-medium-sized publishers of open access books, to facilitate integration with key discovery platforms and aggregators such as OAPEN, DOAB, Google Books, JSTOR, and Project MUSE, while also looking at traditional as well as alternative distribution mechanisms to academic libraries. This is pertinent as library research has shown that traditional library supply chains and distribution mechanisms are not up to the task of properly disseminating open access titles. Hence, alternative open mechanisms are needed to embed open access books more fully within library collections. In essence, the report calls for coordination between stakeholders across open scholarly infrastructure to foster interoperability via a broader adoption of a common open metadata framework, with an overarching goal to empower independent as well as institutional small-to-medium-sized publishers, to enhance discoverability, and to strengthen bibliodiversity. Ultimately, by proposing a future-proof enhanced metadata framework, the report provides a pathway to more centrally position open access long-form publishing in the global scholarly communication ecosystem. Acknowledgement: The authors are indebted to Christina Drummond (OAeBU DT), Arnaud Gingolt (OpenEdition), and Ludo Waltman (Leiden University), who have provided invaluable feedback on sections of this report. Supporting documents: Report document, in multiple file formats; Graphic `Overview of metadata formats, particular specifications, and platforms for open access books'. CC BY 4.0, 2026, Thoth Open Metadata; Spreadsheet `Overview of International Aggregators' Metadata Requirements for Books`, including the proposed framework of Essential and Desired Metadata for OA Books and Chapters (2026). This also available as a live online spreadsheet; and the full bibliography of referenced works in BibTeX and Zotero RDF formats. The extended bibliography can also be accessed via this open Zotero collection.

This sample was drawn from the Crossref API on March 8, 2022. The sample was constructed purposefully on the hypothesis that records with at least one known issue would be more likely to yield issues related to cultural meanings and identity. Records known or suspected to have at least one quality issue were selected by the authors and Crossref staff. The Crossref API was then used to randomly select additional records from the same prefix. Records in the sample represent 51 DOI prefixes that were chosen without regard for the manuscript management or publishing platform used, as well as 17 prefixes for journals known to use the Open Journal Systems manuscript management and publishing platform. OJS was specifically identified due to the authors' familiarity with the platform, its international and multilingual reach, and previous work on its metadata quality.