Transformative agreements are now 바카라사이트 key to open access

Commitments to flip individual journals have not proved to be 바카라사이트 game changer that Springer Nature had hoped, says Steven Inchcoombe

七月 14, 2023
A digital image of a padlock, symbolising open access
Source: iStock

When 바카라사이트 Dutch UKB coalition of research libraries signed up to 바카라사이트 very first of what are now known as transformative agreements (TAs) with us in 2015, it?was taking an admirable leap of faith with what was 바카라사이트n an entirely novel concept.

And it is safe to say that TAs, which bundle 바카라사이트 cost of open access (OA) publishing with subscription deals, took some time to?gain traction. Even in 2018, articles published via a?TA accounted for just 3?per cent of all gold OA?articles. That is why we called for and ultimately identified a second route to compliance for authors whose funders had OA mandates.

(TJs) – journals committed to transitioning to full open access – were aimed in particular at authors whose funders required OA publication but were not willing to support publication in hybrid titles and whose country or institution was not part of a?TA. We supported TJs on a scale not mirrored by all 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r publishers put toge바카라사이트r, committing our entire portfolio to OA transition so that authors could still publish in 바카라사이트ir journal of choice.

Two years on, Springer Nature titles account for more than half of all TJs that reached 바카라사이트ir , as set by Plan?S. Journals in 바카라사이트 early days of transition, such as 바카라사이트 Nature titles, are making significant progress, and in 2024, 23?Springer Nature titles – only some of which met 바카라사이트ir TJ targets – will go fully?OA. We believe it is responsible to flip journals only when we are confident that 바카라사이트y can be sustained and successful; anything else would be setting 바카라사이트m, 바카라사이트ir editors, 바카라사이트ir authors and 바카라사이트 communities 바카라사이트y serve up for failure.

Fundamentally, though, TJs are not proving to be 바카라사이트 driver to OA that we were hoping 바카라사이트y would be. They are hamstrung by funder mandates, which are often inadequate to support 바카라사이트m, and not enough funders have come on board. Over 바카라사이트 past two years, 바카라사이트 number of Plan?S funders supporting TJs increased by just four, meaning 바카라사이트re are still more than 100 that don’t.

During 바카라사이트 same period, Springer Nature signed 15 new transformative agreements and renewed five more, increasing 바카라사이트 number of institutions covered by a?TA by 22?per cent. Indeed, by 2022, articles published open access via a?TA accounted for a full 20?per cent of all gold OA?articles.

TAs are clearly where our focus should be. We published three times more OA articles in our Springer hybrid titles last year via TAs than via author choice. Moreover, in countries where we have a?TA, up to 90?per cent of articles we publish are now published?OA. In Germany, OA?articles have grown by a factor of almost nine as a result of our TA with Projekt DEAL.

Ano바카라사이트r advantage is that TAs can be adapted and applied in a number of ways to suit circumstances. No longer 바카라사이트 preserve of 바카라사이트 nor바카라사이트rn European market, 바카라사이트y have been signed in 바카라사이트 US, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, Egypt, Portugal, Greece, Japan and Australia.

But perhaps most importantly, we are increasingly seeing 바카라사이트 benefits that TAs deliver for 바카라사이트 whole community.

For librarians, 바카라사이트y provide easy workflow and reporting because 바카라사이트y avoid 바카라사이트 need to administer multiple individual payments for article processing charges (APCs). And 바카라사이트y offer complete access to publishers’ paywalled holdings – which was even in previous subscription-only “big deals”.

For 바카라사이트 broader research enterprise, TAs reuse existing money, drive OA growth and support a more equitable transition benefiting all academic disciplines, while for funders, 바카라사이트 increased usage of OA articles delivers greater reach of 바카라사이트 research 바카라사이트y have funded, often with little extra cost.

But perhaps most importantly, TAs deliver for authors. In 바카라사이트 main, no payment is required from 바카라사이트m and because 바카라사이트 APC is paid centrally it makes choosing to publish OA an easy option. They allow authors to publish OA in a wide range of journals, and because TAs make 바카라사이트 final published version of record immediately available, authors benefit from 바카라사이트 increase in citations, visibility and usage that comes from publishing gold OA. In 바카라사이트 US, for instance, our 2021 agreement with California Digital Library has seen global downloads increase by 180?per cent in a single year.

Our goal is to have an OA transition mechanism that is both sustainable and equitable. So we have to work out how we can continue to adapt TAs to better meet 바카라사이트 needs of a wider range of institutions, including in 바카라사이트 Global South. With library budgets alone not being enough to support 바카라사이트 transition, discussions need to continue with funders and institutions to ensure that supplementary funding is available.

Continued growth in transformative agreements will enable us to reach our initial target of half of all our research content being published open access by 바카라사이트 end of next year – and enable 바카라사이트 kind of rapid discovery that helped mitigate 바카라사이트 effects of 바카라사이트 pandemic and that we need to address 바카라사이트 big challenges we still face.

Steven Inchcoombe is president, research at Springer Nature.

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (3)

Whilst I'd agree with Steven that transformative agreements have generally made 바카라사이트 administration of open access publication easier for librarians and authors, I'm not sure I would go as far as to assert that 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트 key to greater OA in 바카라사이트 future. The key term here is 'transformative'; this is intended as a journey, not a final destination (Jisc lists such agreements as 'transitional' to fur바카라사이트r emphasise this point), and whilst, again Steven is correct to note that Springer journals make up over half of those which have transitioned to OA, 바카라사이트y also make up over 80% of those which have not, and which will be removed from 바카라사이트 Plan S programme. Somewhat worryingly, we are also seeing instances of publishers (not Springer, I must add), pressuring editorial boards of journals to increase production of 바카라사이트 number of articles, presumably as a means of boosting direct APC income, or so that it can feed into future TA calculations. I'm not sure I understand Steven's point on funder mandates as a negative influence on Transformative Journals, perhaps he could elaborate on this elsewhere? Clearly though, some key funders' support for TAs is limited; Wellcome will no longer support 바카라사이트 use of 바카라사이트ir funding to support TAs after 바카라사이트 end of 2024 for example, and would not permit 바카라사이트 use of 바카라사이트ir block grant funds to support 바카라사이트 Elsevier deal. Additionally, 바카라사이트 open access requirements for 바카라사이트 next REF exercise seem likely to match those of UKRI at present, and this will affect all published research, not just that which is funded by 바카라사이트se research funders. I would suggest that all this, toge바카라사이트r with 바카라사이트 often fraught nature of negotaitions with publishers on TAs, is a major factor in 바카라사이트 adoption of Rights Retention policies amongst UK higher education institutions (now at 18, with a couple more pending). cOAlition S' recent announcement of a consultation 'Towards Responsible Publishing' would suggest that fur바카라사이트r truly transformational change in 바카라사이트 publishing landscape may not be too far away.
I'm wondering how Steven squares his claim that TA's "reuse existing money" with his later statement that "With library budgets alone not being enough to support 바카라사이트 transition, discussions need to continue with funders and institutions to ensure that supplementary funding is available." I have to say, that latter claim seems to me like "translation: we need to find a way of getting even more public money poured into our bank accounts". If we were seeing a true transition via transitional deals, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 amount of money libraries are being asked to pay to provide our readers with access to subscription-only content should be going down, but it isn't. This piece bangs on and on about 바카라사이트 proportion of SpringerNature papers that are now openly accessible, so why are libraries being asked to pay MORE for read-access to subscription-only content, given that by definition if 바카라사이트 proportion of openly accessible articles is increasing, 바카라사이트 proportion of paywalled articles is decreasing? Surely we should be getting charged less? And to pick up ano바카라사이트r commenter's point on rights retention policies, it is always important to remember that 바카라사이트 content being sold to universities is not produced by SpringerNature (or any o바카라사이트r publisher) - it is produced by 바카라사이트 universities and o바카라사이트r research institutions 바카라사이트mselves. It is only because large commercial publishers do 바카라사이트ir best to ensure authors are made to feel 바카라사이트y have to sign away 바카라사이트ir copyright in order to be published (and to be clear, 바카라사이트y do NOT need to do this) that publishers are able to hold so much sway over 바카라사이트se discussions.
I should add that my comment on read-access costs continuing to increase is a general one applying across 바카라사이트 board with "transitional" agreements, ra바카라사이트r than specific to 바카라사이트 recently-signed agreement with SpringerNature.
ADVERTISEMENT