Open access (OA) is transforming scholarly communication. Various modes of OA implementation have emerged, which reflect the complexity surrounding OA development. This study aimed to examine this development from the perspective of how OA is implemented. The sample comprised 2,368 randomly selected articles published in 2013 and 2,999 published in 2018 indexed in the Web of Science. We also conducted searches in Google and Google Scholar in 2015 for articles published in 2013 and in 2020 for articles published in 2018. Selected articles were categorized as either an “OA article,” “electronic subscription journal article,” or “not available online.” OA articles were classified into 10 implementation modes: Gold, Hybrid, Delayed, Bronze, Subject Repositories, Institutional Repositories, Personal/Institutional Websites, Academic Social Networks (ASNs), Others, and Web Aggregator. Overall, 56.5% of all sampled articles in 2013 were available for free on at least one website in 2015, while 61.7% of all sampled articles in 2018 were freely available on at least one website in 2020. Concerning implementation mode, ASNs had the highest frequency (44.4% in 2015 and 56.0% in 2020), followed by Subject Repositories (35.0% in 2015 and 39.6% in 2020) and Gold (24.1% in 2015 and 37.4% in 2020). To obtain an overview of OA implementation, we conducted principal component analysis with OA implementation mode as the variable for both 2015 and 2020. The first principal component was the axis indicating the number of overlapping OA implementations for each article in 2015 and 2020, while the second principal component was the axis orthogonal to the first, which was difficult to interpret. We identified three groups of OA implementation in each plot of the principal component scores for articles in 2015 and 2020; however, the OA implementation of each group differed in 2015 and 2020. This diversity reflects the respective positions of various stakeholders regarding OA.

In order to promote open access by Japan's institutional repositories, libraries have been asking researchers to provide articles. However, since its advantage is unclear, the success rate of the activity has been stagnant. Considering the situation, this study examined whether the advantage exists, focusing on citations. Although the number of open access articles by Japan's institutional repositories is limited, a comparison of their citations with those of various types of open access articles did not confirm the advantage.

More than 800 institutional repositories exist in Japan, but only a few institutions are active in registering journal articles. In this study, we analyzed the causal relation between the number of journal articles and librarians' open access promotion activities to provide good practice guidelines to the institutional repository community. Quantitative analysis results using data from 87 domestic institutions showed "request for journal articles", a direct approach to researchers, was estimated particularly influential in increasing the number of journal articles. On the other hand, activities, for instance, in developing an "open access policy" or implementing "self-archiving" were found less influential. Additional collected data from 4 institutions regarding the "request for journal articles" to understand the details of the causal relation revealed an annual success rate averaged 36.32%. Furthermore, the data showed the annual success rate of an institution implementing it most effectively averaged 55.82%, reaching a peak of 73.20%.

No abstract

US President Donald Trump is known for his unique character. However, does the notion imply that his policy is unique? Existing studies on presidents have assumed that Trump's policy significantly differs from that of former President Barack Obama due to extremely biased policies, especially foreign policy. To test the validity of such a common view, the study conducted a quantitative text analysis of executive orders issued by both presidents. Results show that (1) there are systematic differences between Obama's and Trump's policy; (2) tracklessness, rather than deflectiveness highlights the uniqueness of Trump's policy; and (3) the uniqueness of Trump's policy is pronounced in domestic rather than foreign policy.