Abstract
Open access to scholarly contents has grown substantially in recent years. This includes the number of books published open access online. However, there is limited study on how usage patterns (via downloads, citations and web visibility) of these books may differ from their closed counterparts. Such information is not only important for book publishers, but also for researchers in disciplines where books are the norm. This article reports on findings from comparing samples of books published by Springer Nature to shed light on differences in usage patterns across open access and closed books. The study includes a selection of 281 open access books and a sample of 3,653 closed books (drawn from 21,059 closed books using stratified random sampling). The books are stratified by combinations of book type, discipline and year of publication to enable likewise comparisons within each stratum and to maximize statistical power of the sample. The results show higher geographic diversity of usage, higher numbers of downloads and more citations for open access books across all strata. Importantly, open access books have increased access and usage for traditionally underserved populations.
Highlights
Open access (OA) to scholarly outputs has taken the central stage in recent years, with numerous international, regional and local initiatives leading the way in advancing rapid changes to the publishing landscape
This article reports on the analysis of usage and related indicators for a sample of books that is stratified by mixtures of book type, discipline and year of publication
We compare the average number of downloads, citations and unique domains across OA and non-OA books as two groups
Summary
Open access (OA) to scholarly outputs has taken the central stage in recent years, with numerous international, regional and local initiatives leading the way in advancing rapid changes to the publishing landscape. Through a randomized controlled trial, Davis, Simon and Connolly showed that OA articles have higher numbers of downloads and more unique web page visitors than non-OA articles.[1] Wang et al further finds that the increased level of downloads for OA articles is sustained over time This is found in addition to OA articles attracting more social media attention.[2] Holmberg et al found the OA advantage of altmetric activities to have significant differences across disciplines.[3] The citation advantage of OA publishing remains a hotly debated issue. This article reports on the analysis of usage (with downloads, citations and web visibility as proxies) and related indicators for a sample of books that is stratified by mixtures of book type, discipline and year of publication. This means reporting that relies on institutional identification will be substantially undercounting the usage of OA books These findings are important for stakeholders as they provide a robust understanding of the benefits of publishing books in OA forms. Is there robust evidence that OA books outperform non-OA books on various proxy measures of usage?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
