Report on the JISC Collections Workshop: ‘Open Access Fees and the Hybrid Journal’

Report on the

JISC Collections

Workshop:

‘Open Access

Fees and the

Hybrid Journal’

May 25

2011

On 25 May 2011, JISC Collections organized a workshop for all the

major stakeholders to discuss the commercial, organizational and

administrative issues around the transition to open access models for

scholarly journal publishing, particularly the future of the hybrid model.

This report captures the discussion and debate that took place.

JISC Collections Hybrid OA Workshop Page 2

DEFINITIONS OF SELECTED TERMINOLOGY USED IN THE WORKSHOP

Hybrid Journal: a journal where some articles are open access (OA)

Gold OA: OA immediately in the published version of record, either in hybrid OA journals

or in OA-only journals.

Article Processing Charge (APC): the fee charged by a publisher to cover the costs of

making an article immediately open access

Transitional: In the context of this report, transitional means moving from a wholly

subscription business model to a wholly OA business model (Gold OA)

JISC Collections Workshop

Report on the Open Access Fees and the Hybrid Journal

25 May 2011, One Great George Street, London

On 25 May 2011, JISC Collections hosted a one-day workshop entitled ‘Open Access Fees and the

Hybrid Journal’. The workshop brought together research funders, publishers and librarians and was

designed to seek the views of those attending regarding the future direction of the hybrid open

access publishing model in the context of the overall development of open access publishing. The

programme for the day can be found in Appendix 1.

The workshop was the culmination of three separate strands of work undertaken by JISC Collections

in the area of OA: the first focused on administration and payment of article processing charges

(APCs) from the institutional perspective; the second sought to establish the extent of Gold OA

publishing in UK higher education and tested the feasibility of creating a database of published

articles; and the third put the hybrid model under scrutiny and attempted to establish whether it

was a transitional or an optional model.

The first session on the programme was chaired by Bev Acreman from Biomed Central and

comprised representatives from three publishers:

Natasha White, Wiley-Blackwell


David Hoole, Nature Publishing Group

Steven Hall, IOP Publishing

Each made a brief presentation, having been asked in advance to consider some of the following:

- What is the hybrid model?

- Is it a permanent fixture in the landscape?

- Can Gold OA, subscription and hybrid models co-exist?

- How might the future look?

Natasha White reported that Wiley-Blackwell had just launched two fully gold open access journals

to complement the subscription options. However, they have offered a hybrid option, Online Open,

for a number of years and this model now covers 20% of their subscription journal publishing

programme. Their aim is to make the Online Open option available for all their journals.

In terms of size and scale, Natasha reported that Wiley-Blackwell published 120,000 articles in 2010

of which 0.5% were under the hybrid model. This represents a 16% increase on the corresponding

figure for 2009.

The average APC for Online Open articles is $3,000.

At the moment the number of researchers taking advantage of Online Open is relatively modest, at

5% in 2010. The majority of these authors (57%) are from the life sciences, with a further 37% from

health science. Most authors taking advantage of Online Open are from the UK (27%), followed by

the US (18%), Germany (8%) and Japan (6%).

Wiley-Blackwell’s new fully open access titles are publishing in the areas of life, health, physical and

social sciences, with APCs ranging from $1,480 to $2,500. Authors publishing in these journals will

retain copyright and the articles will be published under Creative Commons licences. Wiley-Blackwell

offers rapid publication (following full peer review) and manuscript transfer from other journals,

where partners such as society publishers recommend the article to be made available in open

access. In Natasha’s view, this is a good way to help society publishers engage and experiment with

open access without too much risk.

Wiley-Blackwell has launched institutional and funder sales models (similar to those operated by

PLoS One) so that authors do not have to worry about administration of APCs . Wiley open access

accounts allow institutions to pay upfront for articles published by their researchers and the


partnership fee allows institutions to pay a flat rate annual fee based on the number of faculty FTEs

at their institutions. To facilitate the process, authors at the institution qualify for a 15% discount on

the APC.

Natasha explained that Wiley-Blackwell has been required to do a lot of back office work to

implement effective payment systems. The publisher has experienced problems in the past in the

collection of money for APCs in hybrid models. New work flows and new staff dealing solely with

open access publications are now in place.

Natasha’s personal view is that the hybrid model is here to stay, but as an optional rather than a

transitional model. She pointed out that it would be difficult to convert subscription titles, because

they support business overall and allow the company to develop.

Natasha also pointed out that the funding for open access charges is the main barrier to authors

taking up the option. The other barrier, from the publishers’ perspective, is the gathering up of APCs,

and she would like to see intermediaries operating in this area, rather as subscription agents do

currently for subscription charges.

David Hoole reported that Nature Publishing Group (NPG) has embraced open access where it

makes sense. For example, it stopped requesting copyright transfer from authors a long time ago

and encourages authors to self-archive. NPG publishes around 90 journals, of which 38 operate on

the hybrid model and eight are fully gold. Some NPG hybrid titles have seen slightly over 10% take-

up by authors, with APCs varying between $1350 and $5000.

This year NPG will launch Scientific Reports, an online open access peer-reviewed journal that will

publish research covering biology, chemistry, earth sciences and physics. This will provide a fast-

track option for authors rejected by other titles.

While NPG tries to extend open access to as many journals as possible, it has not been possible on

Nature-branded titles where the rejection rate is very high (90%) and there is a large editorial

investment. APCs for these titles would be between £10,000 and £30,000.

NPG reduced the subscription fees required for access to the EMBO journal and EMBO reports by 9%

in 2010, reflecting the increased publication of OA content in 2008. However, as a result, the group

made a loss of half a million dollars, but is still accused by some of ‘double dipping’. David pointed

out that a focus on reducing subscription fees in relation to the percentage of OA papers can be

misleading because editorial content varies across titles; he also observed that the trend in authors

opting for OA is not yet predictable. He questioned whether subscription pricing should be linked to


percentages or volumes, and asked if libraries would prefer a gradual, more predictable decline in

subscription fees, or real-time changes with the potential for up and down variations. However, he

anticipated that four of NPG’s titles would see a significant change in price in 2012 as a result of

increases in APC revenue.

When publishing OA papers, NPG offers authors a choice of derivative or ‘no derivatives allowed’

Creative Commons licences, but have found that 70% of authors don’t agree to derivatives. He

suggested that this is because at the point of publication some authors want to protect commercial

opportunities, while still remaining compliant with funders’ policies. However, those wishing to

create derivatives can, on an individual basis, seek permission.

NPG encourages self-archiving and this has resulted in around 70–80% of papers being openly

available. NPG is working with funders who mandate self-archiving and has built a system to

facilitate green self-archiving.

In conclusion, David suggested that the hybrid model should not be seen as transitional, partly

because not all authors have the funding to publish under it and also because some societies do not

want to offer an open access model.

Steven Hall explained that until now IOP Publishing‘s policy had been either fully open access (with

seven such titles currently available) or subscription, but no hybrid journals. However, as of June

2011, the company is introducing a hybrid OA publishing option for 23 of its subscription-based

journals. Authors will now be able to make the final versions of their articles freely available upon

publication. This hybrid open access model was developed to support authors who want to publish

on an open access basis, or who are mandated to do so by their funding bodies. Articles will be

published under a Creative Commons Licence.

Steven said that IOP Publishing will take revenue from APCs fully into account when setting prices

for their subscription journals, to ensure that publication costs are not paid twice, through

subscription and APCs. However, he suggested that the current clause in the NESLi2 licence,

requesting that publishers reduce subscription fees directly in proportion to the number of open

access articles published, is overly simplistic and makes the assumption that costs are based on the

number of articles published. For example, the number of OA articles may be 10% in year one and

12% in year two, but the number of subscription articles may have grown at an even greater rate. In

IOP Publishing’s top-tier journals, five articles are peer-reviewed for every one article published, and

this is increasing every year because of the increase in research output. Steven also noted that IOP


Publishing has made a significant investment in back office systems to enable it to accept and

process open access fees in hybrid journals.

Steven pointed out that the NESLi2 model licence and the licence used by one of the German

consortia also requires a discounted publication fee to be offered to authors from a subscribing

institution. Again, he suggested that this was an overly simplistic view and that it would be difficult

to decide who was to receive the discount on a multi-authored article.

Steven said that this workshop was timely and a welcome opportunity to discuss these issues.

However, he highlighted the fact that in 2010 only around 50,000 articles (3% of the global total)

were funded for open access, and hybrid journals accounted for only 1% of these. So at the moment

the percentage of OA articles in hybrid journals is very small and there is a long way to go before it

fundamentally changes the big picture. Thus it should be no surprise that we are currently seeing

very little impact on subscription prices from the very small number of hybrid open access articles. .

Steven’s key point was that while publishers are open to these business models, their success as

transitional models is not in the gift of publishers but in the hands of the funding agencies. Currently

the wording about open access mandates is too vague and a significant change is required from the

funding agencies if the UK is to make the transition to open access publication of its research output.

We should also be mindful that even if UK funding agencies changed their policy, the outputs from

the UK are only a small percentage of the global output, with the US and China providing the lion’s

share. So if the hybrid model is to be a transitional model, a global change is required.

Open discussion

The speakers and delegates discussed the issues raised and the views expressed by the publishers.

The main discussion points were as follows:

There are still readers/users of scholarly communications who do not have access to the literature

because of the subscription barrier.

In response it was pointed out that most publishers provide site licences so that more people than

ever before have access in an institutional setting. Those who are unable to benefit from

institutional licensing have other options, such as document supply and access to self-archived

articles. Both Wiley-Blackwell and Nature Publishing Group are experimenting with DeepDyve,

providing users with the opportunity to rent an article for 24 hours at relatively low cost. Use is not

huge yet, which might indicate that the number of people struggling for access to scholarly


communications is not huge either. Another factor is that abstracts are generally freely available and

in many cases will be enough for the reader’s purposes.

Article processing charges in hybrid journals can be high – as much as $5000 – and this can be a

barrier to take-up of the option.

It was pointed out that the charges are high because of the expense of running two systems: one for

the subscription model and one for OA, although publishers also pointed to what they describe as

the very real costs of providing high-quality publishing services.

At what point would publishers reduce subscription fees as a result of OA revenue, and is this

predicated on maintaining profits?

The response was that subscribers and authors have choices, and that offering choice has an impact

on profit. Publishers will have to explore models, as any business does, to maintain profitability;

working out the reduction in subscription fees is not a simple model. It was also pointed out that

uptake of OA models is still very modest, and a number of other factors also influence pricing, so

there is not (yet) much noticeable impact on subscription fees.

Research councils allow APCs to be recouped via direct costs if they are incurred during the lifetime of

a grant. What do publishers recommend the councils and other funding agencies to do to encourage

greater uptake?

It was pointed out that funding agencies in some countries have an account with open access

publishers to pay for APCs. This has the advantage that authors do not have to actively opt in: the

publisher identifies them, contacts the funder and adds the charge to a funder’s bill. This is good for

authors because they do not have to worry about obtaining specific funds for publication and it

provides full compliance.

There was quite a lot of agreement that publishers also need to capture in their metadata the

information that funding agencies require, such as research grants numbers, and that there was a

potential role for CrossRef here. There is also a need for a metadata field available to aggregation

services that shows whether an article in a Hybrid journal is published with the author pays option.

If we are going to see a transition, there is a problem surrounding the moving of money from libraries

to the funding organizations and additional costs of transition. Will this result in a reduction in library

funding, and how would that work at a national level, let alone a global one?


It is important to develop an infrastructure – such as exists in the subscription model – where there

are intermediaries who can handle the flow of money. This needs to be given some thought,

especially as the majority of publishers have no infrastructure to cope with so-called micropayments

– perhaps there is a role for subscription agents, central licensing agencies or a new type of

intermediary. Some publishers have spoken to subscription agents about this, but they are waiting

to see how the new model develops before committing investment.

It was pointed out that providing such a service would require a large investment on the part of the

intermediaries and perhaps there is space for new entrants. One delegate announced that his

company has developed and is about to launch a platform to handle APC payments. Another pointed

out that $5000 would not be thought of as a micropayment in any other industry, and that there are

mechanisms already in place to handle automated payments.

Is there a branding problem – if an author is rejected from one journal and transferred to one with an

open access option and asked to pay, is it possible that it will be seen as second rate?

It was pointed out that this practice of transferring articles has been going on for years, but some

announcements have put a negative light on it. However, journals such as PLoS ONE provide a good

brand image and high impact.

How can an established journal make a transition to fully open access, when the high levels and

associated cost of rejection are taken into account?

Delegates agreed that this is an issue, and that APCs need to be able to sustain not just the cost of

publication but the rigorous cost of peer review and rejection. There was also a suggestion that peer

review could be handled differently and that the practices evolving by some of the born open access

journals indicate that transition may be different and perhaps more disruptive than we had

imagined. Nonetheless, the question remains about who pays, and if the costs of publishing need to

be as high as they are in order to sustain quality levels.

The second session, chaired by Michael Jubb from Research Information Network (RIN), invited a

wider range of stakeholders to share their views. The panel consisted of:

Alicia Wise, Elsevier

Robert Kiley, Wellcome Trust

Catriona Cannon, Oxford University Library Services

Steve Byford, Society for Endocrinology & BioScientifica


The themes for this session centred on whether the hybrid model was a transitional or an optional

one. If transitional, how will the transition be effected and what are the conditions for its success

according to all stakeholders? If optional, what conditions are required to integrate it successfully

into the scholarly publishing process?

Alicia Wise opened by saying that she was open minded about whether the hybrid model was

transitional or optional, noting that both held challenges and opportunities for every stakeholder.

She was keen to stress the need for stakeholders to work in collaboration to establish a shared

framework that would achieve the vision of universal access, while ensuring the quality and

sustainability of the scholarly communication system. She argued that there needs to be a clearer

understanding of what we want to solve and what values we want to retain. In her opinion, events

such as this workshop provide a rare opportunity to discuss these issues. Current research indicates

that academics are largely satisfied with the level of access they have to articles, but there are other

areas where satisfaction is not high, particularly datasets. Although the focus of the day was on one

model, there were other pressing issues to be addressed, such as the possibilities offered by text and

data mining and the problems of accessibility.

Alicia pointed to a wide range of business models that may improve universal access: open access,

philanthropy, transactional purchase and, of course, subscription. Elsevier is actively working on the

OA hybrid model with 750 of its journals and aims to increase this to 1,000 journals later this year; it

is also interested in further exploration of delayed access models and hopes shortly to carry out a

pilot in this area. In addition, Elsevier is looking at other innovations such as DeepDyve as a way of

providing access for the public.

In conclusion, Alicia noted that it is easiest to partner when there is a clear shared vision, an inclusive

approach, an evidence base and willingness to trial and pilot models. Attention to research

productivity is also essential: the issue is not just about who pays but about the sort of services

researchers require for innovation.

Robert Kiley was clear that Wellcome considers the hybrid model to be transitional. It demonstrates

that there is a revenue stream to allow publishers to move from subscription, where the issues of

reuse and access exist, to one where reuse is allowed and there are no restrictions on access.

Furthermore, the hybrid model will ensure that scholarly outputs are open, that they are used and

reused to a greater extent than when they are behind a subscription barrier. However, to ensure

that the hybrid model is a transition to full open access, four things are essential:


1. Funding. This is of paramount importance; funding agencies need to make clear that the

hybrid is a transitional model, provided that the licence for the open access material

allows for derivative use and text mining.

2. Financial transparency. Robert accepted that there may not be a simple single formula, but

maintained that publishers have to demonstrate to the research community that

there is a link between subscription prices and APCs.

3. Making it easy for money to move from funder to publisher. There are successful

mechanisms in the online world and hopefully services will be built or adapted to

facilitate open access payments.

4. Reducing the significant delay between the APC being paid and the final article being

published online. Currently this may take as much as 12 months.

Catriona Cannon pointed out that in developing new models all stakeholders need to be considered.

For example, at the University of Oxford, the contribution that Oxford University Press makes to the

university needs to be balanced with the fact that many of its academics are also large contributors

to and users of journals.

Catriona questioned whether the hybrid model makes best use of institutional resources, because of

the possibility of paying twice: the library having to pay a subscription and the author paying to

publish in the same journal, along with the overheads of running two systems. She also pointed out

that the hybrid model does not necessarily provide the best service or experience to users – users

access an article that is available openly in a hybrid journal and then are confused and frustrated

when they can’t read the rest of the articles in the journal.

Catriona argued that in order for change to happen, a fundamental shift from journal to article-level

access is required and she welcomed the fully OA journal which demonstrates we have reached a

tipping point. Related to this is the need for an acceptance of e-only models and the efficiencies they

bring; librarians need to use their influence to promote this argument. The current duplication of

effort in maintaining both print and online is not helpful.

Finally she pointed out that universities need to set up institutional funds for the payment of APCs

and pointed to the good work being done in this area at the University of Nottingham. Catriona

believes that the period of transition to open access will be more expensive and that the material

budgets may move away from libraries, but that this should not stop us from doing it.


Steve Byford said that he has from the outset seen the hybrid model as having the potential to be

transitional but now had serious doubts as to whether this could be achieved.

Going back to the ’00s, the society believed that some journals published under the Gold OA model

had the potential to be more sustainable than the subscription model as library budgets were unable

to meet the increase in research output. Funding for the dissemination of research would scale with

funding for the research itself if an allowance for it were instead included within the research grant.

It also was hoped that a transition to open access, linked to a more even market place, would enable

society publishers to be more competitive.

However, early financial modelling exposed huge risks because even subtle variations in the price of

an article processing charge could affect author take-up and this in turn could sensitively affect the

resulting impact on the subscriber base and consequent subscription revenues.

When the society saw the results of other publishers’ experiments they were able to narrow the

likely range of scenarios and were reassured. The society started a hybrid model for all of its journals

but take-up has been very low at around 5%, and is not increasing. The major obstacle is authors’

access to funds, even when mandated by a research funder, for example.

Despite the guidelines published by RIN and UUK providing key recommendations on paying for

open access, the difficulties persist. An article by Stuart Shieber in PLoS Biology provides a rationale

for supporting institutional fees, but with the caveat that hybrid journals should be excluded on the

basis that they are already fully funded. If that argument gains influence it will be a barrier to OA,

because how else are established publishers going to make the transition?

Steve concluded that for the hybrid model to succeed in making the transition to fully Gold OA,

availability of and access to funding are essential. He also suggested that for journals in transition,

libraries need to continue to support the subscription even when a high proportion of the content

becomes free, in order to help the publisher manage the potential variables in revenue.

Jill Taylor-Roe from the University of Newcastle was unable to attend the event in person but sent

an email offering her perspective. This was read out by Michael Jubb and is summarized here.

As currently configured, the hybrid has to be a transitional model, and a pretty cumbersome one at

that. OA in hybrid journals often looks and behaves like a grudgingly offered bolt-on and it is clear

from the problems we experience that traditional publishers are simply not set up to manage article

publication in this way. Typical problems include:


• Long delays in presenting invoices.

• Mispostings and muddling of payments, leading to our being chased for payments which

have already been made.

• Failure to implement OA, despite having taken payment, which often requires the library

to chase the publisher persistently over several months before OA is truly effected.

Some of the worst offenders have been the big publishers.

Perhaps the three most important things needed to help effect the transition are:

More transparent and effective systems for processing payments: we should look at how the

truly OA publishers do it and learn from them.

Standardized pricing: we’ve seen article processing fees varying from £800 to £6,000 – it

can’t all be explained away by such factors as article length and number of images included.

Better data collection and reporting on the percentage of OA articles within particular

journals, so that we can see how the overall shape of the journal is changing over time.

Linked to this, we need evidence of reductions in standard subscription costs in line with

revenue accrued from OA publication. The perception of publisher double dipping really

irritates librarians, especially in the tougher fiscal climate.

In Jill’s opinion, if these issues were properly addressed there would be potential for hybrid OA to

become a fully functioning optional model, rather than just a staging post on the journey towards

fully OA journals.

Open discussion

The speakers and delegates discussed the issues raised by the panellists. The main points were as

follows:

The infrastructure we have at the moment [to handle APCs] is cumbersome. What are the key

changes that need to be made both library side and publisher side?

It was noted that problems with the infrastructure can be addressed; more fundamental issues are

funding and the need for a change in the attitude of academics. A delegate from a library agreed

that academics were central but felt that organizations that embrace change could be successful.

There needs to be a shift in infrastructure to enable open access, because the current system, with

libraries trying to squeeze more out of limited funds, is unsustainable


It was also pointed out that we may see libraries buying less, but focusing on higher quality/high

usage journals, with a move to bite-size pieces and pay-per-use for other articles.

On the subject of charges, one delegate argued that APCs for publishing in fully open access journals

are usually less than those in the hybrid options. Thus the hybrid option shows little evidence of

growth. In contrast, born open access journals have seen a spectacular growth. The demand to

publish in born open access journals is higher than that for hybrid journals, perhaps indicating that

price is a factor. Perhaps there is an issue about branding here, whereby the benefits of publishing in

Gold OA are more evident than publishing in a hybrid option and this is why hybrid is stagnant.

Not all delegates agreed on this point, some suggesting that born Gold OA article fees are cheaper

because these journals have to establish themselves in the market. Others suggested that hybrid and

Gold OA are growing at the same rate where funding for APCs is available. Some argued that the

reason the hybrid model is not taken up more widely is linked to funding issues and that more needs

to be done in terms of funding mandates to publish open access. There also need to be more

membership schemes for institutions, such as the one adopted by the Max Planck Institute in

Germany. However, it was pointed out that, under the membership model, there is an issue around

control: who in the institution decides what should be published? Return on investment is a key

focus for an institution and currently there are no metrics available for authors to put a case forward

for funding from an institutional pot of money.

Another delegate highlighted the fact that if an institution was to create a new funding pot for APCs,

it had to decide where that funding would come from and what it might not fund as a result. APCs

are part of an institution’s indirect costs and in the current economic environment, where

institutions are looking to reduce overheads, the priority of APCs over other indirect costs needs to

be considered in the wider institutional budgeting context. The academic community needs to have

a better understanding of open access before it can make decisions about pots of money.

There was some discussion around the role of the research councils and funding agencies. Some

institutions would like to see them take a lead in this area, really pushing to ensure that authors

know what is required of them and providing a single pot of funding like the Wellcome Trust model.

Although this method would allow APCs to be included in the direct costs of the institution and

would be a lot cleaner, grants would still need to be closed and final payments made upon closure

rather than continuing after the grant has ended.

One delegate highlighted the international perspective and pointed out that the UK contributes 8% of

the scholarly output, so if UK research were to become open access it would have to pay to publish its


own research and also to license the content under the traditional subscription model from the rest

of the world.

Prior to the breakout sessions, Paul Harwood from JISC Collections provided a brief overview of the

company’s activities to obtain data on the number of hybrid OA articles published in NESLi2 journals

and their total costs. He explained that JISC Collections had not been able to achieve publishers’

compliance with the relevant clauses in the NESLi2 model licence that addresses this issue.

JISC Collections inserted hybrid OA clauses in its licence because its library members had identified

this lack of transparency as a problem. Paul noted that there is a clear perception that double

dipping exists and that this has been damaging to the hybrid model.

Despite this, Paul has perceived a change with reference to publishers’ attitudes to open access

publishing. There is a sense that open access, as a model, is here to stay and that they will have to

work with it. Publishers have also seen a new opportunity for open access publishing and a number

are launching fully Gold OA journals. This is an indicator that is much easier to launch a new born

open access journal than to try to transition an established subscription journal.

Interviews carried out by JISC Collections with all the stakeholders point to a call for funders to come

forward and to bring together the issues of mandating and funding. If this is left in the hands of the

Wellcome Trust, it is difficult to see any kind of breakthrough happening.

In addition to a number of the barriers already identified, we need to try to establish whether or not

a transition would work for smaller publishers in the same way as for the bigger ones. Paul felt that

emphasizing the infrastructure problems of managing a transition was something of a smoke screen,

as subscription agents are perfectly placed to manage this should they find it of interest and we have

already witnessed the emergence of a new company working in this area.

At this point, delegates were invited to join one of two groups to discuss likely scenarios: hybrid as

transitional or optional model.

Notes from the ‘optional’ group

In this session one of the delegates began by stating that in many institutions there is cynicism

surrounding the hybrid model, in particular about how the charges are calculated and how this

income is reported. Another delegate argued the case for an entirely different approach to scholarly

communication like, for example, the institutional repository model. Academics are under pressure

to prove impact, but there are other ways we can address this rather than by paying more to obtain


open access. Publishers see a role, but institutions are paying what seems to be an excess, and the

key question appears to be how to escape from the expensive vicious circle?

It was suggested that a key issue, if hybrid OA is going to be a long-term solution, is what values do

hybrid journals offer to authors and/or readers that are different to the subscription model on one

hand or fully Gold OA on the other? In return, a delegate stated that the value was clear to authors

who have to publish open access because of a mandate.

However, as one delegate pointed out, this value can be questionable, because researchers want

their research exposed as quickly as possible but hybrid models are difficult to administer and there

are often delays.

A librarian commented that one of the issues with the hybrid model is the confusion it causes for

users, who don’t understand why they can access some articles in a journal and not others. Another

delegate pointed out that this issue is being addressed by CrossRef’s CrossMark initiative, which

aims to allow researchers to determine easily if they are looking at a publisher-maintained copy of a

scholarly article and the status of that article. Innovation in such areas cannot be imposed top down,

but must come from a free market. DeepDyve is a good example of innovations emerging to address

the issue of access to scholarly literature.

There was a great deal of discussion about transparency and the reporting of open access statistics.

A number of publishing delegates pointed out that the take-up of the hybrid option is currently very

low and so to date there has been little demand. This makes it difficult to be transparent, but if take-

up grows calculations can be done.

Nonetheless, publishers agree that there should not be double dipping, but point out that regulatory

problems limit transparency. While companies are happy to be transparent to their customers they

do not want to be transparent to their competitors. Also it should be accepted that there will be a

wide range of article processing charges for different types of journals.

The group also discussed the problem of disciplines outside of STM. One delegate pointed out that in

the case of the humanities, institutional repositories are a way of enabling open access and

overcoming the problem of long delays in the dissemination of scholarly material. In contrast

another delegate argued that the large-scale, systematic depositing of authors’ work in institutional

repositories challenges the sustainability of scholarly publishing and that the stakeholders need to

work together in this area. Embargo periods need to be set at different rates of consumption across

the disciplines: the PEER (Publishing and the Ecology of European Research) Project is investigating

the viable timeframes for embargo periods in the various disciplines in the context of journal


viability. There is some evidence that the NIH Public Access Policy has had an impact on journal

subscriptions. The issue is to investigate what funders and institutions want and to find something

that is not a parasite on publishers.

A librarian delegate commented that the other issue concerns library budgets: contingencies are

being made to cut subscriptions. Being able to sustain access for researchers is problematic, and it is

not clear that the hybrid model will achieve that. Things will have to change, including the role of the

library.

Another delegate said that there is a huge growth in scholarly communications, coming from outside

Europe at a time when both library and research budgets are under pressure, so there is unlikely to

be great potential for persuading anyone to abstract money from research budgets to get us over

the hump of a transition to a more open world.

Notes from the ‘transition’ group

The session began by asking whether or not a publisher should signal that a journal is in transition

from subscription to Gold OA and is thus performing as a hybrid business model. Delegates agreed

that publishers should indicate that a journal is in transition, but noted that determining what is

meant by transition and the timeframe around it is very difficult, especially when the business model

is entirely dependent on funding agencies paying the APCs.

It was suggested by some delegates that publishers have introduced hybrid options and then hidden

them away rather than making them known. A publisher appearing half-hearted about this has had

an effect on users – it also has a big effect on authors and funding agencies. A positive response

from publishers to open access at the beginning would have encouraged all the other stakeholders.

In order for a transition to be successful publishers need to be upfront on submission and be

transparent with their plans.

In response, some delegates suggested that publishers are now clearly embracing open access and

that what is required in order to facilitate the transition is collaboration by all stakeholders to gather

evidence to help make informed decisions. This is a period of testing and publishers cannot be

expected to guess with complete accuracy the date by which a hybrid will become Gold OA.

The point at which a subscription journal flips to Gold OA was discussed and it was suggested that

this depends on the journal itself. Some are able to flip more easily than others. The Genetics Society

of America have launched an OA journal called G3 and that may be a successful venture that could


help them to flip genetics publishing to an OA model. One of the consequences of a transition like

this is that it will be much more disruptive.

The position of society publishers was discussed. Currently there is little evidence of societies

choosing publishers on the basis of their OA policy. They are more concerned with the risks to their

reputation, but at the same time they do want advice. It was noted that societies tend to be risk-

averse and are reliant on membership funding.

The discussion moved on to the practicalities of transparent reporting. One delegate stressed his

concern about the transparency issue in the hybrid model. Higher education institutions are publicly

funded and need to report. If publishers are not transparent, this could kill the hybrid model. It was

noted that while publishers are willing to be transparent, there are commercially sensitive elements

of the data, so publishers need to build confidence in this area and be transparent without hurting

their commercial potential. One delegate maintained that if publishers did not address this, their

image would suffer with funders and the academic community who would perceive them to be

double dipping. The only way for a publisher to overcome this is to show how it intends to reduce

subscription fees. A publisher delegate felt that the perception of double dipping had come from the

library community and that due to the very low number of articles being published as open access in

hybrid journals, it is not really a legitimate complaint.

Publisher delegates suggested that while they cannot provide data that is commercially sensitive, it

may be possible to provide data around the pricing strategy combined with other metrics such as:

• Growth of open access articles by hybrid journal

• Growth in published research by journal/publisher

• Growth in submissions by journal/publisher

If this was presented with a pricing strategy, it might help to provide context to the business model.

Publishers in this break-out session were quite clear that communicating pricing strategies, or even

pricing elements, openly would be against competition law, although some of the information listed

above could be communicated in confidence to trusted intermediaries (for example JISC Collections

staff members or funders providing APC revenues, for example staff at the Wellcome Trust).

The focus of the discussion then moved on to how the academic community might better support

journals in transition. There was a general consensus that unless funding becomes easier and the


processes are simplified, nothing will move forward. Even with mandates and the funding agency

policies, it is not simple. It was pointed out that this is a chicken-and-egg situation as funders have

seen that publishers are not willing to support OA; if they can get the message across that publishers

are willing to support OA, this will make a big difference.

The librarian delegates said that for them there was little leeway in terms of moving funding around

into a new pot as there were no funds; it was the funders who needed to take the initiative.

There might be a way of moving to a hypothecated fund, but the research councils don’t want to be

charged with looking after the fund on behalf of the libraries. There has to be a mechanism for the

institution to manage this and to come up with the model. The money must be made safe and be

used only for OA charges, but at the same time the research councils want to avoid bureaucracy and

conclude the grants as cleanly as possible.

The research council delegates noted that there is increasing uptake of the option to include APCs

within grant proposals, but little evidence on how much of the Directly Incurred element in a grant is

being spent for APC. The problem occurs with the RO funding APC after the end of a grant.

Library delegates suggested that if the funding agencies have the funding to pay for APCs, they

would like to have a central research council pot like that of the Wellcome Trust. The universities

have procedures in place to manage the Wellcome funding and it works. The research council

delegates were open to discussions on this but highlighted that they all have different policies,

reporting and accountability. There are also administration costs that require an investment

The research community’s awareness was discussed as a major issue. It was pointed out that the

research community remains unaware of how to claim APCs and it was suggested that the funding

agencies have a major role to play here in raising awareness, as they are the ones most in contact

with researchers.

As well as highlighting the issue of knowing how to claim APCs in grant proposals, the delegates

suggested that it is also very difficult to find out the publishers’ policies on open access: there needs

to be a way to encourage academics and others to find this information.

In practical terms, the funding agencies pressed the need for the name of the funder to be

attributed alongside grant information in order to gather the evidence and data to help make

informed decisions. Funders are happy to pay the money but need to know what they are getting for

it. The Wellcome Trust has an API so that it can get the correct attribution. The reason it gives


money to the author rather than to the publisher is that it needs to make them aware of the

funding.

If there is to be a competitive market then there is a need to make sure that authors have some

connection to the price and they can consider the cost benefit as part of their decision to publish in a

journal.

Delegates did however point out the risk of underestimating and undervaluing the efficiency and

efficacy of the value of what consortia have been able to negotiate if decisions are devolved to

authors.

The discussion ended with a general consensus that OA is here to stay, that publishers, libraries and

funding agencies are in support of OA and that they can work together to put transparent and

successful systems in place to support the hybrid model, whether it be transitional or optional.

----

David House closed the event by saying that it had been an interesting day with some good

conversation that had not drifted into simplistic views. We are in a hybrid place at the moment in

many ways: still some print although mostly online; some open access although mostly subscription.

There is also a question about whether the future lies with the journal or the article. Everything is

slightly in the air, not least the extent to which universities are reducing costs or maximizing output

of research. Clearly, money is not going to grow rapidly in this part of the world, and we exist in a

global world.

The role of JISC Collections is to support institutions by negotiating the best terms for the

subscription model, but it also needs to look at what is going on more broadly. The transition is

going to be a long one but there will be some changes in the publishers’ ecosystem.


Appendix 1: Programme for the day

JISC Collections Workshop

‘Open Access Fees and the Hybrid Journal’

25 May 2011, One Great George Street

10.00–10.45 Registration and refreshments

Rennie Room, Lower Ground Floor

10.45–11.00 Welcome and introduction

Palmer Room, Lower Ground Floor

David House, Chair of JISC Collections

11.00–12.00 Session 1: Publishers’ views

What is the hybrid model? Is it a permanent fixture in our landscape? Can Gold OA,

subscription and hybrid all co-exist? What is the future?

Session chair Bev Acreman Biomed Central

Panellists Natasha White Wiley

David Hoole Nature Publishing Group

Steven Hall IOP Publishing

12.00–13.00 Lunch


13.00–14.00 Session 2: Stakeholder views

Is the hybrid a transitional model or an optional one? If transitional, how will the

transition be effected and what are the conditions for its success according to all


stakeholders? If optional, what conditions are required successfully to integrate it

into research?

Session chair Michael Jubb Research Information Network

Panellists Alicia Wise Elsevier

Robert Kiley Wellcome Trust

Catriona Cannon Oxford University Library Services

Steve Byford Society for Endocrinology

Markus Brammer German perspective

Jill Taylor-Roe Newcastle University

14.00–14.15 Introduction to Session 3

David House or Liam Earney/Caren Milloy/Paul Harwood

14.15–14.45 Refreshments


14.45–15.45 Session 3: Your views

Palmer Room and Tredgold Room, Lower Ground Floor

Discussion session. Delegates will be invited to pick their corner (transitional or

optional) and to discuss a range of questions in groups.

15.45–16.00 Summary and close


Documents

Report on the JISC Collections Workshop: ‘Open Access Fees and the Hybrid Journal’