Vol. 6(4), pp. 86-100, June 2018
DOI: 10.14662/IJALIS2018.031
Copy © right 2018
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
ISSN: 2360-7858
http://www.academicresearchjournals.org/IJALIS/Index.htm

International Journal of
Academic Library andInformation Science

Full Length Research

Statistics on Open Access Books Available through the
Directory of Open Access Books
Dr. Keita Tsuji
Associate Professor, Faculty of Library, Information and Media Science, University of Tsukuba,
Address: 1-2 Kasuga, Tsukuba-city, Ibaraki-ken 305-0821, Japan. E-mail:keita@slis.tsukuba.ac.jp
Accepted 11 June 2018
Open Access (OA) books available through the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) areinvestigated and the number of titles, the distribution of subjects, languages, publishers, publication
years, licensing patterns, etc., are clarified. Their chronological changes are also shown. The sample
comprised 10,866 OA books, which were available through the DOAB as of February 24, 2018. The
results show that OA books are increasing in number at an accelerating rate. As for distribution ofsubjects, Social Sciences (“H” in the Library of Congress Classification [LCC] codes), Science (“Q” in
LCC) and World History and History of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc. (“D” in LCC)
are the most popular. As for languages, English, French, and German are the most popular. As for
publishers, Frontiers Media SA, Presses universitaires de Rennes, and ANU Press are the most popular.
Many books are newly published ones, but older books, published in or before 1999, also began to beavailable recently. As for the licensing patterns, “CC by-nc-nd” and “CC by” are the most popular.
Considering these tendencies, libraries should begin to utilize OA books.
Keywords: Open Access Books, OA books, OA monographs, Directory of Open Access Books, DOAB
Cite This Article As: Tsuji K (2018). Statistics on Open Access Books Available through the Directory of Open
Access Books. Inter. J. Acad. Lib. Info. Sci. 6(4): 86-100
INTRODUCTION
According to the International Federation of Library
Associations (IFLA), “Open access is the now known
name for a concept, a movement and a business model
whose goal is to provide free access and re-use ofscientific knowledge in the form of research articles,
monographs, data and related materials” (IFLA, 2011).
Open access (henceforth OA) has already been popularin the field of journal papers, and now it has started togain a certain position in the field of monographs, orbooks. In the present paper, OA books are investigated,
and the number of titles and the distribution of subjects,
languages, publishers, publication years, licensing

patterns, etc., will be clarified. Their chronologicalchanges will also be shown.
Although the definition of OA books and OA
1monographs has not been clearly stated, many articles
and reports have been published on them. In the present
1

For instance, Adema (2012) stated that, prior to the user needs
analysis of OA books, online discussion of OA books took
place among publishers, academics, librarians, andparticipants from the wider OA and publishing community.
The discussion included the definition of OA books, but
Adema did not report any conclusion regarding this definition.

Tsujipaper, we define OA books as books of research output
that are in electronic form and available on the Web freeof charge.
There are two representative directories or repositories
of OA books. One is the Directory of Open Access Books(DOAB), and the other is the Open Access Publishing inEuropean Networks (OAPEN) Library. Both are provided
by the OAPEN Foundation. The DOAB is a discovery
service for peer-reviewed OA books, with links to the fulltexts of the publications at the OAPEN Library, publisher’s
website, or repositories (Adema, 2012; Karak & Mandal,
2017). The DOAB was officially launched on July 1, 2013,at the Open Access Monographs in the Humanities andSocial Sciences Conference at the British Library in
London (Ferwerda. 2014; Karak & Mandal, 2017).
However, it had been operating unofficially since 2011,
and its beta version was launched in 2012. Lamani (2018)stated, “The Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) is
the major milestone in facilitating organized access toopen access e-books.”
As of February 24, 2018, the DOAB was providing
10,866 titles, and as of May 11, 2018, the OAPEN Library
was providing 5,048 titles. In the present paper, weinvestigate all 10,866 titles provided by the DOAB. We
leave it for future research to investigate OA books
provided by the OAPEN Library. One reason is that the
number of titles provided by the OAPEN Library is smaller
than that provided by the DOAB. Furthermore, OA books
available through the DOAB have a higher degree ofOpen Access; i.e., they have higher reusability than thosein the OAPEN Library in the licensing sense. Snijder(2013) stated that Amsterdam University Press had
placed almost 400 books in the OAPEN Library and thatless than half of them were also available through the
DOAB. He said that only books with a license thatenabled readers to share the contents were allowed in the
DOAB. Although it is an interesting direction to compare
titles available through the DOAB and the OAPEN Libraryor to investigate the disjunction of OA books available
through them, we leave it for future research.
There are three papers that have investigated the OA
books available through the DOAB (no paper was foundon those available through the OAPEN Library). Karakand Mandal (2017) investigated OA books in the field of
Library and Information Science. They found 35 books
and analyzed (1) the year-wise distribution and growth, (2)the number of authors, (3) publishers who were actively
involved in the DOAB, (4) language-wise distribution, (5)licensing patterns, and (6) the number of pages.
Khanchandani and Kumar (2017) investigated 1,052 OA
books available through the DOAB in the field of Scienceand Technology. They analyzed the books’ publishers,
licenses, and language-wise distribution. Lamani et al.
(2018) investigated 1,200 OA books available through the
DOAB in the field of Social Sciences. They analyzed thebooks’ subjects, the number of authors, the licenses,
languages, publication years, and pagination-wise

87

distribution. However, few studies have been done on all
the titles available through the DOAB regardless of theirfield. As we mentioned above, we will investigate all
10,866 titles available through the DOAB. The results
clarify the current status of OA books and can be used for
discussion of the preferable future of OA books.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The main objectives of the present study are:
 To show the statistics on OA books available throughthe DOAB such as their distribution of the subjects,
languages, publishers, publication/add-on years, licensing
patterns.
 To find out the chronological changes of the above
mentioned data for discussion of the preferable future of
OA books.
 To identify the active OA books publishers to promote
their further contribution.
LITERATURE REVIEWIn this section, we will outline the papers related to OA
books. The preceding papers can be classified into six
types: (A) those describing the current status andproblems of OA books in one institution or in general(Snijder, 2013; Hacker, 2014; Crossick, 2015; Collins &Milloy, 2016; Amano, 2017; Chakrabarti & Mandal, 2017;
Hacker & Corrao, 2017; Speicher, 2017; Tanabe, 2017;
Mongeau, 2018); (B) those investigating the impacts of
OA books on sales of printed books and on academic
fields (Ferwerda et al., 2013; Snijder, 2016; Speicher,
2016; Neylon et al., 2018); (C) those studying the users or
usages of OA books (Adema, 2012; Ferwerda et al.,2013; Montgomery et al., 2017); (D) those focusing on
business models (Adema, 2010; Ferwerda, 2014; London
Economics, 2015); (E) those emphasizing the directionthat OA books should take in the future (Jisc Collections &OAPEN Foundation, 2016; Barnes et al., 2017); and (F)those investigating the bibliographic information of OA
books (Karak & Mandal, 2017; Khanchandani & Kumar,
2017; Lamani et al., 2018). Since we have alreadyoutlined type (F) above, we will introduce the rest, i.e.,from (A) to (E), in the following paragraphs.
Among papers of type (A), Snijder (2013) reported on
the relationship between Amsterdam University Press(AUP), the OAPEN Library, the DOAB, and IMISCOE(International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion).
He stated that the OAPEN Library and DOAB platforms
were very useful tools for promoting OA books. Hacker(2014) described the challenges in publishing OA books
at the University of Heidelberg and pointed out theimportance of collaboration between scholars andpublishers. Crossick (2015) showed that the so-called

88Inter. J. Acad. Lib. and Info. Sci.

monograph crisis did not exist and examined (1) theadvantages and drawbacks of the various models for OA
monographs, (2) the strengths of the print monograph, (3)the problems of licensing, (4) third-party rights, (5) the
implications for other stakeholders (such as publishers,
learned societies, universities, and university libraries), (6)international cooperation issues, and (7) suggestions forpolicymakers. Collins and Milloy (2016) reported the main
findings from the OAPEN-UK research project, a five-year
study into OA monograph publishing in the Humanities
and Social Sciences. They first referred to theperspectives of five main groups (researchers, institutions,publishers, learned societies, and funders). Then theyreferred to the technical and organizational elements ofproducing an OA monograph and the characteristics thata successful business model of an OA monograph would
have. Amano (2017) described the current status andchallenges of OA books in the fields of Humanities andSocial Sciences in Europe, referring to their various
business models, dissemination, and preservation.
Chakrabarti and Mandal (2017) investigated the growth,languages, copyright licensing, and publishers of 35 ebooks in the Library and Information Science field
available through the DOAB. Hacker and Corrao (2017)
reported the challenges, accomplishments, and setbacks
that Heidelberg University’s newly founded OA publisher,
heiUP, experienced. They discussed issues such as
acquiring manuscripts, designing and building workflows,
and building an outlet for the finished product. Speicher(2017) examined the current status of OA monographs
and UK university presses. Tanabe (2017) examined theprograms by Springer on OA and scholarly books.
Mongeau (2018) described the current models, trends,
and issues of OA monograph publishing.
Among papers of type (B), Ferwerda et al. (2013)
reported the results of OAPEN-NL, which was a project togain experience in the OA publication of monographs in
the Netherlands. OAPEN-NL examined (1) user needs
and perceptions about the OAPEN’s publishing model for
OA monographs, (2) the costs of monograph publishing in
the Netherlands, and (3) the effects of OA on sales andscholarly impact. They stated that OAPEN-NL found noevidence of an effect of OA on sales (since Ferwerda etal. also investigated user needs and perceptions, theirpaper also falls into type [C]). Snijder (2016) investigatedwhether OA had a positive influence on the number ofcitations and tweets a monograph received. He found aslight OA advantage and that it depended on thelanguage and subjects of the books. Speicher (2016)
reported the effect on print sales of OAPEN-NL and
OAPEN-UK/Jisc making a book OA. She also describedthe experience of the University College London Press
and stated that OA seemed to have little effect on print
sales. Neylon et al. (2018) investigated the extent to which
OA books could be seen by the communities that mightmake use of them. They focused on OA books madeavailable by publishers and platforms that were part of the

OPERAS network, which was focused on thedevelopment of a European research infrastructure.
Among papers of type (C), Adema (2012) reported on
DOAB users’ needs, expectations, and experiences of
OA. These covered the awareness of the importance of
OA; quality control, especially, peer-reviews; licensing;business models; and the DOAB itself. Montgomery et al.
(2017) investigated the usage of OA books via the JSTOR
Platform. They investigated where the readers came from,the most popular subjects of the books, readers’ behavior
when they downloaded or viewed books, and publishers’
perspectives.
Among papers of type (D), Adema (2010) investigatedvarious initiatives’ OA business models, publishingmodels, and publishing processes. Initiatives included
commercial publishers and presses established bysocieties, academies, libraries, and universities, etc.
Ferwerda (2014) gave an overview of six business models
of OA books: (1) hybrid models (which provided freeversions of publications and the sale of premium editions),(2) institutional support (the receipt of direct financial
support through grants or indirect support throughsubsidies from the parent institute, etc.), (3) author-side
publication charges (derived from the Article Processing
Chargemodel for OA journals), (4) library-side models(which used library budgets to support OA publications),(5) crowdfunding, and (6) green OA. London Economics(2015) examined business models for OA monographs
and assessed issues relating to cost recovery, quality
control, and the incentives for authors and publishers.
They identified six types of business model, such as thoseby traditional publishers and new university presses.
Among papers of type (E), Jisc Collections and the
OAPEN Foundation (2016) reported on the potential
centralized services that would support and encourage
the publication of OA peer-reviewed monographs andpresented recommendations for their establishment.
Barnes et al. (2017) conducted a survey of academic
libraries in the United States and concluded that libraryfunded OA book initiatives could successfully scale up if
they employed sustainable business models, offeredquality content, and provided participants with usage data.
METHODOLOGY
In this section, we will explain the data and aspects weinvestigated concerning DOAB OA books.
Data We Used
The DOAB said that it had “10866 academic peerreviewed books and chapters from 256 publishers,” as of2
February 24, 2018. We downloaded a CSV file from2

https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=search&uiLanguage=en

Tsuji3

DOAB on February 25, 2018. The file contained theworks’ “Title,” “ISBN,” “Authors,” “Pages,” “Publisher,”“Languages,” and “Year of publication,” etc. It also
contained information about (1) dates on which the books
or chapters were added to the DOAB, as “Added-on date,”and (2) the Library of Congress Classification (henceforth“LCC”) codes as “Subjects.”
Books and chapters are not distinguished in the abovementioned CSV file. If we check each item manually, we
may be able to distinguish books from chapters, but doing
so would be quite labor-intensive. Here, we would like torecall UNESCO’s definition of a book: “a non-periodical
printed publication of at least 49 pages” (UNESCO, 1964).
Among the 10,866 items (i.e., books or chapters) in the
CSV file, (1) for “Pages,” 4,567 items were not available(i.e., their data were NULL), and (2) among the rest,
6,299, only 126 (i.e., 2.0%) were less than 49 pages inlength. We regard 2.0% as sufficiently small, and theresults concerning all 10,866 items provide a good image
or approximation of OA books. We did not remove the 126
chapters from the 6,299 items because doing so would
require us to remove chapters from the other 4,567 items
for consistency. That would be very labor-intensive, andwe think that the effect on our results by such a removal
would be small. Henceforth we will refer to both books andchapters as “titles” and show the results for them. We
regard the results for titles to be very close to the results
for books, as we previously mentioned.
Aspects We InvestigatedFirst, we investigated the 10,866 titles’ subjects,
languages, publishers, publication years, licensing
patterns, and years when the titles were added on the
DOAB (henceforth, the “added-on years”). These data
were obtained from the columns “Subjects,” “Languages,”“Publisher,” “Year of publication,” “License,” and “Addedon date,” respectively. We also investigated any
chronological changes and the distribution of
combinations of subjects, languages, and publishers.
Furthermore, we randomly selected 40 English titles andinvestigated (a) the affiliations and positions of the firstauthors/editors of the titles and (b) the availability of thecontents as text format.
As for the subjects, we only used the first characters of
the LCC subjects. For instance, if a book was assigned
the LCC subject “JF20-2112,” we regarded the subject of
the book to be just “J” (Political Science). When multiple
LCC subjects were assigned to one book, we adopted thefirst one as its LCC subject. For instance, if a book was
assigned LCC subjects such as “HB1-3840; D1-2009,” weregarded the subject of the book to be “H” (Social
Sciences). The representations of the language of each
title in the DOAB CSV file were somewhat noisy. We
regarded the character sequences in the right-hand3https://www.doabooks.org/doab?func=about&uiLanguage=en

89

column in Table 1 to represent the language shown in theleft-hand column.
RESULTSIn this section, we will show the results for (1) the numberof titles, (2) distribution of subjects, (3) distribution of
languages, (4) combination of subjects and languages, (5)combination of publication and added-on years, (6)distribution of publishers, (7) licensing patterns, (8)authors and editors, and (9) availability of contents as text
format, in that order.
Number of Titles
As we previously mentioned, the number of titles available
through the DOAB as of February 24, 2018, was 10,866.
On the basis of the added-on years, the numbers of titles
available through the DOAB as of 2011, 2012, 2013,2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 were estimated to be 485,
1,173, 1,529, 2,425, 3,719, 5,698, and 10,310,
respectively. Figure 1 shows these numbers. We can see
in Figure 1 that the number of titles available through
DOAB increases at an accelerating rate.
Distribution of Subjects
The subject-wise numbers of titles available through the
DOAB from 2011 to 2017 and those as of February 24,
2018, are shown in Table 2. In Table 2, the leftmost “A” to4“Z” represent the LCC subjects. The subjects that theletters represent are shown in Table 3. For instance,
Table 2 and Table 3 show that the number of titles in
Political Science (“J”) available through the DOAB as of2013 is 181.
We can see in Table 2 that the most popular subject asof February 24, 2018 is Social Sciences (“H”), which
accounts for 8.8% (952 titles) of OA books available
through the DOAB. The second-most and the third-most
popular subjects as of February 24, 2018, are Science(“Q”) and World History and History of Europe, Asia,
Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc. (“D”), respectively.
The numbers of titles of subjects “A” to “K” and “L” to “Z”
for 2011 to 2017 are shown in Figures 2 and 3,
respectively. We can see in these figures that the numberof titles in Social Sciences (“H”) was the largest most of
the time. The numbers of titles in Education (“L”) and
Medicine (“R”) have increased sharply in recent years.
Distribution of Languages
The numbers and percentages of titles of each language
available through the DOAB as of February 24, 2018 areshown in Table 4. We can see in Table 4 that the most4

https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/

90Inter. J. Acad. Lib. and Info. Sci.

Table 1: Languages and Their Corresponding Character
Sequencesen, eng, Eng, english, englisch (eng), Englilsh,
EnglishEnglisch, Inglese, ENGLISH
fr, fra, fre, Fr, Fre, französisch (fre), Francais,
FrenchFrancese
Germande, german, Deutsch, Deutsche, deutsch (ger)Italianit, ita, italian, italiano, Italiano, ITALIANO
Spanishes, spa, ES, Espanol, Spagnolo
Portuguese
pt, por, Pt, PT, Portugese
Slovenesl, slv, Slovenian
Latinla, latTurkishtr
Romanshrm
Russianru
Arabicar
Greekel
Bulgarianbg
Church Slavic cu
Catalanca

Figure 1: Changes in the Number of Titles Available
through the DOAB
popular language was English, which accounts for 49.0%(5,416 titles) of titles available through the DOAB. French,
German, Portuguese, and Spanish follow. These fivelanguages account for 92.2% of titles available through5, 6
the DOAB.

5

Some figures in Table 4 correspond to the same titles. For
instance, if a particular book has been published in English,
French, and German, these editions were counted as three
independent books written in English, French, and German.
This is why the “Total” in Table 4 is 11,058, which is larger
than 10,866 in Table 2.

The numbers of titles in English, French, German,
Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, and the rest (“Other”)
available through the DOAB during the period from 2011
to 2017 and those as of February 24, 2018, are shown in
Table 5. We can see in Table 5 that, for instance, thenumber of titles written in French as of 2014 was 158.
Figure 4 was generated on the basis of the numbers from
Table 5. We can see in Figure 4 that the number of titles
written in English was consistently the largest throughout
6

The DOAB CSV file said that two titles were literally written
in an “Other” language. This “Other” is different from
“Other” in Tables 4, 5, and 6 and Figure 4.

Tsuji91

Table 2: Subject-wise Numbers of Titles
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
P
Q
R
S
T
U
Z
N/A
Total

2011
0
35
3
65
1
0
6
106
76
41
6
3
17
58
41
5
6
12
0
4
0
485

2012
0
73
12
120
28
1
63
213
162
61
23
6
31
155
66
17
12
38
0
15
77
1,173

2013
0
95
21
194
29
1
72
263
181
89
29
13
58
203
92
29
13
45
0
23
79
1,529

2014
15
159
35
282
34
5
104
345
248
138
47
20
92
278
150
104
21
67
0
30
251
2,425

2015
17
259
43
380
40
9
151
458
368
167
106
28
119
399
270
232
28
91
0
32
522
3,719

Feb. 2018
2016
2017
20
21
21 ( 0.2 )
424
561
591 ( 5.4 )
56
84
86 ( 0.8 )
668825
849 ( 7.8 )
456262 ( 0.6 )
101111 ( 0.1 )
221
380393 ( 3.6 )
641887
952 ( 8.8 )
433525
574 ( 5.3 )
229
293
297 ( 2.7 )
151244
258 ( 2.4 )
3952
53 ( 0.5 )
163
203
209 ( 1.9 )
550
769
834 ( 7.7 )
569
826
864 ( 8.0 )
545688
711 ( 6.5 )
3651
52 ( 0.5 )
158248
267 ( 2.5 )0
1
1 ( 0.0 )
47
56
57 ( 0.5 )693 3,523 3,724 ( 34.3 )5,698 10,310 10,866 ( 100.0 )Table 3: LCC Codes
A General Works
B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion
C Auxiliary Sciences of History
D World History and History of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
E History of the Americas
F History of the Americas
G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation
H Social Sciences
J Political Science
K Law
L Education
M Music
N Fine ArtsP Language and Literature
Q Science
R Medicine
S Agriculture
T Technology
U Military Science
V Naval Science
Z Bibliography. Library Science. Information Resources (General)the period. The number of titles written in Frenchincreased sharply during from 2016 to 2017 and overtook
those in German and Portuguese.
Combination of Subjects and Languages
The numbers and percentages of subjects for the titles

written in English, French, German, Portuguese, Spanish,
Italian, Dutch, and the rest (“Other”) available through the
DOAB as of February 24, 2018, are shown in Table 6. In
Table 6, the leftmost “A” to “Z” represent the LCC subjects
again. For instance, the number of titles in Social
Sciences (“H”) written in English and German are 606 and132, respectively. They account for 63.5% and 13.8% of
the titles in Social Sciences (the total number is 955,

92Inter. J. Acad. Lib. and Info. Sci.

Figure 2: Changes in the Numbers of Titles of Subjects “A” to “K”

Figure 3: Changes in the Numbers of Titles of Subjects “L” to “Z”

which is shown in the rightmost column).
We can see in Table 6 that the subjects for which
English is the most popular are Science (“Q”), Medicine(“R”), and Technology (“T”), which account for 85.3%,
79.2%, and 78.1%, respectively (except for minor subject“Z”). In the so-called STM (Science, Technology andMedicine) fields, English seems to be popular. The subject
in which German is the most popular is Law (“K”), which
accounts for 41.5%. German is relatively popular in theFine Arts (“N”) where it accounts for 31.8%, while English
accounts for 41.4%. Unfortunately, many of the Frenchbooks in the DOAB are not assigned LCC codes. Morespecifically, 2,526 French books do not have them. If they
had been so assigned, we would have been able toanalyze the tendency of OA French books’ subjects more
precisely.
Combination of Publication and Added-on Years
The year-wise publication and added-on numbers of titles
are shown in Table 7. In Table 7, the leftmost column
represents the publication years, and the top row
represents the added-on years. For instance, the numberof titles that were published during the period from 2005 toTsujiTable 4: Numbers and Percentages of Titles in Each Language
English5,416 ( 49.0 ) Afrikaans
5 ( 0.0 )French2,665 ( 24.1 ) Arabic
5 ( 0.0 )German1,062 ( 9.6 ) Chinese
5 ( 0.0 )Portuguese
629 ( 5.7 ) Greek
5 ( 0.0 )Spanish429 ( 3.9 ) Lithuanian
5 ( 0.0 )Italian
245 ( 2.2 ) Albanian
4 ( 0.0 )Dutch
180 ( 1.6 ) Czech
4 ( 0.0 )Finnish31 ( 0.3 ) Bulgarian
2 ( 0.0 )Norwegian17 ( 0.2 ) Church Slavic
2 ( 0.0 )Latin
10 ( 0.1 ) Cree
2 ( 0.0 )Slovene10 ( 0.1 ) Catalan
1 ( 0.0 )Swedish8 ( 0.1 ) Michif
1 ( 0.0 )Turkish8 ( 0.1 ) Ukrainian
1 ( 0.0 )Romansh7 ( 0.1 ) Welsh
1 ( 0.0 )Old Nubian
6 ( 0.1 ) "Other"2 ( 0.0 )Russian
6 ( 0.1 ) N/A
284 ( 2.6 )Total
11,058( 100.0 )Table 5: Changes in the Numbers of Titles in Each Language
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Feb. 2018

English French German Portuguese Spanish Italian
277
1
92
0
0
74
783
9
152
0
0
75
970
13
303
0
2
87
1,412
158
393
123
71
106
2,056
351
488
413
117
127
3,414
489
753
529
163
150
5,086
2,546
1,014
605
427
234
5,416
2,665
1,062
629
429
245

Dutch
42
58
64
72
72
121
179
180

Figure 4: Changes in the Numbers of Titles in Each Language

Other
1
8
10
19
47
70
129
148

N/A
0
99
2
12
14
22
125
284

93

94

Inter. J. Acad. Lib. and Info. Sci.

Table 6: Numbers and Percentages of Subjects and Languages of the Titles
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
P
Q
R
S
T
U
Z
N/A

4
370
56
449
21
0
249
606
432
91
119
23
91
526
743
566
38
211
1
40
780

EnglishFrench( 18.2 )
1 ( 4.5 )( 60.7 )
5 ( 0.8 )( 56.0 )5 ( 5.0 )( 50.2 )
41 ( 4.6 )( 33.3 )0 ( 0.0 )(0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )( 62.7 )
8 ( 2.0 )( 63.5 )
18 ( 1.9 )( 75.0 )
6 ( 1.0 )( 29.7 )
2 ( 0.7 )( 45.9 )
3 ( 1.2 )( 42.6 )0 ( 0.0 )( 41.4 )
2 ( 0.9 )( 60.2 )
21 ( 2.4 )( 85.3 )
11 ( 1.3 )( 79.2 )
5 ( 0.7 )( 73.1 )0 ( 0.0 )( 78.1 )
8 ( 3.0 )( 100.0 )0 ( 0.0 )( 64.5 )
3 ( 4.8 )( 20.8 ) 2,526 ( 67.4 )GermanPortuguese
Spanish1 ( 4.5 )0 ( 0.0 ) 15 ( 68.2 )
99 ( 16.2 ) 78 ( 12.8 ) 14 ( 2.3 )
32 ( 32.0 )0 ( 0.0 )4 ( 4.0 )242 ( 27.1 ) 12 ( 1.3 ) 43 ( 4.8 )1 ( 1.6 )3 ( 4.8 )3 ( 4.8 )0 ( 0.0 )2 ( 18.2 )8 ( 72.7 )
30 ( 7.6 )5 ( 1.3 )1 ( 0.3 )
132 ( 13.8 ) 86 ( 9.0 ) 24 ( 2.5 )
26 ( 4.5 ) 67 ( 11.6 )7 ( 1.2 )
127 ( 41.5 ) 11 ( 3.6 ) 49 ( 16.0 )21 ( 8.1 ) 62 ( 23.9 ) 15 ( 5.8 )
16 ( 29.6 ) 10 ( 18.5 )0 ( 0.0 )
70 ( 31.8 ) 16 ( 7.3 )1 ( 0.5 )
115 ( 13.2 ) 80 ( 9.2 ) 11 ( 1.3 )
50 ( 5.7 ) 39 ( 4.5 )0 ( 0.0 )
24 ( 3.4 ) 107 ( 15.0 )1 ( 0.1 )
8 ( 15.4 )3 ( 5.8 )0 ( 0.0 )
22 ( 8.1 ) 17 ( 6.3 )2 ( 0.7 )0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )5 ( 8.1 )2 ( 3.2 )2 ( 3.2 )
41 ( 1.1 ) 29 ( 0.8 ) 229 ( 6.1 )

1
11
3
36
1
0
4
19
12
15
17
0
9
43
11
2
2
5
0
7
47

Italian( 4.5 )
( 1.8 )
( 3.0 )
( 4.0 )
( 1.6 )
( 0.0 )
( 1.0 )
( 2.0 )
( 2.1 )
( 4.9 )
( 6.6 )
( 0.0 )
( 4.1 )
( 4.9 )
( 1.3 )
( 0.3 )
( 3.8 )
( 1.9 )
( 0.0 )
( 11.3 )( 1.3 )

0
4
0
49
0
0
0
31
14
4
2
2
23
4
2
0
0
2
0
0
43

Dutch
( 0.0 )
( 0.7 )
( 0.0 )
( 5.5 )
( 0.0 )
( 0.0 )
( 0.0 )
( 3.2 )
( 2.4 )
( 1.3 )
( 0.8 )
( 3.7 )
( 10.5 )( 0.5 )
( 0.2 )
( 0.0 )
( 0.0 )
( 0.7 )
( 0.0 )
( 0.0 )
( 1.1 )

Table 7: Year-wise Publication and Added-on Numbers for Titles
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
～1999
5
23
5
82
76
129
829
2000～04
135
34
19
74
76
57
530
2005～09
264
254
50
113
228
123
737
2010～14
81
377
282
622
449
299
813
2015～170005465 1,371 1,697(2018)
0
0
0
0
0
0
6

0
18
0
13
0
0
4
22
8
4
11
1
5
23
7
6
0
0
0
1
25

Other
( 0.0 )
( 3.0 )
( 0.0 )
( 1.5 )
( 0.0 )
( 0.0 )
( 1.0 )
( 2.3 )
( 1.4 )
( 1.3 )
( 4.2 )
( 1.9 )
( 2.3 )
( 2.6 )
( 0.8 )
( 0.8 )
( 0.0 )
( 0.0 )
( 0.0 )
( 1.6 )
( 0.7 )

N/A
Total
0 ( 0.0 )22
11 ( 1.8 )
610
0 ( 0.0 )100
9 ( 1.0 )
894
34 ( 54.0 )63
1 ( 9.1 )
11
96 ( 24.2 )
397
17 ( 1.8 )
955
4 ( 0.7 )
576
3 ( 1.0 )306
9 ( 3.5 )259
2 ( 3.7 )54
3 ( 1.4 )
220
51 ( 5.8 )
874
8 ( 0.9 )871
4 ( 0.6 )
715
1 ( 1.9 )52
3 ( 1.1 )270
0 ( 0.0 )1
2 ( 3.2 )
62
26 ( 0.7 ) 3,746(2018)
43
17
37
137
227
95

Figure 5: Numbers of Titles of Each Publication Year Added to the DOAB
2009 and that were added to the DOAB in 2012 is 254.
Because our data is as of February 24, 2018, and thenumber of titles for 2018 is tentative (in the sense that2018 has not ended), the numbers in the “(2018)” row andTsuji95

Table 8: Numbers of Titles Added to the DOAB by Each Publisher
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Presses universitaires de Rennes
ANU Press
De Gruyter
Springer
MDPI AG - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Amsterdam University Press
Universitätsverlag Göttingen
Brill
Böhlaupunctum books
SciELO Books - Editora UNESP
Bloomsbury Academic
Graduate Institute Publications
Manchester University Press
Other
Total

2011
0
0
1
0
0
0
136
101
24
0
0
0
0
0
90
133
485

2012
0
0
189
17
10
0
42
40
21
0
0
0
38
0
1
330
688

2013
1
0
0
11
17
0
26
39
1
86
0
0
20
0
0
155
356

2014 2015 2016 2017 (2018) Total
0
176
542
208
0
927
0
0
0
528
0
528
145
42
56
43
10
486
33
40
176
108
52
437
26
25
64
207
1
350
2
50
92
134
53
331
9
13
33
46
9
314
25
1
57
30
3
296
4
0
136
51
0
237
49
34
18
34
1
222
63
42
22
62
7
196
2
95
63
11
4
175
25
45
10
8
14
160
0
0
0
147
0
147
2
0
12
34
8
147
511
731
698 2,961
394
5,913
896 1,294 1,979 4,612
556 10,866

Figure 6: Numbers of Titles Added to the DOAB by the Top Five Publishers

column are generally smaller than those in the other rows
and columns are.
We can see in Table 7 that some titles were added to
the DOAB as OA books before being published. For
instance, five titles that were published during the period
from 2015 to 2017 had been added to the DOAB in 2014.
It was found that 29 titles in total were published after they7
were added to the DOAB.

7

The bar chart in Figure 5 shows the numbers of titles inTable 7. We can see in Figure 5 that while the ratios oftitles that were added to the DOAB right after being
published are high (for instance, the blue part, which
represents the number of titles that were published during
the period from 2015 to 2017, is the largest part of the bar
representing those works that were added to the DOAB in2017), the ratio of titles that were published in 1999 or
before is on the increase, especially in 2017.

To be precise, 29 titles have publication years that came after

were published after being added to the DOAB in the same(and so are larger than) the added-on years. The titles thatyear are not included in these 29 titles.

96Inter. J. Acad. Lib. and Info. Sci.

Table 9: Numbers and Percentages of Subjects for the Titles Added by the
Top Five Publishers
Presses
Frontiers Media
universitaires deSA
RennesA0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )B
92 ( 9.9 )0 ( 0.0 )C0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )D
0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )E0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )F0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )G
11 ( 1.2 )0 ( 0.0 )H
0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )J0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )K
0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )L0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )M0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )N0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )P
0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )Q
392 ( 42.3 )0 ( 0.0 )R
406 ( 43.8 )0 ( 0.0 )S
0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )T
26 ( 2.8 )0 ( 0.0 )U
0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )Z0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )N/A
0 ( 0.0 ) 528 ( 100.0 )Total 927 ( 100.0 ) 528 ( 100.0 )ANU Press

De Gruyter

Springer0 ( 0.0 )
19 ( 3.9 )
16 ( 3.3 )
68 ( 14.0 )1 ( 0.2 )0 ( 0.0 )45 ( 9.3 )
94 ( 19.3 )
100 ( 20.6 )
21 ( 4.3 )
6 ( 1.2 )3 ( 0.6 )
8 ( 1.6 )
23 ( 4.7 )
21 ( 4.3 )
39 ( 8.0 )
10 ( 2.1 )7 ( 1.4 )0 ( 0.0 )4 ( 0.8 )1 ( 0.2 )486 ( 100.0 )0 ( 0.0 )
82 ( 18.8 )9 ( 2.1 )
117 ( 26.8 )1 ( 0.2 )0 ( 0.0 )7 ( 1.6 )
16 ( 3.7 )4 ( 0.9 )
25 ( 5.7 )4 ( 0.9 )1 ( 0.2 )9 ( 2.1 )
56 ( 12.8 )
35 ( 8.0 )
15 ( 3.4 )2 ( 0.5 )
15 ( 3.4 )0 ( 0.0 )
21 ( 4.8 )
18 ( 4.1 )437 ( 100.0 )0 ( 0.0 )9 ( 2.6 )0 ( 0.0 )1 ( 0.3 )0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )
41 ( 11.7 )
64 ( 18.3 )9 ( 2.6 )
11 ( 3.1 )
47 ( 13.4 )0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )4 ( 1.1 )
75 ( 21.4 )
35 ( 10.0 )6 ( 1.7 )48 ( 13.7 )0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )0 ( 0.0 )
350 ( 100.0 )Table 10: Changes in the Percentages of Licensing Patterns
CC by
CC by-nc
CC by-nc-nd
CC by-nc-sa
CC by-nd
CC by-sa
N/A
Total

2011
0.1
14.4
8.6
0.0
44.8
0.0
0.0
4.5

2012
0.4
4.0
12.3
0.0
20.1
3.5
5.8
6.3

2013
1.1
2.8
7.7
2.9
16.7
3.5
0.1
3.3

2014
1.6
7.6
8.4
20.9
5.2
11.9
7.8
8.2

Distribution of Publishers
The publisher-wise numbers of titles added to the DOAB
during the period from 2011 to 2017 (and from January 1
to February 24, 2018) are shown in Table 8. The leftmost
column shows the publishers’ names, sorted indescending order of the total number of titles shown in therightmost column. We can see in Table 8 that the five
publishers that added the most works to the DOAB are
Frontiers Media SA, Presses universitaires de Rennes,
ANU Press, De Gruyter, and Springer (henceforth, the“top five publishers”). While the total number of titles
available through the DOAB increased at an accelerating
rate (see Figure 1), the number of titles added to the
DOAB by each publisher did not follow the same pattern.
For instance, Presses universitaires de Rennes added allof its 528 titles in 2017, and ANU Press added 189 titles in2012 and zero in 2013.
The numbers of titles added to the DOAB by the above-

2015
17.8
10.2
7.4
36.4
2.3
4.4
7.8
11.9

2016
41.3
27.6
16.4
7.2
6.3
34.4
9.4
18.2

2017 (2018) Total
33.7
4.1
1,682
22.6
10.9
935
32.7
6.5
3,139
30.4
2.1
994
4.6
0.0
174
28.2
14.1
227
65.5
3.5
3,715
42.4
5.1 10,866

mentioned five publishers during the period from 2011 to2017 are shown in Figure 6. We can see in Figure 6 thatthe numbers of titles added by Frontiers Media SA and De
Gruyter decreased sharply in 2017. The number of titles
added by ANU Press decreased a little. On the other
hand, the number of titles added by Springer has
increased constantly.
The numbers and percentages of subjects for the titles
added by the top five publishers are shown in Table 9. We
can see in Table 9 that more than 80% of the subjects forthe titles added by Frontiers Media SA were “R” and “Q,”i.e., Medicine and Science (43.8% and 42.3%,
respectively). The top three subjects for the titles added
by ANU Press were “J,” “H,” and “D,” i.e., Political
Science, the Social Sciences, and World History andHistory of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, New Zealand,
etc. (20.6%, 19.3%, and 14.0%, respectively). As for De
Gruyter, they were “D,” “B,” and “P,” i.e., World History
and History of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, NewTsuji97

Table 11: Percentages of Licensing Patterns of the Top 15 Publishers
CC by
Frontiers Media SA
Presses universitaires de Rennes
ANU Press
De Gruyter
Springer
MDPI AG - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Amsterdam University Press
Universitätsverlag Göttingen
Brill
Böhlaupunctum books
SciELO Books - Editora UNESP
Bloomsbury Academic
Graduate Institute Publications
Manchester University Press
Other
Total

100.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
36.0
26.9
0.6
0.7
0.0
13.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
8.5
15.5

CC by- CC by- CC by- CC by- CC bync
nc-nd nc-sa
nd
sa
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
98.9
0.2
0.0
0.2
63.4
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
73.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
53.5
45.5
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
11.1
0.0
51.7
36.5
70.5
19.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.0
68.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
57.7
0.0
0.0
8.1
91.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
91.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.2
28.1
11.7
0.3
2.0
8.6
28.9
9.1
1.6
2.1

Zealand, etc.; Philosophy, Psychology, Religion; andLanguage and Literature (26.8%, 18.8%, and 12.8%,
respectively). From this result, it can be said that FrontiersMedia SA, ANU Press, and De Gruyter were mainly
adding STM, Social Sciences, and Humanities titles,
respectively. As for Springer, the top three subjects for its
titles were “Q,” “H,” and “T,” i.e., Science, Social Sciences,
and Technology (21.4%, 18.3%, and 13.7%, respectively).
Springer is adding both STM and Social Sciences titles.
Licensing Patterns
Chronological changes in the percentages of the licensing
8
patterns are shown in Table 10. We can see in Table 10that the most popular pattern is “CC by-nc-nd” (3,139
titles), which increases from 2015 to 2017 (i.e., from 7.4%
to 32.7%). The second-most popular pattern is “CC by”(1,682 titles), which increases from 2011 to 2016 (i.e.,from 0.1% to 41.3%). Note that “CC by” is the mostaccommodating licensing pattern, which requires only
attribution display and even allows commercial re-use.
8“by,”“nc,”“nd,” and “sa” represent forms of Creative
Commons licenses: “by” (you must give appropriate credit,
provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes weremade; you may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in
any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use);“Non Commercial” or “nc” (you may not use the material forcommercial purposes); “No Derivatives” or “nd” (if you
remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not
distribute the modified material); and “Share Alike” or “sa”
(if you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must
distribute your contributions under the same license as theoriginal),
respectively.
<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/>

N/A

Total

0.0
100.0
99.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.1
0.0
0.0
40.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
44.1
34.2

927
528
486
437
350
331
314
296
237
222
196
175
160
147
147
5,913
10,866The distribution of the licensing patterns of the top 15
publishers is shown in Table 11. We can see in Table 11that the licensing pattern preferred by each publisher
differs significantly. For instance, Frontiers Media SA
prefers “CC by” (100% of their 927 titles belong to thispattern). De Gruyter and Springer prefer “CC by-nc-nd”
and “CC by-nc,” respectively (98.9% and 63.4% of theirtitles belong to these patterns). Quite a few publishers
adopt more than one licensing pattern. For instance,
Springer is adopting “CC by-nc” (63.4%) and “CC by”(36.0%), while AUP is adopting “CC by-nc” (53.5%) and“CC by-nc-nd” (45.5%). It would be interesting to pursue
the criteria that are leading the publishers to adopt
different patterns. The publishers other than these top 15
publishers (in the “Other” row) prefer “CC by-nc-nd” mostof all (28.1% of 5,913 titles); their numbers account for
more than half of all the 3,139 titles of “CC by-nc-nd” inTable 11.
Authors and Editors
Below, we will first describe the number of authors or
editors shown in the front pages of 40 randomly selected
English titles. Then, we will describe the affiliations andpositions of their first author or editor.
Table 12 shows the number of authors or editors
identified in the front pages. It was found that 15 titles(37.5%) were written by just one author. They did nothave editors. By contrast, 24 titles (60.0%) had one ormore editors. For instance, we can see in Table 12 thateight titles (20.0%) had three editors. Such titles often had
many authors.
The affiliations and positions of the first authors or
editors are shown in Table 13. We were unable to findaffiliations for four (10.0%): J. H. M. C. Boelaars of HeadHunters about Themselves, Christa Jungnickel of98Inter. J. Acad. Lib. and Info. Sci.

Table 12: Numbers of Authors or Editors
Author
Editor1
15 ( 37.5 )4 ( 10.0 )2
1 ( 2.5 )9 ( 22.5 )30 ( 0.0 )8 ( 20.0 )40 ( 0.0 )3 ( 7.5 )Total
16 ( 40.0 )
24 ( 60.0 )Table 13: Affiliations of the First Authors or Editors
University Faculties Professor
11 ( 27.5 )Associate Professor
3 ( 7.5 )Assistant Professor
2 ( 5.0 )Reader3 ( 7.5 )Other
10 ( 25.0 )Institute Researchers
5 ( 12.5 )Museum Curator
1 ( 2.5 )Ph.D. Student
1 ( 2.5 )None
4 ( 10.0 )
Total
40 ( 100.0 )Cavendish: The Experimental Life, Joshua Rothe of An
Unspecific Dog: Artifacts of This Late Stage in History,
and Michael Munro of Of Learned Ignorance: Idea of aTreatise in Philosophy. Boelaars states in the preface ofhis book that the first summary of it appeared in 1958, i.e.,
60 years ago. He may therefore have retired and may nothave any affiliation. Jungnickel is presented in the preface
to her book as the wife of the second author of the book.
Because the second author was a professor emeritus, she
may also be old enough not to have any institutional
affiliation. As for Rothe and Munro, we could not findfurther information (it is thus possible that they have someaffiliation). From these results, we can say that 35
individuals (i.e., 40 minus the above-mentioned four and
one Ph.D. student in Table 13) out of 40 (87.5%) belong
to so-called sound institutions, such as universities, as
employees and thus that they are probably receiving
salaries that are sufficient to live on. Only such people canmake their works OA, and it is possible that only suchpeople can conduct research.
Availability of Contents as Text Format
It was found that all 40 English titles we investigated werein PDF, HTML, or EPUB format and that the contents
were available in text format. Such texts increase theopportunities for re-use, in line with the purpose of OA.
Various applications are possible, such as use in book
recommendation systems.
DISCUSSION
As it can be seen in Figure 1, the number of OA books
available through the DOAB is increasing at anaccelerating rate. The DOAB is a representative directoryof OA books. The results seem to indicate that the
number of OA books in the world is increasing and suchan approach to publishing is prevailing. Since many OA
books are peer reviewed, and in that sense, reliableacademic books, libraries should consider utilizing them.
Adding the OA books to libraries’ OPACs (or discovery
services) and providing them in library collections areinteresting directions.
As it can be seen in Table 7, some books became OA
before being published. It would be interesting todetermine whether publishers are making books public on
the Web first, free of charge, and then deciding to publish(or not publish) as printed books depending on users’
reactions. Ferwerda et al. (2013) reported that making
books OA had no negative effects on their sales.
As it can be seen in Figure 5, the number and ratio of
OA books that were originally published in 1999 or before
are increasing. It would be interesting to explore whether
these books are now out of print and publishers havedecided to disseminate them again as OA books. Notethat there are many valuable books that have
unfortunately gone out of print (we leave it for future
research to investigate whether they are actually out of
print or not).
As it can be seen in Table 2, the three most popularsubjects among OA books were Social Sciences (952
titles of LCC “H”), Science (864 titles of LCC “Q”), andWorld History and History of Europe, Asia, Africa,
Australia, New Zealand, etc. (849 titles of LCC “D”). The
most popular three languages in which the OA books
were written were English (5,416 titles), French (2,665
titles), and German (1,062 titles) (see Table 4). However,this order may soon change because (1) the number ofFrench titles was heavily influenced by Presses
universitaires de Rennes, which abruptly made 928
French titles available in 2017 (French was the fourthmost popular language in 2016; see Table 5); (2) no LCC
categories were assigned to these 928 titles (i.e., they
may be “H,” “Q,” “D,” or other); and (3) Frontiers MediaSA, the publisher that registered the most OA books inTsuji9

general and as many as 392 OA books in the field ofScience (“Q”), sharply reduced the number of OA books
to be added in 2017 (down to 208 from 542 in 2016). If
these publishers change their policies, the statistics on thelanguages and subjects of the DOAB might change.
CONCLUSION
In the present paper, OA books available through the
DOAB were investigated and the number of titles, thedistribution of subjects, languages, publishers, publication
years, licensing patterns, etc., were clarified. Theirchronological changes were also shown. The results
showed that OA books were increasing at an acceleratingrate. As for the distribution of subjects, Social Sciences(“H” in LCC), Science (“Q”), and World History and Historyof Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc. (“D”)
were the most popular. With regard to languages, English,
French, and German were the most common. As for
publishers, Frontiers Media SA, Presses universitaires deRennes, and ANU Press had registered more books in the
DOAB than any other publishers. Many books were newly
published, but older books that had been published in
1999 or before have also begun to be available recently.
As for the licensing patterns, “CC by-nc-nd” and “CC by”
were the most popular. Considering these tendencies,
libraries should begin to utilize OA books by, for instance,
providing them as part of their collections.
As future research, we would like to investigate (1) the
distribution of the levels of OA books (e.g., identifying how
many books are suitable as textbooks for undergraduate
students, how many are for expert researchers, and inwhich subjects) and (2) the business models adopted foreach OA book (e.g., identifying who paid to publish it).
Through these studies, better ways of utilizing andproducing OA books will be clarified.
REFERENCES
Adema, J. (2010) Overview of Open Access
Models for eBooks in the Humanities and Social
Sciences, OAPEN, 73p. Retrieved 6 March 2018 from:<https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/file/a976330e-ed7a4bd5-b0ed-47cab90e9a5e/1/ademaoapen2comb.pdf>[2]
Adema, J. (2012) DOAB User Needs Analysis:
Final Report, 77p. Retrieved 6 March 2018 from:<https://doabooks.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/doabuser-needs.pdf>[3]
Amano, E. (2017) “Trends in Open Access
Monographs in Europe, Current Awareness,” (333), p.
12-16.
Retrieved
6
March
2018
from:
<https://doi.org/10.11501/10955543> (Text in[1]

9

Khanchandani and Kumar (2017) state that it was the mostactive OA book publisher.

99

Japanese)[4]
Barnes, C. et al. (2017) Surveying the Scalabilityof Open Access Monograph Initiatives: Final Report,
Michigan Publishing, 90p. Retrieved 6 March 2018from:<https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/139888>[5]
Chakrabarti, A. and Mandal, S. (2017) “Overview
of Open Access Books in Library and Information
Science in DOAB,” International Journal of Library andInformation Studies, 7(4), p. 185–192. Retrieved 9 May
2018
from:
<http://ijlis.org/img/2017_Vol_7_Issue_4/185-192.pdf>[6]Collins, E. and Milloy, C. (2012) “A Snapshot of
Attitudes towards Open Access Monograph Publishingin the Humanities and Social Sciences: Part of the
OAPEN-UK Project,” Insights: The UKSG Journal,25(2), p.192-197. Retrieved 15 May 2018 from:<https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.25.2.192>[7]
Collins, E. and Milloy, C. (2016) OAPEN-UK Final
Report: A Five-year Study into Open Access
Monograph Publishing in the Humanities and Social
Sciences, Arts & Humanities Research Council, 94p.
Retrieved 6 March 2018 from: <http://oapenuk.jiscebooks.org/files/2016/01/OAPEN-UK-finalreport.pdf>[8]
Crossick, G. (2015) Monographs and Open
Access: A Report to HEFCE, HEFCE, 77p. Retrieved 6
March
2018
from:
<http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/indirreports/2015/Monographs,and,open,access/2014_mon
ographs.pdf>[9]Ferwerda, E. (2014) “Open Access MonographBusiness Models,” Insights: The UKSG Journal, 27(S),p. 35-38.
Retrieved 6 March 2018 from:<http://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.46>[10]
Ferwerda, E. et al. (2013) OAPEN-NL: A Project
Exploring Open Access Monograph Publishing in the
Netherlands: Final Report. OAPEN Foundation, 96p.
Retrieved
6
March
2018
from:
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273450141_
OAPEN-NL__A_project_exploring_Open_Access_monograph_publi
shing_in_the_Netherlands_Final_Report>[11]
Hacker, A. (2014) “Building it Together:
Collaboration in University-based Open Access Book
Publishing,” Insights: The UKSG Journal, 27(S), p. 26–
29.
Retrieved
6
March
2018
from:
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.120>[12]Hacker, A. and Corrao, E. (2017) “Laying Tracks
as the Train Approaches: Innovative Open AccessBook Publishing at Heidelberg University from the
Editors’ Point of View,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing,48(2), p. 76–89. Retrieved 6 March 2018 from:<https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.48.2.76>[13]
IFLA (2011) IFLA Statement on Open Access:
Clarifying IFLA’s Position and Strategy. Retrieved 6

100Inter. J. Acad. Lib. and Info. Sci.

March
2018
from:
<https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/news/documents/ifl
a-statement-on-open-access.pdf>[14]
Jisc Collections and OAPEN Foundation (2016)
Investigating OA Monograph Services: Final Report,
13p.
Retrieved
6
March
2018
from:
<https://www.oapen.org/content/sites/default/files/u6/Jis
c-OAPEN%20pilot%20Final%20report.pdf>[15]
Karak, S. and Mandal, S. (2017) “Library andInformation Science E-Books through Directory ofOpen Access Books (DOAB): A Case Study,”International Research: Journal of Library & Information
Science, 7(4), p. 729-734. Retrieved 9 May 2018 from:<http://irjlis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/11-IR43574.pdf>[16]
Khanchandani, V. and Kumar, M. (2017)
Mapping of E-books in Science & Technology: An
Analytical Study of Directory of Open Access Books.
DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information
Technology, 37(3), p. 172–179. Retrieved 9 May 2018from:<http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/djlit/article/view/10692>[17]
Lamani, M. B. et al. (2018) “Open Access Ebooks in Science and Technology: A Case Study of
Directory of Open Access Books,” DESIDOC Journal of
Library and Information Technology, 38(2), p. 141-144.
Retrieved
9
May
2018
from:
<http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/djlit/article/view/8494>[18]
London Economics (2015) Economic Analysis ofBusiness Models for Open Access Monographs: Annex
4 to the Report of the HEFCE Monographs and Open
Access Project, Higher Education Funding Council for
England, 38p. Retrieved 6 March 2018 from:<http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/indirreports/2015/Monographs,and,open,access/2014_mon
ographs4.pdf>[19]
Mongeau, P. (2018) “‘The Future is Open?’: An
Overview of Open Access Monograph Publishing,” TheiJournal, 3(2), p. 1-10. Retrieved 9 May 2018 from:<http://www.theijournal.ca/index.php/ijournal/article/vie
w/29481/21972>[20]
Montgomery, L. et al. (2017) Exploring the Usesof Open Access Books via the JSTOR Platform, KU
Research Press, 43p. Retrieved 6 March 2018 from:http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6CV52

Nagaraja, A. and Clauson, K. A. (2009)“Database Coverage and Impact Factor of Open
Access Journals in Pharmacy,” Journal of Electronic
Resources in Medical Libraries, 6(2), p. 138-145.
Retrieved
6
March
2018
from:
<https://doi.org/10.1080/15424060902932219>[22]
Neylon, C. et al. (2018) The Visibility of Open
Access Monographs in a European Context European
Context: A Report Prepared by Knowledge Unlatched
Research, Knowledge Unlatched Research, 44p.
Retrieved
9
May
2018
from:
<http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6156F>[23]
Shore, E. (2017) AAU, ARL, AAUP to LaunchOpen Access Monograph Publishing Initiative.
Retrieved
6
March
2018
from:
<http://www.arl.org/news/arl-news/4243-aau-arl-aaupto-launch-open-access-monograph-publishing-initiativeproject-will-share-scholarship-freely-morebroadly#.WurimojFJPb>[24]
Snijder, R. (2013) “A Higher Impact for Open
Access Monographs: Disseminating through OAPEN
and DOAB at AUP,” Insights: The UKSG Journal,
26(1), p. 55-59. Retrieved 6 March 2018 from:<https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.26.1.55>[25]
Snijder, R. (2016) “Revisiting an Open Access
Monograph Experiment: Measuring Citations andTweets 5 Years Later,” Scientometrics, 109(3), p. 18551875.
Retrieved
6
March
2018
from:
<https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2160-6>[26]
Speicher, L. (2016) “Does Publishing a Book as
Open Access Affect Print Sales?” TXT, 2016(1), p. 124127.
Retrieved
6
March
2018
from:
<https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/42723>[27]
Speicher, L. (2017) “Open Access Monographs:
Current UK University Press Landscape,” Interscript
Online Magazine. Retrieved 6 March 2018 from:<https://www.interscriptjournal.com/onlinemagazine/open-access-monographs>[28]
Tanabe, Y. (2015) “Springer’s Scholarly Books
and Open Access,” Journal of Information Processingand Management, 57(11), p. 818-825. Retrieved 6
March
2018
from:
<https://doi.org/10.1241/johokanri.57.818> (Text inJapanese)[29]
UNESCO (1964) Recommendation Concerning
the International Standardization of Statistics Relating
to Book Production and Periodicals. Retrieved 6 March
2018
from:
<http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13068&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTIO
N=201.html>[21]