Research News

The most impressive achievements being made in AI innovation today are the result of massive resources. Large technology companies, known as big tech, have spent several years securing significant advantages in terms of data availability, computing power and cloud infrastructure. At the same time, AI start-ups are striving to implement innovative concepts and approaches and develop groundbreaking AI models. The pattern of dependency is recognizable – can the pitfalls in this practice be avoided?

The Control Issue

Even when competition authorities gain access to AI agreements, their terms remain largely unknown to the general public. What is widely known is that big tech companies often provide critical resources such as computing power, cloud infrastructure, data or financial resources. There is a risk that, in return, they will impose conditions that restrict both the free choice of licensing and, more generally, the innovation models of AI developers. Of particular importance is how the AI models resulting from these strategic partnerships are distributed and made accessible to both subsequent innovators and the general public.

Open-source licensing of AI models has been the subject of heated debate for some time. Some see it as an ideal means of promoting innovation and competition. Others have criticized it as a diversionary tactic by companies to strengthen their own position within the AI ecosystem. However, “openness” of model licenses cannot automatically and universally be equated with more innovation. On the one hand, openness can vary depending on the degree and type of AI components made accessible. On the other hand, the openness of AI models can have different, partly contradictory implications for innovation and therefore does not allow for an unambiguous normative evaluation; in some cases, control over certain resources may be justified as a legitimate competitive advantage.

Innovation Competition as a Discovery Process

Traditional competition law approaches reach their limits here. On the one hand, it is often unclear which theory of harm—if any—can be applied to capture competition concerns; on the other hand, it is often uncertain what impact certain competition strategies actually have on competition and innovation in this dynamic environment. The goal is not only to protect competition against restrains, including through the use of AI, but also to create conditions under which companies can freely and creatively pursue new avenues of AI innovation.

Recent cases, such as the partnerships between Microsoft and OpenAI and between Microsoft and Mistral AI, show that traditional competition law instruments are not sufficient to address the specific risks of these digital alliances. What is needed, therefore, is a distinct analytical approach that addresses specific concerns about dependencies between big tech and AI developers, particularly in the context of innovation competition. A promising framework is to base the competition law analysis on the concept of innovation competition as a discovery procedure. The key is to preserve the freedom of AI developers to choose their own licensing models and pursue independent innovation strategies without undue restrictions imposed under cooperation agreements.

In addition to applying innovation competition as a discovery procedure as the guiding concept for competition law enforcement, it is also worth considering a reform of the Digital Markets Act or even the introduction of a new competition law instrument to promote freedom of choice and access in digital markets in this context.

Access the paper on SSRN:
Josef Drexl, Daria Kim
AI Innovation Competition as a Discovery Procedure: The Role and Limits of Competition Law

Who determines the rules on the internet? Will algorithms soon steer the debate? And what role does Big Tech play, those companies that invisibly engineer our digital spaces?

What the humanet3 Research Group Is Investigating

To get to the bottom of these questions, three Max Planck Institutes have joined forces and launched the humanet3 Research Group. Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, the Max Planck Institute for Human Development und des Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law — more specifically, a group consisting of legal experts and experts in computer-assisted social sciences—are pursuing an ambitious goal: to analyze, deconstruct, and rethink the “human-centered digital transformation” of digital public spaces. In the newly published  Research Agenda of humanet3, the group describes the approaches and methods of its work.

Specific projects will shed light on how technology, law, and society influence each other:
 

• Humans at the center of AI: What does it mean when we talk about “human-centered AI”? How can this ideal be implemented technically and legally?
• Humans in global law: How is “the human” constructed in global law, and what consequences does this have for our actions on the internet?
• Regulation by the EU: To what extent does European regulation restrict our behavior on social media platforms? What power do these platforms themselves possess to influence our behavior?
• Power for civil society: Could a new type of regulation that strengthens not only the state but also groups within civil society help us reclaim power from Big Tech?

It Is in Everyone's Hands To Shape the Digital Future

The work of humanet3 aims to show that shaping the digital future cannot be left solely to tech companies or regulatory authorities. It is a task for society as a whole. The aim is to preserve the internet as a place of free expression while creating mechanisms to protect it from the challenges of AI and the concentration of power.

The central question that ultimately stands above all else is: How can we ensure that the internet remains a place where people are at the center and do not end up as mere data sources or algorithm fodder? The research conducted by humanet3 provides important impetus for this debate. It reminds us that we must be the creative forces of the digital future and not mere passengers on the journey.

Rethinking Digital Public Spaces for Democracy

Statement by Josef Drexl (YouTube video)

Statement by Gérman Oscar Johannsen (YouTube video)

The Research Agenda on SSRN:
Erik Tuchtfeld, Germán Oscar Johannsen, Anna Sophia Tiedeke, Chaewon Yun
humanet3: The Third Attempt at a Human-Centered Internet – A Research Agenda
Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 25-21

The results of the survey conducted in October 2024 show that only 35% of the adult German-speaking population have activated the eID function, 6% are not even aware of it. The highest activation rate is found in Berlin with 54%, followed by Hamburg with 40%.

The electronic ID function (eID) was introduced to provide German citizens with a secure digital identity. All ID cards issued since 2010 and all electronic residence permits issued since 2011 have been eID-capable. However, the function must be activated at great time and effort. This requires a visit to the citizens’ office, although in other EU member states the eID of the ID card is either automatically active (for example in Estonia and Belgium) or directly linked to a bank account (for example in Sweden and Finland).

It is already known that Germans have hardly used the eID to date. However, this is not only due to technical and institutional hurdles, but also to a lack of use cases and occasions.

The current study now shows which population groups activate the eID – and which do not. The eID is activated significantly more frequently by men, younger people, city dwellers, people with a high school diploma, Germans with a migration background, and foreign citizens, among others. Among professionals, those with a legal background or in administrative jobs stand out.

The low overall prevalence of eID is in contrast to the political objectives of the German Federal Government. Electronic identity is a central pillar of the European eIDEAS Regulation (EU No. 910/2014). As the regulation is explicitly aimed at “seamless electronic interaction” with companies, there is a risk of a dilemma of mutual conditionality: companies that represent the majority of eID usage options in other countries have little reason to integrate eID into their services in Germany, as the activation rate is so low.

The authors therefore recommend a targeted approach to population groups with a low activation rate, such as women and older people, as well as greater involvement of the population in the further development of user-friendly digital services. Most important, however, would be the removal of barriers and obstacles to the activation of the eID.

The authors of the study are:

Michael E. Rose, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow
Jörg Hoffmann, Senior Research Fellow
Prof. Dietmar Harhoff, Ph.D., Director at the Institute

To the publication (in German):

Rose, Michael E., Hoffmann, Jörg, Harhoff, Dietmar (2025). Wer hat die elektronische Ausweisfunktion aktiviert?, Wirtschaftsdienst, 105 (7), 525–528.

https://www.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/inhalt/jahr/2025/heft/7/beitrag/wer-hat-die-elektronische-ausweisfunktion-aktiviert.html

The project is grounded in a striking observation: Ukraine was the dominant location of pharmaceutical production in the USSR, accounting for over 70% of the total Soviet pharmaceutical R&D and production capacity. Today, these capabilities remain still “in the ground and air”. Economists refer to this legacy as the country’s “industrial memory”. These unique capabilities hold significant relevance for discussions on industrial policy and highlight Ukraine’s potential to reclaim its position as a major player in the global pharmaceutical industry.

Rebuilding Ukraine’s pharmaceutical sector is a strategic win-win project. An EU-integrated Ukrainian pharma sector could strengthen Continental supply chain resilience. The COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical tensions exposed Europe’s overreliance on Asian producers for medicine. Having a modern Ukrainian pharmaceutical base next to the EU would diversify supply sources and act as a buffer in times of crisis.

The project proposes developing a comprehensive playbook to support the rebirth of Ukraine’s pharma industry. This playbook will help fill gaps in the EU’s supply networks and create a high-value added component for Ukraine’s economy by contributing to the country’s economic growth and resilience.

Members of the project team working at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition are:

Prof. Dietmar Harhoff, Ph.D. (Director at the Institute), Prof. Dr. Nataliia Mazaraki (Head of the Academic Department of International, Civil, and Commercial Law at the State University of Trade and Economics, Ukraine) and Prof. Dr. Liudmyla Petrenko (Business Economics and Entrepreneurship Department at Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman) as well as Senior Research Fellows Michael E. Rose, Ph.D., and Dr. Daria Kim.

The local team will collaborate closely with Ukrainian researchers and institutions, which will play a key role in shaping the project’s research agenda and ensuring its relevance to the Ukrainian context:

Oksana Kashyntseva, Ph.D. (Advisor to the Head of the National IP Office of Ukraine), Yevgeniya Piddubna (Director of Corporate Communications at Farmak JSC), Olha Urazovska, Ph.D. (Deputy Head of the Intellectual Property and Innovations Department of the National IP Office of Ukraine), Olha Omelchenko, Ph.D. (Senior Researcher at the Scientific-Research Institute of Intellectual Property of the National Academy of Law Sciences), Anastasia Homeniuk (Ph.D. Student and Junior Researcher at the Scientific-Research Institute of Intellectual Property of the National Academy of Law Sciences), Tetiana Pyatchanina, Ph.D. (Head of the Department of Patent and Licensing Activities and Information Support at the R.E. Kavetsky Institute of Experimental Pathology, Oncology and Radiobiology of National Academy of Sciences), Yaroslav Iolkin, Ph.D. (Senior Researcher at the Scientific-Research Institute of Intellectual Property of the National Academy of Law Sciences), and Viktoriia Kyrylenko (Ph.D. Student, Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman).

Through this collaboration, we will foster a deeper understanding of the country’s industrial capabilities and identify opportunities for growth and development.

We are grateful for the VolkswagenStiftung’s support, which once again recognizes the value of unorthodox research and its potential to drive positive change. The funding will enable the Institute to pursue the ambitious goals and meaningfully contribute to the revitalization of Ukraine’s pharmaceutical industry.

For more information on the project, please refer to the project poster (PDF).

The Block Exemption Regulation for Technology Transfer (TTBER) states that Article 101(1) TFEU does not apply to certain categories of technology transfer agreements. Since November 2022, the EU Commission has been conducting a review process, which has now entered the impact assessment phase. In its statement, the Institute focuses in particular on the questions raised by the European Commission in its call for contributions of 31 January 2025.

In view of the technological developments since the adoption of the current Block Exemption Regulation, the statement examines, among other things, whether and how the licensing of artificial intelligence (AI) data and models should be covered. With regard to data, it recommends a cautious approach to extending the scope of the TTBER to certain categories of data and data-related rights. While the Institute believes that data licensing in the European Union should be improved to promote innovation and social welfare, particularly in the context of AI development, it also argues that the TTBER is not the appropriate framework for this. Instead, consideration should be given to separate guidelines that go beyond data licensing and promote data sharing through rules on Article 102 TFEU.

With regard to the licensing of AI models, the statement emphasizes that the Commission should clarify the scope of application in the TTBER and in the guidelines, both in relation to the current applicability of the TTBER to certain cases and in relation to the inclusion of AI models.

The statement supports the Commission's view that applying market share thresholds to technology markets raises practical difficulties. Nevertheless, the Institute advises against changing the rules in the TTBER. Instead, the Institute would support a transition from a “4plus” to a “3plus” rule in the TT Guidelines.

The Commission's intention to incorporate case law on pay-for-delay settlements into the TT Guidelines is supported by the statement. Specifically, the opinion recommends the formulation of a specific hardcore restriction that explicitly reflects the conditions for classifying the licensing of rights as part of pay-for-delay settlements as a restriction by object within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.

The safe harbour criteria for technology pools set out in the TT Guidelines are in principle supported by the statement as being appropriate. Finally, the Institute recommends that the Commission include specific rules in the TT Guidelines — including a safe harbour rule — for the assessment of agreements on licensing negotiation groups (LNGs) concluded between potential licensees under Article 101 TFEU.

Position Statement as PDF:

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 25 April 2025 in the framework of the revision of the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation and the accompanying Guidelines

The burden caused by bureaucracy has reached a new level. It is now considered by firms and industry associations to be the biggest brake on growth and the most important obstacle to investment, even ahead of high energy costs and the burden of taxes and duties. How can an effective reduction in bureaucracy be achieved in the long term without jeopardizing our constitutional principles? A new concept for shaping state norm-setting and state action is required in order to achieve substantial and sustainable progress.

The Advisory Board specifically recommends the following measures:

1. Weighing benefits against bureaucratic costs: In all proposed legislation, the benefits of new and existing regulations must be weighed against the bureaucratic costs. Instead of trying to achieve fairness in individual cases through byzantine provisions, legislators should focus on generous generalization and de minimis clauses.

2. Review laws and abolish alibi laws: When adopting a regulation with a high bureaucratic burden, it should be clearly defined which objectives are to be achieved with the regulation and how the achievement of objectives can be measured. The law should be evaluated after a specified period and abolished if it fails to achieve its objectives.

3. Avoid micromanagement and introduce ex-post controls: The state should not regulate in detail how a societal goal is to be achieved. It is sufficient to measure the target and provide incentives for achieving it. The state should refrain more frequently from ex-ante monitoring of the norms set and instead carry out random ex-post controls in such a way that norm violations are not profitable in terms of expected value.

4. No gold plating of EU legislation: The German legislator should refrain from supplementing EU requirements with more far-reaching regulations.

5. Results orientation and competition: Not only the input, but primarily the outcome of an authority’s actions should be measured and compared with the results of other institutions.

6. Use of structured management methods and professional development: More modern management methods should be used in the administration. The training of administrative staff should also be less process-oriented and more results-oriented. In addition, the administration should be more open to specialists with extensive professional experience in the economy and other sectors.

7. Further development of practice checks: Practice checks are a promising instrument for results-oriented bureaucracy design that should be further developed. In particular, this procedure should be supplemented by ex-ante practice checks prior to legislation and designed in a cross-ministerial manner.

8. One-Stop-Shops und Regulatory Sandboxes: New forms of cooperative norm-setting should be tested. This includes the establishment of one-stop shops in which legislators and authorities work together in such a way that complex approval processes can be handled entirely by one authority.

The Scientific Advisory Board advises the Federal Minister independently on all economic policy issues. Dietmar Harhoff has been a member of the Scientific Advisory Board at the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi), now the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWE), since 2004.

To the publication (in German):

Wissenschaftlicher Beirat beim Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK); Bierbrauer, Felix; Engel, Christoph; Harhoff, Dietmar; Hellwig, Martin; Janeba, Eckhard; Kübler, Dorothea; Schmidt, Klaus M.; Wambach, Achim (2025). Bürokratieabbau und ergebnisorientiertes Verwaltungshandeln. Gutachten des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats beim Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz.

https://www.bundeswirtschaftsministerium.de/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Ministerium/Veroeffentlichung-Wissenschaftlicher-Beirat/gutachten-buerokratieabbau.pdf

Carbon markets play a critical role in firms’ and governments’ climate strategies by enabling the purchase and sale of carbon credits. These credits represent a specific amount of carbon emissions (CO₂) that has been mitigated through projects, such as avoiding deforestation or destroying potent greenhouse gases. These credits help organizations and countries meet their climate targets by offsetting a portion of their own emissions.

The Problem

A pressing question is whether these carbon credits really reflect genuine emission reductions or whether the claimed effects are illusory. Do these projects truly benefit the environment or are we paying for something that lacks tangible value? Carbon crediting mechanisms allow project developers to earn credits through emission reduction projects. However, numerous studies have raised concerns about environmental integrity. A systematic assessment has been lacking to date.

The New Study and its Findings

The new meta-study published in Nature Communications analyzes 14 studies covering 2,346 climate projects and 51 studies of comparable projects for which no carbon credits were issued. All studies considered were based on experimental or rigorous observational methods. The analysis covers one fifth of the total credit volume issued to date, which corresponds to almost a billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions.

The analysis shows that less than 16% of carbon credits issued to the evaluated projects represented actual emission reductions. Specific examples of this are:
 

• For clean cookstove projects, in which traditional stoves are replaced by cleaner ones, the actual emission reductions corresponded to only 11% of the carbon credits issued.
• In the abatement of the potent greenhouse gas SF₆, the actual emission reductions amounted to only 16% of the carbon credits issued.
• Avoided deforestation showed a 25% reduction.
• Reducing the potent greenhouse gas HFC-23 performed comparatively well, with actual emission reductions amounting to 68%.

With regard to wind energy, the data shows that the projects would probably have been implemented even without the sale of carbon credits and that issuing carbon credits did not lead to any additional mitigation. Improved forest management was also implemented in reference areas without access to carbon credits to the same extent as in areas that benefited from carbon credits.

In projects destroying the waste gases hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-23 and sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆) in industry, however, the data shows that waste gas generation increased when plant operators were able to generate carbon credits.

Urgent Need for Improved Certification Rules

Dr. Benedict Probst, Head of the Net Zero Lab at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, emphasized, “There is an urgent need to establish better rules for issuing carbon credits. All project types face systemic quality issues, and the quantification of emission reductions needs substantial improvement.”

Co-author Dr. Lambert Schneider from the Oeko-Institut in Berlin points out that there is too much leeway when calculating emission reductions. “The rules of the carbon crediting programs often give project developers too much flexibility. This can lead to unrealistic assumptions being made or inaccurate data being used, resulting in an overestimation of reductions.”

The carbon crediting programs have a particular responsibility to improve the quality of the carbon credits, the authors indicate. Carbon crediting programs should enhance their approaches to assessing projects and calculating emission reductions to ensure they are based on conservative assumptions and the latest scientific findings.

The Societal Importance of the Study

Major climate goals are at risk: if carbon credits do not lead to real emission reductions, we will not make the progress we think we are making in combating climate change.

A potential trust issue looms: governments and firms rely on carbon credits to meet their climate pledges. If these credits are ineffective, it could undermine trust in carbon markets, which are seen as an essential tool in the fight against global warming.

Avoiding potential greenwashing is critical: some firms could use ineffective carbon credits to claim “carbon neutrality” without actually reducing their emissions, misleading consumers and regulators.

Conclusion

The study shows that carbon markets are not delivering the necessary and expected impact. Reforms are urgently needed to ensure that carbon credit mechanisms are truly contributing to mitigate climate change. If we do not reform these mechanisms, we risk missing climate targets and allowing firms to appear more environmentally friendly than they really are.

About the Net Zero Lab

Environmental economist Benedict Probst has led an independent Max Planck Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in Munich since May 2024. The Net Zero Lab aims to accelerate the development of green technologies that are crucial for replacing fossil fuels in industry as well as of technologies that directly remove CO₂ from the atmosphere.

For more information on the Net Zero Lab, see: https://www.netzerolab.science/

Directly to the study:

Probst, Benedict S., et al. (2024). Systematic assessment of the achieved emission reductions of carbon crediting projects, Nature Communications, 15, 9562. Available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53645-z

All data in filterable graphics: https://www.carboncredits.fyi/

Other scientists and institutions contributing to the study:

Malte Toetzke (1,4), Andreas Kontoleon (3), Laura Díaz Anadón (3,5), Jan C. Minx (6,7), Barbara K. Haya (8), Philipp A. Trotter (10,11), Thales A.P. West (3,12), Annelise Gill-Wiehl (13), Volker H. Hoffmann (2)

(1) Net Zero Lab, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, (2) Group for Sustainability and Technology, ETH Zurich, (3) Department of Land Economy, Centre for Environment, Energy, and Natural Resource Governance, University of Cambridge, (4) Public Policy for the Green Transition, Technical University of Munich, (5) Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, (6) Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, (7) Priestley International Centre for Climate, School of Earth and Environment, (8) Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, (9) Oeko-Institut, Berlin, (10) Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, (11) Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, (12) Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, (13) Energy & Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley.

The Institute is officially recognized by UNCITRAL due to its research focus in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Data Law respectively. The technology-specific research approach, which the Institute pursues more closely, especially in invention and creation processes in the IP area, helped in the preliminary work and in the final version, which was adopted by the UNCITRAL Commission this summer at its 57^th session in New York.

The Model Law provides a legal framework to enable the use of automation in contracts, including the use of AI technologies and “Smart Contracts”, as well as for machine-to-machine transactions. It is intended to complement and supplement existing laws on electronic contracting, particularly those based on other UNCITRAL texts on electronic commerce. These have already been adopted in over a hundred jurisdictions worldwide. The Model Law is the first piece of legislation to emerge from UNCITRAL's exploratory work on legal issues relating to the digital economy and digital commerce. One of its primary objective is to reduce legal uncertainties and transaction costs, thus promoting AI-driven innovation. Meanwhile, work continues on related areas, such as data contracts and distributed ledger technology (blockchain).

About UNCITRAL
The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) is the core legal body of the United Nations system in the field of international trade law. Its mandate is to remove legal barriers to international trade through the progressive modernization and harmonization of trade law. It prepares legal texts in a number of key areas such as international commercial dispute settlement, electronic commerce, insolvency, international payments, sale of goods, transport law, procurement and infrastructure development. 
 

Press release of UNCITRAL
Documents of the UNCITRAL Working Group Electronic Commerce

The OA movement seeks to eliminate cost barriers for accessing scientific knowledge. This is supported by major international policies like the Berlin Declaration (2003) and mandates such as the U.S. White House Directive (2022). By 2025, federally funded U.S. research must be freely available without delay, underscoring OA’s expanding global influence.

Impact on Researchers and Institutions

For researchers, publishing in reputable, high-impact journals is essential for career advancement. Historically, the costs of accessing research were managed by university libraries, resulting in steep subscription price increases, known as the “serials crisis”. OA, through models like “Gold OA” (funded by article processing charges – APCs) and transformative agreements (TAs), has sought to address these challenges by shifting costs to publishing rather than reading.

Yet, debates persist. Critics worry that APC-based systems might compromise research quality by incentivizing volume over rigor. Additionally, while OA enhances visibility and downloads, its impact on citation metrics remains modest. Meanwhile, transformative agreements between publishers and institutions aim to cap costs but show varying success in fostering competition and transparency.

Comprehensive Analysis of Open Access Impacts

The authors examine how OA policies, particularly TAs, are reshaping the relationships between researchers, publishers, and institutions. They highlight that while OA increases the visibility of research, it also introduces challenges, such as the potential impact of  APC-based models on research quality.

Evaluation of Transformative Agreements (TAs)

A major focus is on TAs, which aim to replace subscription costs with OA publishing fees. The authors analyze these agreements for their effectiveness and incentive structures, pointing out that many TAs (with notable exceptions like those at the University of California) lack sufficient mechanisms to control costs effectively.

Emphasis on Market Structures and Competition

The article highlights the opportunities and risks OA poses for competition among publishers. While APC-based OA theoretically enhances competition for paper submission among publishers by shifting the decision-making from readers under the traditional reader-pays model (multi-homing) to authors under the author-pays model (single-homing), the authors warn that OA “Big Deals” (where one or more universities and a single publisher negotiate the APCs for publishing in any of the latter’s journals) may further concentrate the market and stifle innovation.

Linking Publishing and Data Analytics

The authors explore how major publishers like Elsevier are increasingly integrating data analytics tools into their business models, potentially enhancing their market dominance. This trend is critically evaluated for its implications on competition and the independence of scientific data analytics.

Policy Recommendations and Evidence-Based Experiments

Mueller-Langer and McCabe advocate for experimental approaches to accompany policy measures like the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) initiative. These could help better understand the effects of new funding and publishing models, allowing for more informed and effective policymaking.

Conclusion

The authors provide valuable insights into how OA strategies could reshape the balance between publication costs, access to research, and quality assurance. Their article emphasizes the need for careful monitoring and evaluation of market mechanisms to ensure a sustainable and competitive scholarly communication landscape in the long term.

Directly to the study:

McCabe, Mark J.; Mueller-Langer, Frank (2024). Open Access Is Shaping Scientific Communication – Funders and Publishers Should Roll Out Policies in Ways to Support Their Evaluation, Science, 385 (6714), 1170-1172. Available at https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp8882