
Transformative agreements have become an important strategy in the transition to open access, with almost 1,200 such agreements registered by 2025. Despite their prevalence, these agreements suffer from important transparency limitations, most notably article-level metadata indicating which articles are covered by these agreements. Typically, this data is available to libraries but not openly shared, making it difficult to study the impact of these agreements. In this paper, we present a novel, open, replicable method for analyzing transformative agreements using open metadata, specifically the Journal Checker tool provided by cOAlition S and OpenAlex. To demonstrate its potential, we apply our approach to a subset of publications funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and its health research counterpart ZonMw. In addition, the results of this open method are compared with the actual publisher data reported to the Dutch university library consortium UKB. This validation shows that this open method accurately identified 89% of the publications covered by transformative agreements, while the 11% false positives shed an interesting light on the limitations of this method. In the absence of hard, openly available article-level data on transformative agreements, we provide researchers and institutions with a powerful tool to critically track and evaluate the impact of these agreements.
MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science|Scholarly Communication, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science|Cataloging and Metadata, MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science|Scholarly Communication, MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science|Scholarly Publishing, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science|Scholarly Publishing, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science, MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science|Cataloging and Metadata, MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science
MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science|Scholarly Communication, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science|Cataloging and Metadata, MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science|Scholarly Communication, MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science|Scholarly Publishing, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science|Scholarly Publishing, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science, MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science|Cataloging and Metadata, MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Library and Information Science
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
