Hubbry Logo
Hybrid open-access journalHybrid open-access journalMain
Open search
Hybrid open-access journal
Community hub
Hybrid open-access journal
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hybrid open-access journal
Hybrid open-access journal
Hybrid open-access journal
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A hybrid open-access journal is a subscription journal in which some of the articles are open access. This status typically requires the payment of a publication fee (also called an article processing charge or APC) to the publisher in order to publish an article open access, in addition to the continued payment of subscriptions to access all other content. Strictly speaking, the term "hybrid open-access journal" is incorrect, possibly misleading, as using the same logic such journals could also be called "hybrid subscription journals". Simply using the term "hybrid access journal" is accurate.[original research?]

Publishers that offer a hybrid open access option often use different names for it. The SHERPA/RoMEO site provides a list of publishers and the names of their options.[1] The Open Access Directory[2] provides a list of funds that support open access journals, and provides information about which funds will pay fees of hybrid open access journals.[3]

Origins

[edit]
See also: Category:Hybrid open access journals

The concept was first proposed in 1998 when Thomas Walker suggested that authors could purchase extra visibility at a price.[4] The first journal recognized as using this model was Walker's own Florida Entomologist; it was later extended to the other publications of the Entomological Society of America. The idea was later refined by David Prosser in 2003 in the journal Learned Publishing.[5] The larger academic publishers began offering hybrid open access journals around the same time, with Springer and Wiley both having started by 2005. Within two years, Elsevier, Taylor & Francis and the Nature Publishing Group had followed suit.[6]

Gradual uptake of hybrid open access

[edit]

The early uptake of hybrid open access was slow, and differed between countries. A study in 2012 noted that "The number of hybrid journals has doubled in the past couple of years and is now over 4,300, "but concluded that there was "lack of success of this business model", with only 1 to 2% of researchers making use of it.[7][8] However, the United Kingdom was a notable front runner in using the model, "its use of OA in hybrid journals and of delayed OA journals is more than twice the world average".[9] Growth slowly continued, and a 2018 large-scale survey of open access business models across global scholarly publishing estimated that between 3 and 8% of articles were published via hybrid open access.[10] Research carried out a year later indicated that Hybrid Open Access had actually peaked around 2016.[11]

Criticism

[edit]

While hybrid Open Access began as an agreed method amongst publishers, scientists and libraries for a gradual transition towards full Open Access, it soon attracted various criticisms for being unfair.

Allegations of double dipping

[edit]

Since one source of funds to pay for open access articles is the library subscription budget, it has been proposed that there needs to be a decrease in the subscription cost to the library in order to avoid 'double dipping' where an article is paid for twice – once through subscription fees, and again through an APC. For example, the Open Access Authors Fund of the University of Calgary Library (2009/09) requires that: "To be eligible for funding in this [hybrid open access] category, the publisher must plan to make (in the next subscription year) reductions to the institutional subscription prices based on the number of open-access articles in those journals."[12] On 12 November 2009, Nature Publishing Group issued a news release on how open access affected its subscription prices.[13]

However, university libraries were unconvinced that the decrease in prices was occurring.[14] A report on work carried out by the University of Nottingham since 2006 to introduce and manage an institutional open access fund has been published by Stephen Pinfield in Learned Publishing.[15] In this article, the author comments that: "As publishers' income has increased from OA [open-access] fees in the hybrid model, there has been little or no let-up in journal subscription inflation, and only a small minority of publishers have yet committed to adjusting their subscription prices as they receive increasing levels of income from OA options." By 2018, this particular problem was considered so extreme in the area of open access book (as opposed to journal) publishing that the Anti Double Dipping Alliance was formed.[16]

Institutional responses

[edit]

Towards the start of Hybrid Open Access, some universities, research centers, foundations, and government agencies designated funds to pay publication fees (APCs) of fee-based open access journals, including hybrid. However, as criticism of hybrid has grown, a substantial number of such funds (40%) will not reimburse APCs in hybrid journals, including Harvard University, CERN, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Columbia University and the Norwegian Research Council.[3] The European Commission has also announced that the ninth framework program (Horizon Europe) will not cover the cost of APCs in hybrid journals.[17] Science Europe has set up a coalition of European research funders (cOAlition S) who have explicitly ruled out reimbursing APCs in hybrid journals from 2020 with the express aim of driving a more rapid transition towards full open access (see transformative journal).[18]

Publishers have argued against the above criticisms and responses, arguing that hybrid "as successfully meet[s] market demands and foster[s] growth in open access publishing."[19]

Advantages and disadvantages to the author

[edit]

An author who wants to publish in an open-access format is not limited to the relatively small number of "full" open-access journals, but can also choose from the available hybrid open-access journals, which includes journals published by many of the largest academic publishers.

However, the author must still find the money. Many funding agencies are ready to let authors use grant funds, or apply for supplementary funds, to pay publication fees at open-access journals. (Only a minority of open-access journals charge such fees, but nearly all hybrid open access journals do so.) So far, the funding agencies that are willing to pay these fees do not distinguish between full and hybrid open-access journals. On 19 October 2009, one such funding agency, the Wellcome Trust, expressed concerns about hybrid open-access fees being paid twice, through subscriptions and through publication fees.[20]

If an author is unable to pay the fees or chooses not to do so, they often retain the right to share their work online by self-archiving in an open access repository.

Variations

[edit]

The American Society of Plant Biologists has adopted a policy[21] that articles contributed by society members to its journal, Plant Physiology, will be made open access immediately on publication at no additional charge. Non-member authors can receive OA through payment of $1,000, but since membership is only $115/year,[22] it is expected this initiative will boost membership.

Partial open access exists when only research articles are open (as in BMJ), while articles in other categories are paywalled.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Hybrid open-access journal

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A hybrid open-access journal is a subscription-based academic periodical that maintains a traditional for most articles, funded by institutional or subscriptions, while permitting authors to pay an (APC) to publish select articles as immediately under a creative commons license, typically making them freely readable and reusable worldwide. This model, also known as hybrid OA, emerged in the mid-2000s as a transitional mechanism for established subscription journals to incorporate elements of the without fully abandoning revenue from access fees. Major commercial publishers such as Wiley, Springer Nature, and Elsevier have widely adopted hybrid options across thousands of their titles, enabling authors affiliated with funded research to comply with mandates for public accessibility while preserving the perceived prestige and peer-review rigor of legacy journals. Hybrid journals offer authors flexibility in disseminating findings—paying APCs often ranging from $2,000 ,000 per article to bypass subscription barriers—potentially increasing citation rates and for open articles, though on broad impacts remains mixed due to confounding factors like field-specific norms. However, the model has faced substantial for enabling "double-dipping," wherein publishers both subscription revenues and APCs for overlapping audiences without sufficient, transparent offsets in subscription , effectively extracting dual payments from libraries and authors for similar content access . This practice persists despite publisher pledges of non-double-dipping policies, as independent audits reveal inconsistent adjustments and opaque that fail to demonstrably reduce subscription costs commensurate with rising OA . Funder coalitions like cOAlition S have consequently excluded hybrid journals from compliance with full open-access requirements, arguing the model entrenches financial inefficiencies and delays systemic transition to sustainable, non-hybrid OA structures, with hybrid OA articles comprising only a minority fraction of output in most titles even after years of availability.

Definition and Core Features

Operational Model

In hybrid open-access journals, the operational workflow begins with standard manuscript submission and processes akin to those in traditional subscription journals, where editorial decisions are made without regard to the author's eventual open-access choice. Upon acceptance, authors are offered the option to pay an (APC), typically ranging from $2,000 ,000 depending on the publisher and journal, to make their article immediately open access under a , while non-paying authors' articles remain behind a subscription paywall. This post-acceptance decision point allows flexibility, with authors declaring funding sources or affiliations that may cover the fee, after which the publisher handles licensing, formatting, and online dissemination. Publication occurs on a hybrid basis within the same issue or online-first platform: open-access articles are freely downloadable worldwide without embargoes, indexed in repositories like PubMed Central if applicable, and compliant with funder mandates, whereas subscription articles require institutional or individual access via licenses. Journal editors and production teams manage dual tracks simultaneously, ensuring metadata tags distinguish access types for discovery services like DOAJ or Google Scholar, while advertisers and analytics track usage metrics separately for open and closed content. Ongoing operations include monitoring APC rates, which vary by but averaged around 5-10% in major publishers like and as of , influencing policies such as hybrid-to-full-OA transitions when thresholds are met. Compliance with initiatives like is handled through offsetting agreements with institutions, where bulk APC waivers reduce administrative burdens, but core operations prioritize peer-reviewed over access mode to sustain the journal's . This model enables publishers to maintain archival stability and reader services funded by subscriptions, supplemented by selective open-access .

Distinction from Pure Subscription and Full Open Access

Hybrid journals primarily follow a subscription-based model, in which libraries or institutions pay recurring fees to access the of articles behind a , while offering authors the option to pay an () to publish their article as , typically under a Creative Commons license permitting broad reuse. This selective approach contrasts with pure subscription journals, where all content remains inaccessible without a paid subscription or purchase, and no APC-funded open access pathway exists for authors, preserving a uniform revenue stream from access fees without hybridizing dissemination. In pure subscription models, publishers rely solely on reader-side payments, which can limit readership to funded institutions and exclude unaffiliated researchers or those in low-resource settings, whereas hybrid journals enable targeted for APC-sponsored articles, potentially boosting citations and downloads for those pieces while sustaining subscription from the paywalled remainder. However, this distinction introduces inefficiencies, as institutions may face "double dipping"—paying both subscriptions for non-open access content and APCs for articles without proportional subscription discounts, a practice documented in analyses of major publishers' . Full open access journals differ fundamentally by making all articles freely available immediately upon publication, without any subscription barrier, often funded through universal APCs in gold open access models or non-fee mechanisms like society sponsorships in diamond open access variants. Hybrid journals, by retaining paywalls for unsubsidized articles, do not achieve this comprehensive accessibility, resulting in fragmented availability within the same issue and higher average APCs—often 50% more than in full open access journals—while failing to transition the entire publication to open models, as evidenced by persistent low uptake rates of the open option in many hybrids. Critics, including funding consortia like cOAlition S, argue this structure incentivizes publishers to maintain hybrid status for revenue maximization rather than fully embracing open access, contrasting with the uniform, barrier-free ethos of full open access.

Historical Development

Origins in the Early 2000s

The hybrid model emerged as a pragmatic by subscription-based publishers to the rising of the movement in the early 2000s, allowing authors to pay fees for articles to be made freely available while preserving from institutional subscriptions for non-open access content. This approach contrasted with full journals by maintaining a dual structure, where article processing charges (APCs) funded open access options selectively. Early experiments predated the slightly, with the Entomological of America introducing hybrid options in the late 1990s for journals like the Entomologist, charging APCs of a few hundred dollars per article to offset access barriers without fully shifting away from subscriptions. However, the model's origins in the early aligned with foundational declarations, such as the Budapest Initiative in , which emphasized removing financial barriers to scholarly , prompting established publishers to test hybrid mechanisms as a transitional strategy. A pivotal development occurred in 2003, when the Company of Biologists announced a one-year experimental hybrid program for its journals, including Development, Journal of Cell Science, and Journal of Experimental Biology, under which authors could fund immediate while the publisher retained subscription access for other articles. This society-led initiative highlighted hybrid OA's appeal for nonprofit publishers seeking to balance accessibility with financial sustainability amid growing advocacy for author-pays models. The model scaled rapidly in 2004 with commercial publishers' involvement: Springer launched "Open Choice," offering hybrid open access across more than 1,000 subscription journals for an APC of approximately $3,000 per article, enabling selective open dissemination without disrupting core subscription income. Wiley followed suit with "Online Open," extending similar options to its portfolio, which together marked the mainstream institutionalization of hybrid OA as a revenue-diversifying response to pressures from funders and libraries demanding broader access. These launches reflected publishers' causal incentive to mitigate risks of full OA conversion, as hybrid arrangements allowed experimentation with APCs while leveraging existing subscription infrastructures. By mid-decade, such programs had proliferated, setting the stage for hybrid OA to comprise a significant portion of transitional publishing economics. Following the of hybrid models in the early , major publishers began offering options within subscription journals, with accelerating in the mid-. For example, Springer launched its Open program in , enabling authors to pay article charges (APCs) for immediate open access in otherwise paywalled titles. By , approximately 2,000 journals provided hybrid options, primarily from leading commercial publishers. The number of hybrid journals expanded rapidly thereafter, reaching nearly by across 20 major publishers, driven by funder mandates such as those from the and institutional APC funds. Hybrid open-access articles grew from around in to over ,000 in , representing about 5.5% of Scopus-indexed articles by the latter year, with growth accelerating post-2014 to centralized mechanisms that offset APCs. Despite this, the proportion of open-access articles within hybrid journals remained modest, averaging 3-5% in many cases, reflecting selective author tied to . Growth continued into the 2020s, bolstered by transformative agreements (TAs) between institutions, consortia, and publishers, which bundled subscription fees with APC coverage to facilitate hybrid open access. The share of open-access content in hybrid journals rose from 4.3% in 2018 to 15% in 2022 in TA-covered portfolios. In 2023, hybrid open-access articles totaled approximately 200,000 (under CC BY licenses), marking a 22% year-over-year increase and comprising 25% of overall open-access output from Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) members, offsetting a decline in fully open-access journal articles. For publishers like Springer Nature, open-access articles in hybrid and full open-access journals reached 44% of primary research output by 2023, up from 38% in 2022. This sustained expansion highlights hybrid models' role in incrementally broadening access amid persistent subscription revenues, though critics note slow conversion rates toward full open access.

Publishing Mechanics and Economics

Article Processing Charges and Revenue Streams

In hybrid open-access journals, authors who elect open access for their articles pay an to the publisher, which covers costs associated with , , and while making the article freely available immediately upon publication under an open . Non-open-access articles in the same journal remain accessible only to subscribers or through pay-per-view options, preserving the traditional base. This optional APC model, often termed "author-pays" for open-access selections, emerged as a transitional mechanism in subscription-dominant journals during the 2000s. APCs in hybrid journals are typically higher than those in fully open-access journals, reflecting the prestige and established infrastructure of hybrid titles. In 2023, the median APC for hybrid journals was $3,230, compared to $2,000 for gold open-access journals, with premiums in high-impact hybrids such as those in the reaching $12,290. These charges are often funded by authors' institutions, , or read-and-publish agreements, though waivers may apply for authors from low-income countries or those facing financial hardship, depending on publisher policies. Average hybrid APCs have been reported at approximately £2,770, exceeding full open-access averages of £1,768 based on aggregated . The primary revenue streams for hybrid journals thus comprise institutional subscriptions—covering bundled access to paywalled content—and APCs from open-access articles, creating a diversified income model that supplements rather than replaces subscription income. For six major publishers (Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, PLOS, Springer Nature, Wiley), total APC expenditures across and hybrid outputs reached $2.538 billion in 2023 (adjusted to 2023 USD), with hybrid APC revenues alone growing 226.8% from $236.2 million in to $771.7 million. This growth stems from increasing open-access uptake and read-and-publish deals, which bundle APC coverage into broader subscription offsets. However, analyses of publisher pricing behavior reveal that subscription fees do not decline proportionally with rising open-access article volumes; a study of 1,141 Wiley hybrid journals using full information maximum likelihood estimation found no inverse relationship between open-access proportions and price adjustments, indicating that publishers retain both revenue sources without systemic offsets.

Institutional Agreements and Offsetting Mechanisms

Institutional agreements in hybrid open-access journals typically involve contracts between publishers and universities, consortia, or funding bodies that bundle subscription access to journal content with provisions for open-access publishing of affiliated authors' articles, often under fixed annual fees or capped article outputs. These "read-and-publish" deals emerged prominently in the mid-2010s as a response to rising demands for open access amid persistent subscription costs, allowing institutions to offset individual article processing charges (APCs) against collective payments. For instance, Wiley's agreements with consortia like the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) enable authors from participating institutions to publish in eligible hybrid journals without additional APCs, covering both reading access and up to a specified number of OA articles per year through 2027. Similarly, Elsevier's read-and-publish pacts with entities such as OhioLINK include hybrid journals but exclude fully open-access titles, with eligibility tied to institutional affiliation and article caps to manage costs. Offsetting mechanisms within these agreements adjust subscription fees downward based on revenues generated from OA APCs paid by or on behalf of the institution, aiming to mitigate accusations of double-dipping where publishers collect both subscription and APCs for the same content. Publishers like implement year-specific offsets, crediting hybrid APC expenditures against the following year's subscription or fees for the institution. similarly bases subscription reductions on actual APC from affiliated authors rather than projected content , incorporating discounts or zero-rated local offsets where applicable. Such mechanisms, formalized in agreements since around 2016, seek to neutralize net costs for OA publishing in hybrid models, though implementation varies; for example, early negotiations highlighted challenges in verifying offset calculations to transparency and prevent overpayment. Despite these provisions, offsetting has faced for inconsistent application across publishers, with some analyses indicating that hybrid APCs—averaging approximately $2, per article—do not always fully translate to subscription rebates, potentially sustaining higher overall expenditures for institutions. Transformative agreements, which build on offsetting principles, often include hybrid journals as transitional vehicles but impose benchmarks for increasing OA proportions, as seen in cOAlition S frameworks requiring offsets to avoid dual revenue . Empirical tracking via tools like the Hybrid OA reveals uptake patterns, with over 5,000 hybrid journals from 73 publishers participating in such deals by , though offsets remain institution-specific and dependent on negotiated terms rather than standardized industry protocols.

Empirical Benefits and Evidence

Visibility, Citation, and Download Metrics

Hybrid open-access articles published in subscription-based journals typically receive higher citation counts compared to paywalled articles within the same journals, with studies attributing this to increased accessibility removing barriers to readership. A 2023 analysis of clinical journals found that hybrid open access articles garnered 1.45 times more citations than subscription articles in 2018 (95% : 1.24–1.65), rising to 1.59 in 2019 and stabilizing around 1.4–1.5 in subsequent years, after controlling for factors like publication date and journal . Similarly, a 2024 study across disciplines confirmed a general citation premium for hybrid open access over closed-access articles, with the advantage persisting even after adjustments for self-selection bias where higher-quality papers might preferentially opt for open access. Download metrics further underscore enhanced visibility, as freely accessible hybrid articles eliminate paywalls, leading to substantially higher usage rates. Publisher data from Taylor & Francis indicates that open access articles in hybrid journals achieve approximately five times more downloads than subscription counterparts, alongside 40% higher citation rates and doubled altmetric attention scores reflecting broader societal engagement. Independent analyses corroborate this, reporting full-text downloads for open access papers up to 89% higher and unique visitors 23% greater than for subscription articles, patterns applicable to hybrid models where individual articles gain immediate open dissemination. These metrics suggest hybrid boosts without diluting journal prestige, as within-journal comparisons isolate the effect of from inherent article or outlet ; however, the citation advantage may partly stem from to content, with long-term impacts varying by field and diminishing after 2–3 years post-publication. Empirical reviews of over 100 studies affirm a robust citation effect across publishing models, including hybrid, though remains debated due to variables like author prestige.

Author and Publisher Incentives

Authors in hybrid open-access journals are incentivized by the opportunity to publish in established, high-impact subscription-based venues while securing broader through open access. This model allows researchers to leverage the prestige and rigorous peer-review processes of traditional journals, which often correlate with advancement metrics such as promotion and decisions, without fully committing to diamond or open-access alternatives that may lack equivalent reputational standing. Empirical studies indicate that open-access articles in hybrid journals receive significantly higher citation rates compared to subscription-only counterparts in the same publications, with advantages ranging from 6% to over 40% depending on discipline and controls for self-selection bias. For instance, analyses of hybrid journals in clinical medicine and energy sciences have shown elevated citations attributable to increased accessibility, downloads, and online attention. This citation premium, corroborated across large-scale datasets, motivates authors—particularly those subject to funder mandates requiring open access—to opt for hybrid publication to maximize research impact without sacrificing journal selectivity. Publisher incentives center on revenue diversification and risk mitigation during the transition to . Hybrid models enable publishers to retain subscription revenues from institutions for non-open-access content while generating supplementary income through article processing charges () for open-access articles, effectively creating a dual-stream funding mechanism. Between 2019 and recent years, APC revenues from hybrid and open-access publications among major publishers have tripled, reflecting the model's profitability as open-access uptake grows without immediate erosion of subscription bases. This approach sustains high profit margins—often exceeding 30% for large commercial publishers—by capitalizing on author-side payments funded via or institutional agreements, thereby hedging against potential subscription cancellations from rising open-access adoption. However, publishers must balance APC volume to avoid tipping points where sufficient open-access content prompts institutions to withhold subscriptions, as observed in cases where hybrid journals exceed 50-70% open-access articles. Institutional read-and-publish agreements further align incentives by offsetting APCs for affiliated authors, reducing out-of-pocket costs and encouraging hybrid uptake, which in turn bolsters publisher cash flows through prepaid credits or bundled deals. For publishers, this facilitates gradual adaptation to open-access norms while preserving the economic stability of legacy subscription systems, though critics from open-access advocacy groups argue it perpetuates dependency on hybrid revenues amid stalled full transitions. Overall, the model's persistence stems from these mutually reinforcing dynamics, with hybrid journals comprising a significant portion of open-access outputs in fields like medicine and sciences as of 2023.

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Allegations of Double-Dipping and Revenue Maximization

Critics of hybrid open-access journals allege double-dipping occurs when publishers collect for individual open-access articles while maintaining full subscription revenues for the same content, without proportional in subscription prices. This mechanism purportedly allows maximization by adding APC atop existing subscription , decoupling the two and yielding net gains for publishers. Early of such practices emerged in analyses of institutional spending; for example, in , 20 institutions expended £14.3 million on Elsevier subscriptions alongside £0.94 million in hybrid APCs, increasing total costs by over 6% without corresponding subscription discounts. A subsequent study of 23 institutions confirmed that hybrid APC payments supplemented rather than supplanted subscription fees, with publishers like Elsevier arguing the revenues were independent despite covering identical outputs. Empirical support for double-dipping includes a 2023 econometric of 1,141 Wiley hybrid journals, which found no downward adjustment in subscription prices despite rising proportions of open-access articles; instead, APCs increased alongside subscription hikes, indicating publishers retained dual payments without offset. Hybrid APCs averaged £2,770 as of recent , exceeding £1,768 for fully open-access journals, with hybrid APC expenditures growing faster than subscriptions and amplifying overall costs borne by funders and institutions. Publishers counter these claims with "no double-dipping" policies, promising subscription rebates proportional to APC volumes; for instance, and reported full offsets (e.g., 5% reduction for 5% open-access articles) in some cases. However, a survey of 24 publishers revealed partial or conditional offsets at best, with transparency and no entity fully eliminating the , as verification mechanisms remain opaque. These dynamics underpin broader maximization critiques, as hybrid models sustain high publisher margins—often cited as transitioning slowly or not at all to full —prompting funder policies like cOAlition S's exclusion of hybrid APC to redirect resources toward non-duplicative systems.

Failures in Transition to Full Open Access

Despite being promoted as a transitional mechanism toward full , the hybrid model has empirically failed to convert a significant portion of journals to , with publishers maintaining dual from subscriptions and article processing charges (APCs) for extended periods. A 2012 analysis concluded that hybrid publishing did not facilitate a viable shift, as uptake of open access options remained low and did not erode subscription bases sufficiently to prompt full conversion. Data from Elsevier indicated that the proportion of open access articles in hybrid journals rose modestly from 1.5% in 2005 to 11% in 2015, projecting over 50 years for complete transition at that rate, underscoring the model's stagnation. Efforts to accelerate transitions via transformative agreements have similarly faltered, with many hybrid journals failing mandated benchmarks for open access uptake. In June 2023, cOAlition S excluded approximately two-thirds of its 2,300 participating transformative journals—predominantly hybrids—for not achieving annual increases of at least 5 percentage points in open access content or reaching 75% open access by agreement endpoints. This removal affected journals from major publishers, highlighting systemic delays attributed to economic incentives favoring prolonged hybrid status over full open access flips. Such outcomes have perpetuated paywalls for non-open access articles, hindering broader access goals despite over two decades of hybrid implementation since the early 2000s.

Economic and Quality Concerns

Hybrid journals have been criticized for exacerbating financial burdens on institutions and funders, as they permit publishers to maintain subscription revenues while simultaneously charging article processing charges (APCs) for open-access articles, without corresponding in subscription fees. This dual-revenue , often termed "double-dipping," results in net increases; for instance, global expenditure on APCs for hybrid journals rose faster than subscription costs between 2015 and 2020, with libraries reporting no offsets despite growing open-access . Such dynamics disproportionately affect publicly funded , where taxpayers effectively subsidize both access models without achieving systemic savings or a full transition to open access. APCs in hybrid journals vary widely but often align with or exceed those in fully open-access venues, ranging from $2,000 to $4,500 in major publishers like ACS, excluding discounts that rarely apply to hybrid options. This pricing lacks transparency and competitive pressure, as hybrid status shields journals from market forces that might drive down costs in pure open-access models, leading to accusations of revenue maximization over accessibility. Critics, including cOAlition S—which prioritizes immediate full open access—argue this model entrenches high prices, with empirical data showing hybrid APC spending outpacing subscriptions by over 10% annually in some analyses, though the coalition's advocacy for alternatives may introduce selection bias in framing these economics. Quality concerns in hybrid journals center on potential incentives for diluted selectivity, as APC revenues could encourage acceptance of marginally viable submissions to boost income without subscription losses. Theoretical models suggest open-access options in subscription journals may reduce stringency in peer review, admitting lower-quality work and homogenizing standards across outlets. Empirically, about 20% of surveyed hybrid journals in library and information science fields solicited open-access preferences during initial submission, raising ethical risks of bias in editorial decisions favoring fee-paying authors over merit. However, direct evidence of systematically inferior article quality remains sparse, with studies indicating hybrid open-access papers often garner higher citations—potentially due to visibility rather than rigor—and peer-review processes mirroring those in subscription content from the same journals. Reputable hybrid publishers mitigate predatory risks, but the model's opacity in APC allocation and slow evolution toward full open access (e.g., only 15% open-access share by 2022 in many hybrids) fuels skepticism about sustained quality controls amid profit-driven expansions.

Policy and Institutional Responses

Funder Mandates like Plan S

Plan S, initiated by cOAlition S on September 4, 2018, mandates that from January 1, 2021, peer-reviewed publications arising from research funded by its members must be immediately open access under licenses such as CC BY, excluding non-compliant subscription or hybrid models unless transitional pathways are in place. cOAlition S, comprising over 20 national funding bodies including the European Commission and Wellcome Trust, explicitly rejects ongoing support for hybrid journals due to persistent double payments—where institutions pay subscriptions alongside APCs for open access articles—and the model's failure to drive systemic transition to full open access. To facilitate compliance during the shift, Plan S permits APC funding for hybrid journals designated as Transformative Journals, which require publishers to commit to flipping the entire portfolio to full open access by a defined date (often 2024) while progressively increasing the open access content share to at least 75%. This distinction emphasizes contractual obligations and transparency over mere opt-in APC options in standard hybrids. In practice, publishers like IEEE responded by committing their full hybrid portfolio to Transformative Journal status in November 2022, enabling continued APC eligibility for funded authors. Similarly, Springer Nature and Cambridge University Press aligned select hybrid titles via transformative routes to maintain Plan S compliance. Key updates include a 2019 revision clarifying transformative requirements and, critically, cOAlition S's January 2023 announcement ending financial support for all transformative arrangements post-2024, redirecting funds exclusively to fully open access venues to enforce full compliance without perpetual offsets. This timeline pressures hybrid publishers to complete flips or forfeit cOAlition S-funded submissions, which represent a significant revenue portion given members' grant volumes exceeding €10 billion annually. Parallel mandates from non-cOAlition S funders amplify these constraints; for example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, adopting Plan S-aligned principles, halted APC payments for hybrid journals in January 2021, prioritizing diamond or full open access outlets. The European Commission's Horizon Europe program enforces zero-embargo open access, reimbursing APCs only for compliant full open access or approved transformative hybrids until 2024. Such policies collectively diminish hybrid viability by withholding reimbursements, prompting institutional negotiations for read-and-publish deals as bridges, though cOAlition S critiques these for delaying full reform. By 2025, these mandates have accelerated hybrid attrition, with compliance tools like the cOAlition S Journal Checker aiding authors in verifying eligibility.

Transformative Agreements and Subscription Offsets

Transformative agreements represent a policy mechanism designed to facilitate the shift from subscription-based access to open access publishing in hybrid journals by reallocating institutional funds previously allocated to read-and-publish subscriptions toward covering article processing charges (APCs) for open access articles. These agreements, negotiated between libraries, consortia, or national bodies and publishers, typically include provisions for unlimited reading access alongside capped or unlimited OA publishing for affiliated authors, with the explicit goal of increasing the proportion of open access content until the journal transitions to full open access. Initially endorsed by cOAlition S under Plan S as compliant pathways during a transitional period, transformative agreements were intended to redirect subscription revenues to support the Open Access 2020 initiative, avoiding abrupt disruptions in access while promoting a net increase in open access output. Subscription offsets form a core component of many transformative agreements, particularly in hybrid models, wherein payments made for traditional subscriptions are credited or deducted from APC costs to mitigate risks of publishers receiving duplicate revenue streams for the same content—a practice known as double-dipping. For instance, in agreements with publishers like Wiley or Springer Nature, offsets ensure that rising open access uptake does not lead to parallel subscription fees, with publishers committing to adjust pricing formulas based on historical OA volumes, such as reducing subscription rates by a percentage tied to APC revenues (e.g., 1-3% adjustments in select hybrid titles). This mechanism addresses economic concerns in hybrid journals by linking access fees to publishing outputs, though implementation varies, with some consortia requiring transparent reporting on offset calculations to verify cost neutrality or savings. As a response to the limitations of standalone hybrid models, which often perpetuated high subscription costs alongside APCs, transformative agreements gained traction through initiatives like Germany's Project DEAL (signed with Springer Nature in 2019 and expanded in 2023) and the University of California's system-wide pacts, covering thousands of hybrid journals and enabling over 100,000 open access articles annually by 2023. However, cOAlition S announced in 2023 that support for transformative agreements would cease after December 31, 2024, reflecting evaluations that such deals had not sufficiently accelerated full open access transitions and sometimes entrenched hybrid economics, prompting funders to prioritize direct open access journals compliant with immediate OA mandates. The Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC) initiative maintains a registry of these agreements to promote transparency, aiding institutions in negotiating terms that prioritize verifiable shifts toward open access without inflating overall expenditures.

Current Status and Future Outlook

Between 2015 and 2019, hybrid open-access uptake in major publishers' journals grew modestly in both volume and proportion. For Elsevier, the share of open-access articles within its hybrid journals rose from 2.6% in 2015 to 3.7% in 2019, with the absolute number of such articles doubling from 10,672 to 19,311 annually. This period reflected steady but limited adoption, as hybrid options were available in a growing number of journals (increasing 21% to over 1,600 titles with at least one OA article), yet overall uptake remained below 4% of total hybrid journal output for this publisher. Globally, hybrid OA represented a small fraction of potential opportunities, consistent with earlier estimates of just 2.4% actual uptake against 52.3% feasible in 2014. Post-2020 trends showed accelerated volume growth amid funder pressures and transformative agreements, though proportional uptake per hybrid journal stayed constrained. Hybrid OA article counts surged 24% in 2022 and 22% in 2023, culminating in nearly 200,000 articles that year—offsetting a 0.67% decline in full OA output and driving overall OA expansion. Cumulative hybrid OA articles exceeded 733,000 from 2000 to 2023, with CC BY licensing rising to 67% of 2023 output. For Springer Nature, combined hybrid and full OA reached 44% of primary research articles by 2024, up from 38% in 2022, indicating hybrid's role in broader OA gains. By 2024–2025, hybrid OA sustained robust expansion relative to the scholarly market, with article output and revenue outpacing total publishing growth (2.5% market-wide). This contributed to gold OA (encompassing hybrid) comprising 40% of global articles, up from 14% in 2014, as author choice rates when offered doubled to 50%. Projections indicate hybrid will account for one-third of OA articles and nearly half of OA revenue by 2027, fueled by higher article processing charges and preferences for established subscription titles. Despite this, hybrid's per-journal OA penetration has not exceeded low single digits in reported publisher data, highlighting persistent subscription reliance even as volumes rise.

Prospects Amid Shifting OA Landscapes

As open access mandates intensify, hybrid journals face mounting pressure to evolve or diminish, with cOAlition S confirming in January 2023 the cessation of financial support for open access publishing under transformative arrangements after 2024, redirecting resources toward full open access models. This policy shift, rooted in Plan S principles launched in 2018, explicitly discourages hybrid structures beyond transitional phases, arguing they perpetuate subscription dependencies without guaranteeing comprehensive open access. Despite this, hybrid open access articles grew robustly from 4.3% of output in 2018 to 15% in 2022, largely fueled by transformative agreements that bundled subscriptions with article processing charges (APCs). In 2023, hybrid open access output expanded to offset a contraction in fully open access journals, comprising 75% of open access articles from Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) members and sustaining overall growth amid economic uncertainties. Transformative agreements, negotiated by consortia like those in Europe and North America, have accelerated this trend by offsetting APCs against subscription fees, yet critics contend they enable publishers to extract dual revenues without flipping portfolios to diamond or full gold open access, as evidenced by persistent subscription renewals in covered institutions. By 2024, global gold open access reached 40% of articles, reviews, and conference papers, but hybrid's role remains transitional, vulnerable to funder offsets and mandates like the anticipated 2025 U.S. federal requirements for immediate open access. Prospects hinge on publisher adaptations: while some hybrid titles may convert to full open access via "transform to open" pilots, others risk stagnation or retraction from funder-approved lists if APC inflation—averaging 10-20% annually in hybrids—erodes institutional buy-in. Economic realism suggests hybrids could endure in high-prestige, subscription-reliant fields where APC burdens deter full flips, but causal evidence from Plan S implementations indicates slower-than-expected transitions, with only partial offsets achieved by 2024. Emerging scrutiny over hybrid quality, including diluted peer review under volume pressures, further clouds viability, potentially favoring modular alternatives over entrenched dual-payment models.

Mirror Journals and Parallel Structures

Mirror journals represent a publishing model where a fully open-access journal is created as a companion to an established subscription-based "parent" journal, sharing identical editorial standards, peer-review processes, aims, and scope, but requiring article processing charges (APCs) for all submissions to enable immediate open access without a subscription barrier. This structure emerged prominently around 2019 as publishers like Elsevier responded to demands for greater open access while preserving revenue from legacy subscription titles. Unlike traditional hybrid journals, which mix subscription and pay-to-open articles within a single title, mirror journals operate as distinct entities, allowing authors to choose between submitting to the subscription parent (with optional hybrid open access fees) or the fully open-access mirror. Elsevier pioneered this approach by launching over 20 mirror journals between 2019 and 2021, such as Patterns (mirroring aspects of Cell Press titles) and iScience, often with APCs set at or above those of equivalent fully open-access journals, ranging from $2,000 to $5,000 per article depending on the discipline. These mirrors maintain the brand prestige of the parent journal to attract submissions, with editorial boards overlapping significantly, but they have faced scrutiny for potentially fragmenting scholarly output: authors citing mirror articles may inadvertently dilute the citation impact of parent journals, while institutions risk paying both subscriptions and APCs without net savings. Empirical analysis of Elsevier's mirrors from 2019 to 2022 showed submission rates to mirrors comprising only 5-10% of total output in paired titles, suggesting limited migration from subscription models and raising questions about their role in transitioning away from hybrids. Parallel structures extend this concept beyond strict mirrors, encompassing broader arrangements where publishers maintain simultaneous subscription and open-access pathways for the same content ecosystem, such as through transformative agreements that offset APCs against subscription fees. For instance, Springer Nature has experimented with parallel open-access options in select hybrid titles, though not formalized as mirrors, allowing bundled access models that critics argue perpetuate "double-dipping" by retaining hybrid revenue streams alongside new APC income. Proponents claim these structures facilitate gradual open-access adoption by leveraging established journal brands, with data from 2020-2023 indicating mirror journals achieving impact factors comparable to parents (e.g., The Lancet Digital Health mirror scoring 36.6 in 2022). However, organizations like cOAlition S view them as extensions of hybrid flaws, citing evidence that such parallels delay full open access by discouraging subscription cancellations, with hybrid OA uptake plateauing at 10-15% of articles in major publishers despite mandates. This model thus highlights tensions between publisher incentives for revenue diversification and funder pressures for systemic OA transformation, with no large-scale empirical studies yet confirming accelerated flips to diamond or fully subsidized access.

Emerging Hybrid Innovations

One prominent emerging innovation in hybrid open-access journals is the Subscribe to Open (S2O) model, which leverages existing subscription commitments to conditionally flip entire journal volumes to full open access without imposing article processing charges (APCs) on authors. In this approach, publishers offer subscribers the option to renew at current rates; if a predefined threshold of support is met—typically based on prior subscription revenue—the content for that year becomes openly accessible to all, while non-participation keeps it paywalled. This model addresses longstanding criticisms of hybrid journals, such as "double dipping" where publishers collect both subscription fees and APCs for the same content, by incentivizing collective library action to achieve diamond-like open access (free to read and publish) through subscription pooling rather than per-article fees. Proponents argue it sustains publisher revenue while accelerating the transition from hybrid to full open access, particularly for society-owned journals wary of APC-driven models that could exclude non-funded researchers. The Royal Society announced in August 2025 its plan to adopt S2O for eight hybrid journals starting in 2026, marking a significant institutional shift if subscription targets are achieved, potentially making high-impact titles like Philosophical Transactions fully open without APCs. Similarly, publishers such as De Gruyter Brill, Taylor & Francis, and Karger have piloted S2O on select hybrid titles, with Karger applying it to journals like Pediatric Neurosurgery and Developmental Neuroscience to test viability amid rising open-access mandates. Adoption remains experimental, however, with skeptics noting risks of subscription erosion as libraries redirect funds to transformative agreements, potentially dooming the model if participation falls short. Complementing S2O, tools for enhanced transparency in hybrid publishing have emerged to mitigate double-dipping concerns. The Hybrid Open Access Dashboard (HOAD), launched by cOAlition S in August 2023, aggregates open data from 5,287 hybrid journals across 73 publishers to track open-access uptake, APC expenditures, and subscription offsets, enabling libraries to negotiate offsets that reduce redundant payments. This data-driven innovation supports evidence-based policy, revealing that hybrid open-access articles grew 22% in 2023 despite stagnation in full open-access output, underscoring hybrids' role in bridging subscription and open ecosystems. While not altering core hybrid mechanics, such analytics foster accountability, with studies confirming variable double-dipping incidence—e.g., limited evidence in Wiley hybrids where subscription prices did not consistently rise with open-access proportions—but persistent systemic risks without offsets. These innovations reflect broader experimentation in hybrid models amid 2025 open-access mandates like Plan S extensions, prioritizing cooperative, non-APC pathways to sustain quality peer review while curbing inequities in APC burdens. Empirical data from pilots indicate potential for scalability in society-led publishing, though long-term success hinges on library consortia commitment and resistance to revenue leakage.

References

  1. https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/questions/what-is-a-hybrid-open-access-journal/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5624290/
  3. https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/hybrid-open-access/index.html
  4. https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/journals-books/journals
  5. https://www.coalition-s.org/why-hybrid-journals-do-not-lead-to-full-and-immediate-open-access/
  6. https://www.enago.com/academy/hybrid-journals-are-publishers-double-dipping/
  7. https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-SOCSCI.AOWNTU.v1
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9923421/
  9. https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/article-publication-charges/index.html
  10. https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/how-to-order-hybrid-open-access.html
  11. https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/author-talk-open-access-journals-green-gold-hybrid
  12. https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/journals-books/journal-pricing-faqs
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3398850/
  14. https://researchlibrary.lanl.gov/help-and-tools/open-access/
  15. https://openeconomics.zbw.eu/en/knowledgebase/the-meaning-of-the-different-types-and-colours-of-open-access/
  16. https://research.library.gsu.edu/c.php?g=115588&p=754380
  17. https://library.hmsom.edu/c.php?g=1469567&p=10937494
  18. https://libguides.d.umn.edu/OA/OAtypes
  19. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3878
  20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961
  21. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/694860
  22. https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/about/timeline
  23. https://arxiv.org/html/2402.18255v1
  24. https://www.oaspa.org/news/fully-oa-journals-output-shrank-in-2023-but-hybrid-oa-made-up-the-lost-ground/
  25. https://www.springernature.com/gp/group/media/press-releases/oa-report-delivering-highest-usage-and-impact/27440804
  26. https://www.science.org/content/article/pay-publish-model-open-access-pricing-scientists
  27. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.16551
  28. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1007/s11192-023-04800-8
  29. https://caul.libguides.com/read-and-publish/wiley
  30. https://guides.libraries.wright.edu/openaccessagreements
  31. https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.345
  32. https://www.sagepub.com/journals/information-for-librarians/journals-subscriptions-purchasing/subscription-pricing-for-hybrid-journals
  33. https://esac-initiative.org/offsetting-under-construction/
  34. http://www.openaire.eu/blogs/the-worst-of-both-worlds-hybrid-open-access
  35. https://subugoe.github.io/hybrid_oa_dashboard/about.html
  36. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/2/21
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10906259/
  38. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/choose-open/publishing-open-access/oa-agreements/
  39. https://www.aje.com/arc/making-the-choice-open-access-vs-traditional-journals
  40. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253129
  41. https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Effects_of_Open_Access.pdf
  42. https://www.sagepub.com/explore-our-content/blogs/posts/sage-perspectives/2025/06/20/why-should-i-publish-in-a-hybrid-journal
  43. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mde.3429
  44. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.8b00061
  45. https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/about/oa-effect-hybrid
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5815332/
  47. https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24549
  48. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-024-01796-4
  49. https://www.rluk.ac.uk/the-costs-of-double-dipping/
  50. https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/190180/files/Double%20Dipping.pdf
  51. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-023-04800-8
  52. https://www.science.org/content/article/transformative-journals-get-booted-switching-open-access-too-slowly
  53. https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-infrastructure-2023-6-68-of-transformative-journals-to-be-kicked-out-of-plan-s-scheme/
  54. https://www.openaire.eu/blogs/the-worst-of-both-worlds-hybrid-open-access
  55. https://acsopenscience.org/researchers/oa-pricing/
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1751157718304814
  57. https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2016-0032
  58. https://oab.hypotheses.org/1201
  59. https://www.coalition-s.org/guidance-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/
  60. https://www.coalition-s.org/faq/why-do-coalition-s-funders-not-fund-hybrid-open-access/
  61. https://www.coalition-s.org/faq/how-do-transformative-journals-differ-from-hybrid-journals/
  62. https://www.ieee.org/about/news/2022/entire-hybrid-journal-portfolio
  63. https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/plan-s-compliance
  64. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/open-research-policies/cambridge-university-press-and-plan-s
  65. https://www.coalition-s.org/coalition-s-confirms-the-end-of-its-financial-support-for-open-access-publishing-under-transformative-arrangements-after-2024/
  66. https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.690
  67. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00883-6
  68. https://open-access.network/en/information/financing/research-funders-and-open-access
  69. https://www.coalition-s.org/faq/what-is-a-transformative-agreement/
  70. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/04/23/transformative-agreements/
  71. https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/whose-money-is-it-anyway-managing-offset-agreements/
  72. https://theplosblog.plos.org/2023/02/plos-and-plan-s/
  73. https://sparcopen.org/our-work/negotiation-resources/data-analysis/open-access-agreements-factors-to-consider/
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157716301523
  75. https://www.deltathink.com/news-views-market-sizing-update-2025-has-oa-recovered-its-mojo
  76. https://stm-assoc.org/oa-dashboard/oa-dashboard-2024/uptake-of-open-access/
  77. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/doi/10.1162/qss_a_00348/127473/How-open-are-hybrid-journals-included-in
  78. https://www.libraryassessment.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Ben-Knaan-Transform-to-Open.pdf
  79. https://www.science.org/content/article/mixed-review-plan-s-s-drive-make-papers-open-access
  80. https://www.escienceediting.org/journal/view.php?number=316
  81. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/10/29/are-mirror-journals-a-better-path-to-the-open-access-flip/
  82. https://www.econtentpro.com/blog/open-access-publishing-what-are-mirror-journals/154
  83. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1530
  84. https://ijpp.com/mirror-journals-what-do-they-reflect/
  85. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12109-024-09978-0
  86. https://www.stir.ac.uk/about/professional-services/information-services-and-library/current-students-and-staff/researchers/writing-and-research/publishing-and-impact/open-access/mystery-of-mirror-journals/
  87. https://subscribetoopencommunity.org/
  88. https://royalsociety.org/journals/librarians/purchasing/subscribe-to-open/
  89. https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/cooperative-oa-journal-models/
  90. https://royalsociety.org/news/2025/08/subscribe-to-open/
  91. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/publishing/about-us/about-de-gruyter-brill/open-access/subscribe-to-open?lang=en
  92. https://karger.com/pages/subscribe-to-open
  93. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/08/18/subscribe-to-open-is-doomed-heres-why/
  94. https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/introducing-the-hybrid-open-access-dashboard-hoad/
  95. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372706564_Does_double_dipping_occur_The_case_of_Wiley%27s_hybrid_journals
  96. https://www.highwirepress.com/blog/open-access-mandate-alpsp-notes-2024
  97. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2023/03/23/society-and-university-journal-publishers-gradually-progressing-towards-new-oa-models/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.