Elsevier und DEAL schließen Open-Access-Vertrag | open-access.network

Fünf Jahre nach gescheiterter DEAL-Verhandlung einigen sich Wissenschaftsverlag und deutsche Wissenschaftsorganisationen auf Publish-and-Read-Vereinbarung

Der internationale Wissenschaftsverlag Elsevier und das DEAL-Konsortium haben sich nach langen Verhandlungen auf einen Publish-and-Read-Vertrag geeinigt: Die Vereinbarung ermöglicht es Forschenden an teilnehmenden Einrichtungen, als submitting corresponding authors in über 2.500 Elsevier-Zeitschriften (inklusive der Zeitschriften von Cell Press und The Lancet) Open Access zu veröffentlichen. Dafür zahlen die Einrichtungen eine Publish-and-Read-Gebühr in Höhe von 2550 Euro pro Artikel. Bei einer hohen Teilnahmequote sinkt die Gebühr um 2% auf 2500 Euro. Teilnehmende Einrichtungen erhalten zudem 20% Rabatt auf die Listen-APCs der Elsevier Fully-Gold-Open-Access-Zeitschriften und 15% Rabatt auf die von Cell Press and The Lancet. Darüber hinaus erhalten sie einen Lesezugang zu nahezu allen wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften von Elsevier (ebenfalls inklusive der Titel von Cell Press und The Lancet). Die Opt-In-Vereinbarung wurde am 1. September 2023 unterzeichnet und läuft bis zum 31. Dezember 2028.

Gescheiterte Verhandlung 2018 und Rückgang des Marktanteils

2018 scheiterten die DEAL-Verhandlungen mit Elsevier (open-access.network berichtete). Infolgedessen kündigten rund 200 deutsche Forschungseinrichtungen ihre Lizenzverträge mit Elsevier, woraufhin der Verlag den Zugang dieser Einrichtungen zu seinen Zeitschriften ab Juli 2018 beschränkte. Eine Studie aus dem Jahr 2021 belegt einen Rückgang des Marktanteils von Elsevier bei Artikeln von DEAL-Institutionen sowie der Zitationen von Elsevier-Artikel durch DEAL-Autor*innen ab 2018 (open-access.network berichtete). 2020 geriet Elsevier in die Kritik, da der Verlag auf die Bekämpfung sogenannter Schattenbibliotheken statt auf Open-Access-Verträge setzte.

Zwischen dem renommierten Wissenschaftsverlag Wiley und DEAL existiert bereits seit 2019 eine Open-Access-Vereinbarung; Springer Nature unterzeichnete im Januar 2020 eine DEAL-Vereinbarung.


Elsevier (1.09.2023-31.12.2028) | DEAL Konsortium

Der transformative Open-Access-Vertrag mit Elsevier ist der dritte Vertragsabschluss des DEAL-Konsortiums. Mit rund 11.000 Publikationen, die Forschende jährlich in Elsevier-Zeitschriften veröffentlichen, ist der Vertrag von zentraler Bedeutung für die deutsche Wissenschaftslandschaft und die freie Verfügbarkeit ihrer Forschungsergebnisse.

Teilnehmen können rund 900 Einrichtungen in Deutschland, darunter Hochschulen, Forschungsorganisationen, Forschungseinrichtungen des Bundes und der Länder, Ämter und Behörden und viele mehr.


Interview with Robert ‘Bob’ E. Goodin

“The Open Access beat-up has, inadvertently, been the death knell of quality academic publishing, driving a fatal wedge between the incentives of publishers and those of journal editors. There are various different models that publishers are employing to come to grips with the Open Access world, and each of those models has its own implications for what pressures publishers are incentivized to put on the editors of their journals.

Abstracting from particularities, one fact seems to dominate almost all of those approaches, directly or indirectly. That fact is just this. The profits of commercial publishers are increasingly a function of ridiculously large Open Access fees, whether paid by the author, the grant-giver or (nowadays most typically) the author’s home institution or national government through ‘Read and Publish Transformative Agreements’. The way to maximize those profits is to maximize the number of articles a journal publishes – and to do so without regard to quality. (As I have said, given bundling and consortia, no library can unsubscribe to an individual journal of diminishing quality anyway, so a journal’s quality is no longer a commercial concern to publishers seeking to maximize profits.)…”

Academic publishing system is extorting emerging researchers

“In an era of digitisation, one should be asking: why are researchers still burdened with exorbitant publication fees? Especially when considering neither the submitting scientists nor reviewing experts receive payment for their hard work. Unfortunately, the answer seems to lie somewhere between profiteering and extortion.

The justification for these high fees remains a subject of debate. While open-access journals argue that the charges are necessary to ensure sustainability and cover the expenses involved in the publication process (such as editing, formatting and online hosting), critics question whether the current fee structures are reasonable and transparent.

The lack of transparency in understanding how these costs are allocated and the absence of standardised pricing across journals raises some serious concerns and has even led to boycotting by some of the world’s leading scientists.

It is widely recognised that a high journal impact factor doesn’t guarantee quality, and the obsession with publishing in what are considered “glamour mags” in certain scientific fields is harmful and ethically compromising. Unfortunately, the reality of this unfair system of “pay and publish or perish”, creates an extremely unlevel playing field for researchers from emerging countries….”

Open access: In conversation with Frontiers’ Dr Marie Souliere – Science & research news | Frontiers

“What are the main issues open access publishers face right now regarding publication ethics? How have these changed in recent years? 

Throughout the industry, the main changes have been the increase in complexity and sophistication of fraud. Anything from text reuse to data manipulation, authorship-for-sale, fake peer review and identity theft, has scaled up. While all publishers face these issues, open access publishers face more scrutiny from readers as all published articles are freely accessible to all. This has the advantage of allowing some ethical issues to come to light more quickly and for open access publishers to correct the scientific record fast….”

Summarizing ORCID Record Data to Help Maintain Integrity in Scholarly Publishing –

“As a result of our discussions with publishers, vendors, and researchers we developed an initial record summary prototype, which we will be piloting this fall. We’re hoping to make it easier for editors to find and understand information within ORCID records and surface the trust markers that can help them make decisions about the trustworthiness of an ORCID record….”

A Book Is a Book Is a Book—Except When It’s an e-Book | The Nation

“Publishers can’t demand more money for the paper books you’ve already bought, but the technology for copying and distributing books has evolved a lot since 1909. So four titanic corporate publishers are currently in court, insisting on the effective right to barge in and demand multiple, recurring payments for digital books–like they do for digital movies, music, and software–and they want to exercise that same power over the books in libraries. 


This threat to the ownership of books is what makes the ongoing publishers’ lawsuit against the Internet Archive politically dangerous, and in an altogether different way from earlier challenges and amendments to copyright law. At a time of increasing book bannings and attacks on libraries, public schools and universities, it is not safe for democracy, or for our cultural posterity, to leave an “on/off” switch for library books in the hands of corporate publishers….”

Research4Life & STM support Ukrainian science and research during conflict – STM

“The Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine recently expressed its gratitude to STM’s publisher partners for allowing free access to over 42,000 peer-reviewed journals, 174,000 e-books, and 155 databases through the Research4Life program. In 2022, R4L publishers granted Ukrainian institutions free access under the Group A category of Research4Life. In a letter, the Temporary Acting Minister of Education and Science of Ukraine, Yevhen Kudriavets, described how Research4Life’s support became a lifeline for Ukrainian scientists by symbolizing resilience and allowing vital research to continue amid the uncertainty of war….”

Update on Access to Coronavirus-related Articles in PubMed Central (PMC) COVID-19 Collection After End of Public Health Emergency

“Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) collaborated with publishers and scholarly societies to expand access to coronavirus-related journal articles in PubMed Central (PMC), a digital archive of peer-reviewed biomedical and life sciences literature. Through this collaboration, more than 50 publishers made more than 350,000 coronavirus-related articles accessible under various article-level license terms through the PMC COVID-19 Collection (previously the PMC COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Initiative). This collaboration made a significant collection of coronavirus-related information immediately accessible to researchers to accelerate discoveries about COVID-19.

As COVID-19 emergency declarations expired in the United States and around the globe, so too did article-level license terms for use of some of these articles. Most of the articles deposited in the PMC COVID-19 Collection will remain available in PMC and available for bulk distribution and reuse, and all citations will remain searchable in PubMed; however, some publishers retained the right to remove their content and have requested to do so.

To assist PMC users in understanding these changes, NLM is making available, in downloadable format, lists of PMCIDs (PMC unique reference numbers) for any impacted articles.

NLM remains committed to providing perpetual public access to all articles deposited in the PMC COVID-19 Collection for which the copyright holder provides such permission. More information is available from the PMC COVID-19 Collection and PMC COVID-19 Collection FAQ webpages.”

Costs of scientific journals have reached unsustainable level – The future of subscriptions in jeopardy – FinELib

“Publishers are demanding increasingly higher fees for reading scientific journals and open access publishing, even though the scientific community can’t sustain even the current costs. The expenses have risen to a level that doesn’t correspond to the benefits received from the services….

The consortium is prepared that if the goals are not achieved, it’s possible that not all current scientific journal agreements can be continued….”


Reclaiming Control: The Internet Archive Empowers People. Gatekeepers Keep Suing

As a child, nothing warmed me more than my mother’s “Three C’s Soup”: Cabbage, Carrot, Carraway from Jane Brody’s Good Food Book: Living the High Carbohydrate Way (published in 1980 and still in print, no ebook version has yet been licensed). And when my mother died in late fall 2018, there was nothing I wanted to cook more, but her copy had gone missing. 

I could have called the library and asked them to read me the recipe, or to scan it and to send it to me, but my library had a later print edition of the book. I could have bought a used copy of the 1980 edition, which I eventually did, but I wanted to cook it that day. So instead, I went to Open Library, the Internet Archive’s Controlled Digital Lending program, and borrowed the book for an hour, returning it when the soup was finished. In the words of my mother’s favorite literary character, the Mock Turtle: It was beautiful soup. 

About a year and a half later, the Internet Archive was sued for providing books in this manner to the public. The suit was triggered by a short-lived, well meaning program that made books available to students during a dark part of the pandemic by lifting certain restrictions on how many people at a time could borrow a given library title. That lawsuit just came to a judgment, ordering the Archive to take down a part of their collection and striking a blow to Controlled Digital Lending more generally, though the Archive will appeal.

To be clear: what the Internet Archive is doing is traditional library lending in a digital form, and frankly not radical – I can just get access to the materials I want much more quickly through the Archive, but I must also return them much more quickly. There is no situation in which acquiring a recipe from an obsolete edition of Brody’s first cookbook with no ebook equivalent would hurt her royalties. Libraries have traditionally bought one copy of a book and then lent it, much like they do with CDL, which maintains an “owned to loaned” ratio through sequestering materials. 

While big publishers would have you believe that people are flocking to the Internet Archive to borrow and read these scans for free rather than relying on the “thriving ebook licensing market for libraries,” they ignore a few crucial facts to advance a bad faith argument about market harm: the average time readers spend with an Internet Archive scan is under 30 minutes. People seem to be using these materials as intended: as reference, grabbing just the bit of information they need.

If someone wants to download and read an ebook outside of a streaming service or licensed copy, they are not going to use a scanned, DRM-protected epub that they can borrow from the Internet Archive for an hour. Authors, publishers, and musicians know this, and yet content rightsholders continue to litigate a nonprofit library at great expense to themselves and their authors. As the New York Times reports, even authors who were once critical of the Archive’s efforts have removed their initial statements. Author Malcolm Harris recently tweeted, “The Internet Archive was an invaluable resource when I was writing PALO ALTO and it pisses me off that Hachette sued in the name of their authors.” 

There are, of course, very real threats to authors and publishers: large download sites, censorship by legislators, “chokepoint” intermediaries, AI corporations gobbling up materials and selling them back to the public as new products, the general “enshittification” of platforms, the high overhead costs and venture capital ownership of streaming that has been predicted to collapse for nearly ten years, Overdrive’s monopoly in libraries, publishers’ resistance to reasonable contractual requests by authors, at-risk corporate archives, or Amazon’s stranglehold hold over the digital book and audiobook market. In pursuing this case (and a related case from the music industry), the litigants seek to distract artists from the very real conditions of labor that would start to fix a broken system but might cut into their bottom line: better contracts and a humane income, artistic independence and the freedom to publish, collaborations that inspire new creation, more control over their terms and payments, and less consolidation in the market.

Could copyright holders join together and rethink streaming and licensing in order to build a digital system that works for authors, small publishers, and artists, considering that five companies control at least 77% of the US best seller market and artists are struggling? Of course, but it wouldn’t provide the kind of surveillance of readers, data harvesting, and AI-written books that they hope will cut many authors out of the equation entirely. (Obviously no librarian wants any of the above.) Penalizing libraries providing scans of books and music largely for reference sets a precedent in a limited case that benefits no one.

Creators deserve more. As the SAG AFTRA strike has shown, large, organized communities can disrupt an entire industry by fighting for their rights. Rather than adopting a passive position against corporate overreach in the face of an digital licensing industry where one major company dominates up to 85% of the digital book market (Amazon) and another dominates up to 90% of the library lending market (Overdrive/Libby), we can come together and fight for fairer contracts, particularly when it comes to licensing rights and equitable downstream uses of work. And in my own community of librarians, we must stop infighting about whether we agree with the Archive’s position, or whether Controlled Digital Lending is legal or not. We have to work together to wrest power from the large corporations that dominate commercial publishing. The future of knowledge depends on it.

Pensoft’s statement on the European Union’s Conclusions on OA scholarly publishing

“On behalf of Pensoft Publishers, we express our support for the Conclusions on high-quality, transparent, open and equitable scholarly publishing, recently published by the Council of the European Union. We do share all concerns articulated in the document that highlight major inequities and outstanding issues in the scholarly publishing environment.

In our opinion, it is of utmost importance to promptly address the existing issues in the publishing system, where healthy competition can thrive and contribute to a reality safe from potential mono-/oligopolies and corporate capture.

We firmly believe that only an industry that leaves room for variously-scaled pioneers and startups is capable of leading a long-awaited shift to a high-quality, transparent, open and equitable scholarly publishing landscape aligning with the principles of FAIRness….”

Public access to published science is under threat in the US | InPublishing

Eight science publishers have signed a letter to the House Appropriations subcommittee to raise the dangers of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill’s draft language.

Frontiers says The US House Appropriations Committee has released its 2024 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. It proposes new spending of $58 billion and seeks to “rein in the Washington bureaucracy by right-sizing agencies and programs.”

A group of eight science publishers have signed a letter to the House Appropriations subcommittee to raise the dangers of the bill’s draft language. If enacted, it would block federally funded research from being freely available to American taxpayers without delay on publication.

Individual Americans would be prevented from seeing the full benefits of the more than $90 billion in scientific research they fund each year via taxes. Science for the few who can access it – as opposed to the many who pay for it – is inefficient as scientific or democratic governmental policy.



Judge Approves Final Injunction in Publishers, Internet Archive Copyright Case

“After more than three years of litigation, it took judge John G. Koeltl just hours to sign off on the parties’ negotiated consent judgment—but not without a final twist. In a short written opinion made public yesterday, Koeltl sided with the Internet Archive in a final dispute, limiting the scope of the permanent injunction to cover only the plaintiffs’ print books that also have electronic editions available.

In a letter to the court, lawyers for the plaintiff publishers had argued that the injunction should cover all the plaintiffs’ commercially available books, whether the books have digital editions or not. “The law is clear that the right to decide whether or not to publish a book in electronic format belongs to its authors and publishers, not IA,” the publishers’ letter argued. Furthermore, IA’s unauthorized digital editions create “clear potential market harm to the print book market,” the publisher letter claims, because a “straight, verbatim digital copy of the entire work is an obvious competing substitute for the original.”

In their letter to the court, IA attorneys argued that the injunction should be limited to the plaintiffs’ books that have digital editions available because that was what the suit addressed. “Because the parties did not have the opportunity in this case to litigate the degree to which the unavailability of digital library licensing would affect the fair use analysis, it is inappropriate for an injunction in this case, by its breadth, to effectively prejudge the outcome of that question,” IA attorneys argued.

Koeltl sided with the Internet Archive, holding that because the 127 works chosen for the suit were all commercially available works with digital editions, sweeping all the plaintiffs’ books into the final injunction risked being overbroad.”

The Corporate Capture of Open-Access Publishing

“As the heads of progressive university presses on two sides of the North Atlantic, we support open and equitable access to knowledge. If history is any guide, however, the new policies may unintentionally contribute to greater consolidation in academic publishing — and encourage commercial publishers to value quantity over quality and platforms over people. Unless the new open-access policies are accompanied by direct investment from funders, governments, and universities in nonprofit publishers and publishing infrastructure, they could pose a threat to smaller scholarly and scientific societies and university presses, and ultimately to trust in published knowledge….

Without meaning to, many putatively open-access policies could further privatize the results of academic research….

The open-access movement has its roots in the practice of self-archiving (also called “Green” open access), wherein scholars deposit prepublication versions of their work in university repositories or community-owned preprint servers that function (to the extent possible) outside the economic strictures of formal publishing. Publishers effectively co-opted the movement by promoting instead models in which authors or their institutions pay publishers for the privilege of openness (also called “Gold” open access). As a result, open-access policies that enforce openness at any cost, under any model, have paradoxically, and against the intentions of policymakers, furthered the commodification of knowledge….

With paid open access, the academy is being asked, in effect, to subsidize the commercial sector’s use of university-research outputs with no reciprocal financial contribution….

Questions about academic freedom, widening inequality, the impact on smaller publishers, and the applicability of science-based policy for the arts, social sciences, and humanities have long been overlooked in conversations about open access….

The answers, we propose, lie somewhere in that overlooked, undervalued middle ground of nonprofit or fair-profit university-press publishing, mission-aligned with the academy. Many of those presses have been leaders in findings ways to meet the goals of providing both equitable access to knowledge and equitable participation in the creation of new knowledge. These are the publishers that universities should protect, invest in, and make deals with. Perhaps an international network of university-based publishers, libraries, and other public-knowledge providers could work together, balancing paid-for and open research content in a way that is sustainable rather than extractive, and that still values the research itself. Such a network could face down the likes of academia.edu….”