Three Months to Go: Are We Ready for Open Access in 2025

Three Months to Go: Are We Ready for Open Access in 2025?

With just three months remaining until Open Access (OA) mandates take effect in 2025, the scholarly publishing world is racing to ensure readiness. The ALPSP 2024 Annual Conference provided a platform for industry leaders to reflect on progress, address key challenges, and share strategies for navigating the final stages of the OA transition. Central themes included the role of transitional agreements, the complexities of sustaining OA funding models, and the operational readiness of publishers and institutions to handle the new OA landscape. Presentations by Helen Dobson, Ben Ashcroft, and Chris Bennett provided insights, with each presenter offering concrete examples and lessons learned.

Helen Dobson, Jisc: The Role of Transitional Agreements in Open Access

Helen Dobson, Licensing Portfolio Specialist at Jisc, began her presentation by outlining the significant role that transitional agreements (TAs) have played in the UK’s transition to Open Access. These agreements have been critical in shifting the cost burden from readers to authors and institutions, enabling more researchers to make their work freely available without financial barriers. By 2023, transitional agreements in the UK had saved the higher education sector £42 million in subscription costs, a figure that highlights the financial benefits of these agreements for institutions and researchers alike.

Dobson explained that Jisc’s Read & Publish agreements have successfully facilitated OA for 80% of UK-published research articles, providing coverage for 151 institutions across the country. These agreements have proven to be particularly beneficial for low-output institutions, which often struggle to afford the Article Processing Charges (APCs) required by many OA journals. For high-output institutions, TAs have provided a scalable model that prevents runaway APC costs.

However, Dobson pointed out that hybrid journals, which publish both subscription-based and OA content, remain a significant challenge. These journals continue to incur additional costs for institutions due to their dual revenue streams, creating complexity in managing budgets and tracking OA compliance. In some cases, institutions find themselves paying for the same content twice—once through subscription fees and again through APCs. To address this, Dobson recommended a phased sunset of hybrid models and a stronger push toward fully OA journals.

Additionally, Dobson noted that non-subscribing sectors, such as health and social care, are often excluded from transitional agreements, leaving a substantial portion of researchers unable to benefit from OA. She emphasized the need for equitable access models that can reach these underserved sectors and recommended the development of non-APC funding mechanisms to make OA sustainable for a wider range of institutions and researchers.

Dobson closed her presentation with a series of recommendations:

• Strengthen transparency in TA negotiations to ensure fair pricing and cost-sharing across institutions.
• Focus on global collaboration to ensure that transitional agreements benefit not just high-output institutions but also smaller, less-resourced ones.
• Explore non-APC models, such as institutional funding pools or government-backed initiatives, to support researchers who cannot afford APCs.

Ben Ashcroft, De Gruyter and Brill: Navigating the OA Transition for Humanities and Social Sciences

Ben Ashcroft, Chief Commercial Officer at De Gruyter and Brill, provided a detailed case study on how De Gruyter has successfully transitioned its portfolio to Open Access, particularly in the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS). Ashcroft explained that De Gruyter began its OA journey in 2013 by launching Sponsored Journals in HSS disciplines, an area where OA adoption has historically been slower due to funding constraints. By 2015, De Gruyter had expanded its OA offerings to include over 70+ gold OA journals, with a focus on building a sustainable, scalable portfolio.

Ashcroft highlighted several key factors that contributed to De Gruyter’s success:

1. Diversified funding models: Early in the transition, De Gruyter recognized that HSS journals required different funding mechanisms than STEM fields. The introduction of institutionally sponsored journals allowed HSS journals to transition to OA without placing the financial burden on individual researchers, many of whom lack access to large research grants.
2. Collaborative partnerships: De Gruyter forged long-term partnerships with libraries, research institutions, and consortia to secure financial backing for OA journals. These partnerships were particularly important for developing non-APC-based models such as Subscribe to Open (S2O), which allows journals to transition to OA if enough subscribers commit to renewing their subscriptions.
3. Focus on editorial independence: While navigating the OA transition, De Gruyter ensured that its editorial boards retained independence and control over content. This was crucial for maintaining the trust of academic communities, especially in HSS disciplines where authors are highly sensitive to editorial oversight.

The S2O model proved to be a major success for De Gruyter, particularly for smaller, niche HSS journals. By 2023, De Gruyter had transitioned 12 journals to OA using this model, with plans to expand it to additional titles in the coming years. However, Ashcroft acknowledged that scaling this model remains a challenge, especially in regions where funding for OA is inconsistent.

De Gruyter’s experience highlights the importance of tailored solutions for different disciplines. For HSS journals, where research funding is often less abundant, innovative models like S2O and institutional sponsorship will be crucial for sustaining OA long term. Ashcroft emphasized that while De Gruyter’s progress has been substantial, the future success of OA in HSS will depend on securing consistent financial support from governments, institutions, and consortia.

Chris Bennett, Cambridge University Press: The Benefits and Challenges of Open Access at Scale

Chris Bennett, Commercial Director at Cambridge University Press (CUP), provided a comprehensive overview of CUP’s OA journey, discussing both the successes and the new challenges that have emerged as CUP has scaled its OA operations. By 2023, 63% of CUP’s research content was published under an OA model, driven primarily by transformative agreements that now cover 2,300 institutions worldwide. Bennett highlighted that OA has brought numerous benefits to CUP, including higher citation rates, increased usage, and greater public engagement.

CUP’s data shows that OA content is three times more likely to be cited and four times more likely to be downloaded than subscription-based content, demonstrating the clear advantages of making research freely accessible. Additionally, OA has enabled interdisciplinary collaboration by allowing research to reach broader audiences, including non-academic readers.

However, Bennett acknowledged that while OA has delivered significant benefits, it has also exacerbated existing challenges and generated new ones. One major challenge is the volume of submissions, which has grown exponentially since CUP transitioned to OA. This has placed enormous pressure on peer review processes, with reviewers struggling to keep up with the increased workload. CUP has responded by investing in AI-driven tools to assist with manuscript screening and review management, but Bennett cautioned that this alone will not solve the problem. CUP is also exploring ways to incentivize peer reviewers, including offering recognition programs and financial compensation for particularly time-consuming reviews.

Another challenge has been the rise of predatory publishing, which has tarnished the reputation of legitimate OA journals. Bennett explained that CUP has had to invest heavily in quality control mechanisms to differentiate its journals from lower-quality competitors. This includes the development of automated workflows that help detect predatory practices early in the submission process.

CUP also faces challenges related to equity and access. While transformative agreements have enabled many institutions to participate in OA, Bennett pointed out that the “money is in the wrong places”—larger, wealthier institutions are benefitting most from these agreements, while smaller institutions and researchers from low- and middle-income countries are often left behind. To address this, CUP launched the Cambridge Open Equity Initiative, which aims to provide funding support for researchers in underserved regions.

Bennett concluded by discussing CUP’s “mixed economy” of sales model, designed to accommodate the varying needs of different regions and research output levels. There are distinct approaches for regions such as China and India, North and West Europe (N&W Europe), North America (NAM), and Rest of World (RoW). Higher research output regions like N&W Europe, NAM, and some parts of the RoW are likely to benefit from Core Publishing Agreements and Open Access (OA) Bundles, which provide institutions with comprehensive access to scholarly content. For researchers in these regions, Standalone Article Processing Charges (APCs) provide a flexible option for Open Access publishing on a pay-per-article basis, while the Core Publishing Agreement serves as a foundational offering for broader access.

Regions with lower research output, particularly in the Rest of the World, are catered to through the Open Infrastructure model. This approach focuses on providing essential tools and infrastructure to support scholarly publishing, which is crucial for institutions in areas where research output is lower, and resources are more limited. The Traditional Conversion Model for Long Tail supports specialized markets, particularly in Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) and Science, Technology, and Medicine (STM) fields, allowing for the transition of less frequently accessed content into digital formats to ensure access is maintained for niche academic needs.

This tiered strategy ensures that higher-output regions are provided with comprehensive, flexible publishing options that support large-scale OA initiatives, while lower-output regions receive the infrastructure and traditional publishing models necessary to grow their research capabilities.

Looking forward, CUP has set an ambitious goal of converting 90% of its portfolio to OA by 2028. Achieving this will require continued investment in infrastructure, global collaboration, and innovative funding mechanisms that support both well-funded and underfunded research communities.

Themes and Solutions for Open Access Readiness

As we approach the 2025 OA deadline, the presentations at ALPSP 2024 revealed several common themes. First and foremost is the need for equitable access to OA. While transitional agreements and APC-based models have enabled many researchers to publish OA, significant barriers remain for researchers in low-income countries and underfunded disciplines such as Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS). The success of models like Subscribe to Open (S2O) offers hope for a more inclusive future, but these models require consistent financial backing from libraries and institutions.

Another key challenge is the sustainability of OA funding models. While APCs have been a major driver of OA growth, they are not a sustainable solution for all researchers. The scholarly publishing community must continue to explore non-APC-based models, such as institutional subsidies and government-backed initiatives, to ensure that OA remains viable for all stakeholders.

Finally, the pressure on peer review and quality control is an issue that cannot be ignored. As the volume of OA submissions increases, investments in AI-driven tools and automated workflows will be critical for maintaining the integrity of research and ensuring that the transition to OA remains efficient and effective.

While the transition to Open Access has made significant progress, there is still much work to be done. The next few months will be crucial in determining whether the scholarly community is fully prepared for the 2025 OA mandates. By addressing these challenges with collaboration, innovation, and a commitment to equity, we can ensure a more open and accessible future for research worldwide.

– by Tony Alves