Open access (OA) is shaping the future of scientific publishing, and we are doing everything in our power to build an open future that works for all. This includes developing services that, whether you publish the process-management skills or manage the entire process, will help you make important research more accessible. Because it takes a while to change a subscription-based model, you get a discount built into your contract. If your institution has a Springer Compact agreement, you can publish your Open Access article – free for you – in more than 1,850 Springer hybrid magazines. In addition, you have full access to all Springer subscription log content. In the field of scientific publishing, economic models have developed by magazine. While some magazines are primarily funded by subscriptions (usually libraries), others are primarily funded by publication fees (i.e., authors and their promotional organizations pay for open access). Other newspapers use a hybrid model that includes both subscriptions and PPCs (open access item processing fees). A recent development, which has developed over the past two years, is based on the idea that contracts between institutions and publishers could change over time. Increasingly, institutions are calling for a sustainable transition to open access to research on a global scale. And this is where read Publish and Publish – Read Agreements come into play.
. While I do not agree with Adam`s general point – for many reasons that others are sure to point out – this is an interesting point (which was also raised in the interview with Mandy Hill and Chris Bennett, but from the publisher`s point of view): what will make these agreements a long-term success for libraries? In addition to contractual transformation agreements between publishers and libraries, there are also a number of other models that wish to support open access publishing through various processing mechanisms. While I have not discussed these other approaches here, they are well described in Section 4 of Towards Transitions Strategies and Business Models for Society Publishers who want to accelerate open access and Plan S. Some of these mechanisms could be followed at the same time as transformation agreements, while others would exclude them. And what is more fundamental is that lowering authors` fees is an implicit endorsement of the APC scheme, which is deeply flawed, which lowers barriers for readers to set them up for authors. The categorization is not based on price, but on the elements of the contract. Look at the contracts and note (1) there is a fee for reading and (2) is there a fee for publication? If only the first one is a traditional subscription contract. If only the latest, a PAR.
If both, a RAP. It`s a useful analysis. But is the emperor well dressed? Do libraries really want what is available to them? The institutional logic of these agreements seems to be opposed to selection and editorial investment. On the academic side, the agreement will look like a “better deal” for California (or Norway) when more documents are published on the publishing platform and it is not known why publishers want to hold back. On the publishing side, it seems that in the case of annual payment, there are every reason to minimize costs or editorial investments and to look for short-haul and minimize cure costs. Doesn`t it feel sustainable, or do I miss something? The report is approaching the future of scientific publication on a series of four scenarios that represent the “dominant” economic models of the scientific publishing system.