The Illusion of Inclusion? Reassessing the Equity of Transformative Agreements in Open Access Publishing

by

Table of Contents

Open Access and the Search for Sustainable Funding

The open access (OA) movement was founded on a simple but transformative principle: scholarly knowledge, particularly research supported by public funding, should be freely accessible to everyone. Over the past two decades, this vision has reshaped scholarly communication by reducing barriers to reading, increasing the visibility of research, and encouraging broader collaboration across disciplines and national borders. Numerous studies published in the likes of Scientometrics and PLOS have shown that openly accessible research reaches wider audiences and often receives greater public and academic engagement than subscription-only publications. 

Yet expanding access to research is only one part of the equation. Equally important is determining how the costs of publishing should be distributed. As publishers, libraries, funding agencies, and researchers have sought sustainable financial models, Transformative Agreements (TAs) have emerged as one of the most influential mechanisms supporting the transition from subscription-based publishing to OA.

Transformative Agreements have undoubtedly accelerated the growth of OA publishing. However, they have also prompted important questions about equity, market competition, and the long-term sustainability of scholarly publishing. Rather than dismissing these agreements outright, it is worth examining both their achievements and their limitations to determine whether they are creating a truly inclusive publishing ecosystem.

Why Transformative Agreements Gain Widespread Support

Most Transformative Agreements follow a “Publish and Read” model negotiated between publishers and university library consortia. Instead of paying separately for journal subscriptions and Article Processing Charges (APCs), participating institutions combine these costs into a single agreement. Researchers affiliated with participating institutions can then publish eligible articles as OA without paying APCs individually.

This model offers several clear advantages.

For researchers, the administrative and financial burden of paying APCs is significantly reduced. Libraries gain greater certainty over publishing costs while continuing to provide access to subscription content during the transition to open access. Funding agencies also benefit because researchers can more easily comply with mandates requiring immediate OA publication.

Large national agreements, including Germany’s Project DEAL and similar initiatives in several European countries, have substantially increased the proportion of openly accessible research published by participating institutions. These outcomes explain why many universities and funding bodies regard Transformative Agreements as an effective transitional strategy.

Nevertheless, success in increasing OA output does not necessarily mean the model addresses broader questions of global equity.

Market Concentration and the Future of Scholarly Publishing

One of the most frequently discussed concerns surrounding Transformative Agreements is their potential effect on market competition.

To date, most large-scale agreements have been negotiated with a relatively small group of multinational commercial publishers. While these publishers manage many of the world’s most influential journals, the concentration of institutional spending within a limited number of publishing companies has raised questions about whether existing market structures are being reinforced rather than diversified. 

University library budgets are finite. When a significant proportion of these budgets is committed to multi-year Transformative Agreements, fewer resources may remain available to support alternative publishing initiatives. These include scholar-led Diamond OA journals, society-owned publishing programmes, institutional publishing platforms, community-operated preprint servers, and open-source publishing infrastructure.

This does not imply that Transformative Agreements are inherently harmful. Rather, it suggests that policymakers and libraries should carefully consider whether excessive reliance on a single funding model could unintentionally reduce investment in other forms of scholarly communication that contribute to a diverse and resilient publishing ecosystem.

Do Transformative Agreements Promote Global Inclusion?

Perhaps the most significant criticism of Transformative Agreements concerns their dependence on institutional affiliation.

Researchers employed by universities that participate in these agreements often enjoy seamless OA publishing without directly paying APCs. By contrast, scholars working at institutions that lack such agreements, independent researchers, and many academics in lower-income countries may continue to face substantial financial barriers to publication.

This disparity does not necessarily result from the agreements themselves but from differences in institutional resources. Wealthier universities are generally better positioned to negotiate comprehensive publishing contracts than smaller or less-resourced institutions. Consequently, opportunities to publish through these arrangements are distributed unevenly across the global research community.

Many commercial publishers offer waiver and discount programmes for authors from low-income countries, and these initiatives provide valuable support. However, eligibility criteria vary considerably, middle-income countries often receive limited assistance, and independent researchers may still encounter financial obstacles. As a result, concerns about unequal participation remain part of the broader discussion surrounding OA funding.

Rather than creating inequality, Transformative Agreements may, in some contexts, reflect and amplify inequalities that already exist within global research funding systems.

The Relationship Between Funder Mandates and APC Prices

Another important issue concerns the interaction between OA mandates and publishing economics.

Policies such as Plan S have accelerated the adoption of immediate OA by requiring publicly funded research to be made freely available. These mandates have undoubtedly increased the availability of openly accessible scholarship and have encouraged publishers to expand their OA offerings. 

At the same time, some researchers have questioned whether the rapid expansion of Gold OA has contributed to sustained increases in APC prices. Evidence suggests that APCs have generally risen over time, although the reasons are complex and remain the subject of ongoing debate. Publisher pricing strategies, journal prestige, editorial costs, competition, inflation, and changes in research funding all influence APC levels. 

For this reason, it would be overly simplistic to attribute APC inflation solely to Transformative Agreements or funder mandates. They are better understood as one part of a broader economic environment in which multiple factors shape publishing costs.

Beyond Transformative Agreements: Building a More Inclusive Publishing Ecosystem

The debate surrounding Transformative Agreements should not be framed as a choice between supporting or rejecting them. Instead, the more productive question is how they can evolve alongside other publishing models to promote a more equitable scholarly communication system.

Several practical measures could strengthen this transition.

Libraries and consortia could increase transparency around the costs and outcomes of Transformative Agreements, enabling more informed public evaluation. Negotiators might encourage publishers to expand waiver programmes for authors without institutional support and to develop more consistent eligibility criteria across countries and researcher groups.

At the same time, governments, universities, and funding agencies could dedicate a proportion of their scholarly communication budgets to community-owned publishing infrastructure. Sustainable investment in Diamond OA journals, institutional publishing services, open-source publishing platforms, and shared digital infrastructure would help diversify the publishing landscape rather than concentrating resources within a limited number of commercial providers.

Finally, regular independent assessments of Transformative Agreements could evaluate not only publication volumes but also broader indicators such as cost-effectiveness, market diversity, author inclusion, and global accessibility. Such evaluations would provide a stronger evidence base for future policy decisions.

Toward an Open Access System That Benefits Everyone

Transformative Agreements have played a significant role in accelerating the transition toward OA publishing. For many researchers, they have simplified compliance with funder requirements and removed individual financial barriers to publication. These achievements should not be overlooked.

However, no single funding model can resolve the complex challenges of global scholarly communication. Questions surrounding market concentration, unequal institutional participation, and the long-term sustainability of alternative publishing models deserve continued attention from publishers, libraries, funders, and policymakers alike.

The future of open access is unlikely to depend on one solution. Instead, it will require a balanced ecosystem in which Transformative Agreements, Diamond open access, society publishing, institutional platforms, and community-owned infrastructure complement one another. By combining these approaches thoughtfully and evaluating them with robust evidence rather than ideology, the scholarly community can move closer to an OA system that is not only more accessible, but also more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable.

Leave a comment