NEWS FEATURE
Severing Elsevier
Will more universities follow Sheffield, Surrey and York out of big deals with Elsevier? The moment of truth for the sector will come in December 2025.
THE decision by three universities not to extend their Jisc-negotiated transformative agreements (TA) with Elsevier was largely driven by the financial crisis in higher education, but many hope it will be a positive development.
The three-year deal, which provides both content and pub- lishing services, known as read-and-publish deals, ended in December 2024. In October 2024 universities were given the option to extend the deal for a year, which is when Sheffield, Surrey and York made their decisions. So it may not be clear if other universities will follow suit until December 2025.
Context
There are 160 universities in the UK and more than 150 of them signed the Jisc Elsevier deal extension. So, three universities turning it down looks insignificant. Another perspective is that Sheffield and York are both members of Research Libraries UK (RLUK) which has 34 UK [DP1] mem- bers, which still only brings it to about six per cent. David Prosser, Executive Director of RLUK, said: “In terms
of the sheer percentage it’s not hugely significant. What is significant is that people are doing it, and other people will be looking to see what happens. And if the sky doesn’t fall in, that will embolden other institutions, especially in this nego- tiation year, to take a tougher line.”
Practical impact In a blog post (
https://tinyurl.com/IPSpring25OAA) Peter Barr, Head of (Library) Content and Collections at the University of Shef- field, said: “Undoubtedly, in terms of access to content and ease of OA publishing, it is better to be in a big deal transi- tional agreement, but that assumes an institution is willing to pay the (often very high) fee.” He also said that: “Ending a TA creates practical, immediate challenges for the individual researcher in having to change the way they access content, the effect of which cannot be immediately placated by the wider collective changes that a cancellation might bring about.” The benefits of staying in big deals added to the complications of exiting them have, so far, weighed in favour of staying. But only just. As Peter also points out in his post: “Many librar- ies had undertaken extensive scenario planning for how to cope without a big deal, should one of the earlier negotiations have failed. There was confidence that these scenarios were workable, but the practicalities within institutions meant it was more pragmatic to sign a bad deal than live without one.”
Tipping the balance A cocktail of ethical and financial motives for exiting big deals has been swilling around the sector for years, bal-
12 INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL
anced against the practicalities of doing it. The new financial pressures have tipped this balance for
some institutions. David Prosser said: “The practical effect of the financial situation is that some libraries are being asked to cut 10-20 per cent of their content budget. So now they can go to their institutions and say, ‘here is a model and vendors we’ve had concerns about for years – we could save signifi- cant amounts of money by moving away from them’.” David adds: “No library director would make a decision like this without the support from their institution and senior academics and senior decision makers. You don’t take that lightly.” But the intensity of new financial pressures has “focused minds” at senior levels providing new motivation to take on these practical challenges. He also pointed out that libraries already have relevant workflows in place for other content and these could be scaled up, although there will be different levels of preparedness in different institutions.”
Who will change? The financial pressure is intense with a number of universi- ties announcing redundancy measures. “I don’t see any short-term change in the financial situation in the sector,” David says. “It’s dire across all universities so this pressure on budgets is going to intensify.” He adds that: “These big deals are typically the largest items in
any library’s content budget. If you are looking to make signif- icant savings you cannot consider the deals to be untouchable and ring-fenced – you have to start thinking about cancelling. People have been thinking about it for years, and this is the catalyst that’s giving them the opportunity to do it.” While financial pressures motivate change in the academic library sector, are there similar catalysts for change among publishers? Will they lower prices or change their models to accommodate library needs? There are few clear incentives for Elsevier to do this. It may be considering whether to cut prices in order to maintain its UK revenues with a lower profit
‘‘
Many libraries had undertaken extensive scenario planning for how to cope without a big deal, should one of the earlier negotiations have failed.
– Peter Barr Spring 2025
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
