“That may soon change. Smaller-scale efforts are mixing with top-down decisions — through universities’ subscription negotiations and a major European plan that mandates open-access publication for certain research — to put unusual pressure on publishers.
Don’t think these battles are confined to the library or an individual discipline. The changes have the potential to alter nearly everything about how research is disseminated — and therefore how departments spend money, researchers collaborate, and faculty careers advance….”
“ I have decided to adopt Plan S as an individual researcher. This means that irrespective of who funds my research, the projects I start from 2020 on will follow all 10 Plan S principles. Note that so far no cap has been decided on the price of Author Publishing Charges for gold open access, so for the time being and for coherence, I will adopt as a cap that of Scientific Reports, the full open access journal to whose editorial board I belong (which on the other hand it is very similar to one of the pioneering journals of Open Access, PLOS ONE). Furthermore, I will not do any work or have any relationship whatsoever with journals where I would not be able to publish myself: no editing, no reviewing, nothing. Why from 2020? Simply for colleagues that may want to work with me on a project to be aware of my publication policy beforehand, before they do any work, and I want to give due notice to other journals I am currently working with. Same goes for prospective Ph D students or postdocs: be aware that your career may be hampered by coming to work with me….”
“The University of California at Los Angeles turned to an unusual bit of leverage as its system negotiates with Elsevier, the academic-publishing giant: its own faculty’s research.
In a letter on Tuesday, campus officials asked faculty members to consider declining to review articles for Elsevier journals until negotiations “are clearly moving in a productive direction.” The letter also asked professors to consider publishing research elsewhere, including in prestigious open-access journals.
The university system has said it wants to reach an agreement that would be less expensive and simplify open-access publishing. But time for negotiations is running out: The contract expires on December 31….”
From Google’s English: “[A]mong the signatories of Plan S there is only one Italian institution, the INFN. The other research centers, such as the CNR or the Universities, have not yet taken a position on this matter. But how much do Italian universities spend to get access to scientific journals and what is the status of Open Access in our country? We asked the CARE Group (Coordination for Access to Electronic Resources), the organ within the Conference of Rectors of Italian Universities (CRUI) that deals, on the mandate of the universities, negotiations with scientific publishers. The level of total expenditure for subscription fee paymentsit is not known, since in addition to the centrally managed contracts by CARE, on which a confidentiality clause however, individual universities acquire autonomously a part of the resources. Regarding the penetration of OA in Italian research, CARE replies: “At the moment there are no quantitative studies on this”, adding that there are no contracts of the type read and publish with no publisher.”
“If a large proportion of academics were to simultaneously boycott these journals, they would quickly lose their value and the incentive to publish there would be reduced. The academic community could then transition the flow of knowledge from commercially-owned journals to fair open-access systems that are more in line with the ideals of the community….
We plan to grow a community of academics who pledge to exclusively support community-owned free open access publication systems. Crucially, pledges made by members will only become active when a pre-specified threshold of support has been reached in the academic community, with names anonymised until this time, allowing individuals to show support without risking their livelihoods….
Our Kickstarter-like system of pledges will be launched in 2019….”
“Sweden is latest country to hold out on journal subscriptions, while negotiators share tactics to broker new deals with publishers.
Bold efforts to push academic publishing towards an open-access model are gaining steam. Negotiators from libraries and university consortia across Europe are sharing tactics on how to broker new kinds of contracts that could see more articles appear outside paywalls. And inspired by the results of a stand-off in Germany, they increasingly declare that if they don’t like what publishers offer, they will refuse to pay for journal access at all. On 16 May, a Swedish consortium became the latest to say that it wouldn’t renew its contract, with publishing giant Elsevier. Under the new contracts, termed ‘read and publish’ deals, libraries still pay subscriptions for access to paywalled articles, but their researchers can also publish under open-access terms so that anyone can read their work for free. Advocates say such agreements could accelerate the progress of the open-access movement. Despite decades of campaigning for research papers to be published openly — on the grounds that the fruits of publicly funded research should be available for all to read — scholarly publishing’s dominant business model remains to publish articles behind paywalls and collect subscriptions from libraries (see ‘Growth of open access’). But if many large library consortia strike read-and-publish deals, the proportion of open-access articles could surge….”
“In Germany, the fight for open access and favorable pricing for journals is getting heated. At the end of last month (June 30), four major academic institutions in Berlin announced that they would not renew their subscriptions with the Dutch publishing giant Elsevier once they end this December. Then on July 7, nine universities in Baden-Württemberg, another large German state, also declared their intention to cancel their contracts with the publisher at the end of 2017.
These institutions join around 60 others across the country that allowed their contracts to expire last year….”
“Peter Suber, a leading voice in the open access movement, has recently provided an instance of just such a withdrawal. In January, Suber announced (using Google+ to do so) that he would ‘not referee for a publisher belonging to the Association of American Publishers unless it has publicly disavowed the AAP’s position on the Research Works Act’. The latter, which was introduced in the US Congress on 16 December 2011, was designed to prohibit open access mandates for federally funded research in the USA. The Research Works Act would thus in effect countermand the National Institutes of Health’s Public Access Policy along with other similar open access policies in the USA. To show my support for open access and Suber’s initiative, I publicly stated in January that I would act similarly.  Having met with staunch opposition from within both the academic and the publishing communities, all public backing of the Research Works Act has now been dropped as of 27 February. But I can’t help wondering, rather than taking this as a cue to abandon the strategy of refusal, should we not adopt it all the more? Should we not withdraw our academic labour from all those presses and journals that do not allow authors, as a bare minimum, to self-archive the refereed and accepted final drafts of their publications in institutional open access repositories? 
As a supporter of long standing, I feel it is important to acknowledge that the open access movement – which is concerned with making peer-reviewed research literature freely available online to all those able to access the Internet – is neither unified nor self-identical. Some regard it as a movement,  yet for others it represents a variety of economic models or even just another means of distribution, marketing and promotion. It should also be borne in mind that there is nothing inherently radical, emancipatory, oppositional, or even politically or culturally progressive about open access. The politics of open access depend on the decisions that are made in relation to it, the specific tactics and strategies that are adopted, the particular conjunctions of time, situation and context in which such practices, actions and activities take place, and the networks, relationships and flows of culture, community, society and economics they encourage, mobilize and make possible. Open access publishing is thus not necessarily a mode of left resistance.
Nevertheless, what is interesting about the transition to the open access publication and archiving of research is the way it is creating at least some ‘openings’ that allow academics to destabilize and rethink scholarly publishing, and with it the university, beyond the model espoused by free-market capitalism….”
From Google’s English: “The goal of the DEAL project is to conclude nationwide license agreements for the entire portfolio of electronic journals (e-journals) of major science publishers from the 2017 license year. It seeks a significant change from the current status quo in negotiation, content and pricing . The effects of a consortium agreement at federal level are intended to provide financial relief to individual institutions and to improve access to scientific literature for science on a broad and sustainable level. At the same time, an open access component is to be implemented….”