UK negotiations for the total cost of publication Anna Vernon

Agenda Context Current Jisc open access activity Why do we want agreements? The approach taken by Jisc Collections Experiences from negotiations Challenges Next steps

Jisc Open Access Support Service Support throughout an article’s lifecycle from submission to use Submission Select journal Check compliance Acceptance Pay publisher Deposit in repository Policies Decision support Negotiations Notification Publication Report on compliance Maximise impact Use Record impact Report Discovery and access Reporting tools Usage reports Community professional support Open Access

Why does the UK want agreements? UK HEIs create significant number of OA articles as a result of UK policies OA is expanding its scope, scale and reach However, any transition to OA is lumpy—fast in some areas, slower in others Initially, there will be minimal impact on global subscription levels for hybrid journals from UK APCs Total cost of journals system to UK universities will increase RCUK and other funding will only cover part of the cost for some of the future As open-access (OA) publishing funded by article-processing charges (APCs) increases, institutions face increases in the ‘total cost of publication’, we define as subscription costs + APCs + admin costs. Most APC payments are made to large ‘traditional’ commercial publishers who also received ahem considerable subscription income. We’re asking publishers to introduce offset systems that will reduce this extra cost to UK higher education. These principles are drafted for publishers of hybrid journals (these are subscription journals in which some of the articles are open access). They aim to provide these publishers with an understanding of the requirements of their customers from the UK academic sector. They follow the spirit of the Finch Report, which was informed through dialogue with scholarly publishers, universities, and research funders. It is expected that publishers will adhere to these principles in their design of offset systems. Following the recommendations of the Finch Report, UK Higher Education institutions are in the vanguard of a transition to open access. Although many of these institutions have received some funding to support the transition, collaboration with publishers is required in the form of offset systems to ensure affordability and sustainability. These principles are also designed to provide a checklist for higher education institutions (and Jisc Collections when negotiating on their behalf) when evaluating proposals from publishers for offset systems. What are we doing now to make this manageable? 03/04/2019

Jisc Collections approach Two distinct issues The cost of APCs in pure and hybrid gold OA journals The combined cost of APCs and subscriptions in hybrid journals “Total cost of publication” We targeted number 2 first 03/04/2019

Theoretical rise in Combined Costs What happens when we just add APC costs to subscriptions without overall control mechanism 03/04/2019

Government Response to Finch Report The Government “….looks to the publishing industry to develop innovative and sustainable solutions“ : “….a meaningful proportion of an institution's total [article processing charges] with a publisher to be offset against total subscription payments with that publisher". "Government welcomes efforts by Jisc Collections to develop sustainable funding models that establish a relationship between the payment of APCs (and the costs of administering them) and subscription fees for an institution.“ Letter from Rt Hon David Willetts MP to Dame Janet Finch, 23 January 2014 - Demonstrated support of policy makers - Clearly linked APCs and Subscriptions together in the context of implementation of Finch - Emphasised the role of Jisc Collections - Provided a timeframe for action with the expectation of progress by the time of RCUK’s review of it’s policy later in 2014 03/04/2019

Total APC expenditure 2010–14 for 23 HEIs The growth in APC payments has continued to rise year on year, with 2014 seeing 2.7x more expenditure than 2013. Even removing a high-spending outlier, the increase was 2x. Trend for 2015 indicates a slower rate of growth, but still 40-50% for most institutions Collecting the information is a challenge, Jisc services in this area are improving the capacity of the sector and indeed Jisc to track spend and make rational decisions about what to spend, what to negotiate, where to spend it. So currently Jisc, globally has taken the lead in collecting this information, and Jisc’s activity is actually dependent on us successfully developing these services. (Source: Jisc Collections)

Experiences from negotiations

Experiences from negotiations

Negotiation objectives Priorities for negotiations on the combined cost of subscriptions and APCs: Cost efficiency - minimise/remove additional costs to institution Compliance - help/enable institutions to comply with funder policies regardless of whether they are choosing gold or green Administrative efficiency - minimise the burden on institutions of implementing and managing OA payment schemes Transition - implementing schemes that facilitate a real and sustainable transition to open access Open Access

Working on offsetting proposals since start of 2014 Experiences Working on offsetting proposals since start of 2014 Agreements are pilots Need to monitor changing environment Need to see how effective the agreements are A range of agreements in place: Institute of Physics Royal Society of Chemistry Sage Taylor and Francis Wiley Springer from October A variety of schemes Models have different impact based on publisher

Offsetting APC costs against Subscriptions Based on global % of OA articles publisher offers a sliding scale of allocation of APC spend against local & global subscription costs. Low level of global OA = high local offset of subs And vice versa Advantages Transparent, scalable, high discounts Disadvantages High administrative burden Relies on high take up of offer

Credits against APCs based on total expenditure Offset based on total spend on subs & APCs Higher the spend, higher the offset available Institution receives % of year 0 APC spend to be credited to account for use against future APC spend Advantages Recognises impact on biggest spenders Disadvantages Administrative burden Offset not that high Locks in subscription spend

Voucher schemes APC vouchers based on size of subscription spend Value of voucher can be flexible Advantages Reduces cost to institutions Large sub spend = large number of vouchers Disadvantages Administrative burden Take up – especially when aimed at researcher Time limits

Flipped model Historical consortium sub and APC spend funds future consortium APCs Additional transition fee covers cost of content Advantages (in UK?) Increases amount of OA & moves away from HPS Simplifies administration/compliance Ceiling on payments to publisher Disadvantages Lack of transparency? Cost allocation across consortium in future years

Challenges and conclusions

Challenges Complicated policy environment RCUK, HEFCE, H2020 Uncertain research funding in UK Reviews of UK policy outcomes Managing expectations Extra spend happening now But only 1 negotiation cycle for journal agreements How quickly can we achieve meaningful results?

Challenges, supporting a full transition to full OA vs institutional requirements. Flipped models are predicated on a full transition of the subscription model with Springer from one where we pay for publication. I.e. what was once the UK’s subscription fee is now paying for APCs by corresponding authors in hybrid journals and there is an additional fee that pays for access to the subscribed content. As a result for a fee equivalent to what the community as a whole paid for subs and apcs in 2015, the community now has a large pool of APCs on which to draw (much greater than the UK has ever published with Springer) and the community also has access to all of their journal content. From a reporting perspective, it is important to note that this is a pilot, designed to effect a transition to OA as a whole in a cost effective way, not just for COAF and RCUK. COAF will be supplying institutions in receipt of their grants with guidelines on how to report/use the block grant in this agreement. RCUK has stated that institutions can use their block grant in support of this in whatever way they think is appropriate and since it supports OA, they would be unlikely to challenge it.

Challenges Hybrid publishers refusing offsetting agreements Only works if all publishers do it? Retreat from hybrid in absence of offsetting Increase in support for Green route Sustainability Administrative burden & costs New systems, workflows, data requirements Incentivising researchers and publishers Price sensitivity of authors? Take up of offers by institutions and authors

Around 157,000 articles published by UK authors in 2014 Conclusions Still much to do… Around 157,000 articles published by UK authors in 2014 Percentages of UK articles available OA in 2014, up to 12 months after publication Open access through repositories 11.7 Open access through wholly OA journals charging fees 9.3 Open access through wholly OA journals not charging fees 2.1 Open access though partially OA journals charging fees 6.5 Open access though delayed release by journals 8.7 Not open access 61.7 Open Access

Conclusions Open access is a journey not an event Too early to be certain of implications and impact? Data is sometimes contradictory Try, learn and refine? Ongoing interest in the progress of offsetting schemes Some agreements show it can be done Are the success of offsetting schemes and the fate of hybrid open access linked to each other? Increased interest in supporting alternative models

Next steps Once endorsed by the community we will raise the recommendations in the Open Access compliance document This document outlines what publishers might do to help authors and institutions globally to implement (OA), reduce the administrative burden, and take some of the friction out of the current arrangements. 

Choose Your Affiliation IV