Journal Comparison Service

A secure, free-of-charge service that enables libraries, library consortia, and funders (henceforth ‘institutional users’) to better understand if the fees they pay are commensurate with the publication services delivered. These users may wish to use the service when negotiating or reviewing an agreement offered by a publisher, or when advising researchers about their publishing options.

The Journal Comparison Service is funded by cOAlition S, who runs the service via its office hosted by the European Science Foundation.

No. Participation is strongly encouraged, and cOAlition S believes it will prove beneficial to publishers who choose to do so. Institutions may seek to include participation as a requirement for transformative agreements.

Publishers were invited to register for the service and deposit their 2021 data by the 31st of October 2022. A list of publishers/journals that are sharing data through the JCS is available at https://journalcheckertool.org/jcs.

Read also: More than 2000 journals share price and service data through Plan S’s Journal Comparison Service 

Yes. We encourage all publishers, irrespective of their business model, to share data through the JCS.

If a publisher levies no fees – known as “Diamond Open Access” – then such publishers should indicate that the price allocated to each of the different service elements is zero. Note, however, that if any fees are charged, including those to libraries through models such as Subscribe to Open, Community Action Publishing, and library membership, these must be disclosed, along with data on how the different services are priced. See the JCS Guide, Appendices 2 and 3 for further information.

Access to the Journal Comparison Service is open to End Users – typically librarians, library consortia and funders – who negotiate/participate in Open Access agreements with publishers.

The person nominated as the ‘End User Administrator’ for an institution must complete an online application. The online application will require the applicant to provide the name and email address of the individual who is authorised by the institution to sign the Journal Comparison participation agreement and provide an example of an OA agreement the applicant’s organisation has negotiated with an academic publisher. Once reviewed, the cOAlition S office will then send the agreement to that individual for signing. Once signed, the cOAlition S office will process the End User Administrator’s application, and if everything is in order, approve the account.

By signing this agreement, the institution confirms that it and its End Users will not share the Publisher Data with anyone outside of their organisation, nor with any journal publishing department within the organisation.

>> See also: Registration & Access Process: step by step guide for end-users [pdf, png] 

Self-registration begins with the potential End User Administrator registering via an online registration form, which the cOAlition S office will review. An institutional user’s nomination will be validated and their account established once:
i) The End User has signed and returned the Participation Agreement.

ii) The name and email address of the End User Administrator matches that supplied by the End User (in the Participation Agreement).

iii) The email address of the End User Administrator is one that clearly belongs to the End User’s organisation.

iv) The End User can demonstrate that they are involved in negotiating Open Access agreements with academic publishers.

When the cOAlition S office has completed these validation steps, the ‘End User Administrator’ account will be created.

The End User Administrator will be sent activation instructions to sign on. Activation is in two stages: an email to the registered email address containing a one-time passcode and when that passcode has been confirmed the second factor of authentication will be sent to either the End User Administrator’s phone or their authentication application. This will also contain a one-time passcode and when that has been entered, then the ‘End User Administrator’ account will be able to login to the Journal Comparison Service.

Once approved, an End User Administrator can invite other end users from their organisation.

>> See also: Registration & Access Process: step by step guide for end-users [pdf, png] 

Provisioning and credentialing of other users (End User Authorised Users) is the responsibility of the organisation’s End User Administrator. The End User Administrator can send users invitations. The End User Authorised User will then complete the required registration information. The End User Administrator will be alerted when that registration has
been completed. When they validate it, they will be approved and become an End User Authorised User.

>> See also: Registration & Access Process: step by step guide for end-users [pdf, png] 

Authorised Users will be able to search by publisher or journal. The information about each journal is provided in a standard format and includes information about the publication frequency, the peer review process, times from submission to acceptance, the range of list prices for APCs and subscriptions. Publishers are asked to refresh the data annually in arrears. So, in 2022, Authorised Users will see the data for 2021.

The service provides many data points that will enable you to assess and compare the value of your publishing agreements. For example, the percentage of investment each journal makes in supporting its community and the percentage spent on supporting rigorous peer review and editorial process. You will also find information about desk rejection rates and the average time taken for peer review. You will also find the global usage figure for the journal, an indicator of the reach of the journal.

The Journal Comparison Service makes use of the industry-standard, 2-factor-authentication protocol. The first factor is the email address which was used when the Journal Comparison Service account was first established. Once this has been validated, the user is prompted for a one-time passcode (OTP), which is sent either to the user’s mobile phone or can be generated using a third-party authenticator app, such as Google Authenticator. This password-less approach ensures that only registered and approved users can access the system and there are no risks associated with passwords being compromised.

In developing the Journal Comparison Service, the European Science Foundation (on behalf of cOAlition S) took legal advice to ensure that the system complies with relevant Competition Law. To satisfy the requirement, the Journal Comparison Service was built to ensure that a publisher could never access another publisher’s data (and thus be accused of anti-competitive behaviour, such as price collusion). This is achieved through the industry-standard login measures in place (i.e., 2-factor authentication and a password-less system), coupled with the strict data use agreements that all Publishers and End-Users are required to sign.

The Journal Comparison Service makes use of the industry-standard, 2-factor-authentication protocol. The first factor is the email address which was used when the Journal Comparison Service account was first established. Once this has been validated, the user is prompted for a one-time passcode (OTP), which is sent either to the user’s mobile phone or can be generated using a third-party authenticator app, such as Google Authenticator.

If you don’t have a mobile phone (or do not wish to use a personal phone for work-related activities), then you will need to use an app like Google Authenticator. The steps to follow are:

1]. Apply for an account on the JCS.

2]. When prompted to add your mobile phone number, we would encourage you to include this number, but if you do not want to disclose this, then please add your landline number instead. Note, however, that OTPs cannot be sent to landlines. Complete the application form in full and submit it.

3]. If the application form was completed successfully, you will receive an onscreen message saying “Registration successfully submitted” (note: at this stage, the account has not been activated, as all applications are reviewed by cOAlition S staff) and a QR code. If you do NOT plan to use your mobile phone for your second-factor authentication, it is important to save this QR code to your authenticator, as set out in the next step.

4]. Open up your third-party Authenticator and point your mobile device at the QR code on the screen and add the identified service (Journal Comparison Service) to your Authenticator.

5]. Once your JCS account has been approved by a member of the cOAlition S team, you will receive an email notifying you of this. At that point, you can log on and get the first-factor authentication sent to your registered email address. Once submitted, the system then asks how you would like to receive the second-factor authentication – SMS or via an Authenticator app. Select the Authenticator app. Then, open the app and enter the 6-digit number displayed for the JCS application into the JCS login screen.

No, data is taken on trust. When the data is uploaded, it goes through an automated validation process to check that it is in the right format and makes sense.

Any time between January and October following the year to which the data relate.

No, for security reasons there will not be an API.

The system is made secure by uniquely identifying users so that the restricted data is shared only with those people allowed to see it; i.e. there is a robust login system with multi-factor authentication and tracking and auditing of that access.

The administrator accounts are validated by the cOAlition S office. Ordinary user accounts will be validated by their respective Administrators.

The end-user agreement specifies that a Publisher User and an Institution User can never be the same person. For example, it prohibits the use of the system by publishing departments in libraries.

Yes. You can easily download all or selected parts of the data in Excel format for use in your own analyses.

Publishers will upload data for titles they published in the previous year. The template allows a space for a narrative note indicating the transfer.

The default report period is 12 months, but if a publisher sells/acquires/creates a title during those 12 months, then they only report on that period where they owned/managed the title. The spreadsheet templates allow publishers to add a narrative note indicating the reduced timescale.

Yes, historical data will be available. This functionality is still in development, but the aim is that when multiple years’ data are in the system, users will be able to search them by year.

The Journal Checker Tool allows researchers to see whether a journal has provided data to the Journal Comparison Service or not. Researchers who support the values of openness and transparency can use this information to help determine where to submit their manuscripts. However, researchers will not be able to access the actual data held in the Journal Comparison Service, unless this is made public by the publisher.

The target is 99.5% uptime.

The FOAA-based framework is based on one developed by the Fair Open Access Alliance. It has been implemented by Copernicus, Frontiers, MIT Press, and MPDI. A separate framework that includes more detailed data was subsequently developed for cOAlition S by Information Power. To ease the transition into the Journal Comparison Service, cOAlition S continues to accept the earlier data format. cOAlition S anticipate libraries, consortia, and funders will benefit from having consistent data, and so encourage publishers starting with their data collection to use the Information Power framework.
[Important update: Starting on 1st November 2024, the JCS will exclusively accept data supplied using the Information Power framework and will no longer support the FOAA framework 2024. Read more: Journal Comparison Service adopts a single pricing and service framework to simplify data comparison]

The formats for the bibliographic data, list prices, and some other contextual data are similar for the two frameworks, and where similar data is collected in both frameworks, they can be readily compared. However, the allocation of prices across the various service categories is different, which is why we hope to move eventually to a single framework.
[Important update: Starting on 1st November 2024, the JCS will exclusively accept data supplied using the Information Power framework and will no longer support the FOAA framework 2024. Read more: Journal Comparison Service adopts a single pricing and service framework to simplify data comparison]

The security model of the JCS has been built on the premise that a publisher must never be able to see their competitor’s price and service data. If this were to happen, then publishers could potentially collude (or be accused of colluding) on price, which would be deemed anti-competitive by the Competition Authorities. The concern about allowing researchers to access it is that in addition to their researcher status they may hold editorial roles with a journal and thus may inadvertently share the data with their publisher.

However, though researchers do not have access to the data held in the JCS, via an integration with the Journal Checker Tool, they can see whether a journal has provided data to the Journal Comparison Service or not. Researchers who support the values of openness and transparency may use this information to determine whether to submit their manuscripts to a particular journal.

We encourage publishers who wish to make their price and service data open to all to do so and to let us know where this information has been published. cOAlition S will create a publicly accessible list of such publishers, with links to their publicly disclosed data.

No. A library consortia must not share any data disclosed through the JCS with their members (or anyone). If their members wish to access the data directly, they can apply for a JCS account. However, a library consortium can provide their members with analyses and insights based on those data, but never share the raw data.

No. An End User working for a library consortium must not share any data disclosed through the JCS with anyone, including other consortium members. If their members wish to access the data directly, they can apply for a JCS account.

As the service develops, there may be changes to the data requirements. For example, a particular data category may be dropped if users are not finding it useful. Changes will not be made more than once per year.

The cOAlition S office has also indicated that, if helpful and volunteers can be found, it will set up a small governance body – comprising publisher and library representatives – to discuss and make recommendations to cOAlition S on any changes to the Frameworks.

Success will be evaluated in terms of the number of publishers providing publishing services to cOAlition S-funded researchers who agree to participate in the service and feedback from the library community on the utility of the Journal Comparison Service in helping support OA agreements with publishers.

Publishers are invited to provide both metrics – total item requests and unique item requests – but Unique_Item_Requests are optional. This is because while some publisher platforms can produce Unique_Item_Requests for reporting to institutions, it is challenging for them to produce this metric for the aggregate of all usage.
Some publishers present abstracts, full text, and references on different pages, others within the same HTML page. This second solution tends to generate higher total requests than the first. Unique metrics were created to alleviate these differences in publishers’ interfaces.
A library could look at its COUNTER reports for a given publisher, to calculate the difference between the total and unique metrics and apply the same percentage to the Total_Item_Requests retrieved from Journal Comparison Service. For example, if the library COUNTER reports show that a given publisher’s Unique_Item_Requests are typically 80% of the Total_Item_Requests, they could apply that percentage to the total figure shown in Journal Comparison Service. While not completely accurate, this method will provide a benchmark for analysis.