No Deal: German Researchers’ Publishing and Citing Behaviours after Big Deal Negotiations with Elsevier | Quantitative Science Studies | MIT Press

Abstract:  In 2014, a union of German research organisations established Projekt DEAL, a national-level project to negotiate licensing agreements with large scientific publishers. Negotiations between DEAL and Elsevier began in 2016, and broke down without a successful agreement in 2018; in this time, around 200 German research institutions cancelled their license agreements with Elsevier, leading Elsevier to restrict journal access at those institutions. We investigated the effect on researchers’ publishing and citing behaviours from a bibliometric perspective, using a dataset of ?400,000 articles published by researchers at DEAL institutions between 2012–2020. We further investigated these effects with respect to the timing of contract cancellations, research disciplines, collaboration patterns, and article open-access status. We find evidence for a decrease in Elsevier’s market share of articles from DEAL institutions, with the largest year-on-year market share decreases occuring from 2018 to 2020 following the implementation of access restrictions. We also observe year-on-year decreases in the proportion of citations, although the decrease is smaller. We conclude that negotiations with Elsevier and access restrictions have led to some reduced willingness to publish in Elsevier journals, but that researchers are not strongly affected in their ability to cite Elsevier articles, implying that researchers use other methods to access scientific literature.

 

A free toolkit to foster open access agreements – Insights

Abstract:  In November 2021, with the support of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) and cOAlition S, four ‘task and finish’ working groups were established. The authors facilitated and supported these groups. Each group was responsible for producing tools that will enable library consortia and small independent publishers to negotiate transformative agreements, which is to say, agreements that will enable the publisher to fully transition to open access. The first task and finish group developed shared principles for transformative agreements. The second developed a data template to enable smaller independent publishers to reach agreements with library consortia and libraries, while the third developed example licence agreements. These groups recognized that the implementation of a transformative agreement crosses a complex ecosystem of technology, processes, policies, automated functions and manual functions that relate to contract management, article submission and peer review, content hosting and dissemination as well as financial management. For this reason, a fourth group produced a workflow framework that describes the process in all its phases. The members of these four groups were volunteers from stakeholder communities including libraries, library consortia, smaller independent publishers and intermediaries. This article explains why these tools are needed and the process behind their creation. The authors have combined these tools into a freely available toolkit, available under a CC BY licence.

 

DEAL ist ein Problem – Gespräch mit Thomas Stäcker über die Folgen der Digitalisierung für Bibliotheken (3) – Aus der Forschungs­bibliothek Krekelborn

From Google’s English:  

“Isn’t it obvious that the DEAL project wants to promote open access, but that this good intention is bought at a high price and the oligopoly structures in the science market are being consolidated?

I agree with you there. However, many colleagues in the library world see things differently and see DEAL as a success. After a few years of observation, however, I have to confirm the diagnosis that expectations in DEAL as a game changer in terms of the publication system are being disappointed. We don’t save any money. Promises of reallocating funds are unrealistic. I consider the still existing restriction to a few players to be fatal, since existing oligopolies are being further entrenched. The really good thing about DEAL is that you negotiate on a national level in a consortium. It is also very important that the German Rectors’ Conference organizes this process, because science itself and not just the libraries are involved.So I think a lot of DEAL as a structure, but I don’t think that DEAL is still addressing the right issues at the moment. Why can’t DEAL as a consortium also serve, for example, to establish Diamond Open Access structures? You could get the funding for this, for example from the DFG….”

Indispensable or unnecessary?: a data-driven appraisal of post-cancellation access rights – Insights

Abstract:  When breaking out of ‘big deals’, some libraries and consortia have found that they can save money by negotiating away post-cancellation access (PCA) to subscribed resources after the subscription concludes. Using subscription data regarding major publisher contracts at several US research libraries, this article reviews options around PCA for libraries and presents a model for assigning a value to PCA content when negotiating a renewal contract.

 

Indispensable or unnecessary?: a data-driven appraisal of post-cancellation access rights – Insights

Abstract:  When breaking out of ‘big deals’, some libraries and consortia have found that they can save money by negotiating away post-cancellation access (PCA) to subscribed resources after the subscription concludes. Using subscription data regarding major publisher contracts at several US research libraries, this article reviews options around PCA for libraries and presents a model for assigning a value to PCA content when negotiating a renewal contract.

 

Indispensable or unnecessary?: a data-driven appraisal of post-cancellation access rights – Insights

Abstract:  When breaking out of ‘big deals’, some libraries and consortia have found that they can save money by negotiating away post-cancellation access (PCA) to subscribed resources after the subscription concludes. Using subscription data regarding major publisher contracts at several US research libraries, this article reviews options around PCA for libraries and presents a model for assigning a value to PCA content when negotiating a renewal contract.

 

Indispensable or unnecessary?: a data-driven appraisal of post-cancellation access rights – Insights

Abstract:  When breaking out of ‘big deals’, some libraries and consortia have found that they can save money by negotiating away post-cancellation access (PCA) to subscribed resources after the subscription concludes. Using subscription data regarding major publisher contracts at several US research libraries, this article reviews options around PCA for libraries and presents a model for assigning a value to PCA content when negotiating a renewal contract.

 

Indispensable or unnecessary?: a data-driven appraisal of post-cancellation access rights – Insights

Abstract:  When breaking out of ‘big deals’, some libraries and consortia have found that they can save money by negotiating away post-cancellation access (PCA) to subscribed resources after the subscription concludes. Using subscription data regarding major publisher contracts at several US research libraries, this article reviews options around PCA for libraries and presents a model for assigning a value to PCA content when negotiating a renewal contract.

 

Indispensable or unnecessary?: a data-driven appraisal of post-cancellation access rights – Insights

Abstract:  When breaking out of ‘big deals’, some libraries and consortia have found that they can save money by negotiating away post-cancellation access (PCA) to subscribed resources after the subscription concludes. Using subscription data regarding major publisher contracts at several US research libraries, this article reviews options around PCA for libraries and presents a model for assigning a value to PCA content when negotiating a renewal contract.

 

Indispensable or unnecessary?: a data-driven appraisal of post-cancellation access rights – Insights

Abstract:  When breaking out of ‘big deals’, some libraries and consortia have found that they can save money by negotiating away post-cancellation access (PCA) to subscribed resources after the subscription concludes. Using subscription data regarding major publisher contracts at several US research libraries, this article reviews options around PCA for libraries and presents a model for assigning a value to PCA content when negotiating a renewal contract.

 

N8 statement of support for the sector’s rejection of the Springer Nature proposal – N8 Research Partnership

“The N8 universities are fully committed to fostering open research in an equitable and financially sustainable way. We support the approach being taken by the UK’s Springer Negotiation Team and the recommendation to reject the most recent proposal from Springer on the basis it does not yet fully meet the core objectives of the negotiations.

We welcome the progress made so far and hope both parties can continue to work together to achieve an agreement which meets the core negotiation objectives and provides support for a sector-wide transition to open access….”

UK universities united in pushing for a better deal with Springer Nature | STM Publishing News

“Five higher education sector groups have jointly agreed a statement in support of continuing negotiations with the academic publisher, Springer Nature (SN). 

UK universities have two agreements with Springer Nature, which expired on 31 December 2022. On behalf of the sector, Jisc is handling negotiations for a new agreement that aims to deliver read access and open access publishing across the SN portfolio.   

The latest proposal, received in November, did not meet sector requirements and has been rejected by the sector but, as the statement demonstrates, the groups are united in their desire to reach an acceptable agreement.  

The terms of the expired agreements, including access to SN journals, are being honoured by SN until further notice. 

Signed by Guild HE, MillionPlus, N8 PVC-Rs, the Russell Group and the University Alliance, the statement says …”

Statement of support for the sector’s rejection of the Springer Nature proposal

“Our university members are fully behind the recent decision by the sector, and the negotiating team, to reject the latest offer from Springer Nature. We recognise and welcome the improvements that Springer Nature has made to its offer throughout the negotiations. However, the latest proposal still does not meet the needs of the sector and our members.

UK universities agreed a clear set of requirements at the start of the negotiations and these must be met before we will support an agreement with Springer Nature. The requirements include reducing and constraining costs, ensuring all UK research can be published open access, and providing greater transparency on costs and Springer Nature’s transition to open research.

We support the continuation of negotiations in the hope an appropriate agreement can be reached which will make the transition to open access financially sustainable and equitable….”

Pressing ‘pause’ on Elsevier subscription | News | dailyemerald.com

“On Nov. 17, 2022, University of Oregon Executive Vice President Janet Woodruff-Borden said UO will pause its subscription journal package with Elsevier Publishing Company at the end of 2022 in an email announcement….

UO partnered with Oregon State University and Portland State University, who also subscribe to Elsevier’s journal package, to negotiate prices with Elsevier. All three universities ended their subscriptions after failing to reach an agreement….

The three universities were looking to cut the cost of each of their subscription packages by 50%, which Elsevier was aware of going into negotiations, Bowman said….

 

Part of the disagreement between Elsevier and universities was that Elsevier was charging the same price, even though many of its articles were open access, Dave Fowler, a collection management librarian at UO, said. In other words, anyone could have access to certain Elsevier published content without paying a subscription to Elsevier….

Because of the contract lapse, students and faculty may experience delays in having access to requested Elsevier articles, Salaz said. “In the long term however, we are confident that students, researchers and scholars everywhere will benefit from a system that doesn’t exploit academic labor for excessive profit,” she said….”

Guest Post – Texas Library Coalition for United Action (TLCUA) and Elsevier Conclude Negotiations for Access to ScienceDirect Journals – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Designing an access and pricing model that satisfies the needs of a diverse membership like TLCUA’s presents a unique challenge. Starting with clear objectives and sticking with them is one of the basics of successful negotiation. TLCUA tested that principle by beginning with two goals that could be satisfied in multiple ways. TLCUA’s lofty goal of a single pricing model that meets the needs of all members and is unrelated to historical spend proved untenable, as members were dealing with different financial pressures and different needs for access. Instead, the coalition agreed on several package options for members.

All the options address TLCUA’s concern with financial sustainability, with reduced spends ranging from 2.5% to 30%. All options include a price decrease in the first year. The contract term aligns all TLCUA contracts to end in 2024. Three-year contracts have a 0% price increase in year two and a 2% price increase in year three, while four-year contracts have a 0% increase in year two, a 1% increase in year three, and a 2% increase in year four.

In the agreement, TLCUA and Elsevier agreed to remove references to outdated CONTU guidelines in the interlibrary loan provision. In addition, the parties agreed to remove non-disclosure terms from licenses. Both changes are important for libraries to work together to meet the needs of the scholarly community….

The agreement includes two provisions focused on increasing access to scholarly publications. First, authors affiliated with a TLCUA member are entitled to a discount on APCs during the contract period. Authors publishing in Elsevier Gold OA journals receive a 10% discount, while those publishing in Hybrid OA journals receive a 15% discount. Cell Press titles, The Lancet, and certain society titles are excluded from the discount. Elsevier has extended similar discounts to other groups. There is no cap on the number of articles TLCUA members can publish as open access using these discounts.

Second, TLCUA asked Elsevier to explore alternatives to authors permanently transferring copyright to publishers, without requiring the author to pay an APC for open access publishing. Publishers say that signing over copyright to them allows them to recoup the costs of producing a journal, plus some profit.  In the United States, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years, which seems longer than needed to meet the goal of providing publishers appropriate recompense for the valuable services they provide. Elsevier, like many publishers, has an author rights statement, which outlines ways authors may use their own work without requesting permission from the publisher. TLCUA acknowledges that Elsevier’s author rights statement meets many needs, but seeks a more robust protection for authors. Not only are author rights statements subject to change by the publisher, but when journals are acquired, the new publisher may not offer the same privileges….”