ABSTRACT
This article describes a program session covering the nuances and complexities of “Read and Publish” transformative agreements. The session, a panel led by Assistant Marketing Director at AIP Publishing, Sara Rotjan, included the perspectives of three individuals – the researcher, the publisher, and the librarian – to give audience members a well-rounded idea of how transformative agreements are being negotiated from various stakeholders in Open Access publishing. In addition to outlining the infrastructures of the “Read and Publish” model, panelists also detailed the unique role they play in developing and implementing “Read and Publish” models at their own institutions. They also discussed some of the challenges with “Read and Publish” models and how these challenges are being addressed by internal and external stakeholders.
The researcher’s perspective
Presenter Andre Anders started the discussion with a bit of background information about his career in scholarly publishing. After having served as a plasma physicist for many years at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, Anders now serves as director of the Leibniz Institute of Surface Engineering and professor of applied physics at Leipzig University, both of which are located in Leipzig, Germany. He is also editor-in-chief of Journal of Applied Physics.
As a research practitioner, Anders is highly in favor of “Read and Publish” agreements because these terms not only allow for free, digital access to peer-reviewed publications, but also provide researchers the opportunity to publish in Gold Open Access journals. Anders emphasized Open Access is valued among researchers because it boosts access to one’s work and offers the potential for increased citation counts – something all researchers strive to achieve. However, Anders noted that as a researcher, he does not always have the opportunity to publish in a Gold Open Access journal. When it comes time to select a journal for publication, there are many things researchers consider: how well one’s topic aligns with the journal’s scope, the journal’s reputation and impact factor, as well as the journal’s publication costs. The article processing fees should theoretically be paid entirely by the project’s funding agency, but this is usually not the case. As a result, Anders concluded that in many cases the default of subscription-based publications remains. Researchers are required to publish in subscription-based journals because both the researcher’s institution and project funders do not provide sufficient funds for Open Access publication.
As not only a researcher, but also the leader of a research institute, Anders understands the mandates that come from project funding agencies. Many mandates require free public access to studies because the research funds are, at least in part, covered by public taxpayer funds. Researchers are often given the option of publishing Green Open Access or, preferably, Gold Open Access, which requires full or partial funding from the researcher’s institute. In an effort to increase Gold Open Access publishing at the Leibniz Institute of Surface Engineering, Anders signed a “Read and Publish” agreement with Wiley and Springer Nature as part of Germany’s Projekt DEAL in October 2019. The goal of Projekt DEAL is to implement transformative agreements for all electronic journals offered by major academic publishers. This required significant changes to the negotiations, content, and pricing of Wiley and Springer Nature’s partnership with the Leibniz Institute. The agreement not only grants institutional access to the publishers’ journals, but also allows researchers to determine the conditions for Open Access publishing in journals offered by both publishers. Additionally, the agreement has caused changes to the Leibniz Institute’s approach to financially supporting publishing by its scientific staff.
Under the institute’s current “Read and Publish” model, the process for publishing begins with the author(s) analyzing the funding situation for a research project. Authors then consult with Anders to determine the availability of institutional funds to make up the difference (e.g., what publication costs will not be covered by project funds). Most third-party agencies have limited budgets for research project funding. These funds are usually much lower than what it would cost to publish even one Gold Open Access article. And because these funds are usually insufficient, Anders has to strategize and determine which papers should be published in which journal. Combined with the publication costs provided by various funding agencies, this process of elimination ultimately determines which papers are selected for institutional funding and Gold Open Access publication. Incidentally, this also requires rigorous budget planning at the institutional level. In high-level meetings, Anders stresses to funding agencies that if they truly desire the research to be Open Access, they must follow through and provide adequate funding for the publisher, the researcher, and the researcher’s institution. When “Read and Publish” agreements are in place between a commercial publisher and a research institute or consortium, it is critical that funding agencies are aware of the article processing fees and prioritize funds for Gold Open Access publications.
The publisher’s perspective
Adam Chesler, Director of Global Sales at AIP Publishing, prefaced his presentation with a reminder of how much happens in the background of transformative agreements. Negotiations are usually facilitated by a variety of groups, including authors, project funding agencies, researchers, academic institutions, and publishers, all of whom work symbiotically to form arrangements, proposals, and programs that meet the needs and interests of everyone involved. Chesler paused at this point to emphasize the importance of close working relationships and effective communication because the interests of these groups may not always be parallel, and that no group is monolithic. The transition to Open Access is built on highly collaborative partnerships.
As a representative of AIP Publishing, Chesler outlined some of the challenges publishers generally face when transformative agreements are developed and/or implemented. Broadly speaking, publishers serve a variety of global constituencies, including authors, readers, and institutions. They also publish on behalf of several learned societies whose publishing revenues are critical for continued academic success. Challenges arise when the publisher is trying to build a sustainable “Read and Publish” model on top of long-established business, production, and management systems already in place at his or her institution. Publishers must modify or adapt manuscript processing workflows to necessitate the conditions of the agreement. They must also develop sustainable pricing models that fit the profiles of thousands of institutions. Some of the publisher’s constituents may not be as far along in the transformative agreement process, and yet others may not be interested in pursuing transformative agreements for any number of reasons. Additionally, there are several departments within a publishing firm intimately involved in the process of managing these agreements. The transformative agreements set up between AIP Publishing and various institutions are overseen by a steering committee comprised of representatives from several departments within the company, including information technology, customer service, sales, and more. They work collectively to resolve issues that occur throughout the duration of the agreement’s lifecycle.
Chesler also discussed the issue of “indistinct boundaries” in transformative agreements. Indistinct boundaries are essentially roadblocks that challenge the publisher’s ability to effectively implement a transformative proposal. As an example, Chesler discussed consortia involved in transformative agreements. During negotiations, a consortium’s executive director or committee may speak on behalf of the entire group, but this often requires buy-in and deliberation from additional consortium members, which slows the negotiation process. Chesler offered another example using Anders’ role as both an institutional leader and practicing researcher. If Anders submits a manuscript to a specific publisher on behalf of one institute, but that publisher already has an agreement with Anders’ other institute, how will the publication terms be negotiated?
Other developments include the ongoing effort to increase transparency between the publisher and their customers so the customers have a firm understanding of the publisher’s intentions. The publisher must reach a consensus of understanding between internal and external stakeholders. Throughout this process, it is the publisher’s duty to ensure no one is confused or misled by the transformative agreement under negotiation. This requires publishers to perform ongoing staff training. Moreover, the publisher is tasked with sharing their transformative accomplishments with the user community – another goal in the effort to build transparency. As data is shared with constituents, Chesler believes institutions’ appetites for cost re-allocation will vary between net producers of scholarly content (i.e., those who publish many articles on an annual basis) compared to those who contribute little to no content.
The librarian’s perspective
Keith Webster represented Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania – a highly ranked, research-intensive university with campuses in New York City and Silicon Valley, as well as Africa, Australia, and Qatar. The university’s strengths are in computer science, robotics, engineering, business, neuroscience, and the performing arts. Since January 2020, Carnegie Mellon University has negotiated transformative agreements with multiple publishers in which research accepted for journal publication from those publishers will be automatically published Open Access (unless the author chooses otherwise). At no point is the author solely or even partially responsible for payment.
Webster first discussed Carnegie Mellon’s “Read and Publish” agreement with Elsevier, which was finalized in the summer of 2019. Webster led several meetings and conversations with the library advisory committee, faculty senate, and various other university leadership groups throughout the process. From these meetings, Webster concluded faculty were generally in favor of Open Access. While some faculty members are concerned about the sustainability of the “Read and Publish” model, many still see a need to offset scholarly publishing costs through transformative agreements.
Carnegie Mellon holds another “Read and Publish” agreement with the Association for Computing Machinery, which is the university’s single largest publisher, as well as with PLOS, the largest wholly Open Access publisher under agreement with the university. Webster noted that Carnegie Mellon’s partnership with PLOS is as much educational as it is transformational. Having a wholly Open Access publisher allows the university to compare varying transformative agreement workflows between more traditional publishers (i.e. Elsevier and the Association for Computer Machinery) and Open Access publishers like PLOS.
Webster acknowledges that Carnegie Mellon’s current licensing agreements and subscription fees, like most other libraries, support the publication, digital infrastructure, and delivery of scholarly content. Webster contended that institutional contributions need to count towards not only the consumption of content, but the creation of content as well. Reading and publishing are essentially different parts of the same supply chain. While the costs for readership are managed by the institution, funds for publishing Open Access are usually provided by research grants, the library’s minimal article processing funds, or the authors themselves. As we continue to progress towards a model that engages in both of these components, Webster hopes to see a shift that is ultimately based on content creation rather than consumption. And while publishing Open Access is funded in a variety of ways, Webster believes the largest change agent will be Open and Creative Commons licensing. As long as the publisher has intellectual property rights over the content, it will be increasingly difficult for systemic change to occur.
In the past, Carnegie Mellon focused on the brand and reputation of journals in which faculty articles were published, and associated citation metrics. Now, Webster and his colleagues are also tracking relevant publishers. If the library can identify which publishers are producing the content that represents faculty research interest and activities, this will allow the library to prioritize Open Access negotiations accordingly. Throughout this process of undertaking transformative agreements, Webster has been especially keen to not accept any traditional publication licensing fees without additional Open Access publishing opportunities for faculty. Open Access should not be viewed as an incremental source of revenue by either the research institution or the publisher.
Additionally, Webster has explored the impact of “Read and Publish” agreements creating a cost burden on research-intensive institutions. If these institutions are contributing most of the content for a single publisher, it is possible this will eventually lead to “free riders” and the subsidization of smaller institutions who do not contribute content and no longer have to pay for continued access. This will inevitably also affect additional publisher revenues from subscription fees, reprint purchases, and advertising.
When it comes to negotiating “Read and Publish” agreements, Webster notes how librarians are beginning to adopt an entirely different mindset. Usage data and cost analytics play a much less significant role in the negotiation process. These negotiations require richer datasets showing the journals in which faculty are publishing, the publication distribution among disciplines, and who is being awarded research grants. At Carnegie Mellon, the library’s acquisitions department has developed a partnership with bibliometrics colleagues to create and maintain these types of datasets, thus allowing the library to be more effective in their negotiations. Librarians also need to have a strong understanding of any research funder mandates and other Open Access policies that may impact author choice, author behavior, and in some cases, the author’s collaborators. Librarians must be able to understand publication metrics and utilize citation tools such as Web of Science. These skill sets will allow librarians to eventually understand publisher-level metrics, which can then be included in campus research information systems.
Like Anders and Chesler, Webster elaborated on the workflows in “Read and Publish” agreements. Similar to a subscription cycle, it is critical to analyze the date of the agreement and discern whether or not it covers articles submitted, accepted, or published after the agreement date. Libraries are likewise responsible for considering whether they would like the publisher to do direct deposit of Open Access articles into the institutional repository, and if so, how this process is going to be implemented. Many unanswered questions about the institutional repository need to be addressed, including: How will the publisher verify submissions are indeed from Carnegie Mellon authors? Because there needs to be authentication measures in place, how will the publisher validate the authors’ credentials? Additionally, will these authentication measures need to be set up and managed by the institution? If authors decide not to publish Open Access, at which point does that decision need to be made? Is it possible for the author to choose from a variety of Open licenses? If so, how much time will he or she be given to choose? How do we monitor agreement compliance on both the publisher side and the institution side?
Webster concluded with an explanation of how transformative agreement negotiations at Carnegie Mellon have required different skill sets, different players, and different communication methods as they try to maintain transparency with the campus community. When it comes to defining and tracking the success of the university’s transformative agreements, Webster notes feedback from colleagues has been helpful in forming the measures for success. Webster concluded with a list of questions he and his team have been investigating, including: Are there any noted changes in author behaviors? Once they begin to pursue Open Access publication, do authors experience a sudden change in the value of journal brands and titles? Are there changes in readership levels, both at one’s institution and globally? Similarly, are there any changes in the financial trends at one’s institution? Usually, “Read and Publish” agreements will have higher costs than traditional read-only subscriptions; is there evidence of a shift in publishing economics? Are publishers receiving fewer publication funds than in previous licensing agreements? And if so, is this one of the unintended consequences to a global shift in Open Access publishing?
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Andre Anders
Andre Anders, PhD, is the Director at the Leibniz Institute of Surface Engineering and a Professor of Applied Physics at Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Adam Chesler
Adam Chesler is the Director of Global Sales at AIP Publishing, College Park, Maryland.
Keith Webster
Keith Webster is the Dean of Libraries and Director of Emerging and Integrative Media Initiatives at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Sara Rotjan
Sara Rotjan is the Assistant Marketing Director at AIP Publishing, College Park, Maryland.
Drew Balduff
Drew Balduff is the Electronic Resources Librarian at the University of Findlay, Findlay, Ohio.