Publishers ‘must drop fees in wake of Covid-19’ – Jisc/UUK


Major academic publishers are being urged to reduce their prices by 25 per cent on all agreements in light of the severe financial impact institutions are facing because of the Covid-19 pandemic. In a joint letter on behalf of


the sector, the Universities UK Jisc content negotiation strategy group says it ‘recognises the tremendous support publishers have offered to institutions and colleges as they responded by opening up their content and collections during the start of the crisis’. It continues: ‘The focus


of institutions is now on preparing for online delivery in September and examining what digital content they can afford to maintain access to against the budgetary efficiencies they will need to deliver.’ Chair of the UUK/


Jisc content negotiation strategy group, Stephen Decent, said: ‘The depth of the financial challenge facing universities and their libraries is unprecedented. Institutions need not only to continue existing provision of content but to further enhance the range of content available online to students,


researchers and staff. This places extraordinary pressure on budgets which are already seeing cuts of up to 40 per cent at some universities. Tough decisions will need to be made and cancellations at some institutions are a reality.’ In the letter the group urges publishers to work with Jisc to implement discounts and measures to provide flexible pricing that offers institutions meaningful options. Decent added: ‘Our


collaborative effort should result in the ability to reduce expenditure without disproportionate loss of


content, especially now that many universities will be reviewing the balance of budgets between supporting digital learning and supporting research.’ Universities UK has also highlighted the financial risks for universities in a paper sent to the chancellor, secretaries of state for education and business, and to the minister for universities and science, research and innovation. The paper outlines that the


sector is expecting loss of income from accommodation, catering and conferences in the region of £790m.


MIT sticks to OA principles and ends Elsevier talks


MIT – the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – has ended negotiations with Elsevier for a journals contract. According to MIT, Elsevier was not able to present a proposal that aligned with the principles of the MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts, which ‘is grounded in the conviction that openly sharing research and educational materials is key to the Institute’s mission of advancing knowledge and bringing that knowledge to bear on the world’s greatest challenges’. The institute says the


framework ‘affirms the overarching principle that control of scholarship and its dissemination should reside with scholars and their institutions, and aims to ensure that scholarly research outputs are openly and equitably available to the broadest possible audience, while providing valued services to the MIT community’. Chris Bourg, director of the MIT Libraries, said: ‘I am


disappointed that we were not able to reach a contract with Elsevier that honours the principles of the MIT Framework, but I am proud knowing that the MIT community – and hundreds of colleagues across the country – stand by the importance of these principles for advancing the public good and the progress of science. ‘In the face of these


unprecedented global challenges, equitable and open


access to knowledge is more critical than ever.’ Bourg added: ‘We hope to be able to resume productive negotiations if and when Elsevier is able to provide a contract that reflects our community’s needs and values and advances MIT’s mission. ’We will continue to use


the framework to pursue new paths to achieving open access to knowledge. The agreement we reached with the Association for Computing


Machinery in collaboration with the University of California, Carnegie Mellon University, and Iowa State University is one such example.’ Elsevier tweeted: ‘MIT’s decision to end negotiations is a genuine disappointment as we share its goal of advancing open science for public good. We hope to continue to serve @MITLibraries community in advancing research and find a way forward to support its important work.’


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