UC and Elsevier�A blueprint for publisher negotiations
Jeff MacKie-Mason�University Librarian, University of California, Berkeley, & Professor, UC Berkeley School of Information and Department of Economics
�Günter Waibel�Associate Vice Provost & Executive Director, California Digital Library
Mathew Willmott�Open Access Collection Strategist, California Digital Library
CNI April 8 2019
UC’s Elsevier negotiation
2
Jeff MacKie-Mason�Univ Librarian, Prof. of Information and Prof. of Economics, UC Berkeley
@jmmason
Our (public) goals
3
Negotiations: UC’s final proposal
Cost-neutral with discounted APCs ($12M total UC payment)
Default 100% OA
Multi-payer:
* Library $1000 + author research funding
* OR Library pays all if author unfunded
* OR author opts out of OA
4
Negotiations: July 2018 - Feb 2019
Negotiations progress
After 6 months not addressing publish-and-read, ELS in January offered an integrated contract�
Agreed to support multi-payer workflow
5
Negotiations: July 2018 - Feb 2019
Elsevier Jan 31 offer
Integrated, but 100% OA would raise payment 80% ($30M over 3 yrs)
No OA for Cell, Lancet or many (> 400?) society journals
Forego perpetual access to many journals
No workflow support for Library to cover unfunded authors
Some willingness to move on last 3, but $$ gap huge
6
Negotiations: July 2018 - Feb 2019
Today
No contract since 31 Dec 2018
Negotiations terminated 28 Feb 2019
Access not yet terminated
Alternative access prepared, on stand-by
7
Negotiations: July 2018 - Feb 2019
UC’s coalition
8
Jeff MacKie-Mason
@jmmason
Public support statements
9
The UC coalition
Public support statements
10
The UC coalition
Public support statements
11
The UC coalition
Public support statements
12
The UC coalition
Crucial: Faculty as partners, not merely audience
13
The UC coalition
Faculty as partners in strategy development
UC case study
14
The UC coalition
Keeping faculty informed
UC case study
15
The UC coalition
Faculty as partners in execution
Faculty on negotiations team (3 of 6)
Faculty as communicators
UC case study: Sequencing communications on termination day (28 Feb 2019)
16
The UC coalition
UC’s model for a transformative agreement
17
Günter Waibel�Associate Vice Provost & Executive Director, California Digital Library
@guwa
Today
18
Double dipping ● Uncontrolled, independent spending ● Unsustainable
The alternative: a transformative OA agreement
For the UC, that means…�
19
What does that look like?
20
The Author Experience
21
● Library financial transactions are handled in aggregate each quarter ●
Benefits for authors
22
Components of the UC model
Reading Fee
+ Publishing Fees�_________________
Total Contract Cost
23
Library subvention�(on every article)
Grant-paid remainders�(where grant available)
Library-paid remainders�(where grant unavailable)
Fixed�at start of agreement��Variable total�based on author choices
Base set�at start of agreement
Control�by restricting variance to +/- X%
Scenario: UC model contract in action
24
|
Total contract cost |
Total cost range |
|
Reading Fee |
|
Publishing fees |
|
Theoretical cost |
Actual payment |
Scenario: UC model contract in action
25
| | | | | |
Total contract cost | | | | | |
Total cost range | | | | | |
| | | | | |
Reading Fee | | | | | |
| | | | | |
Publishing fees | | | | | |
| | | | | |
Theoretical cost | | | | | |
Actual payment | | | | | |
Basis: Expected publication volume 4,500 articles, $2,000 negotiated APC
Scenario: UC model contract in action
26
| Year 1 | | |
Total contract cost | $10,000,000 | | |
Total cost range | +/- 2% | | |
| | | |
Reading Fee | $1,000,000 | | |
| | | |
Publishing fees | $9,000,000 | | |
| | | |
Theoretical cost | $10,000,000 | | |
Actual payment | $10,000,000 | | |
*Negotiated APC: $2000 per article
Year 1: Publication volume 4,500 articles as estimated
Scenario: UC model contract in action
27
*Negotiated APC: $2000 per article
Year 2: Publication volume increases 3% to 4,635 articles
| Year 1 | | Year 2 | |
Total contract cost | $10,000,000 | | $10,000,000 | |
Total cost range | +/- 2% | | +/- 2% | |
| | | | |
Reading Fee | $1,000,000 | | $1,000,000 | |
| | | | |
Publishing fees | $9,000,000 | | $9,270,000 | |
| | | | |
Theoretical cost | $10,000,000 | | $10,270,000 | |
Actual payment | $10,000,000 | | $10,200,000 | |
Scenario: UC model contract in action
28
| Year 1 | | Year 2 | | Year 3 |
Total contract cost | $10,000,000 | | $10,000,000 | | $10,200,000 |
Total cost range | +/- 2% | | +/- 2% | | +/- 2% |
| | | | | |
Reading Fee | $1,000,000 | | $1,000,000 | | $1,000,000 |
| | | | | |
Publishing fees | $9,000,000 | | $9,270,000 | | $8,806,000 |
| | | | | |
Theoretical cost | $10,000,000 | | $10,270,000 | | $9,806,000 |
Actual payment | $10,000,000 | | $10,200,000 | | $9,996,000 |
*Negotiated APC: $2000 per article
Year 3: Publication volume decreases 5% to 4,403 articles
Scenario: UC model contract in action
29
The more grants participate, the more money is brought into the system.
Scenario: UC model contract in action
30
*Negotiated APC: $2000 per article; library subvention $1000 per article
The more grants participate, the more money is brought into the system.
Year 1: 20% of authors use grants
Scenario: UC model contract in action
31
*Negotiated APC: $2000 per article; library subvention $1000 per article
The more grants participate, the more money is brought into the system.
Year 1: 20% of authors use grants
Year 2: 30% of authors use grants
Scenario: UC model contract in action
32
*Negotiated APC: $2000 per article; library subvention $1000 per article
The more grants participate, the more money is brought into the system.
Year 1: 20% of authors use grants
Year 2: 30% of authors use grants
Year 3: 40% of authors use grants
Scenario: UC model contract in action
33
*Negotiated APC: $2000 per article; library subvention $1000 per article
The more grants participate, the more money is brought into the system.
Year 1: 20% of authors use grants
Year 2: 30% of authors use grants
Year 3: 40% of authors use grants
The model therefore lends itself to lowering costs for the library, so there’s money to reinvest in similar support for native OA publishers.
What does that mean for grants?
34
Assumptions in this analysis:
NIH,
2016
NSF,
2016
All Federal
Funders,
2013
$23.3b
in research grants
1.0%
of research funding to cover all APCs
$6.03b
in research grants
$127.3b
in research grants
2.1%
of research funding to cover all APCs
0.9%
of research funding to cover all APCs
*source: Universities UK report, Monitoring the Transition to Open Access: December 2017
What does that mean for grants?
35
Assumptions in this analysis:
NIH,
2016
NSF,
2016
All Federal
Funders,
2013
$23.3b
in research grants
1.0% 0.6%
of research funding to cover all APCs
$6.03b
in research grants
$127.3b
in research grants
2.1% 1.3%
of research funding to cover all APCs
0.9% 0.6%
of research funding to cover all APCs
*source: Universities UK report, Monitoring the Transition to Open Access: December 2017
In summary, here’s the journey we’re on
Today - unmanaged, escalating OA economy�Subscriptions and APCs are funded and paid for separately in the same journals, without any relationship between them
Tomorrow (or sooner) - transitional OA agreements�Subscriptions and APCs covered by a single, transformative agreement, with one type of fee offsetting the other to eliminate double-dipping and help control the total cost to the university
Eventually - a primarily OA world�Subscription payments largely disappear with funding re-allocated to OA support (both APCs and other funding models)
36
The critical role of data analysis
37
Mathew Willmott�Open Access Collection Strategist, California Digital Library
Why invest resources in data analysis?
38
What more do we need to gather?
Data represents fundamental information about the world. To expand our contracts to this scope means gathering added information about:
39
Author Publication Patterns
Journal Characteristics
Synthesizing, analyzing, and interpreting
40
The path forward
41
Jeff MacKie-Mason
@jmmason
Does Elsevier care?
UC revenues? 👎
But tipping point?
42
Does Elsevier care?
RELX stock price
43
JOIN US!�����(We’ll help)
44