As funding tightens and universities re-evaluate what , the urgency of reforming scholarly publishing and its costs has become overwhelming.

That is what the UK¡¯s academic and research communities are working together to achieve. The developed in partnership with the sector by Jisc, the UK higher education¡¯s technology body, offers a blueprint for how collective negotiation and new models can drive meaningful change.

Aligned with for a ¡°whole-sector approach¡± to control costs and drive digital transformation, Jisc has long negotiated with publishers on universities¡¯ behalf to deliver greater value across a diverse institutional landscape. In , we secured sector-wide savings totalling ?500 million through national negotiations on content and software subscriptions, compared with what the costs would have been if the licences had been bought independently.

Nevertheless, continued growth in article volume is placing ever greater pressure on university budgets ¨C not to mention on reviewers¡¯ time. And our upcoming negotiations with the big five academic publishers ¨C Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Sage and Taylor & Francis ¨C must reflect that. Those publishers collectively account for 43 per cent of UK-published journal articles and 29 per cent of global output; currently, UK universities and research institutes spend more than ?112 million annually on agreements with them.

91ÇÑ×Ó

It is important to remember, too, that universities and academics also make indirect contributions to publishers¡¯ revenues. A estimated that UK academics contribute?$391 million worth of unpaid labour?annually through peer reviewing alone. These non-cash contributions are essential to the functioning of the scholarly publishing system yet are often overlooked in discussions about cost and value.

Publishers¡¯ business models are increasingly tied to ongoing expansion in the volume of journal articles published. Such expansion is used to justify increases in the subscription fees, and, in the case of open-access journals, drive revenue derived from the article processing charges (APCs) that are normally paid by the author through institutional or grant funding.

91ÇÑ×Ó

While greater open access is to be welcomed, APC- and volume-driven models are not sustainable and risk deepening inequalities between researchers, further disadvantaging those without access to grants or institutional funding. For open access to succeed, it must enable a broader pool of researchers to benefit from the that comes with publishing openly.

To address these challenges, Jisc has in recent years negotiated transitional agreements (TAs) with publishers. By combining reading and publishing fees, these allow unlimited open-access publishing by all researchers at participating institutions for a fixed fee ¨C saving UK institutions ?17.9 million in 2022 alone, compared with what it would have cost them to publish the same volume of open-access research via standard APC methods.

However, the sustainability of TAs is under pressure. While they have helped offset the effects of escalating APC costs and a 35 per cent increase in global article output between 2018 and 2023, their underlying model remains tied to article volume. As a result, costs continue to rise, and many institutions are still struggling to keep up. Hence, the progress made in broadening access could be at risk without a shift towards more transparent, inclusive agreements that avoid tying publisher revenue to the volume of research published.

Volume-driven publishing also poses a threat to research integrity. Universities are not blameless in this: researchers around the world face pressure to publish frequently to secure funding and advance their careers. This ¡°publish or perish¡± culture has contributed to questionable practices, including plagiarism, data falsification and the use of paper mills.

91ÇÑ×Ó

But journals profit from the resulting influx of papers, and more must be done to address the deluge of . A good example of the extent of the issues is brand that it had bought only two years earlier amid concerns that the company¡¯s 200 open-access journals had been publishing papers written by paper mills.

Jisc is pushing for agreements built around publishing business models that prioritise quality, sustainability and trust. Open research practices lie at the heart of this shift, embracing the full research life cycle ¨C from initial study design and data collection through to analysis, interpretation and dissemination.

By ensuring that methods and data are transparent, reproducible and equitably shared, this approach not only strengthens research integrity but broadens participation. Enabling more researchers to share their data, methods and findings openly is essential to tackling issues such as data fraud and publication bias ¨C challenges that publishers must now prioritise.

Our focus on open research supports the emphasis of (REF 2029) on fostering inclusive, ethical and sustainable research cultures. Our programmes provide institutions with decision-making tools that support the assessment of open-access offers against key principles of collaboration, transparency, inclusivity, digital resilience and research integrity.

91ÇÑ×Ó

We have already embedded tools such as the to provide institutions with the information they need to make informed spending decisions, shifting more of the sector¡¯s investment towards business models that enable everyone to read and to publish research openly. Moreover, financially sustainable models will make it easier for a broader range of research-producing organisations, such as NHS trusts and charities, to join Jisc-negotiated agreements.

It has never been more vital to rebalance our investment towards publishers and infrastructure that support sustainable publishing practices and sever the link between profit and article volume. Doing so would not only aid university budgets but help build an open research environment that works for all.

91ÇÑ×Ó

is head of research licensing at Jisc. The consultation period, during which the sector reviews publishers¡¯ proposals, began this week.