I work in the field of chemistry, where some of the prominent publishers have very invasive (or restrictive) copyright transfer agreements. Thus, I'm considering the use of amendments (or addenda) to publication agreements, such as the one proposed by the MIT libraries. However, I don't really want to spend a lot of time on an unwinnable pursuit, so I was wondering: is there somewhere a decent review of the success of such amendments? I expect that it may vary from publisher to publisher, and from field to field, but is there any data at all? (My own searches couldn't turn much.) In particular, what about the “big names”, such as Elsevier, Wiley, etc?
I finally managed to take a bit of time today to research this question further, so here goes:
First, there hasn't been much data compiled on the topic. Science Commons's FAQ on publication agreement addenda says:
while the more recent Creative Commons Science page fails to mention success statistics at all.
However, we can measure the “success” of such addenda (or its influence) by looking at the reactions of various publishers to it. The MIT Libraries actually maintain a list of publishers and their stance. In a similar vein, the useful (and by now, well-known) SHERPA/RoMEO online database maintains a publishers statistics:
If you look at these lists of publishers/journals, and you cross that information with the hottest and most common journals in each field, you see that things are very field-dependent:
Above are the fields I felt comfortable enough discussing. I welcome edits (or comments) that add information on other fields (including humanities)!
So, all in all, statistics pertaining to publication agreement addenda specifically are hard to find (if they exist). But, we can measure the success of the open publication model, and it varies widely between fields.