Trends in open infrastructure performance and adoption


Our mission at Invest in Open Infrastructure is to advance the investment in and adoption of open infrastructure for research and scholarship. From our stakeholder engagement and research work in the past years, one point that we have heard repeatedly is that those who are advocating for and making the case for the adoption of open infrastructure have faced continued resistance and questions from their peers and management. Questions were raised around the sustainability and stability of open infrastructure, and adopters are often looking for “social proof” — evidence that there is an increase in the use of open infrastructure, to support their case-making and de-risk their open infrastructure investments.

Simultaneously, from our observations and monitoring of various open infrastructure services and initiatives, the data we collected through Infra Finder,[1] and our conversations with them, we’ve witnessed and documented many clear signals of growth, development, and transition towards resilience in open infrastructures. These include a range of important trends, from new partnerships and funding, to technical upgrades and usage milestones. Specific examples evidencing these trends include a partnership between Dryad and Zenodo funded by the Sloan Foundation (Ioannidis, 2020), a Mellon-Funded initiative where the Nonprofit Finance Fund convened a cohort of six organizations to advance financial resiliency in the Digital Humanities (Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2020), a full rebuild of the Public Access Submission System (PASS),[2] and the use of the Open Journal System (OJS) by an estimated 60% of the world’s diamond open access journals. In 2022, IOI also announced the launch of the IOI Fund for Network Adoption to catalyse a new form of investment to foster the implementation, growth, and usability of open infrastructures to advance scientific research and data sharing.[3]

We’ve witnessed and documented many clear signals of growth, development, and transition towards resilience in open infrastructures.

In our strategic support work,[4] we work with our partners (both infrastructure services and their funders) to improve the infrastructure’s governance and co-map a strategic blueprint forward to increase their sustainability. This has led us to question our assumptions and examine the question of what success and performance look like today for open infrastructures, both at the level of individual infrastructure services and at the ecosystem level.

In this section, we want to celebrate the successes of open infrastructure and highlight some of the trends we see regarding the adoption of, dependence on, and shifts towards open infrastructure. We aim to monitor, track, and tell stories to highlight what we see as pivotal developments and trends in the adoption and success of open infrastructure services and to invite the broader community into conversations and co-creation of experiments around how we can better invest (financially and otherwise) to build a more resilient ecosystem of open infrastructures. 

We hope that this section will, over time (with the annual release of this State of Open Infrastructure report), become a valuable resource both for those who are looking to better understand trends and transitions in the open infrastructure space, and those advocating for further adoption and investment into open infrastructure for research and scholarship.

Stories of (inter)dependence

We started this investigation with data collected from 57 infrastructure service providers as part of our effort to build Infra Finder.[5] The intake instrument for Infra Finder asked participating infrastructure service providers to list their key achievements. From this data, we identified stories and cases of adoption of and dependence on open infrastructure services and standards beyond growth in user or member numbers. These include:

  • The inclusion of open infrastructure services in national policies and strategies: the Research Organization Registry (ROR) is the recommended institutional identifier in a growing set of national open science policies and persistent identifier (PID) strategies worldwide. Other open infrastructures, such as ORCID, DataCite, Zenodo, and Dataverse, have also been mentioned and included in national policies and roadmaps.[6]
  • Stories of interdependence between open infrastructure services and standards: the Open Edition of the CWTS Leiden Ranking of worldwide institutions uses OpenAlex data; the Internet Archive officially adopts the International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF); the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) migrates to DSpace 6 in 2021; Fedora introduces Oxford Common File Layout (OCFL) as a preservation standard within the persistence layer in Fedora 6.0.

Taken together, these achievements demonstrate the value that open infrastructure brings to research and scholarship. It is a crucial characteristic of many open infrastructures — technological transparency and interoperability — that makes these success stories possible.

Moving towards open

Here, we want to highlight two cases where infrastructure service adopters and users are shifting away from closed solutions towards more open ones.


Perhaps one of the most notable cases of a collective shift away from closed infrastructure in the scholarly communication space was the migration away from Digital Commons after its provider bepress was acquired by Elsevier in 2017. Digital Commons, a turnkey institutional repository (IR) platform, was a popular solution, especially for small library presses, because it is a hosted solution (no hosting and related technical capacity and related resources are required on campus) and because of its ability to provide both repository and journal publishing services.

After its acquisition, the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) Libraries became the first institution to announce their termination of the partnership with bepress and plan to look for alternatives (Penn Libraries, 2017). Since then, many institutions and organizations, including Cornell University Library, Iowa State University, Pacific University, the University of North Texas Health Science Center, the Journal of eScience Librarianship, and others, have migrated from Digital Commons to open alternatives, such as Hyku, DSpace, and Janeway (Baird & Meetz, 2022; Corrice et al., 2021; Goldman, 2022; Shelley, n.d.; Woodward, 2019). 

It is worth noting that the acquisition was only part of the reason Penn Libraries chose to migrate away from bepress — many institutions migrate due to dissatisfaction with key functionalities and inability to meet their organization and community’s evolving needs (Baird & Meetz, 2022). Indeed, even before bepress’s acquisition, library publishers have voiced a desire for a better hosted turnkey IR and publishing solution than Digital Commons, one that is interoperable with and adaptable to the institution’s existing tooling and has enhanced workflow features akin to those offered by the Open Journal System (OJS) and Janeway.

The Next Generation Library Publishing project (NGLP) was established in part to fill this gap and create a robust, flexible, and interoperable toolchain that both meets the needs of library publishers and aligns with academic values.[7] One of library publishers’ most vital needs is visibility for its published content. In response to that, the NGLP team and their partner Cast Iron Coding developed Meru, a discovery and display platform that can ingest content from various upstream submission and curation systems, e.g. Janeway, OJS and DSpace. Building on Meru, NGLP aims to pilot a Software-as-a-Service offering. However, unlike bepress, the interoperability and modularity of their design lay solid foundations for the offering to better meet the needs of diverse users and encourage a healthy level of coopetition between various open infrastructure service providers. With its simultaneous consortial publishing pilot (more in the section on shared development and adoption), we look forward to seeing whether the maturation of NGLP’s technologies will encourage more institutions to move away from bepress.

Open research information and bibliometrics

We’ve also been paying close attention to the bibliometric data space. The use of proprietary data and tools for research discovery, assessment, and evaluation has long been criticized because these so often lack both transparency and inclusivity. The UNESCO Open Science Recommendation includes “open bibliometrics and scientometrics systems for assessing and analysing scientific domain” as part of the open science infrastructure to further invest in (UNESCO, 2021). In January 2024, the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) announced its decision to unsubscribe from Elsevier’s Scopus bibliographic database and its intention to “stop using commercial bibliographic databases altogether as soon as open solutions are sufficiently mature (CNRS, 2024).” At around the same time, the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research announced the establishment of a multi-year partnership with OpenAlex to develop a fully open bibliographic tool (Badolato, 2024). The Leiden Ranking, a robust, high-quality approach to comparing universities (distinct from but comparable to the Times Higher Education World University Rankings and the QS Universities Rankings), also introduced an Open Edition using data from OpenAlex in January 2024 (Waltman et al., 2024).

These recent movements are not only the result of the rapid development and maturation of open infrastructure and data in the bibliometrics and research information space (thanks to the work of groups including the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative,[8] the Centre of Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University,[9] and SIRIS Academic),[10] but also coordinated effort to reform research assessment (e.g. the formation of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA)[11] in 2022) and an increase in investment going into these infrastructures (e.g. Arcadia’s US$7.5M grant to OurResearch to establish OpenAlex, in March 2024 (Portenoy, 2024)). With the release of the recent Barcelona Declaration of Open Research Information,[12] we expect more institutions and organizations to move towards relying on more transparent and open bibliometric data and tools.

These recent movements are not only the result of the rapid development and maturation of open infrastructure and data in the bibliometrics and research information space, but also coordinated effort to reform research assessment and an increase in investment going into these infrastructures.

Stronger together: Shared development and adoption

One common challenge often mentioned in our conversations and engagement with institutional decision-makers is the lack of capacity (staffing, budget, and technical support) for individual institutions to maintain their own instances of open infrastructure. Many have expressed the desire for networks they are a member of, e.g. their library consortia, to provide shared resources and services to help their members adopt and maintain open infrastructure and collectively benefit from economies of scale. In that regard, as part of this section of the report, we want to highlight recent examples and cases of shared development and adoption of open infrastructure by networks of institutions that are coming together to explore how they can coordinate their adoption, maintenance, and scaling of infrastructure, improve utilization of resources and cost-effectiveness of their investments, and build representative governance. 

Hyku for Consortia

Hyku for Consortia is a project with the aim to explore, develop, and pilot the Hyku open-source, multi-tenant, consortial IR to deliver ultra-low cost hosting, discovery, and access to digital materials (Pennsylvania Academic Library Consortium, Inc. (PALCI), 2019). The consortia leading this work, PALCI and Private Academic Library Network of Indiana (PALNI), heard their members and the broader community articulate the need to develop a solution with key large-scale configuration options and features that would enable shared consortial IR services. This led to the development of a collaborative repository, Hyku Commons, which currently serves over 50 repository tenants across four consortia.[13] Bringing together a broader user community has enabled the identification of gaps in Hyku, encouraged the sharing of solutions across institutions, and led to further development of additional features (PALNI & PALCI, 2023). At the end of the project in 2023, 70% of Hyku Commons users plan to continue using Hyku as a public repository service (compared to 46.7% in 2021, Hyku for Consortia Team, n.d.).

Next Generation Library Publishing project’s consortial publishing pilots

In March 2022, the California Digital Library (CDL) announced the launch of its pilot of an NGLP library publishing solution (Lippincott & Mitchell, 2022). Recognizing the lack of an existing platform that can adequately support the complexity required to support the combined role of a publishing platform and IR at a consortial scale, the pilot tested and refined a robust, scalable consortial infrastructure solution for campus-based publishing. In the pilot, CDL’s custom, partly OJS-based architecture was replaced by DSpace 7.0, Janeway, and NGLP technologies. In July 2023, in partnership with the Educopia Institute, Stratos, and the University of Iowa Libraries, NGLP received a grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services to move NGLP infrastructure from pilot phase to production-ready, with consortial publishing as a primary use case. The University of Iowa Libraries is a member of the Library Initiatives of the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA), which is exploring the potential of consortial approaches to campus-based publishing to achieve economies of scale and increase impact.

The Canadian shared institutional repository service

In November 2023, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL), the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL), and the University of Toronto Libraries announced their collaborative intent to develop a national shared IR service (Ontario Council of University Libraries, 2023). Starting with a pilot programme, the collaboration aims to develop, test, migrate data and refine a robust and scalable IR hosting service that can be scaled out to other organizations as a nationally available service hosted by Scholars Portal. Scholars Portal is a service of OCUL; it currently provides shared technology infrastructure and shared collections for 21 university libraries in Ontario province.[14] In developing and piloting the Canadian shared IR service, Scholars Portal will provide technical hosting and support, including monitoring and security-related services, to benefitting organizations. 

ORCID’s and DataCite’s consortial programmes

ORCID and DataCite have separately established consortial membership programmes designed to enable a group of like-minded organizations in a nation or region to collectively participate in these open infrastructures’ communities and accelerate the integration of the open infrastructure services in their contexts (Cousijn, 2019; ORCID, n.d.). By forming a consortium to access these infrastructure services, individual institutions benefit from more cost-effective and coordinated sharing of resources, as well as being part of a local community of practice, which not only allows them to access local support but also helps scale infrastructure integration and adoption efforts in their region or nation (Meadows, 2023; ORCID, Inc, 2016). For the infrastructures, the shift away from individual membership towards larger consortial membership improved their financial sustainability by closing the gap between membership dues and operating expenses (ORCID, 2015). ORCID currently has 29 Consortia members, and DataCite has 59. 

Concluding remarks

These are by no means the only examples of shared adoption and coordination — we note, for example, the development of repositories and other open infrastructure services at national and regional levels (especially in Latin America, Africa, and Europe) as examples of coordination across multiple institutions and stakeholder groups. As more shared adoption efforts emerge, we find it important to continue to monitor and learn from these networks’ and communities’ experiences in order to better understand the challenges and impact of shared adoption.

It is also worth noting that consortial and network-level shared adoption is not the only path to addressing the issue of the lack of individual institution’s capacity — indeed, as we mentioned above, successful shared adoption requires infrastructure that can handle the associated complexity and careful planning such that growing demands from consortial/network members can continue to be met. Another increasingly popular and important option is to engage service providers who can provide hosting and maintenance services for open infrastructure. These service providers play a critical role in easing and, hence, growing the adoption of open infrastructure (see the chapter on the influence of procurement and information technology governance processes on the adoption of open infrastructure in this report for more) — this is a topic that we are continuing to monitor and look forward to discussing in a future iteration of this report.

These are by no means the only examples of shared adoption and coordination. As more shared adoption efforts emerge, we find it important to continue to monitor and learn from these networks’ and communities’ experiences in order to better understand the challenges and impact of shared adoption.

Graceful transitions

So far, we have given examples of how open infrastructures described their key achievements and highlighted stories of increased adoption and interdependence. These are important milestones and trends to monitor and celebrate — indeed, these are often the stories and charts that we see highlighted in annual and industry reports, as well as grant proposals, to evidence the success and growth of infrastructure services. 

Yet, in one-to-one conversations with OI service leaders in more informal, intimate settings, we hear a different set of stories: how services are navigating organizational transitions like spinning out from an institutional host, handling key personnel changes, mapping the next steps after the end of a major operational grant, revising their revenue models, etc. These are pivotal transitions for infrastructure services that need to be handled with care, yet the reluctance to share knowledge about these more openly can make these feel like isolated events and/or failures. In reality, with careful planning and intentional strategizing, these transitions are opportunities for a service or organization to reflect on its mission, core values, strategic direction, structure, etc. and to make changes that could kick-start its next phase of development or enable it to take on a new role in the infrastructure ecosystem. 

In this section, we tell recent stories of transitions to argue that these transitions are a hallmark of health for the services/organizations that aim to be adaptive and responsive to changing community needs and evolving technological and funding landscapes (Skinner, 2022). We also hope to explore what it means and what it takes to navigate transitions with grace.

Key personnel departure

With key personnel departures, the reluctance to share publicly can at least be partially attributed to the fact that many open infrastructures started as an idea closely associated with a founder or founding team. As the infrastructure gains traction, the community generally ties the infrastructure service’s success with the founders’ abilities and reputations. Often, that founder has been the primary fundraiser, architect, or, when necessary, has supported the service with volunteer labour. When a founder or founding team member announces their move away from an initiative, the extended community (including developers, implementers, funders, members, clients, hosts, and others) may become concerned about the stability, resilience, and longevity of the service. Founding members and leadership of open infrastructure services are often reluctant to discuss such moves openly, fearing that it would cause speculation and uncertainty in the community. This is especially true when the departure timeline is short, or when the decision to depart comes with baggage like burnout or with internal friction. 

This is in seeming contrast with one of the biggest advantages of working in the open, where, because the creation and development of the infrastructure service are often documented publicly and shared for reuse with an open license, anyone should be able to take the public assets and build on or continue running the service, even in the case of core maintainer or leadership departure. The reality is much more nuanced. Infrastructures and their communities also depend to greater or lesser degrees on intangible assets — the tacit knowledge embodied in experienced leaders and contributors, and the trust and relationships they have developed. A job description can articulate the tasks and responsibilities of a founder/leader, and a founder can keep thorough documentation of how the role was done in the past, but a large part of how this implicit work gets done is directly related to the person’s personality, motivation, networks, circumstances, etc, making it impossible to replicate.

In reality, with careful planning and intentional strategizing, these transitions are opportunities for a service or organization to reflect on its mission, core values, strategic direction, structure, etc. and to make changes that could kick-start its next phase of development or enable it to take on a new role in the infrastructure ecosystem.

With that in mind, a key to successfully navigating key personnel and leadership changes seems to be to decenter the founder(s) and/or leader(s) early on and to build a team that shares responsibilities (not only at the day-to-day but also at the more strategic, higher level). A recent case that exemplifies this is that of the Open Library of Humanities (OLH). OLH was launched in 2015 by Dr Caroline Edwards and Prof Martin Eve as a response to the serials crisis in academic publishing and a direct commitment to finding a way of publishing open-access journal articles in the humanities without any author-facing article processing charges (APCs) (Edwards, 2015). Today, OLH is a renowned publisher of humanities scholarship based at Birkbeck, University of London, publishing 30 diamond open-access journals and supported by more than 340 libraries worldwide (Open Library of Humanities, n.d.). Janeway, the open-source publishing solution powering OLH, was first developed in 2017 by Eve and Andy Byers.[15] Janeway is also a part of the infrastructure underlying publishing operations at institutions such as Carnegie Mellon University, California Digital Library, and TU Wien, and is a partner in the Next Generation Library Publishing project (Invest in Open Infrastructure, n.d.).

In 2022, Eve announced publicly that he would take on a new role at Crossref (Eve, 2022). It is worth noting that prior to the move, OLH’s day-to-day operation was already a team effort and not dependent solely on Eve and Edwards’ work. The preparation for the move created an opportunity for Edwards, now Executive Director at OLH, and the OLH team to think more deeply about its sustainability and to design a future that enables it to continue to center its core values of being academic- and scholar-led and run by a collaborative team. This included the intentional decision to embed OLH into Birkbeck. Operating out of its own unit within Birkbeck's university structure allowed OLH the freedom to manage its operations with the administrative and HR support of a large organization. At a time when OLH was witnessing other small, academic-led publishers being acquired by commercial publishers, the transition back to Birkbeck ensured that OLH would not be vulnerable to commercial acquisition. Reflecting on OLH’s key organizational vulnerabilities, Edwards led the team in designing and gathering support (from the Board, Birkbeck management, OLH editors, and the community) for a new business and sustainability plan for OLH, aimed at professionalizing OLH to better serve its community of editors, academics, and libraries. The plan fostered investment into creating five new roles on the OLH team, which increased OLH’s capacity to better support editors and respond to community needs. It also facilitated user research and web development that culminated in a new design for OLH’s website, critical to increasing the visibility of OLH’s journals and showcasing their vibrant published works (Edwards, 2024). They’ve recently recruited an accessibility developer and started a new, user-driven project to improve Janeway and OLH’s accessibility (Byers & Driver, 2024). In 2023, OLH revived a new Library Board, which constitutes the community-based library governance of OLH’s financial model and provides advice and input to the OLH team from the supporting library members (Vega, 2023). The increased capacity, strengthened governance, and enhanced UX/UI also enabled Edwards to be more ambitious with their work in flipping journals — the team confirmed that ten journals have flipped, or are in the process of flipping, from commercial publishers to OLH in the past six months. 

Partnership conclusion

While new partnerships are often celebrated, their conclusions are seldom discussed publicly. Even where partnerships end cordially, speculation often runs rampant about the reasons for partners' going separate ways. In fact, partnerships are often formed when two or more organizations identify an opportunity where working together on a specific scope of work would advance their shared vision and/or enable them to better meet their respective communities’ needs. It is, therefore, natural that that joint scope of work would one day be completed and the partnership would end, or that the community’s needs would have evolved and the partnership is no longer as mutually beneficial as it once was. 

Transitioning away from a partnership with an intentional process and careful preparation can create opportunities for partners to reflect on their distinct identities and work and to design a new path forward. A recent case that illustrates this well is that of Dryad. Founded in 2007, Dryad is an open data publishing platform and a community committed to the open availability and routine re-use of all research data (Dryad, n.d.). In 2018, it announced that it had entered a strategic partnership with the California Digital Library (CDL) to leverage Dryad and CDL’s respective strengths to offer new products and services and build broad, sustainable, and productive approaches to data curation (The Dryad Team, 2018). This led to the launch of a modernized Dryad platform; the building of new integration with manuscript systems and more robust curation services for the benefit of journal publishers; and the development of membership pathways for academic institutions (Lippincott, 2023b). 

Upon achieving the partnership’s goals, Dryad and CDL announced the conclusion of the partnership in 2023. This created a new space for the Dryad team to chart their path forward and explore what it means for Dryad to operate as an independent team. In that process, the team prioritized building capacity, structures, and revenue models that would enable Dryad to grow while keeping its community’s interests and needs at heart, and to advance its mission. The support and guidance from their community-elected board were critical in supporting the core team in this process. For example, the Board engaged with frameworks for value delivery (the value chain) and risk analysis, that helped it to provide informed critique and support for structural changes that were introduced. Having their codebase and content openly licensed was also critical, for it allowed Dryad to enter into and leave partnerships without losing control of these critical assets.

Having established strong service levels, platform stability, and regular community engagement programs, the Dryad organization now has a clear view of life after the successful end of the partnership with CDL. There is a clear and full understanding of the costs associated with running the service and platform and supporting the Dryad multistakeholder community with emerging practices in research data management. To better understand the value proposition to its members, the Dryad team engaged a consultant to conduct focus groups and interviews. Building on the insights from this research, and the fresh understanding of costs, the team is exploring with its members and the broader community the levels of investment needed to allow Dryad to deliver its core services and value to meet its community's growing and changing needs (Lippincott, 2023a). 

Spin-down and sunset

A spin-down or sunset can be even more challenging to share news of or talk about, not least because these sometimes happen as a surprise rather than a long-planned process. Ideally, open infrastructures have looked ahead and documented exit strategies and sunset plans, but many are so busy trying to chart a survival path that this crucial work is not undertaken until the situation becomes critical. Instead of a deliberate process that happens with an official sunset budget, the resulting shutdown experience is ad hoc, underfunded, and conducted over either a quick emergency period (e.g., Digital Preservation Network (Schonfeld, 2018), the Open Collective Foundation (Open Collective, 2024)) or unfolds as a period of long, slow decline until resources give out.[16]

A recent example of an infrastructure that is carefully planning its potential spin down and exploring options to continue is the Open Access Tracking Project (OATP)[17] and its underlying open-source software TagTeam.[18] OATP is a crowd-sourced social-tagging project that captures news and commentary on open access to research. Since its launch in 2009, OATP has tagged more than 102,000 works and amassed more than 17,000 followers on various social media platforms. It is widely regarded as the most comprehensive source of news in the open-access community. OATP is one of more than 400 “hubs” or projects hosted on Harvard’s instance of TagTeam.

OATP and TagTeam are both created and mainly maintained by Peter Suber, Senior Advisor on Open Access in Harvard Library and Director of the Harvard Open Access Project. As Suber is planning to retire, he is seeking to turn over the responsibility of development and maintenance responsibilities of both TagTeam and OATP to a succeeding not-for-profit entity. He has carefully mapped out scenarios for how OATP can be turned over to another organization, what would that entail for the new host(s) of OATP and TagTeam, and his desired role and level of involvement after the handover.[19] The responsibility of the new host(s) would include management of OATP’s tagger community (recruiting new taggers, giving feedback to taggers, keeping them motivated, etc.), moderating OATP’s feeds, deciding on tag vocabulary, running OATP’s social accounts, approving new TagTeam account requests, ensuring the codebase is maintained, etc. 

Concluding remarks

A strength of open infrastructure is its ability to continuously evolve to adapt to changing community needs, technological and socioeconomic conditions, and policy environments. These changes can be very good reasons to sunset and retire a service (e.g. technological advancement rendering certain services obsolete), for partnerships to conclude, and for founders to move on. It is therefore as important to talk about, share knowledge around, and normalize transitions as to discuss and celebrate growth and new developments. Being able to prepare for and navigate these transitions in line with the core values of the service and its community and the vision for its future should be a hallmark of a healthy, robust open infrastructure ecosystem. 

We note that the three types of transitions we’ve expanded on in this sub-section are not the only ones that would benefit from more careful planning and knowledge sharing. For example, we have not discussed mergers and acquisitions here — we and others have been monitoring acquisitions and consolidations in the sector. We also welcome readers’ input and suggestions on other types of transitions that would benefit from normalizing and further exploration

More open conversation is needed to help the open infrastructure community understand how best to prepare for these transitions, and for investors and contributors to understand how to support them. We draw inspiration from work done in the broader open space to change the narrative and normalize these transitions (e.g., the FOREST framework (Lippincott & Skinner, 2022), It Takes a Village,[20] the Commons Conservancy[21]) and we look forward to contributing to advancing this conversation.


The IOI team would like to thank Jennifer Gibson and Sarah Lippincott (Dryad), Dr Caroline Edwards (OLH), and Dr Peter Suber (OATP and TagTeam) for their contributions to and review of the graceful transitions section of this chapter. 


Badolato, A.-M. (2024, February 15). French Ministry of Higher Education and Research partners with OpenAlex to develop a fully open bibliographic tool. Ouvrir La Science.

Baird, L., & Meetz, J. (2022). Digital Commons to Hyku: An Institutional Repository Migration at a Small Liberal Arts University. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 10(1).

Byers, A., & Driver, S. (2024, March 19). Our Commitment to Accessibility. Open Library of Humanities.

CNRS. (2024, January 11). The CNRS has unsubscribed from the Scopus publications database | CNRS.

Corrice, J., McLaren, C., Del Rosso, J., & Steinhart, G. (2021, May 31). Bepress to DSpace in PJs: Migrating two open repositories from home. OPEN REPOSITORIES 2021, June 7-10.

Cousijn, H. (2019, August 26). The DataCite Membership model: Consortia, repositories, and more. DataCite.

Dryad. (n.d.). Dryad | Who we are. Retrieved 19 April 2024, from

Edwards, C. (2015, September 27). OLH Launch. Dr Caroline Edwards.

Edwards, C. (2024, April 23). OLH unveils new website and brand design. Open Library of Humanities.

Eve, M. P. (2022, August 26). Moving On: My Infrastructural Turn. Martin Paul Eve.

Goldman, J. (2022, September 1). Welcome to JeSLIB on Janeway! Journal of eScience Librarianship.

Hyku for Consortia Team. (n.d.). What Do Our Users Think? 2023 Hyku Commons Satisfaction Survey Results. Retrieved 12 April 2024, from

Invest in Open Infrastructure. (n.d.). Solution: Janeway | Infra Finder. Infra Finder. Retrieved 19 April 2024, from

Ioannidis, A. (2020, March 10). Dryad & Zenodo: Our Path Ahead. Zenodo | Blog.

Lippincott, S. (2023a, July 24). Invitation to comment: Dryad’s revised membership model for academic and research institutions. Dryad News.

Lippincott, S. (2023b, October 20). Dryad news | New at Dryad: Celebrating a milestone in the Dryad and CDL partnership. Dryad News.

Lippincott, S., & Mitchell, C. (2022, March 8). California Digital Library: Prioritizing Community and Sustainability as an NGLP Pilot Partner | Educopia Institute. Educopia Institute.

Lippincott, S., & Skinner, K. (2022). FOREST Framework for Values-Driven Scholarly Communication. Educopia Institute.

Meadows, A. (2023, June 21). The ORCID US Consortium at Five: What’s Worked, What Hasn’t, and Why? The Scholarly Kitchen.

Nonprofit Finance Fund. (2020, May 14). NFF Selects Cohort in Mellon-Funded Initiative to Advance Financial Resiliency in the Digital Humanities | Nonprofit Finance Fund. Nonprofit Finance Fund.

Ontario Council of University Libraries. (2023, November 22). CARL, OCUL, and University of Toronto Libraries Sign MOU Outlining Collaborative Intent to Develop a National Institutional Repository Service | Ontario Council of University Libraries.

Open Collective. (2024, February 28). Open Collective Official Statement—OCF Dissolution. Open Collective.

Open Library of Humanities. (n.d.). Who we are. Open Library of Humanities. Retrieved 19 April 2024, from

ORCID. (n.d.). ORCID Consortia. ORCID. Retrieved 12 April 2024, from

ORCID. (2015). ORCID 2015 Annual Report [Presentation]. ORCID.

ORCID, Inc. (2016, February 17). Launching a National ORCID Consortium—Roles and Responsibilities of the Consortium (H. Marks / L. Haak).

PALNI & PALCI. (2023, October 25). Hyku for Consortia Removing Barriers to Adoption Project Wrap-up.

Penn Libraries. (2017, September 19). Penn Libraries to End Partnership with bepress. Operation Beprexit.

Pennsylvania Academic Library Consortium, Inc. (PALCI). (2019). Scaling Up a Collaborative Consortial Institutional Repository, March 2019 Proposal to IMLS.

Portenoy, J. (2024, March 13). OurResearch receives $7.5M grant from Arcadia to establish OpenAlex, a milestone development for Open Science. OurResearch Blog.

Schonfeld, R. C. (2018, December 13). Why Is the Digital Preservation Network Disbanding? The Scholarly Kitchen.

Shelley, A. (n.d.). Digital Repository updates coming in 2024—University Library. Iowa State University Library. Retrieved 12 April 2024, from

Skinner, K. (2019, July 23). Why Are So Many Scholarly Communication Infrastructure Providers Running a Red Queen’s Race? [Educopia Institute].

Skinner, K. (2022, July 15). Embracing Change | Educopia Institute.

The Dryad Team. (2018, May 30). Dryad partnering with CDL to accelerate data publishing. Dryad News.

UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. UNESCO.

Vega, P. C. (2023, May 16). Nominations now open for the OLH Library Board. Open Library of Humanities.

Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., Visser, M., Neijssel, M., Montgomery, L., Neylon, C., Kramer, B., Demes, K., & Priem, J. (2024, January 30). Introducing the Leiden Ranking Open Edition.

Woodward, N. (2019). Bepress to DSpace Migration: A Case Study.


  1. Launched in April 2024, Infra Finder is IOI’s new open infrastructure discovery tool. In building the first release of Infra Finder, we worked with infrastructure service providers to collect data about 57 infrastructure services enabling open research and scholarship. More at, and also in other chapters of this report, including the Characteristics of selected open infrastructures.
  2. PASS is also currently in the Incubation phase as an Eclipse Foundation project. Read more at
  6. For example, Ireland’s National Action Plan for Open Research 2023-2030 has the action point “Support the Irish ORCID Consortium and encourage further development and adoption of ORCID ...”, and Latvia’s Open Science Strategy 2021-27 mentions “... with the support of the Ministry of Education and Science should create a network of general research data repositories, DataverseLV, ...”
  16. For an analysis of the main reasons scholarly communication infrastructure providers are “Red-Queen-Racing”, see Skinner (2019).
  19. See Suber’s succession planning document for OATP and TagTeam for more details: