Open Access and Other License Agreements

"What Have We Learned from Subscribe to Open?"

As we enter the 2025 renewal season, which marks the sixth year since the first S2O journals were launched, we come together here as two early S2O publishers to share our different applications of and experiences with the model: In 2020, Berghahn, of which Vivian is managing director, followed in Annual Reviews’ footsteps to become the second publisher to implement the Subscribe to Open model with their Berghahn Open Anthro initiative. EDP Sciences, of which Charlotte is director of marketing and communications, was another early adopter of the model in 2021 for several of their journals across astronomy, mathematics, and radioprotection. . . .

As of 2024, thanks to the Subscribe to Open model, over 180 journals have been able to publish entire volumes in open access, which would never have been possible otherwise because of the shortcomings of the APC models for these journals and their respective disciplines. The S2O model continues to grow, with more publishers set to launch their S2O offerings in 2025. The model is supported by a thriving cross-stakeholder S2O Community of Practice (CoP) that was formed in August 2020 by Annual Reviews and some of the earliest S2O publishers (including Berghahn and EDP Sciences), supporting libraries, funders, subscription agents, and other interested stakeholders. The CoP now has nearly 100 members (individuals and organizations alike) and meets on a monthly basis to discuss experiences, achievements, and concerns, share advice, and pool feedback.

https://tinyurl.com/mvavvvw3

"Publishers are Selling Papers to Train AIs — and Making Millions of Dollars"

[Roger] Schonfeld [VP of Ithaka S+R] and his colleagues launched the Generative AI Licensing Agreement Tracker in October. It includes information about licensing deals — confirmed and forthcoming — between technology companies and six major academic publishers, including Wiley, Sage and Taylor & Francis. Schonfeld says that the list documents only public agreements, and that there are probably several others that remain undisclosed. . . .

Some scholars have been apprehensive about deals being made without their knowledge on content they produced. To address this issue, a few publishers have taken steps to involve authors in the process.

https://tinyurl.com/56zwe54p

India: "One Nation One Subscription: Boon and Bane?"

A single-window purchasing entity, INFLIBNET, has been tasked with negotiating with the top 30 publishers out of a pool of 70+ originally identified publishers. The balance 40+ are expected to be closed in due course. . .

In Phase1, approximately 6,300 institutions and 18 million students will gain access to all the resources of the 30 publishers, at no cost. . . .

There is a budgetary allocation of around US$ 750 million for three years.

https://tinyurl.com/376k2dsa

See also: “Can ONOS Transform Indian Research?“

"Leveraging Transformative Agreements for Research Integrity "

Specifically, publishers could incorporate clauses that require the institution to identify a designated contact to handle research integrity investigations, just as they would for access-related matters like login issues or security breaches. Likewise, institutions may wish to negotiate for parallel requirements from publishers.

For example, in cases of suspected misconduct or ethical concerns related to publications, publishers could rely on designated university personnel to respond and engage with these issues directly. Additional contractual clauses could include agreed-upon investigatory procedures, such as a mutual commitment to follow COPE’s guideline on “Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity and publication misconduct cases,” and penalties for failure to respond.

https://tinyurl.com/4twzs2w

"When Researchers Pay to Publish: Results from a Survey on APCs in Four Countries"

This paper provides an empirical overview of the impact and practices of paying Article Processing Charges (APCs) by four nationally categorized groups of researchers in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa. The data was collected from 13,577 researchers through an online questionnaire. The analysis compares the practice of publishing in journals that charge APCs across different dimensions, including country, discipline, gender, and age of the researchers. The paper also focuses on the maximum amount APC paid and the methods and strategies researchers use to cover APC payments, such as waivers, research project funds, payment by coauthors, and the option to publish in closed access, where possible. Different tendencies were identified among the different disciplines and the national systems examined. Findings show that Argentine researchers apply for waivers most frequently and often use personal funds or international coauthors for APCs, with younger researchers less involved in APC payments. In contrast, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico have more older researchers, yet younger researchers still publish more in APC journals. South African researchers lead in APC publications, likely due to better funding access and read and publish agreements. This study lays the groundwork for further analysis of gender asymmetries, funding access, and views on the commercial Open Access model of scientific dissemination.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12144

"Trapped in Transformative Agreements? A Multifaceted Analysis of >1,000 Contracts"

Transformative agreements between academic publishers and research institutions are ubiquitous. The ‘Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges’ (ESAC) Initiative lists more than 1,000 contracts in its database. We make use of this unique dataset by web-scraping the details of every contract to substantially expand the overview spreadsheet provided by the ESAC Initiative. Based on that hitherto unused data source, we combine qualitative and quantitative methods to conduct an in-depth analysis of the contract characteristics and the TA landscape. Our analysis demonstrates that research institutions seem to be ‘trapped’ in transformative agreements. Instead of being a bridge towards a fully Open Access world, academia is stuck in the hybrid system. This endows the legacy (non-Open Access) publishing houses with substantial market power. It raises entry barriers, lowers competition, and increases costs for libraries and universities.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.20224

"New Open Access Agreement Between the University of California and Taylor & Francis"

The University of California (UC) and Taylor & Francis today announced a memorandum of understanding for a four-year read and publish agreement that will make it easier and more affordable for UC researchers to publish open access (OA) articles in nearly 2,500 Taylor & Francis journals. . . .

Under the agreement, the UC Libraries will automatically cover the OA fees in full for any UC corresponding author who chooses to publish OA in Taylor & Francis and Routledge journals. Authors of articles accepted for publication in a hybrid or full OA title will have the opportunity to choose OA at no cost to them. . . .

To maximize the number of UC researchers who can benefit from the newly signed agreement, authors of qualifying articles published since January 1, 2024, will be given the opportunity to retrospectively convert their article to open access, with the OA fees fully covered. Authors who have already published OA since January 1 will be offered refunds for OA fees already paid.

https://tinyurl.com/y8zutk9m

"We Need to Rethink the Way We Identify Diamond Open Access Journals in Quantitative Science Studies"

With the announcement of several new diamond open access (OA) related initiatives and the creation of the Global Summit on Diamond Open Access, diamond OA is now at the forefront of the OA movement. However, while working on our recent Quantitative Science Studies publication and datasets, we noticed that temporarily waiving article processing charges (APCs) was a commonly used strategy by big publishers for some of their journals. In the absence of an index of diamond journals, most studies have operationalized the identification of diamond journals as a subset of gold journals that do not charge an APC. While this is a pragmatic approach, we fear that it could undermine the value of the research in understanding what we believe is more commonly understood by diamond OA. This letter discusses the need for bibliometric research to apply more nuance in how it operationalizes diamond OA beyond the absence of APCs. We call on the publishing sector to be more transparent in the costs of publishing. Ultimately, we argue that transparency and a long-term commitment to no-APC publishing are necessary for diamond OA to succeed, and that the research community needs to apply this standard when seeking to understand the model.

https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_c_00331

Plan S: "New Tool to Assess Equity in Scholarly Communication Models"

The tool [https://tinyurl.com/2crwwhes], which was inspired by the “How Open Is It?” framework, is targeted at institutions, library consortia, funders and publishers, i.e. the stakeholders either investing or receiving funds for publishing services. It offers users the opportunity to rate scholarly communication models and arrangements across seven criteria:

Access to Read

Publishing immediate Open Access

Maximizing participation

Re-use rights

Pricing and fee transparency

Promoting and encouraging open research practices: data and code

Promoting and encouraging open research practices: preprints and open peer review

https://tinyurl.com/ycwmp3nk

"Open Access Is Shaping Scientific Communication"

It seems likely that OA and traditional reader-pay journals will coexist in the immediate future, and probably should in the long run. In this context, the OSTP OA mandate will neither undermine the gatekeeping role of scientific journals nor much perturb the future evolution of scientific communication. The widespread adoption of TAs was already underway; if anything, the mandate reinforces that path. In an environment where both readers pay and OA journals operate alongside preprint platforms, it is natural to ask whether preprints might constrain subscription prices and APCs. If preprints and their peer-reviewed counterparts were close substitutes, then APCs for most OA journals would decline considerably.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp8882

"eBooks, Interlibrary Loan and an Uncertain Future"

Important advancements are underway, but ILL for ebooks is hampered by restrictive licensing models, resource sharing systems, and current practices. This study provides an environmental scan of the current acquisitions and ILL practices of academic libraries. This paper guides academic libraries through these conversations so that they can support the borrowing and lending of ebooks into the future.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2024.2391735

"Cost, Advocacy, and a Mechanism for Transformation: The Proposed Power of Open Access Funds"

As paid open access becomes a mainstream academic practice, stakeholders must evaluate their role in the system. While open access advocates develop new ways to support the publication process and funding structure, commercial publishers continue to pivot to maintain their profit, relevance, and power in the publication system. This article provides the details of Montana State University’s Open Access Author Fund as an evaluation of the service and its impact on the local publishing ecosystem. As stewards of publicly funded knowledge, it is essential to critically analyze each new publishing route before adopting and supporting it. Especially when models claim to transform the system, librarians need to understand how an action changes the system, for whom, and at what cost.

https://tinyurl.com/524sp3tz

Germany: "Achievements of the First DEAL Agreement Phase"

In a new publication, the German-wide DEAL consortium presents the key achievements of its first contract phase with the publishers Wiley and Springer Nature. The newly published infographic brochure provides a comprehensive insight into the background, objectives and results of the DEAL initiative. . . .

A particular focus is on the enormous increase in Open Access publications. Between 2019 and 2023, more than 105,000 publications from German scientific institutions were published under the DEAL agreements, 97 percent of which are Open Access. This remarkable success means that two-thirds of all research output from Germany is now freely accessible worldwide — a significant increase from the 30% before the DEAL initiative began.

https://tinyurl.com/mu99w2kz

“The First DEAL Agreements 2019-2023: Setting the Path for Open Access and Transparency“

"Wiley and Oxford University Press Confirm AI Partnerships as Cambridge University Press Offers ‘Opt-In’"

Wiley and Oxford University Press (OUP) told The Bookseller they have confirmed AI partnerships, with the availability of opt-ins and remuneration for authors appearing to vary. . . .

Meanwhile, Cambridge University Press has said it is talking to authors about opt ins along with ‘fair remuneration’ before making any deals.

Hachette, HarperCollins, and Pan Macmillan have not made AI deals.

https://tinyurl.com/bdzax5sk

"Academic Authors ‘Shocked’ After Taylor & Francis Sells Access to Their Research to Microsoft AI"

One of the biggest concerns raised by Clemens [Dr Ruth Alison Clemens] is over whether it is possible for Taylor & Francis’ authors to opt out of the AI partnership with Microsoft. Clemens told The Bookseller: "There is no clarity from Taylor & Francis about whether an opt-out policy is in place or on the cards. But as they did not inform their authors about the deal in the first place, any opt-out policy is now not functional."

Taylor & Francis was paid around $10 million for the license.

https://tinyurl.com/3yyarxnj

"Estimating Global Article Processing Charges Paid to Six Publishers for Open Access Between 2019 and 20"

This study presents estimates of the global expenditure on article processing charges (APCs) paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023. APCs are fees charged for publishing in some fully open access journals (gold) and in subscription journals to make individual articles open access (hybrid). There is currently no way to systematically track institutional, national or global expenses for open access publishing due to a lack of transparency in APC prices, what articles they are paid for, or who pays them. We therefore curated and used an open dataset of annual APC list prices from Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, PLOS, Springer Nature, and Wiley in combination with the number of open access articles from these publishers indexed by OpenAlex to estimate that, globally, a total of $8.349 billion ($8.968 billion in 2023 US dollars) were spent on APCs between 2019 and 2023. We estimate that in 2023 MDPI ($681.6 million), Elsevier ($582.8 million) and Springer Nature ($546.6) generated the most revenue with APCs. After adjusting for inflation, we also show that annual spending almost tripled from $910.3 million in 2019 to $2.538 billion in 2023, that hybrid exceed gold fees, and that the median APCs paid are higher than the median listed fees for both gold and hybrid. Our approach addresses major limitations in previous efforts to estimate APCs paid and offers much needed insight into an otherwise opaque aspect of the business of scholarly publishing. We call upon publishers to be more transparent about OA fees.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16551

"On the Modification and Revocation of Open Source Licences"

Historically, open source commitments have been deemed irrevocable once materials are released under open source licenses. In this paper, the authors argue for the creation of a subset of rights that allows open source contributors to force users to (i) update to the most recent version of a model, (ii) accept new use case restrictions, or even (iii) cease using the software entirely. While this would be a departure from the traditional open source approach, the legal, reputational and moral risks related to open-sourcing AI models could justify contributors having more control over downstream uses. Recent legislative changes have also opened the door to liability of open source contributors in certain cases. The authors believe that contributors would welcome the ability to ensure that downstream users are implementing updates that address issues like bias, guardrail workarounds or adversarial attacks on their contributions. Finally, this paper addresses how this license category would interplay with RAIL licenses, and how it should be operationalized and adopted by key stakeholders such as OSS platforms and scanning tools.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13064

AI Is Running Out of New Training Data: Consent in Crisis: The Rapid Decline of the AI Data Commons

General-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems are built on massive swathes of public web data, assembled into corpora such as C4, RefinedWeb, and Dolma. To our knowledge, we conduct the first, large-scale, longitudinal audit of the consent protocols for the web domains underlying AI training corpora. . . .Our longitudinal analyses show that in a single year (2023-2024) there has been a rapid crescendo of data restrictions from web sources, rendering ~5%+ of all tokens in C4, or 28%+ of the most actively maintained, critical sources in C4, fully restricted from use. For Terms of Service crawling restrictions, a full 45% of C4 is now restricted. If respected or enforced, these restrictions are rapidly biasing the diversity, freshness, and scaling laws for general-purpose AI systems.

https://tinyurl.com/4k56axzk

"STM Statement Regarding Unlicensed Use of STM’s Members’ Content in the Training, Development, and Operation of AI Models"

The unlicensed use of STM’s members’ content in the training, development, and operation of AI models is of great concern to STM and to our members. Because STM’s members do not share a single jurisdiction, the particular actions and practices of a given AI developer with respect to a given domestic copyright law are too varied to enumerate here. However, regardless of legal nuances among jurisdictions, STM considers the conclusion to be the same — the collection of our members’ content and its use in AI training without authorization, compensation or attribution, amounts to infringement. We support the statements about third parties’ use of content in generative AI training and development that have been made by our sister organizations the International Publishers Association and the UK Publishers Association.

https://tinyurl.com/5n6zh9sy

"Google’s Wrong Answer to the Threat of AI — Stop Indexing Content"

"Google is no longer trying to index the entire web," writes Schmalbach [Vincent Schmalbach, SEO expert]. "In fact, it’s become extremely selective, refusing to index most content. This isn’t about content creators failing to meet some arbitrary standard of quality. Rather, it’s a fundamental change in how Google approaches its role as a search engine." The default setting from now on will be not to index content unless it is genuinely unique, authoritative and has ‘brand recognition’.

https://tinyurl.com/32t98fhu

"Switzerland and Elsevier Sign R&P Agreement 2024-2028 "

On 10 June 2024, swissuniversities signed a comprehensive Open Access agreement with Elsevier on behalf of the Swiss universities and other mandating organisations. The agreement with Elsevier guarantees to members of Swiss universities and participating organisations a full reading access to Elsevier’s entire journal portfolio. The agreement also allows to publish, without restriction, in over 2,500 Elsevier Open Access journals, including the Cell Press and The Lancet journal series, at no additional cost. Furthermore, all institutions now receive permanent access to journal content that was published during the years of their participation in the agreement ("Post Cancellation Access"). . . .

The agreement now explicitly regulates the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in connection with licensed content. It guarantees members of Swiss universities and mandating organisations the greatest possible liberty in the use of AI tools for the analysis of Elsevier publications for research, teaching and innovation purposes. The agreement allows the analysis of open-access publications (under licences such as “CC BY”) with any AI tool or their use for the development of AI applications. The agreement also authorises any use of AI tools as long as it is guaranteed that the licensed content is not used for the further development of the model. The use of learning AI tools or the development of the university’s own AI applications is permissible insofar as these are hosted locally by the institution or operated by third parties exclusively for the institution.

https://tinyurl.com/2tkhekwv

Achieving Global Open Access The Need for Scientific, Epistemic and Participatory Openness

Often assumed to be a self-evident good, OA has been subject to growing criticism for perpetuating global inequities and epistemic injustices. It has been seen as imposing exploitative business and publishing models and as exacerbating exclusionary research evaluation cultures and practices. [Stephen] Pinfield engages with these issues, recognising that the global OA debate is now not just about publishing business models and academic reward structures, but also about what constitutes valid and valuable knowledge, how we know, and who gets to say. The book argues that, for OA to deliver its potential, it first needs to be associated with ‘epistemic openness’, a wider and more inclusive understanding of what constitutes valid and valuable knowledge. It also needs to be accompanied by ‘participatory openness’, enabling contributions to knowledge from more diverse communities. Interacting with relevant theory and current practice, the book discusses the challenges in implementing these different forms of openness, the relationships between them, and their limits.

https://tinyurl.com/msn9k945

"Contracts in Publishing: A Toolkit for Authors and Publishers"

A toolkit for authors and publishers provides information on copyright-related aspects and contractual options in the publishing sector. With a balanced approach considering the interests of both authors and publishers, the publication offers guidance to building basic knowledge and skills for successful publishing, co-publishing and licensing deals, targeting an audience of authors, visual artists, translators and publishers, especially in developing countries.

https://tinyurl.com/bdea9cp8

"On-Demand Circulation of Software Licenses: Checking Out Software on Patron’ Own Devices"

The Miami University Libraries (MUL) developed an open-source Software Checkout system to allow patrons to make use of software licenses owned by the library. The system takes advantage of user-based licensing under the Software as a Service (SaaS) license model and vendor-created APIs to easily and legally assign access to users. The service currently supports Adobe Creative Cloud, Final Cut Pro, and Logic Pro software. MUL has successfully used this software for three years. This article describes the expansion of offerings and the increasing use of the service over that time. Built on a model developed by Pixar for managing employee software licenses, the Software Checkout system is believed to be the first of its kind for circulating licenses to library patrons. Both this lending model and the open-source software developed by MUL are available to other libraries. This paper is intended to prompt libraries to take advantage of the legal and technical environment to expand software license sharing to other libraries.

https://tinyurl.com/yx4fyw98

Paywall: "K-Means Clustering of Dermatology Journals: Comparing the Distribution of ‘Free-to-Publish’ and ‘Pay-to-Publish’ Models"

The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-024-03105-x