Transformative agreements are now the key to open access

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

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

When the Dutch UKB coalition of research libraries signed up to the 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 then an entirely novel concept.

And it is safe to say that TAs, which bundle the 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.

Transformative journals (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 the other publishers put together, committing our entire portfolio to OA transition so that authors could still publish in their journal of choice.

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

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

During the same period, Springer Nature signed 15 new transformative agreements and renewed five more, increasing the 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.

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

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

For librarians, they provide easy workflow and reporting because they avoid the need to administer multiple individual payments for article processing charges (APCs). And they offer complete access to publishers’ paywalled holdings – which was not always the case even in previous subscription-only “big deals”.

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

But perhaps most importantly, TAs deliver for authors. In the main, no payment is required from them and because the 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 the final published version of record immediately available, authors benefit from the increase in citations, visibility and usage that comes from publishing gold OA. In the 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 the needs of a wider range of institutions, including in the Global South. With library budgets alone not being enough to support the 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 the end of next year – and enable the kind of rapid discovery that helped mitigate the effects of the pandemic and that we need to address the big challenges we still face.

Steven Inchcoombe is president, research at Springer Nature.

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Register
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (3)

Whilst I'd agree with Steven that transformative agreements have generally made the administration of open access publication easier for librarians and authors, I'm not sure I would go as far as to assert that they are the key to greater OA in the future. The key term here is 'transformative'; this is intended as a journey, not a final destination (Jisc lists such agreements as 'transitional' to further 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, they also make up over 80% of those which have not, and which will be removed from the 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 the 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 the use of their funding to support TAs after the end of 2024 for example, and would not permit the use of their block grant funds to support the Elsevier deal. Additionally, the open access requirements for the 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 these research funders. I would suggest that all this, together with the often fraught nature of negotaitions with publishers on TAs, is a major factor in the 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 further truly transformational change in the 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 the 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, then the 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 the 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 the proportion of openly accessible articles is increasing, the proportion of paywalled articles is decreasing? Surely we should be getting charged less? And to pick up another commenter's point on rights retention policies, it is always important to remember that the content being sold to universities is not produced by SpringerNature (or any other publisher) - it is produced by the universities and other research institutions themselves. It is only because large commercial publishers do their best to ensure authors are made to feel they have to sign away their copyright in order to be published (and to be clear, they do NOT need to do this) that publishers are able to hold so much sway over these discussions.
I should add that my comment on read-access costs continuing to increase is a general one applying across the board with "transitional" agreements, rather than specific to the recently-signed agreement with SpringerNature.

Sponsored