Open access progress and sustainability
Chair: Neil Jacobs, Jisc
14/07/2016

Introduction
Neil Jacobs
14/07/2016

UK and US positions on open access
Steven Hill, HEFCE – SarahThomas, Harvard University
14/07/2016

The UK position on
open access
Steven Hill
Head of Research Policy
Jisc-CNI conference 06 July 2016
@stevenhill

Summary
• Policy
• Progress
• Prospects

Summary
• Policy
• Progress
• Prospects

UK Government Policy
• Independent reports
– Dame Janet Finch – 2012
– Professor Adam Tickell – 2016

UK Government Policy
“I am confident that, by 2020, the UK will be
publishing almost all of our scientific output
through open access. The advantages of
immediate ‘gold’ access are well recognised,
and I want the UK to continue its preference
for gold routes where this is realistic and
affordable. I also accept the validity of green
routes, which will continue to play an
important part in delivering our open access
commitments.”
Jo Johnson, Minister for Universities and Science
Image: Public Domain (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jo_Johnson_Photo_Speaking_at_the_British_Museum.jpg)

UK Government Policy
“I am confident that, by 2020, the UK will be
publishing almost all of our scientific output
through open access. The advantages of
immediate ‘gold’ access are well recognised,
and I want the UK to continue its preference
for gold routes where this is realistic and
affordable. I also accept the validity of green
routes, which will continue to play an
important part in delivering our open access
commitments.”
Jo Johnson, Minister for Universities and Science
Image: Public Domain (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jo_Johnson_Photo_Speaking_at_the_British_Museum.jpg)

UK Policy Landscape
• Research Councils UK
– Journal articles and conference proceedings
– Preference for immediate, CC-BY access
– Accept access after 6 months (STEM) or 12 months (AHSS) with CC-BY-NC
– Block grant to HEIs for APCs (pure OA and hybrid)
• Charity Open Access Fund
– 7 major medical research funders (including Wellcome Trust)
– Journal articles, conference proceedings and monographs
– Deposit in PubMedCentral or EuropePMC
– Require immediate, CC-BY access
• Research Excellence Framework
– Journal articles and conference proceedings
– Deposit in institutional or subject repository
– Accessible for read and download at least 12 months (STEM) or 24 months (AHSS)
– Encourage: immediate access, liberal licencing, monographs

Summary
• Policy
• Progress
• Prospects

Wellcome Trust compliance analysis
• 2014/15: 30% of articles for which APC paid not compliant
with policy
• E.g. 392 articles not deposited in PMC/EuPMC - £765,000
APC value
• Hybrid journals main source of non-compliance:
Source: https://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2016/03/23/wellcome-trust-and-coaf-open-access-spend-2014-15/

Summary
• Policy
• Progress
• Prospects

Prospects
• REF policy – significant increase in open content
• Possible action by funders on hybrid journals (see DFG, Norwegian Research
Councils)
• Offsetting deals
• The effect of Sci-Hub?
• Further developments on policy/implementation; 4 working groups of
Universities UK OA group:
– Efficiency
– Service standards
– Repositories
– Monographs

Summary
• Policy
• Progress
• Prospects

Thank you for listening
s.hill@hefce.ac.uk
@stevenhill
openaccess@hefce.ac.uk

U.S. Positions on Open Access
Sarah Thomas
Vice President for the Harvard Library
July 6, 2016

U.S. Legislation and National Initiatives
• PubMed Central (NIH, 2009)
• FRPAA (Federal Research Public Access Act) (2006, 2009, 2012)
• FASTR (Fair Access to Science and Technology Research) (2013,
2015)
• White House Executive Order/ Office of Science and
Technology Policy (2013)
• Open Government Data Act (2016)

Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)
• Introduced in Congress in 2006, 2009, and 2012
• Never made it out of Committee
• Superseded by FASTR
Law

FASTRFair Access to Science and Technology Research
Law

FASTR• Introduced as a bill in the Senate in 2013 and 2015.
"Breakthroughs in technology, science, medicine and dozens of other
disciplines are made every year due to the billions in research funding
provided by the American people. Making those findings available to
all Americans is the best way to lead the next generation of discovery
and innovation or create the next game-changing business. The FASTR
act provides that access because taxpayer funded research should
never be hidden behind a paywall." Senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon

FASTRThe Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs unanimously approved the bill on July 29, 2015. It was the
first time that the bill or any of its predecessors had gained
committee approval and been forwarded to a full house of
Congress

Key Elements of FASTR
• Agencies over $100 million
• Embargo capped at 12 months, earlier deposit encouraged
• Mandate free public access through Green OA
• Require final version of author’s peer-reviewed manuscript

White House Executive Order (2013)
Office of Science and Technology Policy

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_pu
blic_access_memo_2013.pdf

Executive Order/OSTP
• Signed by Chief Science Advisor (Holdren) but issued under
Barack Obama
• Executive action complements legislative activity
• Agencies spending $100 m on R & D
• Embargoes capped at 12 months
• Requires OA for articles
• Requires OA for data
• Requires OA for metadata concurrent with publication

Executive/OSTP Directive
• Directs "a strategy for leveraging existing archives, where
appropriate" (2.a). Section 3 adds that "Repositories could be
maintained by the Federal agency funding the research,
through an arrangement with other Federal agencies, or
through other parties working in partnership with the agency
including, but not limited to, scholarly and professional
associations, publishers and libraries."

OSTP Directive
• ) a strategy for leveraging existing archives, where appropriate, and
fostering public - private partnerships with scientific journals
relevant to the agency’s research;
• b) a strategy for improving the public’s ability to locate and access
digital data resulting from federally funded scientific research;
• c) an approach for optimizing search, archival, and dissemination
features that encourages innovation in accessibility and
interoperability, while ensuring long-term stewardship of the results
of federally funded research;

• d) a plan for notifying awardees and other federally funded
scientific researchers of their obligations (e.g., through guidance,
conditions of awards, and/or regulatory changes);
• e) an agency strategy for measuring and, as necessary, enforcing
compliance with its plan;
• f) identification of resources within the existing agency budget to
implement the plan;
• g) a timeline for implementation; and
• h) identification of any special circumstances that prevent the
agency from meeting any of the objectives set out in this
memorandum, in whole or in part.

Executive Order/OSTP Directive
• Requires Green OA
• "each agency plan shall...[e]nsure that publications and
metadata are stored in an archival solution
that...provides...access to the content without charge..." (3.f).

Open Government Data (2016)

Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Implementation Plan to Increase Public Access
to Results of USDA-Funded Scientific Research
(PDF), November 7, 2014
ARL Summary of USDA Plan, February 20,
2015
Department of Defense (DoD)
Public Access Memo (PDF) , July 9, 2014
Plan to Establish Public Access (PDF), February
2015
ARL Summary of DoD Plan, March 19, 2015
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science
DOE Public Access Plan, July 24, 2014
Statement on Digital Data Management, July
28, 2014
Cover memo (PDF), July 28, 2014
ARL Summary of DOE Plan, July 31, 2014
Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)
Guiding Principles and Common Approach for
Enhancing Public Access to the Results of
Research Funded by HHS Operating Divisions,
February 27, 2015
http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/
public-access-policies/federally-
funded-research/2696-white-house-
directive-on-public-access-to-federally-
funded-research-and-data#.V1xrD9IrLIV
ARL tracks policy developments

0
5
10
15
20
25
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
new applications
approved (not yet
funded)
Harvard Open-Access Publishing Equity
(HOPE)

Gold OA versus Green OA in the US
Recent ARL Discussions
• Won’t Gold APCs cost research-intensive universities more
than subscriptions?
• Can we transform scholarly publishing while maintaining the
same players?
• What are the constraints on publishers in a subscription-free
world?
• What is the impact on the humanities?

Flipping Journals
Office for Scholarly Communication
Harvard Library
• Transitional subsidies
• Government subsidies
• Funding agency subsidies
• Reduction of operating costs
• Membership fees
• Discounting APCs in initial phase of flipping or for categories of
submissions

University of California and university
digital library costing models
Mackenzie Smith, University of California, Davis
14/07/2016

MacKenzie Smith
University of California, Davis
Ivy Anderson
California Digital Library
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
Why this project, why now?
North America Europe / UK
Increasing disconnect between European and North American
approaches to open access
• Finch Report
• OA2020
• APC Offset Agreements
• Tri-Agency OA Policy
• NIH OA Policy
• OSTP Directive
• FASTR
• Faculty OA Policies

Pay It Forward
Investigating a Sustainable Model of Open Access Article Processing
Charges for Large North American Research Institutions
“build a set of financial scenarios, or models, depicting the
financial implications an APC-based system of scholarly journal
publishing, for the conversion of the current system of scholarly
journal publishing to an APC-based system, for large North
American research institutions.”
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Scope
 North American research institutions (U.S. and Canada)
Library partners: University of California, Harvard, Ohio State University,
University of British Columbia
 Scholarly journals and conference proceedings only
 Models APC-funded scholarly journal publishing system at
100% scale
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Carol Tenopir, University of Tennessee, Knoxville (authors)
Greg Tananbaum and ALPSP (publishers)
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Large-scale Author Study
 10 focus groups of 77 faculty, postdocs & grad
students, across all disciplines
 2,020 survey respondents: faculty, graduate students,
postdocs, across all disciplines
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Importance of Factors in Selecting
Where to Publish
1. Quality and reputation of journal
2. Fit with scope of journal
3. Audience
4. Impact Factor
5. Likelihood of acceptance
6. Time from submission to publication
7. Editor or editorial board
8. Open Access
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
“Taken together, it is evident that reputation building within a specific field
is at the heart of what matters most to academic scholars.”

Author Willingness to Pay
 Personal Funds [Humanities: $0, Life Sciences: $250]
 Discretionary Research Funds [Humanities: $100, Life Sciences: $1000]
 Library OA Funds [Humanities: $100, Life Sciences: $2000]
 Grant Funds [Humanities: $100, Life Sciences: $2000]
Observation:
author discretion → incentive to economize
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Solomon & Björk
Mark McCabe
Greg Tananbaum
Mat Willmott
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Lots of Data!
 Library journal expenditures over 5 years (2009-2013)
 Publication data from Web of Science and Scopus over 5
years (2009-2013)
 Research funding data from HERD (except UBC)
 APC data from multiple sources
 Publisher revenue data
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

What Does it Cost to Publish?
 Cost Per Article: ~$500 to ~$2500
Depends on how it’s calculated, what’s included in publishing costs,
and publisher ‘fixed effects’
 plausible minimum CPA is $1,103 (including 13% surplus)
 $1,864 emerged as a defensible CPA, based on current OA
expenditures at partner institutions
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Current APCs
 APCs for fully OA journals (in which our authors
published) averaged $1,775 USD
 APCs for converted OA journals of major subscription
publishers averaged $1,825 USD
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
Solomon & Björk

Current APCs not very useful
 still fluctuating (new offsetting deals)
 driven by a few large OA publishers
 few large commercial publishers
 few in humanities & social sciences
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Break-even Costs: Example Library
Sample year = 2013
 Journal subscription budget: $4.02MM
 Published papers: 3,593
with associated grants: 2,492
without grants: 1,101
 Break-even APC Level
library budget only: $1,119
including grant funds: $3,651
Current average APC = $1,775 - $1,825; average CPA = $1,864
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Break-even Costs: Library Budgets
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
Institutions with high break-even level are smaller, less research-intensive universities with
lower ratio of grad students to undergraduates, higher ratio of teaching to research faculty,
more students per faculty member
$1775: Average APC for partner institution publications in full OA journals
Institutions with lower break-even level are more research-intensive universities with higher
ratio of grad students to undergraduates, higher ratio of research to teaching faculty, fewer
students per faculty member
Demographic data from IPEDS http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

Break-even APC: Grants Pay First
$1775: Average APC for
partner institution
publications in full OA
journals
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Future APC Estimation
Two distinct publisher types
 No correlation between “quality” and APC levels (lots of these now)
 Strong, positive correlation between “quality” and APCs (fewer but most major publishers)
Assume publishers will set APCs in relation to journal “quality”,
use IF/SNIP as “quality” proxy
Estimated APC = 1147 + 709.4 * SNIP
Baseline journal (SNIP=1.0) APC = $1,856
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Redirecting Library Budget
(example library, sample year)
 Journal subscription budget: $4.02MM
 Estimated APC Expenditure for 3,593 papers: $7.49MM
 Estimated APC Expenditure for 1,101 papers without
grants: $2.22MM
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

How to Achieve Sustainability?
“funding a journal with APCs is acceptable if authors do not have to pay the
money themselves.”
…
“I think this [OA Big Deals] is beginning to happen, and that publishers are finding
ways to create an APC-based market that will be as dysfunctional as the
subscription-based market is. The basic problem with APCs is that publishers can
charge what they like, knowing that if universities start to tell academics that they
must publish in cheaper journals, there will be an uproar about the perceived threat
to academic freedom. I have never seen a convincing explanation for how a
properly free market in APCs could work.”
Sir Tim Gowers, interview with Richard Poynder, 2016
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

How to Achieve Sustainability?
Behavioral Objective:
 Authors choose the “best” platform for their article, given the price of access, publication funding,
platform readership, quality of editors, etc.
 Publishers respond to elastic author demand by competing for submissions.
Claim:
 Under ideal conditions competition in an OA environment lowers cost of scholarly communication
 Many mitigating factors, e.g. platform ownership concentration, delegation of APC payment responsibility,
etc.
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Financial Model, Example 1
Set Library subsidy up to $1,164 (break-even cost)
 Library pays $4MM in subsidies (3,593 papers)
 Grant funds cover $2.5MM (2,492 papers)
 Author discretionary funds cover $1MM (1,101 papers)
 $1M increase to institution (+25%)
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Financial Model, Example 2
Set Library subsidy up to $1,857 (SNIP=1.0 journal APC)
 Library pays $6.4MM in subsidies for 3,593 papers (fully covers 1,188 papers)
 Grant funds cover $.8MM (1,739 papers)
 Author discretionary funds cover $.3MM (666 papers)
 $2.7MM increase to institution (+66%)
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Some Conclusions
 Future APCs not perfectly predictable, nor disciplinary
differences.
 But we can build crude estimations and improve them
over time
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Some Conclusions
 In North America, library journal budgets alone won’t
cover all APCs for research-intensive institutions
 But grant funding of authors at those institutions
could cover the difference
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Conclusions So Far
 Attitudes toward open access and APCs vary widely
between disciplines.
 But all authors are price sensitive and exhibit the
behavior we want, if they have discretion to choose
where to publish based on cost/quality.
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Some Conclusions
 Giving authors discretionary funds introduces APC
price competition, without interfering with author
choice in where to publish.
 This is the best chance to encourage a competitive
journal market, drive costs down over time.
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Future Work
 Concerns about under-resourced authors
 Disciplines without research funding
 Young scholars
 Global South
 Stakeholder involvement, e.g., library role in ensuring
preservation, mining rights, etc.
 Lack compliance tracking mechanisms
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Project Report, Bibliography, Data,
Tools
http://icis.ucdavis.edu/?page_id=713
Report: bit.ly/29dJcCv
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016

Total cost of ownership and flipped OA
Liam Earney, Jisc
14/07/2016

Total Cost of Ownership and Flipped Journals
Waiting for theGreat Leap Forward
14/07/2016
Jisc CNITCO and Flipped Journals 75

»Background
› APC based gold and the total cost of ownership
› Offsetting agreements
»Challenges
»Opportunities
› Indicators
› Sustainability and how we might promote it?
› The importance of international collaboration
»BeyondAPC based gold open access?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 76

The total cost of ownership
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 77
£0
£10,000
£20,000
£30,000
£40,000
£50,000
£60,000
£70,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
APCs
Subscription

39 51 66
401
1296
(500,000.00)
-
500,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
3,000,000.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
5 9
23
76
162
(50,000.00)
-
50,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
300,000.00
350,000.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
14 23 34
99
252
(100,000.00)
-
100,000.00
200,000.00
300,000.00
400,000.00
500,000.00
600,000.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
90 91 108
492
1200
(500,000.00)
-
500,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
3,000,000.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Elsevier - total APC cost
8 13 14
94
144
(100,000.00)
-
100,000.00
200,000.00
300,000.00
400,000.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Nature - total APC cost
40 35 51
173
300
(200,000.00)
-
200,000.00
400,000.00
600,000.00
800,000.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Oxford University Press - total APC
cost
8 12 16
75
228
(100,000.00)
-
100,000.00
200,000.00
300,000.00
400,000.00
500,000.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
4
16 11
68
198
(100,000.00)
(50,000.00)
-
50,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
300,000.00
350,000.00
400,000.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
3 2
7
21
54
(20,000.00)
-
20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
80,000.00
100,000.00
120,000.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Offsetting agreements
»Priorities
1. Cost efficiency - minimise/remove additional costs to institution
2. Compliance - help/enable institutions to comply with funder
policies regardless of whether they are choosing gold or green
3. Administrative efficiency - minimise the burden on institutions of
implementing and managing OA payment schemes
4. Transition - implementing schemes that facilitate a real and
sustainable transition to open access
One response to the actual increase in expenditure
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 79

Challenges and lessons
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 80

Challenges
»PR exercise or genuinely effective on costs and admin?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 81

Sustainability?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 82
“Article processing charges (APCs) and subscriptions - Monitoring open access costs” May 2016
Katie Shamash
https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/apcs-and-subscriptions
© Jisc Published under the CC BY 4.0 licence creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Challenges
»PR exercise or genuinely effective on costs and admin?
»Transparency or just a bigger big deal?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 83

Bigger big deal?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 84
28 institutions
39 institutions
40 institutions
£0.00
£500,000.00
£1,000,000.00
£1,500,000.00
£2,000,000.00
£2,500,000.00
£3,000,000.00
£3,500,000.00
2013 2014 2015
Total APC expenditure
Elsevier Wiley-Blackwell Nature Publishing Group Oxford University Press
Springer PLOS BioMed Central American Chemical Society
BMJ Taylor & Francis Frontiers

Challenges
»PR exercise or genuinely effective on costs and admin?
»Transparency or just a bigger big deal?
»Too many and/ineffective workflows
› Too much human interaction
› Poor communication – both to authors and OA managers
»Cost allocation within and across institutions
»Is there any evidence of price sensitivity from authors?
»What penalties are there for no offsetting agreement?
»Tensions between efficiency/transparency/cost?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 85

Opportunities
Sustainability and how we might promote it
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 86

The journal market
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 87
“Article processing charges (APCs) and subscriptions - Monitoring open access costs” May 2016
Katie Shamash
https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/apcs-and-subscriptions
© Jisc Published under the CC BY 4.0 licence creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Indicators of a market
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 88
28 institutions
39 institutions
40 institutions
£0.00
£500,000.00
£1,000,000.00
£1,500,000.00
£2,000,000.00
£2,500,000.00
£3,000,000.00
£3,500,000.00
2013 2014 2015
Total APC expenditure
Elsevier Wiley-Blackwell Nature Publishing Group Oxford University Press
Springer PLOS BioMed Central American Chemical Society
BMJ Taylor & Francis Frontiers

Indicators of a market
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 89
“Article processing charges (APCs) and subscriptions - Monitoring open access costs” May 2016
Katie Shamash
https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/apcs-and-subscriptions
© Jisc Published under the CC BY 4.0 licence creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

A flipped model
The SpringerCompact agreement
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 90

A flipped model
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 91
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Standard Model Flipped Model
Subscriptions Publishing/APCs
Unlimited?
Capped

Open Access and subscription article in Springer Compact
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 92

Promoting sustainability
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 93

Steps to promote sustainability?
»Limit use of research funding to pure gold?
› Or place conditions on use of funds in hybrid journals
»Encourage greater participation in negotiations
»Preference in negotiations/purchasing for models that shift to OA
»Greater support for Green in OA policies
»Development and adopt a fuller range of quality indicators
»Support small, society publishers, close to the academic
community, explore innovative business models
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 94

The importance of international cooperation
From open access in one country to international
sustainability?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 95

Market
transformed
(Open Access)
After an OA
transformation
Global level view
96
The global scholarly journal market
and its financial dimensions
Scenario of transformation based on current global operating numbers per year
An OA transformation seems to be possible without financial risks
Market today
(subscription)
Total budget
7.6 bn €
1.5 M scholarly
articles in WoS;
up to ~2 M overall
5,000 €/article WoS;
3,800 €/article overall
Base budget
4 bn € plus
~45% buffer
2 M scholary articles 2,000 €/article1)
based on realistic APC expectations1)
available for new & improved services, remaining subscriptions etc.
Jisc CNI TCO and FlippedJournals
14/07/2016

7.6 bn EUR
Remaining subscription
budget 10%(~0.8 bn EUR)
Open Access volume:
~14% of articles;
~4% of budget
Global level view
97
Transformation means re-allocation of budgets and conversion of
journals and processes
2.8 bn EUR buffer for
new & improved
services etc.
(without remaining
subscriptions)
Global
open access journal
base budget
4 bn EUR p.a.
(2,000 €/article)
Assuming 90% conversion
Global
subscription journal
budget
7.6 bn EUR p.a.
(≥3,800 EUR/article)
14/07/2016
Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals

Should APC-based Gold open access be the target?
»One target in the near/medium term
»Is APC narrative and experience harmful to OA?
»Should APCs be regarded as transitional/experimental?
»Do APCs address the fundamental issue of ‘control’?
»Could membership models be more sustainable and
attractive?
› What does membership include?
› How do ‘we’ participate in governance?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 98

jisc.ac.uk
Thank you
Liam Earney
Director, Jisc Collections
liam.earney@jisc.ac.uk
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 99

Open access progress and sustainability14/07/2016