Transformative agreement (TA) is an umbrella term used to describe contracts between institutions and publishers intended to transform the current, primarily subscription-based, journal publishing model to a fully open access (OA) model.
Six myths, busted
Myth: Transformative agreements will lead to an equitable scholarly publishing ecosystem
“To date, Transformative agreements are largely limited to research-intensive institutions and consortia. This creates a tiered access system to open publication for authors, potentially damaging both individual careers and the scholarly record’s integrity.”
“Transformative agreements fail to create viable routes to paid Open Access publishing for the many researchers who do not have an institutional affiliation or are affiliated with less well-resourced institutions.”
Myth: Transformative agreements are a proven way to transition the system from closed to open access
Publishers promoting Transformative Agreements have not yet released their Open Access transition plans. Without transparency these agreements may lead to increased publisher revenue without a commitment to a full Open Access transition.
Myth: Transformative agreements move away from an APC model of open access
combining subscription agreements with Article Processing Charges could lead to greater expenditures benefiting publishers.
Some Transformative Agreements have a cap: if the number of OA articles an institution publishes exceeds expectations, that institution can be forced to limit Open Access publishing or pay individual Article Processing Chargesoutside of the deal.13 If output is lower than expected, institutions have likely agreed to a minimum spend, limiting risk for publishers. Transformative Agreements don’t eliminate Article Processing Charges they obfuscate them.
Myth: Transformative agreements will lead to greater transparency regarding publication costs
The same publishers who have traditionally lacked transparency have balked at providing this data, claiming that doing so would be in breach of anti-competition or anti-trust law.15 Without transparent data it is hard to create and properly evaluate publishing models.
Myth: Transformative agreements will lead to competitive pricing
*“Competitive pricing* implies there is a market where publishers strategically price their product to vie for institutional spending. This, at a minimum, requires transparency of price and license terms. As Transformative Agreements are negotiated on an individual basis with widely varying structures, details are hard to obtain and difficult to compare..”
“Publishers continue to enter negotiations with a full understanding of their agreements, and institutions have only partial data to inform their negotiations.”
Myth: Transformative agreements better position libraries to negotiate
“Even when authors pay Article Processing Charges themselves, they are price insensitive—they often favor publishing in more expensive, “prestigious” journals.19”
“Transformative Agreements have the potential to set libraries up for difficult future negotiations—at the conclusion of a pilot agreement with favorable terms, publishers may direct pressure from authors to push libraries into less favorable agreements.”
Literature
“UK Libraries’ decision not to pursue any [Transformative Agreements] from the large commercial publishers because they are, at the present and in their current form, not worth it.” https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.68n1.8211
“On a national level we have seen an increase in the number of articles published in these agreements. It could be problematic if these journals are favoured compared to other journals that are not included in a TA. If a researcher has the choice of two equivalent journals it is likely that they will choose the one where the APC is already paid for. We have noticed a shift in researchers’ questions from ‘which journal is the best for my article to get published in’ to ‘where could I publish my article without having to pay an APC?’.” https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.612
“A consequence of the strong focus on TAs in Sweden is that hybrid journal publishers are favoured, at the expense of fully open access publishers. The TAs also benefit larger publishers since they have the option of offering these kinds of agreements.” https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.612