Access agreement between Elsevier and Dutch universities extended

The Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) and Elsevier have announced a further 6-month extension to their current agreement, providing researchers at Dutch universities with access to more than 16 million publications from over 2,500 journals published by Elsevier, including  Cell Press and The Lancet titles, and journals published on behalf of its society partners.

The agreement includes an extension of the Elsevier-VSNU gold OA pilot, enabling researchers at Dutch universities to publish open access in the majority of Elsevier’s hybrid and gold OA journals in support of the Netherland’s open access goals.

The extension, which runs from July 1 through Dec 31, 2019, will allow for continued explorations between Elsevier, VSNU, the Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centres (NFU) and NWO on how to work together on aspired future Dutch open science infrastructure services….”

Peter Suber: The largest obstacles to open access are unfamiliarity and misunderstanding of open access itself

I’ve already complained about the slowness of progress. So I can’t pretend to be patient. Nevertheless, we need patience to avoid mistaking slow progress for lack of progress, and I’m sorry to see some friends and allies make this mistake. We need impatience to accelerate progress, and patience to put slow progress in perspective. The rate of OA growth is fast relative to the obstacles, and slow relative to the opportunities.”

Peter Suber: The largest obstacles to open access are unfamiliarity and misunderstanding of open access itself

I’ve already complained about the slowness of progress. So I can’t pretend to be patient. Nevertheless, we need patience to avoid mistaking slow progress for lack of progress, and I’m sorry to see some friends and allies make this mistake. We need impatience to accelerate progress, and patience to put slow progress in perspective. The rate of OA growth is fast relative to the obstacles, and slow relative to the opportunities.”

An introductory guide to the UC model transformative agreement – Office of Scholarly Communication

On the basis of these ideas, UC developed a unique “multi-payer” model for transformative agreements designed to engage authors and encourage shared funding between university library and research funds that can be replicated at other U.S. institutions. The model combines library funding — in the form of baseline financial support for all authors and full financial support for authors lacking grant funds — with an author workflow that asks authors with grant funding to pay a portion of the article publication costs. This is the model that UC proposed to Elsevier and that has formed the basis for our discussions with other publishers (including our April 2019 agreement with Cambridge University Press).

It is important to note that the co-funding elements of this model need not be limited to subscription publishers, but are intentionally designed for implementation with native open access publishers as well. The model is intended to create a level playing field for publishers of all types. Specific characteristics of the UC model include:

  • Default open access. Open access is the default publication option for all UC corresponding authors who publish in the target publisher’s journals. Authors have the choice of opting out.
  • Reading fee. The former subscription fee is greatly reduced and becomes a “reading” fee for access and perpetual rights to articles that are still behind a paywall.
    • UC has set its desired reading fee at 10% of the previous license fee, to allow for the bulk of the former subscription fee to be allocated to APC payments. The size of the reading fee recognizes that the proportion of closed to open access articles is decreasing as similar agreements are negotiated elsewhere around the globe.
  • Discounted APCs. The library negotiates reduced article publication charges (APCs) with the publisher, to bring the overall costs of the agreement into an affordable range that can facilitate a rapid transition to open access while protecting both the university and the publisher from undue economic risk.
  • Overall cost. In general, the total of all fees (reading fee + APCs) should be no more than the current licensing cost, possibly also including any existing APCs that have been paid outside the previous license agreement. To achieve this aim, negotiated APC discounts may be 30% or higher.
  • Co-funding model. Publication fees are subject to a co-funding model involving both institutional (library) funds and author (grant) funds, in a unified workflow:
    • Library subvention. The library provides a baseline subvention to cover a significant portion of the publication fee for all authors (e.g., $1,000 per article).
    • Grant-funded authors. Authors with access to grant funding are asked to pay a remaining portion of the article publication fee at the time of acceptance if they are able to do so, to allow for sustainability and scalability over time.
    • Unfunded authors. The library covers the publication fee in full for authors without access to grant funding (e.g., many authors in the humanities and some in the social sciences). Authors indicate the need for this support after their article has been accepted, as part of the publisher’s standard APC payment workflow.
    • Author choice. Authors can opt out of open access and publish their articles behind a paywall at their discretion.
    • Aggregated library payments. All library-funded components (baseline subvention and full funding for authors lacking grants) are paid through direct, periodic bulk payments to the publisher; there is no need for authors to request funding explicitly from the library. However, the full article publication costs, including library subvention amounts, should be disclosed to authors in the publisher interface.
  • Cost controls. Once established, the overall cost of the agreement varies up or down from year to year by a designated amount keyed to publication volume, to allow for gradual adjustments in response to author publishing behavior while allowing both the institution and the publisher to predictably manage costs.
    • UC’s model puts this standard variance at 2% — thus, the overall fees paid to the publisher can vary up or down by 2% per year….”

Guest Post: Evaluating Open Access in a Consortial Context – The Scholarly Kitchen

“OhioLINK has 188 member libraries from 89 higher education institutions plus the State Library of Ohio: 16 public universities, 51 independent university and college libraries, 23 two-year college libraries, 16 regional campus libraries, 8 law school libraries, and 5 medical school libraries. Membership includes three R1 institutions, five ARL libraries, and the Cleveland Clinic. Given the makeup of the institutional membership, sometimes OhioLINK can serve as a microcosm of the U.S. higher educational library market as a whole. (For an OhioLINK-specific analysis of institutional type and library alignment within the context of the University Futures, Library Futures OCLC Research/Ithaka S+R research report, see Constance Malpas’ presentation “University Futures, Library Futures: institutional and library directions in OhioLINK.”)

These are OhioLINK publishing and usage figures for one major STEM publisher in 2018. OhioLINK institutions published approximately 1,000 articles in the 900+ titles for which OhioLINK had a subscription. “Publish” activity from OhioLINK researchers accounted for about 0.4% of the total articles for which members had subscription access. “Read” activity was 1,900,000+ full text downloads. One institution accounted for 34% of all published articles in these titles; another group of three institutions accounted for a further 36% for a total of 70% output from the top four publishing institutions; 22 institutions made up the rest of the publishing activity out of a consortium of 90 institutions. The top four publishing institutions published between 10% and 12% of their articles in any kind of OA form (not by consortial agreement or subsidy, but acting individually either at the institutional or author level.) In total, OhioLINK-affiliated authors paid APCs for approximately 100 OA articles: 80% fully OA journals, 20% OA in hybrid journals….

We would expect any Read and Publish deals from publishers to conform to our particular publishing profile, rather than to a California Digital Library profile or a Projekt Deal profile. For some consortia, such as those composed of mostly private colleges, there is even less publishing activity. There is no standard deal that will fit all consortia; some consortia may not be offered certain OA deals at all, or the OA deals on offer will not be financially viable without significant outside sources of funding. Our collective question is: Given that much of the revenue coming from our members is, and always will be, from “Read” = subscription funding, what are the implications for the future financial burden of “Publish” consortia as more institutions become free riders? How will “Read” institutions/consortia participate in OA funding initiatives?:

Library Subscriptions and Open Access: Highlights from the University of California Negotiations with Elsevier

Abstract:  On February 28, 2019, the University of California (UC) System announced the cancellation of their $50 million journal subscription deal with Elsevier. The impetus behind the UC decision comes from two issues. Firstly, the increasing costs of journal subscriptions in a landscape where library budgets remain flat. Secondly, the effort to shift the journal publishing model away from subscriptions to a sustainable open access model. The following paper will provide background on issues with the scholarly communication process, academic library budgets and open access initiatives. Additional information will focus on the impact of journal subscription deals with large commercial publishers (including Elsevier) and highlight UNLV efforts to support open access.

 

UC Santa Cruz joins the international effort to make research accessible to all

In June, the University of California Santa Cruz joined its sister UC campuses in taking an important step towards the goal of making all scholarly journal literature freely available to the world by endorsing the international open access (OA) initiative, OA2020Led by the Max Planck Digital Library, OA2020 is a global alliance committed to new models of scholarly publishing that ensure outputs are open and re-usable and that the costs behind their dissemination are transparent and economically sustainable.

By adding its name to the list of 136 signatory organizations, UCSC demonstrates its strong commitment to the values the UC Academic Senate has held since the adoption of its Open Access Policy in 2013. Further, it emphasizes our campus’s support of the Senate-wide UCOLASC’s Declaration of Rights and Principles to Transform Scholarly Communication and the UC Systemwide Library And Scholarly Information Advisory Committee (SLASIAC) call to action aimed at transforming how the UC Libraries approach journal negotiations….”

OhioLINK Breaks New Ground Creating Central Fund for Open Access Publications with Wiley | Wiley News Room – Press Releases, News, Events & Media

“OhioLINK, a library consortium serving 118 libraries and 89 Ohio colleges and universities, announced today the signing of a Wiley Open Access Account agreement. A Wiley Open Access Account will enable OhioLINK-affiliated researchers to use a central fund for Article Publication Charges (APC). The partnership reflects both parties’ growing commitment to open research and advancing scholarly communications. OhioLINK is the first North American library consortium to centrally fund the creation and dissemination of open access research….”

University of Vienna Signs Pilot Transformative Agreement with AIP Publishing – AIP Publishing LLC

AIP Publishing, a leading not-for-profit scholarly publisher in the physical sciences, is pleased to announce that University of Vienna has signed an agreement to participate in AIP Publishing’s ‘Read and Publish’ pilot program. The University of Vienna is the first European academic institution to join the pilot, which is being conducted during the 2019 publication year.

As part of this pilot, AIP Publishing is partnering with a select number of institutions around the world to test systems and processes and provide critical feedback on the development of AIP Publishing’s transformative publishing agreement….”

University of Vienna Signs Pilot Transformative Agreement with AIP Publishing – AIP Publishing LLC

AIP Publishing, a leading not-for-profit scholarly publisher in the physical sciences, is pleased to announce that University of Vienna has signed an agreement to participate in AIP Publishing’s ‘Read and Publish’ pilot program. The University of Vienna is the first European academic institution to join the pilot, which is being conducted during the 2019 publication year.

As part of this pilot, AIP Publishing is partnering with a select number of institutions around the world to test systems and processes and provide critical feedback on the development of AIP Publishing’s transformative publishing agreement….”