Review Article

Scoping Review of Transformative Agreement Research

Amy Riegelman
Social Sciences & Evidence Synthesis Librarian

University of Minnesota Libraries

Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America

Email: aspringe@umn.edu

Allison Langham-Putrow, PhD

Scholarly Communications Librarian

Walter Library

University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America

Email: lang0636@umn.edu

Received: 13 Feb. 2025 Accepted: 14 June 2025

2025 Riegelman and Langham-Putrow. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one.

DOI: 10.18438/eblip30721

Abstract

Objective – Transformative agreements (TAs) are agreements between publishers and institutions or consortia that combine reading access and open access (OA) publishing. They can take many forms, and the first agreement is believed to have started in 2014. This scoping review aims to identify and synthesize the existing research on TAs.

Methods – Following benchmarking and term harvesting, electronic searches were conducted in 48 databases and were complemented with handsearching and citation chaining which resulted in 1843 unique results. Results were screened with pre-registered inclusion and exclusion criteria which resulted in inclusion of 151 studies (80 case studies, 39 quantitative, 31 qualitative, and 1 theoretical).

Results – The heterogeneity of methods and findings of research on TAs made synthesis challenging. The synthesis was further complicated by the corpus including studies examining different time periods, publishers, agreement types, participating institutions, and more. Studies had varied intended audiences and research dissemination routes further complicating discovery and synthesis.

Conclusions – Despite the heterogeneity, some themes emerged, including TAs increase hybrid OA and that consortia can play an important role in negotiating and managing TAs. Successful implementation relies on a number of factors, including workflows for authors and those managing the agreements. Studies found that TAs are not leading to a transformation of the publishing system as a whole.

Introduction

Rationale

Transformative agreement (TA) is a term used to describe agreements between publishers and institutions or consortia that aim to transform some portion of the publisher’s journals from closed or hybrid open access (OA) to fully OA. In 2012, the “Finch Report” from the United Kingdom (UK) advocated for OA via article processing charges (APCs; Finch, 2012). Around this time the concept of “offsetting” was introduced, in which the publisher would return some amount of money to the subscriber based on the amount of OA publishing in that publisher’s journals. Many consider the 2014 agreement between IOP Publishing and a group of Austrian institutions to be the first official offsetting agreement, although the 2012 Royal Society of Chemistry’s “Gold for Gold” program was an earlier experiment with the concept (IOP Publishing, 2014; Royal Society of Chemistry, 2012). “Read and publish” (R&P) and “publish and read” (P&R) agreements followed. Conceptually, these agreements consist of a payment for reading access to subscription content and payment to publish the institution’s works open. Publishing components range from discounted APCs to a full waiver of the APC for all publications. The agreement between Wiley and Projekt DEAL (a consortium of German institutions) announced in 2019 was the largest agreement up to that point. There were some examples of publishers and institutions experimenting with agreements that combined an OA component with subscription or payment by an institution to a fully OA publisher to waive or reduce APCs for authors, but these were not designed to be “transformative” or have an offsetting component. Literature about the effects of TAs on all aspects of scholarly communication is scattered and varied. This review will identify and synthesize the literature on TAs. A synthesis of the evidence could be used to inform policy and practice and influence future research.

Definitions

The Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC) initiative defines TAs as, “an umbrella term describing those agreements negotiated between institutions (libraries, national and regional consortia) and publishers in which former subscription expenditures are repurposed to support OA publishing of the negotiating institutions’ authors” (ESAC Initiative, n.d.). ESAC also maintains a registry of TAs, to which institutions provide transparent and somewhat standardized data about these types of agreements. The aim is to “transform” traditional—subscription-based—scholarly journal publishing model to one in which publishers’ income is based on paying for publishing.

There are a number of forms that TAs can take. Some of the most common varieties are the following.

● Offsetting agreements: The publisher returns money to the institution to offset the amount of APCs paid. The first offsetting agreement is often considered to be the aforementioned 2014 agreement between IOP Publishing and a group of Austrian institutions (IOP Publishing, 2014). A 2017 blog post from the University of Cambridge Office of Scholarly Communication provides five examples of offsetting agreements (Kingsley, 2017).

● Read and Publish (R&P): The institution pays two components to the publisher, one for reading access to subscription materials and the other for publishing articles from the institution’s authors OA. In some cases, there is a cap on the number of articles that can be published at no cost to the author. We have included agreements that provide a discount on the APC in this category. Some of the first R&P agreements were made with Springer and called “Springer Compact” agreements (, 2015).

● Publish and Read (P&R): The institution pays for publishing, and the fee includes reading access. An example of this type of agreement is the 2019 Wiley-Projekt DEAL agreement, which charged a €2750 fee per article published (Valente, 2021).

Literature Review

Offsetting agreements were underway in 2014, but the idea of “transforming the system” of scholarly publishing from paying to read to paying to publish gained momentum starting in early 2015, when librarians from the Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL) released a white paper proposing a systemwide transition of shifting from paying for subscriptions to paying to publish (Schimmer et al., 2015). The white paper argued that there is “enough money already circulating” in the system for this to happen.

The OA2020 initiative followed from the MPDL white paper and grew out of discussions at the 12th Berlin Open Access Conference held in September 2015 and the resulting Expression of Interest in the Large-Scale Implementation of Open Access to Scholarly Journals (OA2020, 2024). OA2020’s aim was to form a community of institutions committed to transforming their subscription budgets to pay for OA publishing by 2020. The goal of full OA by 2020 was supported by the 2016 Netherlands’ European Union presidency through the Amsterdam Call for Action on Open Science. This document was the outcome of a conference on open science and set a goal for full OA for all scientific publications by 2020 (Ministère de lʼEnseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, 2016).

cOALition S, a group of research funding organizations, released Plan S in September 2018 and called for all scientific publications resulting from research they fund to be published OA, with a CC-BY license, as of 2020. The timeframe was extended and went into effect in 2021. TAs, later “transformative arrangements” were one of the three routes authors could use to comply, if the journal was covered by a TA that had a “clear and time-specified commitment to a full Open Access transition” (Science Europe, 2018). The guidance stated that cOAlition S funders would stop supporting TAs before the end of 2024. The coalition confirmed this deadline in 2023 (European Science Foundation, 2023). Alongside TAs, Plan S launched a “transformative journals” (TJ) program, in which publishers would commit to transitioning the journal to full OA within a specific timeline, based on meeting annual OA growth rates. The program ended in 2024, with analysis of 2023 data showing that although 40% of the roughly 1,000 journals in the program met or exceeded their annual targets and 4% had flipped to fully OA, 56% did not meet their targets. Their analysis concluded, “in aggregate the TJ data clearly shows that the transition to full and immediate OA for many of the TJ publishers is still a long way away” (Kiley, 2024).

Arguments against TAs have been put forth. The Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity was released two years following the Amsterdam Call and called for OA models beyond those that transform subscription payments to publication fees (Jussieu Call, 2017). The statement outlined how this approach is hindering innovation and slowing, if not preventing, growth of bibliodiversity. It pointed to a joint statement of UNESCO and the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) on OA, which warned of the dangers of TAs and other transformative models (COAR & UNESCO, 2016).

A 2021 piece in College & Research Libraries News addressed negative aspects of TAs and similar themes are evident in the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI)’s 20th anniversary recommendations (Farley et al., 2021). In contrast to the approaches of OA2020 and Plan S, the recommendations emphasize a move away from TAs, reminding the OA community:

When we spend money to publish OA research, we should remember the goals to which OA is the means. We should favor publishing models which benefit all regions of the world, which are controlled by academic-led and nonprofit organizations, which avoid concentrating new OA literature in commercially dominant journals, and which avoid entrenching models in conflict with these goals. (BOAI, 2022)

Despite BOAI’s calls for an end to TAs and the end of cOAlition S’s financial support for TAs in 2024, there were still 196 agreements starting in 2024 added to ESAC Registry and 299 registered agreements that would end 2025 or later (ESAC Initiative, n.d.).^[1] There were a total of 1123 agreements as of December 5, 2024.

Objectives

This review sought to retrieve and synthesize the diverse body of literature on TAs. This work included investigating: What research exists on TAs? How is the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of TAs being measured?

Methods

Scoping Review

Scoping review methods are used to systematically examine broad questions. Scoping reviews can be used to “understand the extent of the knowledge in an emerging field” and “examine how research is being conducted on a certain topic or field” (Peters et al., 2020). The identification of relevant literature should be comprehensive and transparently reported. There is established guidance on how to conduct scoping reviews in each of the stages: identifying relevant literature, evidence screening and selection, data extraction, analysis, and presentation of results (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Peters et al, 2020). In the present scoping review, we systematically identified and examined existing research on TAs and presented our results in the narrative and in visual presentations.

Protocol and Registration

The protocol for the present study was registered at the Open Science Framework on October 11, 2023, using the Generalized Systematic Review Form (Langham-Putrow & Riegelman, 2023; Van Den Akker et al., 2023). We followed the methodological guidance outlined in Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and incorporated recommendations from the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Peters et al., 2020). We report our methods and analysis according to the “PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews” (Tricco et al., 2018).

Eligibility Criteria

The aforementioned preregistration outlines the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies could be any publication type, regardless of peer-review status, which measured effects or uptake of TAs. Eligible studies were published in 2012 or later. Ineligible studies included opinion pieces, reviews of published research, commentary, press releases, and any studies published prior to 2012. Our study focused on TAs as a subset of OA agreements, which, as described in the Rationale, were introduced after the release of the “Finch Report” (Finch, 2012).

Information Sources

We cast a wide net to target all the relevant literature on TAs. In exploring the known literature on this topic, we determined that relevant studies were dispersed among many different subject and multidisciplinary databases, leading us to search 48 databases to acquire relevant studies. See the full database list in Appendix A. Grey literature was indexed in some of the selected databases, and further, we specifically targeted grey literature via the following venues: AgEcon Search, arXiv, OSF Preprints, Europe PMC, Web of Science Preprints Citation Index, Zenodo, and Figshare.

Search

Two librarians performed term harvesting and benchmarking to design a comprehensive and reproducible electronic search strategy based on a set of relevant studies. We identified terms used to denote TAs in the known literature and confirmed that there were no relevant subject headings in the subject databases. The search strategy targeted titles, abstracts and author-supplied keywords metadata fields (when available) and was adjusted for the syntax of each platform. The search was designed around the concept of TAs and relevant nomenclature: (“read & publish” OR “publish & read” OR “read and publish” OR “publish and read” OR “transformative agreement*” OR “offset agreement” OR “offsetting agreement”). Per our rationale, we filtered the search results to a date range of 2012 to present. The searches were first executed October 12, 2023, followed by a search update that occurred April 19, 2024. The full reproducible electronic search strategy containing search strings for 41 databases, 5 grey literature repositories, and 2 repositories is in Appendix A. All search results were exported from each respective database and imported into Covidence, an evidence synthesis web application. We also conducted forward and backward citation chaining to unearth additional grey literature and irregularly indexed peer-reviewed articles. Methods for conducting citation chaining were based on recommendations of the terminology, application, and reporting of citation searching (TARCiS) statement (Hirt et al., 2024).

Selection of Sources of Evidence

The authors each conducted independent title and abstract screening on all deduplicated records based on their eligibility criteria. We then obtained the full texts, and each completed independent full-text screening. We completed both screening stages in Covidence, which flags conflicts. The authors resolved conflicts via discussion.

Data Items and Charting

After piloting the extraction form with seven studies of different study designs, qualitative, quantitative, and case studies, we independently extracted data from each included study and discussed any conflicts. The extraction included the following data items (when reported) from each study.

● Lead author country

● Country/countries of institution/s included in study

● Aim of study

● Study design

● Model terms used (e.g., “transformative,” “read and publish,” “publish and read”)

● What was measured

● Name of the agreement (if applicable)

● Reported institutions or consortia involved in the agreement (if applicable)

● Reported publisher or journals (if applicable)

● Reported start and end date of agreement/s

● Sample size

● Disciplinary category

● Study findings

● Study funding sources

● Disclosures

Synthesis of Results

We used the extracted data to begin collating the included studies. The two authors analyzed the general characteristics of the studies to identify similarities and differences across publication types, model terms used, publication date, and language. Due to the heterogeneity of research methods, we identified four research design categories and filtered studies into: case studies, qualitative research, quantitative research, and theory. We then conducted further synthesis with a narrower focus on each research design category. We conducted iterative coding through discussion between the two authors to identify themes and characteristics of studies within each research design category.

Results

Selection of Sources of Evidence

The total number of results acquired from databases was 1843. Citation searching, which included one round of forward and backward citation searching for all included results, identified an additional 1701 results. For backward citation searching, we used Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus if the record was indexed in those venues, and when an item was not indexed in either, examined study reference pages manually. For forward citation chaining, we used Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and Google Scholar, in that order of priority. After removing duplicates, we independently screened 1838 records (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram. See Appendix A for the list of databases and number of results per database.

Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we performed masked title and abstract screening on the 1838 deduplicated records in Covidence. We followed this with masked full-text screening (n=587), again via Covidence. Interrater reliability showed moderate agreement for title and abstract screening (Cohen’s 𝛋 = 0.55) and substantial agreement for full-text (Cohen’s 𝛋 = 0.62) (McHugh, 2012). We settled conflicts identified in Covidence through discussion. Figure 1 lists reasons for exclusion at the full-text screening stage. We made exhaustive efforts (e.g., emailing authors, searching webarchive.org) to acquire irregularly indexed and paywalled full-text copies of studies. When documents were published in languages other than English, we relied on Google Translate for translation. We received help refining translations of studies from colleagues with native language expertise. Ultimately, the present scoping review includes 133 records. Further analysis revealed that some documents contained multiple studies and some of the same studies were represented in multiple documents, which resulted in 151 unique studies.

Characteristics of Sources of Evidence

Research Design

The studies included in this review were published between 2015 and 2024 and encompassed four research designs: case study (n=80), quantitative research (n=39), qualitative research (n=31), and theory (n=1).

Figure 2

Count of the design of included studies, by year. 2024 represented a partial year since the search was last updated on April 19, 2024.

Related Studies

We found included studies, across study designs, that were closely related to each other (i.e., from the same institution or consortium). These included the following.

● Annual reports from Jisc U.K. agreements looking at the years 2015, 2016, and 2017, plus a summary report (Lawson, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019).

● A series of papers from Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE) using data from the DEAL agreement plus two from other sources about DEAL agreements (Geschuhn et al., 2021; Haucap et al., 2021; Karlstrøm & Andenæs, 2021; Schmal, 2024a; Schmal et al., 2023).

● Reports about the Bibsam (Sweden) Springer Compact agreement (Kronman, 2018; Oefelein, 2021; Olsson, 2018).

● Studies related to the Austrian transition to OA (AT2OA) project (Fessler & Hölbling, 2019; Kromp et al., 2022; Pinhasi et al., 2020, 2021).

Publication Type

There were some differences in predominant publication type across the study designs. Of the 80 case studies, the most common type of publication was journal article or preprint (41), both peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed. Nearly half of these were published in Insights: The UKSG Journal, a journal that aims to “provide a forum for the communication and exchange of ideas between the many stakeholders in the global knowledge community”; case studies are a primary form for sharing in this community. The next most common types were presentation (slides or recording) (16) and reports or report chapters (17). The remaining were blog posts, a book chapter, a guide, and a white paper.

Quantitative studies were most often published as journal articles (15) and reports or report chapters (13). Some were blog posts (4), presentation slides, discussion or white papers (2), and preprints (2).

The majority of the qualitative studies were published as reports or report chapters (20). There was a relatively lower proportion of journal articles (6) compared to the case studies. The remaining case studies were published as theses (3), blog post (1), or white paper (1).

Geographical Characteristics of Included Studies

We recorded the country of the first (lead) author on each included study; some records included multiple studies, which are indicated in Appendices B, C, and D by individual entries for one record number. The largest number of studies were by authors from the UK. Jisc, the national consortium in the UK, published many analyses of their agreements, and U.K. authors consistently published at least one item per year from 2015 to 2024.

Germany, Sweden, and Austria were among early adopters of the agreements, and authors from these countries regularly published research studies, particularly in the earlier years. Austria began its AT2OA project in 2014, with a goal of supporting “large-scale transformation of scientific publications from Closed to Open Access” (Austrian Transition to Open Access, n.d.). Goal 2 of AT2OA explored funding models for the transition, including TAs, and a number of studies reported on this project.

The search was not limited to English-language results. The included records were primarily in English (130), with additional items in German (7), Chinese (5), Swedish (4), Russian (2), Spanish (1), Portuguese (1), and Norwegian (1).

Most, but not all, authors published research about their country or region. Some studied multiple countries and regions. Europe was the most common population (included in 109 studies), followed by North America (36), Asia (17), Australia (8), Africa (3), and South America (2). Fifteen studies did not specify a population, and the theoretical study did not have a study population by design.

Terms Used

We recorded the terms used by record as opposed to by study. In cases where the original language was not English, we recorded the original term and the translation. For example, three items originally in Swedish used the term “offsetavtal” or “offsettingavtal,” which we included under “Offset/offsetting” in Figure 3 (Kronman et al., 2017; Olsson et al., 2017; Wideberg & Söderbergh Widding, 2018). In some cases, the term was borrowed and written in English with a study of a non-English original language.

Figure 3

Use of terms to describe agreements, 2015 to 2024.

The earliest included record is from 2015 and uses the terms “offset agreement” and “offsetting scheme.” “Offset” was the term used in the earliest agreements (e.g., Austrian consortium KEMÖ’s 2014 agreements with IOP Publishing and Taylor & Francis (T&F)). “Offset” was also used in early documentation from Jisc (2015), and Principles for Offset Agreements was referenced in subsequent analyses of agreements in the UK.

The terms “read & publish,” “transformation/transformational,” and “transition/transitional” first appeared in 2016. “Transformative” appeared later, in 2018. This is also the year that Plan S was released (cOAlition S, 2025b). From 2019 on, “transformative” is the term most commonly appearing in records.

The first mention of “publish & read” in our studies was also in 2018, in a document providing recommendations from the Chair of the Universities UK Open Access Coordination Group to follow the P&R negotiations taking place in Germany at the time (Tickell, 2018).

“Transition/transitional” appears consistently in records dating from 2016 to 2023 but is overall less common than the other terms. “Transformation/transformational” are similarly consistent but less common. “Transitional” appeared before “transformative” but remained a less frequently appearing term.

Other terms that appeared included “subscription agreements including an open access component,” “pay-as-you-publish,” “open access conversion agreement” (a translation from Chinese) (Earney, 2018; Olsson, 2018; Tian & Li, 2022).

Publisher

Studies addressed any number of publishers, focusing on a single publisher and up to more than 30 different publishers. There were also 48 studies that did not specify any publishers. Springer was addressed in the largest number of items (72). Some of the earliest TAs were “Springer Compact” agreements. There were high numbers of studies that included analysis of Springer agreements for the UK (17), Sweden (12), and Germany (10). Agreements between Springer and national consortia in these three countries started in 2016 (Sweden/Bibsam), 2016 (UK/Jisc), 2020 (Germany/DEAL) and studies examining these agreements were published soon after. Wiley was the next most common publisher. It was not until 2018 that studies included analysis of agreements with Cambridge University Press, Elsevier, Oxford University Press, and American Chemical Society.

Figure 4

Publishers included in studies, by year, for publishers included in more than 20 studies.

ESAC Registry

Organizations that enter into TAs can register them in the ESAC Transformative Agreement Registry (ESAC Initiative, n.d.). Entries are standardized to a degree, with data fields such as size (number of articles expected or a limit for capped agreements), licenses offered, “risk sharing,” and “financial shift.” The earliest entries in the ESAC Registry are for agreements starting in 2014 (Austria KEMÖ with IOP Publishing and T&F) (Hall & Kromp, 2017; Kromp & Ćirković, 2016). A number of the included studies relied on information in the registry. Sixteen studies reported analysis using data from the ESAC Registry. Of these, 12 relied or reported on information available in the registry itself (Asai, 2024; Bansode & Pujar, 2022; Brainard, 2021; Brayman et al., 2024; Chen, 2023; Drake et al., 2023; Estelle et al., 2021; Frontiers, 2022; Gruenpeter et al., 2021; Kramer, 2024; Moskovkin et al., 2022; Tian & Li, 2022). Two analyzed the full text of agreements that are linked from the Registry (Borrego et al., 2020; Li & Lin, 2021). An additional two built quantitative datasets based on agreements in the Registry (Bakker et al., 2024; Jahn, 2024). These accounted for a total of 4 qualitative studies, 11 quantitative studies, and 1 case study.

Results of Individual Sources of Evidence

For more detailed information, see summary tables:

· Case Studies Table in Appendix B

· Qualitative Summary Table in Appendix C

· Quantitative Studies Table in Appendix D

Synthesis of Results

Case Study Findings

Appendix B contains definitions of the codes and a table with code assignments for each study.

TA Effects on OA Output

A number of case studies discussed the effects of TAs on OA publishing output. An increase in OA publishing demonstrated with quantitative data was reported in 35 studies (Alencar & Barbosa, 2022; Anderson et al., 2022; Bauer, 2017; Bergel et al., 2021; Dodd, 2024; Drey & Emery, 2022; Earney, 2018; Finnie, 2022; Geschuhn et al., 2021; Hall & Kromp, 2017; Hoogendoorn & Redvers‐Mutton, 2024; Karlstrøm & Andenæs, 2021; Kendal, 2023; Kromp et al., 2019; Kronman, 2018; Lindelöw, 2019; Marques & Stone, 2020; McLain & McKelvey, 2024; Moulton, 2022; Olsson et al., 2017; Olsson, Francke, et al., 2020; Olsson, Lindelöw, et al., 2020; Olsvik, 2022; Pinhasi et al., 2020, 2021; Säll & Parmhed, 2020; Schalken, 2022; Steinrisser-Allex & Grossmaier-Stieg, 2019; Taubert et al., 2023a; UK Research and Innovation, 2020; Urbán et al., 2020; Vernon et al., 2021; Walsh et al., 2024; Yuan & Slaght, 2022). An additional case study by an author from Springer Nature reported on the expected output of the TA with Projekt DEAL—more than 13,000 hybrid OA articles over the life of the agreement (Inchcoombe et al., 2021).

Evaluation Criteria

Case studies explored the criteria by which an institution or consortium evaluated a TA (19 studies). Criteria included cost of the agreement, particularly in relation to previous spending, past publication rates, publisher type, how “transformative” an agreement is, caps on APCs covered, author eligibility requirements, perpetual access, and cost per use. Three of these studies also described at least one aspect of the negotiation process.

The three case studies in Brayman et al. (2024) (University College London, University of Lancaster, and Edge Hill University) and Earney (2018) addressed evaluating TAs against Jisc criteria and evaluations conducted by Jisc. One key criterion related to costs and whether a TA would increase costs. Two case studies by librarians from University of Nottingham also described relying on Jisc analyses and criteria for evaluating TAs (Baldwin & Cavanagh, 2022, 2024). In Huffman (2022), librarians from a small university reported relying on evaluations from a larger consortium.

A librarian from a large U.S. research institution reported relying on similar criteria, specifically cost neutrality and the ability of the library budget to cover the cost of the TA, as well as eligibility (of journals and for authors), limitations on the number of articles that can be made OA (i.e., caps on the agreement), publisher workflow and management of the workflow, among others (Hosoi, 2021). Librarians from Sweden, the Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN), and a group of Canadian national research bodies used similar criteria, particularly to evaluate costs (Kelley & Bursey, 2022; Lundén & Wideberg, 2021; Olsvik, 2022).

Other criteria reported included the license types available for authors, perpetual access rights, and author eligibility requirements (Schimmer & Campbell, 2021). A smaller research institution in the US also reported using author licensing options as well as criteria like publishing patterns versus publisher caps (McLain & McKelvey, 2024).

In one case study, the authors walk through their evaluation process and conclude that the TA would be more expensive for all but 3 of the 42 institutions it analyzed, based on a comparison of the publisher’s TA price to payment per APC for each article published (Han et al., 2022).

In addition to the studies that discussed individual institutions relying on consortial (Jisc) criteria and analyses, University of Melbourne evaluated offers from their national consortium based on their publishing history, publisher reputation, which disciplines benefitted, and if Australian journals were covered (Kendal, 2023). The University of Florida also relied on assessments of agreements from their consortium and expected that TAs they entered should be easy for the author and administrator, affordable, and contribute to movement toward full OA (Russell, 2022).

Another study from a single institution provided examples of analysis of TAs from three types of publishers: large commercial, university press, and non-profit society. The library used metrics such as cost per use in addition to values, concluding that even though the university press agreement had low publishing from their authors, through the TA they would be contributing to the public good (Dodd, 2024).

Gustafson-Sundell et al. (2023) described how evaluating a TA inspired the librarians to consider aspects relevant for all subscriptions, such as potential issues due to geographic limitations from publishers that would result in some campuses being excluded from a system-wide agreement, use rights, and data privacy.

A few studies were from a consortial perspective. Grogg et al. (2021) looked at an agreement involving three consortia and found that one was paying a larger portion of the cost but publishing a smaller amount than other members. Karlstrøm and Andenæs (2021) provided a list of the joint Nordic principles for TAs and then described how they were implemented in negotiations.

Negotiations

Multiple studies that outlined evaluation criteria provided more detailed descriptions of negotiations and others focused more directly on the negotiation process (Karlstrøm & Andenæs, 2021; Kelley & Bursey, 2022; McLain & McKelvey, 2024; Pinhasi et al., 2020). These included narrative descriptions of an institution’s negotiation (Hosoi, 2021; Maurer et al., 2019; McLain & McKelvey, 2024; Walsh et al., 2024) and a description of the Swedish consortium, Bibsam, cancelling their Elsevier subscription and how that led to successful TA negotiation (Wideberg & Söderbergh Widding, 2018). Pinhasi et al. (2018) captured the sentiment of many of these case studies: negotiations are difficult and “often take place in a politically charged environment, and against the backdrop of the often ostensibly opposing goals of the publisher and the University” (p. 9). Negotiations taking a year or more were not uncommon (Inchcoombe et al., 2021; Karlstrøm & Andenæs, 2021; Lundén & Wideberg, 2021; Maurer et al., 2019; Olsson, Lindelöw, et al., 2020). As noted above, Karlstrøm and Andenæs (2021) provided their list of principles for TAs and then described how they used them in negotiations. A few studies identified negotiations with Elsevier as more challenging than other publishers (Karlstrøm & Andenæs, 2021; Olsson, Lindelöw, et al., 2020; Wideberg & Söderbergh Widding, 2018). Both Karlstrøm and Andenæs and Olsson, Lindelöw, et al. (2020) found that involving higher level university administrators led to more successful negotiations.

Studies from the library perspective described the need for more data for negotiations, such as publishing output (Kelley & Bursey, 2022; McLain & McKelvey, 2024; Pinhasi et al., 2018, 2019). Historical publishing data and historical APC spending were common data points, particularly if negotiating a capped agreement.

Implementation

We assigned the code “implementation” to 16 case studies. A few studies provided detailed descriptions of the implementation of a single, new agreement, such as the pilot UK-Springer Compact (Marques & Stone, 2020), the T&F TA with Ohio State University (Walsh et al., 2024), and Karger with the University of Toronto (Yuan & Slaght, 2022). These often included some quantitative data that the study authors described as necessary for improving the implementation of future agreements. Yuan and Slaght (2022) noted that implementation became easier over time. Differences in implementation across institutions in a consortium was also a topic (Olsson et al., 2017). Kingsley (2017) outlined how the TA between University of Cambridge and Wiley was implemented, and how complicated it was to determine how to use the funds that Wiley returned at the end of the year, based on APCs paid.

Of the studies that addressed implementation related to authors, there were differing reports of whether TAs affected author behavior. One reported authors wanting to change corresponding author after learning of the agreement (Olsson et al., 2017). Bergel et al. (2021) explored implementation from various perspectives and noted that authors were changing their behavior to enable eligibility. Baquero-Arribas et al. (2019) also discussed researcher perspectives—that researchers are in favor of TAs and would like more publishers and journals to be covered. Similar interest in authors for more TAs and broader coverage was described in Parmhed and Säll (2023). In contrast, Kronman (2018) reported on a survey that indicated that authors did not change their publication patterns due to the agreement. This was an outstanding question for University of Toronto in 2022; they intended to create a working group in the library to consider how an agreement might change author behavior (Yuan & Slaght, 2022).

Multiple studies mentioned communication challenges. Authors eligible for the Projekt DEAL agreement with Wiley wanted more communication; some had opted out of OA publishing because they were not aware of their options. Schalken (2022) also noted communication challenges, as details about the agreement can change over time; for example, publishers might change which journals are included in the TA or a cap might be reached. Communications from publishers and publisher workflows can also confuse authors, potentially resulting in drastic differences in author uptake (Jones, 2015; Pinhasi et al., 2018, 2021). From the publisher perspective, one society publisher noted the importance of workflow in successful implementation of a TA. Their implementation relied on automatic approval, but they also conducted manual checks and offered authors the opportunity to make their article OA retrospectively (Anderson et al., 2022).

A few case studies examined other aspects of implementation. One described how the library publicized TAs on their campus, explaining that they did not do much promotion so that they could remain “neutral” (Goddard & Brundy, 2024). Walsh et al. (2024) and Parmhed and Säll (2023) also discussed communications on campus, noting that they did not publicize their intention to cover APCs if the TA cap was exceeded. Ottesen (2020) discussed how not all journals were covered by agreements; Geschuhn et al. (2021) reported that the number of journals increased during the agreement. One library believed that participating in consortial TAs would increase the amount of information that the library received about its publishing output (Ottesen, 2020).

Labor

Another common topic was the labor required to negotiate, implement, and administer agreements. Studies addressed the need or perceived need for increased labor, or more intensive labor, for the institution(s) to enter into TAs, such as the increase in labor for negotiating TAs (Alkhaja, 2022; Baldwin & Cavanagh, 2022; Baquero-Arribas et al., 2019; Buck, 2018; Fessler & Hölbling, 2019; Hall & Kromp, 2017; Jisc, 2022; Jones, 2015; Karlstrøm & Andenæs, 2021; Kronman et al., 2017; Langrell & Stephenson, 2022; Mongale & Taylor, 2022; Moulton, 2022; Olsson et al., 2017; Parmhed & Säll, 2023; Pinhasi et al., 2018, 2019; Säll & Parmhed, 2020; UK Research and Innovation, 2020; Yuan & Slaght, 2022). Studies discussed issues such as the need to identify publishers to approach (Goddard & Brundy, 2024) and to design the actual model (Pinhasi et al., 2019).

Others described changes in staff roles due to the implementation of TAs, such as staff time required to manage the implementation of agreements (Baldwin & Cavanagh, 2024; Brayman et al., 2024; Craig & Webb, 2017; Goddard & Brundy, 2024; McLain & McKelvey, 2024; Muñoz-Vélez et al., 2024). For example, Goddard and Brundy (2024) described the need for staff to ensure that articles covered through TAs are made OA. Baldwin and Cavanagh (2024) described the shift from working with funded researchers to pay individual APCs to managing the implementation of TAs. Publishers also described increases in labor required to manage TAs (Moulton, 2022), with smaller publishers particularly concerned about their ability to meet these new labor requirements (UK Research and Innovation, 2020).

As in Baldwin and Cavanagh (2024) and Lovén (2019), some studies described reductions in the amount of labor by staff to manage TAs, usually compared to managing individual APC payments. TAs reduced the amount of time needed to monitor OA publishing (Olsson, Francke, et al., 2020). Studies specifically called out the labor reductions for uncapped TAs, which require neither the publisher (Anderson et al., 2022) nor institutions (Kronman, 2018) to monitor usage. The Royal Society case study in Anderson et al. (2022) also identified R&P agreements as requiring less labor than other OA models (i.e., subscribe-to-open).

Another case study describing the pilot UK Springer Compact identified labor reductions due to automatic deposit into their consortial repository by the publisher (Marques & Stone, 2020).

Cost Sharing

Fourteen case studies described how TA costs or benefits were distributed across institutions in a consortium. These studies noted uneven publishing rates across members of a consortium, including some institutions not publishing any articles through a TA (Grogg et al., 2021; Kromp et al., 2022; Kronman, 2018; Levine-Clark et al., 2022). Kronman (2018) reported that 9 of 40 institutions participating in the Bibsam agreement with Springer did not publish at all. This particular agreement was deemed “oversized” due to low publishing compared to anticipated rates (Kronman, 2018; Olsson, Francke, et al., 2020) and required the National Library of Sweden and Swedish Research Council to subsidize the entire agreement (Lovén, 2019). Pinhasi et al. (2021) also discussed using funding outside of library budgets, providing an overview of Austria's AT2OA project.

Some created tiered models to distribute costs across high- to low-publishing institutions (Kronman et al., 2017; Muñoz-Vélez et al., 2024; Schimmer & Campbell, 2021; Vernon et al., 2021). Studies discussed capped agreements and the challenges in distributing APC “credits,” as well as costs across institutions (Earney, 2017; Schimmer & Campbell, 2021), with Schimmer and Campbell (2021) noting that high publishing institutions would not be able to pay for all of their articles with their own budget. This was also the case with the Springer Compact in Sweden (Bergel et al., 2021; Olsson, Francke, et al., 2020).

Cost Savings/Avoidance

Seven of the 80 case studies directly addressed cost savings or cost avoidance achieved or expected through TAs: two described cost increases. Some provided cost calculations for specific agreements. Of these, three presented this in terms of cost savings or cost reductions (Marquez Rangel et al., 2023; Olsson, Lindelöw, et al., 2020; Walsh et al., 2024). An update on the Bibsam agreement with Springer in Kronman et al. (2017) found that the agreement was more costly than it would have been for them to keep a subscription, and Yuan and Slaght (2022) calculated that participating in a TA would have been more expensive than paying an APC for each publication for all but 3 of 42 institutions (subscription costs would have been eliminated in the model they were analyzing).

Levine-Clark et al. (2022) used the term “cost avoidance,” finding that the cost avoidance reported by publishers was lower than the consortium estimated, but the issue of how to determine “savings” was implied in other studies. Studies compared the cost of a TA to the cost of a subscription plus past APC spending (Olsson, Lindelöw, et al., 2020) and quantified savings in terms of list price APCs not paid individually (Walsh et al., 2024). The question of what “cost neutral” means was raised explicitly in Pinhasi et al. (2020) and Pinhasi et al. (2021) and discussed indirectly in Baquero-Arribas et al. (2019), which considers a number of different cost comparisons (e.g., cost if an APC were paid for each article, cost of past APC spending plus subscription to the price of a TA).

(Lack of) Transformation of the Publishing System

Several studies discussed a lack of transformation from hybrid to full OA—either of journals covered by the agreement or the journal publishing system overall—and the potential for TAs to become simply formalized double-dipping (i.e., when publishers take payment twice—for OA fees and subscription charges for the same content). Concerns about double-dipping reach back to the first study in our set, from 2015 (Jones, 2015). The aim of full transformation of the publisher as a part of criteria for evaluating TAs was mentioned in several of the studies involving Jisc criteria (Baldwin & Cavanagh, 2024; Brayman et al., 2024; Earney, 2018; Jones, 2015). Jones (2015) in particular identified double-dipping as a concern, after seeing that subscription prices had been lowered for some journals included in Wiley, T&F, and Sage TAs, but noting that it was a small percentage of included titles and a small reduction. In 2019, librarians from the University of Vienna noted concerns that publishers might be “increasing their income by accepting more OA articles without reducing the share of pay walled content” (Pinhasi et al., 2019, slide 22), and librarians from Medical University Graz in Steinrisser-Allex and Grossmaier-Stieg (2019) concluded that although TAs are good for increasing OA rates, hybrid models are expensive and the transition to OA is slow. Librarians from Uppsala University questioned whether the focus of TAs on hybrid journals over fully OA journals indicated a reliance by publishers on income from double-dipping (Bergel et al., 2021). Authors from Sweden questioned how library budgets could manage sustained increases without the reduction in subscription prices that was anticipated due to the transformation of the system (Ottesen, 2020).

Other (Case Studies)

Studies reported on the support that consortia provided for their members. Most discussed this in terms of evaluation support (Baldwin & Cavanagh, 2022; Brayman et al., 2024; Fessler & Hölbling, 2019; Russell, 2022). Fessler and Hölbling (2019) and Muñoz-Vélez et al. (2024) discussed the work of consortia in managing TAs. Urbán et al. (2020) was written by a consortium and proposed that TAs might make joining the consortium more attractive for institutions. From the publisher perspective, Hoogendoorn and Redvers‐Mutton (2024) expressed belief that TAs are more effective in regions with consortia.

Nine case studies raised the question of what license would apply for articles published through TAs. In some cases, they simply reported that there was an increase in output with a specific Creative Commons (CC) license applied (Marques & Stone, 2020; Ottesen, 2020; Vernon et al., 2021) or that a CC license was available (Langrell & Stephenson, 2022; Olsson, Lindelöw, et al., 2020; Urbán et al., 2020). Lundén and Wideberg (2021) described specific CC licenses as a negotiation objective, and Schalken (2022) tied CC license discussions to Plan S requirements.

Although TAs generally combine subscription, or “reading,” access and costs with publishing access and costs, few of the case studies included any discussion of the value of reading access. Five studies ascribed an increase in reading usage to an overall increase in the number of journals included under the agreement (Dodd, 2024; Drey & Emery, 2022; Levine-Clark et al., 2022; Steinrisser-Allex & Grossmaier-Stieg, 2019; Geschuhn et al., 2021).

Two studies described a cap being exceeded and potentially having to pay for additional articles to be published OA. Vernon et al. (2021) and Kelley and Bursey (2022) expressed concerns about the potential for exceeding a cap as well as cost sharing across TA participants. The remaining items included status updates on a number of agreements (Bansode & Pujar, 2022; Langrell & Stephenson, 2022), a brief description of the decision not to enter into TAs (Buck, 2018), and a study looking into whether the share of OA via subject repositories was affected by TAs that found that there was no evidence to support this hypothesis (Taubert et al., 2023b).

Qualitative Study Findings

Appendix C contains the code definitions and a table with code assignments for each study. Of the 31 qualitative studies, the following research designs were used: survey (n=19), interview (n=4), content analysis (n=4), focus group (n=3), and multi-methods (n=1).

Content Analysis

Four qualitative studies conducted a content analysis on existing TAs in the ESAC Registry. They investigated aspects such as the OA model (e.g., R&P, offsetting), caps or other limits, license stipulations, read access coverage, specified licenses (e.g., CC-BY), and opt-in and opt-out provisions. Three considered information from the registry entries (Gruenpeter et al., 2021; Li & Lin, 2021; Tian & Li, 2022). Borrego et al. (2020) analyzed 36 agreements linked from the registry and classified them within three categories: how agreements grant OA (e.g., unlimited/no caps, discounts), how the cost is balanced between read-and-publish fees, and OA mode (hybrid or hybrid and gold). Although there are similarities and differences across agreements, overall, there is no standard transformation model. The analyzed content was primarily from European agreements.

Perceptions of Publishers

Qualitative studies discussed publisher perspectives on TAs, such as the challenges for smaller publishers to engage in TA models. Reasons included lack of staffing and mechanisms for supporting new workflows (Estelle et al., 2021; Wise & Estelle, 2019b). Smaller publishers expressed the difficulty with negotiating TAs with individual libraries and consortia (Estelle et al., 2021; Wise & Estelle, 2020). Many publishers, especially smaller publishers, had concerns about the potential need for cost cutting and re-evaluating existing revenue streams (Estelle et al., 2021; Van Barneveld-Biesma et al., 2020; Wise & Estelle, 2019b, 2020). Other smaller publishers were concerned about price setting of TA models and how TAs have the potential to shift “one captive budget (subscriptions) into another (OA) during the transition, which may keep problematic profit margins and price increases baked into these deals” (Higton et al., 2020; Wise & Estelle, 2019a, p. 112).

Smaller publishers had less interest in pursuing TAs compared to larger publishers. Large publishers’ perceptions varied, per Estelle et al. (2021). Overall, large publishers, especially those already participating in Tas, had more positive perceptions about competition compared to small publishers (Van Barneveld-Biesma et al., 2020). Studies reported that large publishers had concerns about revenue streams despite being “best positioned in such a system, although their profit and income is expected to decrease – an expectation expressed by all publishers” (Van Barneveld-Biesma et al., 2020, pp. 51–52).

Experiences of Publishers

Qualitative studies captured information about publishers’ experiences with TAs. In a survey conducted in 2015, 73% of publishers did not provide offset arrangements; 70% of those were unsure if they would in the next 1 to 3 years (Smith et al., 2016). Another 15% said they would not be offering TAs, and 15% said that they would. Another study published the following year reported higher levels of experience—45% of their respondents had experience with a TA (Estelle et al., 2021). Smaller publishers had less experience, in part due to a lack of interest or an inability to manage TA, but some were interested. Workflows were a common topic in the qualitative studies, and Geschuhn and Stone (2017) focused on library/consortia’s needs for publishers to improve their systems.

Ideas related to transparency were raised in a few studies. Wise and Estelle (2019b) discussed price setting and the differences between publisher and library expectations and desires for transparency. Estelle et al. (2021) also discussed price transparency, with smaller publishers wanting more transparency around TAs negotiated by their larger publisher partners. Brayman et al. (2024) reported on a survey of 21 publishers conducted to understand how transparent they were about their future plans. Of those, 12 had a clear plan for transitioning to full OA and 5 made their plan publicly available. Seven of 12 had set a target but 5 said that there was limited interest in OA and TAs globally, preventing them from creating a clear plan. The authors noted that survey respondents “were keen to stress that this does not reflect a lack of commitment to OA” (Brayman et al., 2024, p. 84).

Perceptions of Learned Societies

Similarly to publisher perceptions, societies’ perceptions of TAs included concerns about negotiations with library consortia and costs (Estelle et al., 2021; Wise & Estelle, 2019a, 2020). For societies working with larger publishing partners, there was a desire for greater transparency of OA agreements in terms of total revenue and how it is allocated to journal titles (Estelle et al., 2021).

One study showed 60% of societies would consider transformative OA models (Wise & Estelle, 2020). One society (FWF) expressed interest in pursuing TAs because some authors did not have funding to pay for APCs (Wise & Estelle, 2020). Some societies stated that they are not observing TAs in their discipline (e.g., history) and are skeptical about TAs working for their purposes without institutional support and grant funding (Finn, 2019).

Other societies expressed concerns about outside factors influencing their uptake of TAs. Some examples included Brexit (Finn, 2019), compliance with Plan S (Wise & Estelle, 2019a), funders not paying for APCs (Wise & Estelle, 2019b), and conditions on the use of funder money (Higton et al., 2020). Learned societies with in-house publishing arms (82%) and learned societies that outsourced publishing (83%) had the opinion that UK Research and Innovation (UKRI, a U.K. government funding body) OA funds should support OA for hybrid journals (Higton et al., 2020).

Perceptions of Libraries, Consortia, and Institutions

Qualitative studies reported that librarians and representatives of higher education institutions were, overall, less favorable toward TAs than other groups (Government of Canada, 2023; Higton et al., 2020; Monaghan et al., 2020). As noted by individuals interviewed in Monaghan et al. (2020), some “librarians have their guard up and are suspicious” about TAs (p. 33) and “guess many other librarians are worried about the financial consequences and probably would like to see a few examples of how this will work out” (p. 29).

Studies expressed concern that TAs maintain negative aspects of the current publishing system, particularly the potential to leave out smaller publishers, whether because they may not be able to develop needed workflows or because increasing proportions of library budgets will be consumed by TAs with the largest commercial publishers (Brayman et al., 2024; Van Barneveld-Biesma et al., 2020). Other concerns included that agreements are generally unaffordable and also are not available for researchers in all disciplines (Estelle et al., 2021; Van Barneveld-Biesma et al., 2020).

It should be noted that libraries did express a desire for and an expectation of reallocation of funding from subscriptions toward OA publishing agreements and reported feeling that participating in consortial OA agreements was important for their institution (Maron et al., 2021; Pampel, 2021).

One qualitative study explored library consortia perceptions of TAs (Morais et al., 2019). They reported perceived benefits of TAs such as controlled or possibly reduced costs, supporting the transition to OA, improving administrative procedures, improving negotiations, reducing or preventing double-dipping, and benefits for researchers. Identified drawbacks included the potential for more expensive agreements and more complex negotiations, maintaining the status quo of dominance by a few large publishers, entrenching the hybrid model and its associated double-dipping, and hindering the development of different OA publishing models.

Experiences of Libraries, Consortia, and Institutions

Similar to studies of publishers, earlier studies of libraries reported lower uptake of TAs. In Pampel’s (2021) survey, conducted in 2018, roughly 80% of responses were from central facilities (including libraries) and approximately 13% had agreements with publishers that they categorized as offsetting agreements. Monoghan et al. (2020) reported 10 of 16 institutions had a TA.

A common positive aspect of TAs for librarians was improvements in workflows over managing individual APCs, but some noted that there was still room for improvement (Brayman et al., 2024; Geschuhn & Stone, 2017; Monaghan et al., 2020; Šimukovič, 2023). A reduction in burden of managing OA payments to publishers was a common positive theme among librarians (Brayman et al., 2024; Monaghan et al., 2020). This is achieved through publisher workflows; however, these do not eliminate staff resources required to manage the agreements. and studies reported that there is still much room for improvement in these workflows. A particular challenge facing libraries is managing the differences between publisher workflows and interfaces (Brayman et al., 2024; Geschuhn & Stone, 2017; Monaghan et al., 2020). As noted in Monaghan et al. (2020), “each publisher’s deal has different features and conditions, which complicates workflow procedures. Not only is the content of the publishers’ deals different, but also the workflows between the publishers on the one hand and the libraries on the other” (Monaghan et al., 2020, p. 28). Librarians have pointed to workflows being a challenge for authors as well, with an interviewee in Šimukovič (2023) suggesting that low uptake of an agreement was due to the publisher’s workflow.

Libraries also reported experiencing budgetary challenges with TAs, particularly for institutions that are high publishing or had small subscription budgets with proportionally high publishing (Brayman et al., 2024; Higton et al., 2020; Monaghan et al., 2020). For example, one survey participant in Higton et al. (2020) identified an increase of 9.45% in costs of a R&P agreement over the previous year and a potential 20% increase for another TA in the next year. Respondents to Marques’s (2017a) survey also reported concerns about the high costs of TAs, including what the effects would be on pricing of future agreements and long-term sustainability.

Perceptions of Researchers

Findings from studies reporting on researcher perspectives of TAs varied. In Government of Canada (2023), researchers were less favorable toward TAs as a route to OA publishing than publishers were. However, van Barneveld-Biesma et al. (2020) found that authors appreciated R&P and P&R agreements because they expected their OA publishing costs to decrease, and Olsson (2018) found that researchers who had published through a TA had overall positive feelings toward the agreements. Although most researchers had overall positive feelings, some had concerns about costs and wanted non-commercial options (Olsson, 2018). That there exists variation in the perceptions of TAs across researchers was one of the findings of Schuchardt (2023).

Disciplinary differences in perceptions were reported, with Higton et al. (2020) finding that some arts and humanities and social sciences researchers were concerned that TAs were too focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics subjects.

Experiences of Researchers

A common theme in the qualitative studies was researchers reporting that their publishing choices were not influenced by the availability of a TA (Olsson, 2018; Schuchardt, 2023; Šimukovič, 2023; van der Graaf et al., 2017). In fact, as was also noted by librarians, authors were often unaware of the TAs at their institution (Johnson et al., 2017; Olsson, 2018; Schuchardt, 2023).

There were five qualitative studies looking at researcher usage of TAs. Those studies analyzed different aspects such as motivations for publishing via a TA, usage totals, and TAs as a share of a variety of funding options. As Olsson (2018) reported, only 17% of authors listed the TA as a reason for choosing to publish in a journal. Some indicated that they wanted to benefit from visibility and impact but did not have funding to pay APCs on their own, while 39% of respondents indicated that they would have or maybe would have paid an APC had there not been an agreement in place (Olsson, 2018). Some authors found the TAs to be a pleasant surprise where they did not need to pay APCs (van der Graaf et al., 2017).

Two studies noted low usage of TAs. There was low usage of the VSNU-Elsevier agreement in the first year where one of three researchers used the agreement, but this increased by providing retroactive OA and by publisher improvements to workflow issues noted by library staff (Šimukovič, 2023). Johnson et al. (2017) found that about 10% of survey respondents (n=310) had used vouchers or offsetting agreements but that authors used personal or grant funds to pay for OA fees more often than they used vouchers or offsetting agreements. Authors indicated that they used a variety of funding mechanisms to pay for OA fees such as grant funding, institutional funds, personal funds, and TAs wherein there was no dominant source of funding to cover the costs of publishing OA, and some considered TAs as a way to consolidate the multiple funding sources (Monaghan et al., 2020).

Other (Qualitative)

Three studies surveyed Europe-based populations and reported findings that did not fit with any other codes. A 2016 study surveyed a group of Science Europe member organizations and found that they were beginning to consider TAs, with the hope that they alter the status quo of OA publishing (Kita et al., 2016). A 2018 study of National Rectors’ Conference members on their “big deals” found that around 11% included APCs in their big deals and 4% had an “offsetting provision” of some type (Morais et al., 2018). Respondents were considering these options for the future, and some were already in discussions with publishers. In Fosci et al. (2019), a group of European funders was surveyed about their intentions to support various OA publishing models. Two-thirds reported that they were not working on TAs, others were negotiating through consortia or directly with publishers, nine were collecting data on publishing models, and eight were developing negotiation guidelines. The study reported findings by grouping respondents based on their level of support, or lack of support, for Plan S. Respondents that were aligned with or more favorable toward Plan S were more likely to be engaging with TAs in some way, whereas the funders that did not support Plan S were not engaging.

Finally, in addition to the findings described above, Šimukovič (2023) provided a narrative history of the negotiations between Elsevier and the Dutch consortium VSNU for a TA. Through interviews, librarians on the negotiating team discussed the importance of having university administration-level representation on the negotiating team.

Quantitative Study Findings

Appendix D contains the code definitions and a table with code assignments for each study.

Cost of TAs

Twelve quantitative studies looked at the cost of TAs, either broadly or for specific aspects including country, publisher, publishing fee, reading fee, and administrative costs. At the broad end of the spectrum, Bosch et al. (2023) used EBSCO data to determine that R&P price increases were lower (2.83%) than non-R&P deals. The study deduced that this might be due to the publishing industry aggressively incentivizing a shift to the R&P model.

The four reports (2016-2019) about Jisc’s TAs each discussed the potential administrative cost savings of TAs (Lawson, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019). Using an estimate of £88 per article, Lawson calculated hypothetical administrative costs of processing each OA article published through the agreement as an individual APC. For four agreements, there would have been administrative costs of £50,952 in 2015 (Lawson, 2016), increasing to £327,536 in 2017, based on data from 34 and 53 institutions, respectively (Lawson, 2019). However, he notes that this value ignores the costs associated with setting up and implementing the agreements or the administrative costs of communicating with researchers about the agreements.

It was challenging to synthesize studies analyzing cost of TAs by publisher for studies including data for more than one publisher. The agreement stipulation and years being analyzed varied and it was difficult to disentangle what the study authors’ claim to be cost, cost avoidance, and calculated “value” of TAs. The four Jisc reports showed an increase in the number of TAs from five (Wiley, T&F, SAGE, IOP, RSC) in 2015 to six (Wiley, T&F, Springer, SAGE, IOP, RSC) in 2016 (Lawson, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019). The report of the 2017 data addressed six publishers (Wiley, T&F, Springer, Sage, IOP, De Gruyter) and the summary published in 2019 covered TAs with all seven publishers (Wiley, T&F, Springer, Sage, IOP, De Gruyter, RSC) (Lawson, 2018, 2019). The reports provided the total spend on the agreement (subscriptions + APCs); for example, £1,712,935 for IOP compared to £7,582,157 for Springer (Lawson, 2018). Brayman et al. (2024) looked at many publishers’ TAs from Jisc institutions and found that the “[t]otal 2022 expenditure via Jisc on TAs was £137m” (p. 12). The report compares TA costs for 37 publishers to expected costs if the TA had not been in place and APCs for a portion of articles were paid.

For studies analyzing TA costs by country, Nazarovets and Skalaban (2019) estimated hypothetical OA publishing costs if all articles from Belarus and Ukraine were published OA, as a basis for considering TAs. Chen (2023) looked at publishing output and Cambridge University Press TAs in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Japan, and Singapore to compare against publishing rates and TA offered to Chinese institutions. It was more common for TA costs to be discussed in studies by one country about one country.

Several quantitative studies reported on prospective costs of TAs by analyzing publishing patterns and APC costs. For example, Tickell (2018) modeled a spending decrease in 2019 to £250 million with an increase to £336 million anticipated in 2028. Brayman et al. (2024) modelled TA costs for 2020 through 2024 and compared them to hypothetical spending without TAs. The models showed an increase in TA costs from £35 million in 2020 to £103 million in 2024 and a cost avoidance of £5.98 million in 2020 to £49 million in 2024. Nazarovets and Skalaban (2019) indicated that this approach was a means for information gathering pre-negotiations.

Additionally, Olsson (2018) and Kramer (2024) discussed the conceptualization of “read” costs versus “publish” costs. In Olsson (2018), Bibsam costs were based on a per publication charge of €2200 plus a reading fee for the Springer Compact resulting in the average reading cost per year during the agreement of €525,309 compared to a subscription price of €2,267,728 in the year before the agreement (i.e., for reading). The average publish fee was €3,662,560 per year (for up to 4,126 articles). Kramer (2024) analyzed European countries in the ESAC Registry and found that a small number of agreements included read versus publishing costs.

Cost Savings/Avoidance

Eight quantitative studies discussed cost avoidance or cost savings through TAs. Lawson (2017) explained the difference: “savings” are “the amounts that institutions might have paid in the absence of offset agreements,” but because authors may not have chosen to publish OA, and thus pay an APC, if the agreement hadn’t been in place, it is “probably more accurate to regard the value of the deals as cost avoidance rather than savings”(p. 12).

In the series of annual reports of Jisc offsetting agreements, Lawson (2016, 2018) reported increasing cost avoidance between 2015 and 2017, from £2.5 million through via TAs to £9 million in 2017 through 6 TAs. Kromp and Ćirković (2016) noted cost “savings” through Austria’s offsetting agreements with IOP (increasing from 7% to 21% between 2015 and 2016) and T&F (up from 5% in 2015 to 11% in 2016) and a TA with Springer (€1.2 million in 2016).

Marques outlined costs avoided via the Jisc Springer compact, finding that 86% of 91 participating institutions had some level of cost avoidance when comparing the number of OA articles published via the agreement to the number of APCs paid in the year before the agreement started (Marques, 2016, 2017b).

Brayman et al. (2024) an intensive study of all of Jisc’s TAs and estimated that cost avoidance increased from £6 million in 2020 to £42 million in 2022 and estimated avoidance of £49.1 million for 2024. However, they noted that this was across the consortium and varied for individual institutions.

Number of Articles

Twelve quantitative studies reported the number of articles published via the TA by discipline. We mapped the disciplines to the six Fields of R&D classification defined in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Frascati Manual (OECD, 2015). The manual defines six classifications: natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical and health sciences, agricultural and veterinary sciences, social sciences, and humanities and the arts. Overall, it was not surprising that many studies reported on natural sciences (10 of 12) and medical and health sciences (10) because, as a whole, studies have suggested that these disciplines are more likely to be covered by a TA. There were also many studies looking at disciplines in the social sciences (10) and engineering and technology (9) categories. Interestingly, humanities were reported in 8 of 12 studies. We found fewer studies related to disciplines in the agricultural sciences category. This could be because not all institutions have agricultural sciences programs or because researchers were including these disciplines under other categories in their analyses.

There were increases in the number and/or proportion of OA articles following the start of a TA reported in all studies, although the size of the increase varied by discipline. Which disciplines benefited most, in terms of hybrid OA output, varied across studies. Some reported that the largest number of articles were published in medicine and biomedical life sciences (Kromp & Ćirković, 2016). Kromp and Ćirković (2016) also noted large numbers of articles in natural sciences and engineering and technology disciplines, while Marques (2017b) reported the highest OA output in medicine and public health, followed by life sciences, biomedicine, and philosophy. Marques (2016) also found high amounts of OA output in medicine, biomedical and life sciences, as well as education, earth and environmental science, chemistry and materials science, engineering, and mathematics and statistics. Jahn et al. (2021) found that articles were predominately invoiced to agreements for energy and chemical engineering. Wenaas (2022) found the lowest levels of OA in humanities and social sciences.

Some studies reported changes in the proportion of OA pre-agreement and during a TA. Bakker et al. (2024) found that the largest changes when a TA started were in proportion for social science followed by natural science, while Jahn (2024) found that hybrid OA increased in physical science journals, largely increased in humanities and social sciences, and “played a comparably lesser role” (p. 20) in life sciences and health sciences compared to humanities and social sciences. Calder et al. (2018) observed large increases in OA in mathematics and humanities and a smaller increase in life and health sciences. These findings might be due to the overall higher proportion of OA articles in the areas of life and health sciences before an agreement.

DEAL (formerly Projekt DEAL, now the DEAL Consortium, a national body in Germany that negotiates with publishers) agreements with Wiley and Springer Nature appeared to affect author choice in some disciplinary categories but not all (Haucap et al., 2021; Schmal, 2024a); researchers also found that DEAL agreements affected journal choices among economists, to different levels in a male/female gender binary (Schmal et al., 2023).

Studies primarily reported on the number of hybrid OA articles published through agreements, but some also reported on publications in other modes of OA. Correlations between the start of a TA and an increase in hybrid OA with a decrease in green OA were found in Wenaas (2022) and Bakker et al. (2024). This, in part, may have been due to articles being assigned only one OA mode. Brayman et al. (2024) reported that for most of the TA publishers, articles that were OA through the agreement were also available in repositories.

A number of studies included publisher-level article data for multiple publishers (Table 1). The most commonly represented publishers were Wiley, Springer, Elsevier, and T&F. IOP and RSC, two publishers that had early TA programs, were also represented. Brayman et al. (2024) is a comprehensive study of 10 years of Jisc TAs and included article publication data for 37 publishers.

Table 1

Studies Comparing Publication Data Across Multiple Publishers

Publisher	Studies
Wiley	Brayman et al., 2024; Frontiers, 2022; Jahn, 2024; Lawson, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019; Mittermaier, 2021; Schmal, 2024a
Springer/ Springer Nature	Brayman et al., 2024; Frontiers, 2022; Jahn, 2024; Kromp & Ćirković, 2016; Lawson, 2017, 2018, 2019; Mittermaier, 2021; Schmal, 2024a
SAGE	Brayman et al., 2024; Lawson, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019
Elsevier	Brayman et al., 2024; Frontiers, 2022; Jahn, 2024; Lawson, 2017; Mittermaier, 2021
RSC	Brayman et al., 2024; Lawson, 2016, 2017, 2019
IOP	Brayman et al., 2024; Kromp & Ćirković, 2016; Lawson, 2016, 2019
T&F	Frontiers, 2022; Lawson, 2016, 2018, 2019; Mittermaier, 2021

Studies also explored the number of articles published across a time period. This was by month of agreement in Kromp and Ćirković (2016), Oefelein (2021), Marques (2017b), and Marques (2016) and by year in Wenaas (2022), Brayman et al. (2024), Jahn (2024), Lawson (2019), Olsson (2018), Broschinski (2019), Calder et al. (2018), and Mittermaier (2021). These were for a single publisher or multiple publishers, except for (2024), which presented data by country and by discipline. There were generally few conclusions beyond an increase in the number of hybrid articles published over time.

Some studies reported on the number of articles published by institutions participating in consortial agreements. Data were presented for all 47 Swedish institutions participating in the Springer agreement with Bibsam, 9 of which published more than 50 articles in 2020 (Oefelein, 2021). For a Jisc agreement with Springer, with 90 participating institutions, Marques (2017b) provided data for the 18 highest publishing institutions, publishing between roughly 60 to 218 publications in 2016. Other articles relied on data from a subset of institutions but did not present data individually (Lawson, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019). Another study reported on the number of articles covered by agreements from several countries with a single publisher (Chen, 2023).

Quantitative studies looked at larger groupings as well, by country or by geographic region. Bakker et al. (2024) reported on the total number of articles published through TAs by continent, while Kramer (2024) and Jahn (2024) grouped results by region (European regions, BRICS and OECD countries). Jahn (2024) looked at many countries, while others looked at subsets of countries or reported on a mix of country and region-level data (Jahn et al., 2021; Mittermaier, 2021; Schmal, 2024a). These generally found more TAs and more articles published OA through TAs from European countries, particularly the UK, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

Not all researchers chose to use a TA even when eligible. Brayman et al. (2024) found that approximately 14,000 articles were eligible for a TA but were not published OA, perhaps due to opt-outs or caps on agreements. They found that overall opt-outs decreased by 200% for Springer Nature from 2019 to 2022 and by about 300% for Wiley from 2020 to 2022. The decrease in opt-outs may have been due to improved workflows and increased author awareness. Marques (2017b) analyzed OA articles and found that 19.6% of the total were truly authors opting out. Jahn et al. (2021) looked at Elsevier article sponsor metadata to try to distinguish if OA was funded by TAs or other means and found that for 2015 to 2019 invoicing through TAs slightly increased from 31.6% to 32.4%. Alternatively, Jahn et al. found that most APCs (n = 41,725; 58.2%) were invoiced to the author during the time period of 2015 to 2019. Calder et al. (2018) found that while some U.K. corresponding authors were opting out of the Springer Compact, 75% and 84% published via the Compact in 2016 and 2017 respectively.

Other quantitative studies took unique approaches. Two projected future OA output due to new TAs (Broschinski, 2019; Estelle et al., 2021). Pieper and Broschinski (2018) and Jahn (2024) looked at the number of articles published via TAs by journal. One article explored the effects of TAs on publication choices based on author gender for German authors in the field of economics. Papers with a majority of female authors were more likely to take up the DEAL agreements, particularly for journals from the highest SJR quartile. Groups of male authors tended to publish in journals covered by the DEAL agreements, but single authors did not (Schmal et al., 2023).

Number of TAs

Much of the research studying the number of TAs is based on data from the ESAC Registry. As Drake et al. (2023) noted, “data on transformative agreements is murky with of [sic] 836 on the ESAC registry but up to 2,146 according to annual publisher reports” (p. 8).

Of the studies looking at the number of TAs in the ESAC Registry over time, Brainard (2021) reported that the number of agreements had grown to 137 in 2020; Brayman et al. (2024) calculated a 21,200% increase in the number of TAs in the registry between 2014 and 2022, and Kramer (2024) noted the growth in TAs from 2014 to 2023, when there were 337 TAs that were active. Moskovkin et al. (2022) reported on the number of publishers with TAs, which increased from 32 in September 2020 to 50 in October 2021. Tickell (2018) studied only agreements in the UK and reported an increase of 178 institutions participating in 2 Jisc TAs in 2013 to 759 institutions participating in 8 agreements as of 2017. On a smaller scale, one society publisher reported increasing their number of TAs from 50 institutions in 2020 to over 200 in 2021 (Doddy, 2021).

In addition to finding an increase in the number of publishers with at least one TA over time, Moskovkin et al. (2022) found that the top 10 publishers account for a little more than half the number of TAs and over 90% of the annual publications. Kramer (2024) identified a group of publishers with TAs in the largest number of countries, which included the three largest publishers (Wiley, Elsevier, and Springer Nature). Morais et al. (2019) gathered country-level data and reported on the number of big deals containing an OA component for a number of publishers (Elsevier, Springer, T&F, and ACS).

Four quantitative studies included data on the number of TAs per country for different subsets of the world. Moskovkin et al. (2022) provided data for 37 countries and Kramer (2024) for 30. Asai (2024) had a unique study design that looked at the effects of TAs on OA choices in hybrid journals, finding that “11 countries have journals with the largest number of authors of open access articles” (p. 5) and that 7 of the 11 countries had a TA with Elsevier in 2021. Brayman et al. (2024) presented information geographically and included multiple panels for each year 2014 to 2022.

Other (Quantitative)

A few studies provided other types of quantitative data. Shamash (2017) attempted to measure the effect of TAs on the cost of APCs and claimed that APC spending data showed that offsetting deals were keeping costs down: T&F and RSC had offsetting agreements and their APCs fell below average. Another study, Marques et al. (2019), looked at the metadata publishers provided to consortia participating in TAs, finding that some publishers did not provide the level of metadata proposed by the Knowledge Exchange or ESAC Initiative recommendations. Harris et al. (2024) compared articles funded by the Fonds de recherche du Québec to determine how many would have been covered under Canadian Research Knowledge Network TA. A final quantitative study reported on uptake of agreements for a single society, the Geological Society of London (Simmons & Strachan, 2023).

Theoretical Study

There was only one theoretical study that met the inclusion criteria of this review (Schmal, 2024b). In this study, the author explored P&R agreements and how publishers can design them for maximum benefit (i.e., income). As publishers are the ones to set prices, they can put more emphasis on either the “read” or “publish” component of the per article fee to maintain their desired level of income from an institution. They further concluded that P&R agreements are likely to make it more difficult for new, fully OA models to emerge and despite “[i]ntending to lower costs for the universities, their libraries, and, ultimately, the taxpayers, this PAR fee contract design of transformative agreements might cause the opposite” (Schmal, 2024b, p. 1).

Discussion

Summary of Evidence

The results showed the heterogeneity of methods and findings of research on TAs, which makes synthesis challenging. Beyond the heterogeneity of methods and results, the research corpus looked at different time periods, publishers, agreements, agreement stipulations, currencies, and participating institutions. Even the results of individual studies were complex and not easily summarized, limiting the possibility of synthesizing swaths of research. The studies were also packaged for different intended audiences and published in several different languages. We surmise that the topic of TAs and OA funding more broadly is a valued topic at institution-, consortia-, country-, and regional-levels, which influences research dissemination.

Themes emerged despite the heterogeneity. That TAs increase the amount of OA publishing from the participating institutions was a common finding across studies. Since TAs are intended to increase OA, this can be considered a positive finding.

The increase in OA through TAs was generally limited to hybrid OA, unless fully OA (usually referred to as “gold” OA in studies) journals were included in the TA. Studies raise concerns over TAs resulting in a decrease in green OA. Other studies raised questions over whether the emphasis on hybrid OA by TAs have the potential to make it more difficult for new fully OA models to succeed.

Quantitative studies found that TAs had varying effects on the number of OA articles published across disciplines, often noting differences in TA coverage of journals in different disciplines. This was noted by researchers, who reported concerns with TAs due to perceived differences in coverage by discipline, although authors indicated more interest in TAs that offer broader coverage.

Many studies reported results for a single consortium, and additional studies reported findings related to the importance of consortia, in part due to the support consortia can provide to institutions in evaluating and managing agreements. Case studies and quantitative studies addressed how costs and benefits were distributed across members of a consortium, with members of different sizes and levels of publishing output. It was found to be challenging to determine how to fairly distribute costs and benefits, particularly for agreements covering a capped number of articles. Studies of all methods noted that high publishing institutions would find it difficult or impossible to manage the costs of OA for all of their output, implying that without balancing costs across consortium members, TAs may not be a valid option. These findings highlight the limitations of the 2015 MPDL white paper from Schimmer et al.—the calculations in the paper do not reflect the reality of how the money is spread across the system. Although consortia can agree to distribute costs across sizes and types of institutions, the lack of agreement, globally, that TAs are the best path forward means that a system-wide transition could be implemented.

Many studies addressed the implementation of agreements, including positive and negative aspects of workflows. Case studies discussed the labor required to negotiate, implement, and administer agreements, generally with the conclusion that TAs are labor intensive. Those reporting reduction in labor were generally in comparison to managing the invoicing of individual APCs for an entire institution. Studies noted a need for different types of labor and different classes of staff involved, with three studies specifically noting the importance of having high-level university administrators involved in negotiations (Olsson, Lindelöw, et al., 2020; Schimmer & Campbell, 2021; Šimukovič, 2023). Publisher systems introduced challenges: librarians and staff who manage the implementation of TAs noted the amount of effort required to manage each publisher’s unique workflow. These differences in workflows also were noted to be confusing to authors, in some cases resulting in authors not taking advantage of their OA option.

We identified themes relating to author/researcher impressions of and experiences with TAs across study types. Studies reported generally favorable views, appreciating the elimination of author-facing OA fees, but as a whole, study authors were not convinced that TAs are the best way forward. As described earlier, TA coverage by discipline varied and researchers had concerns about this. “Opt-outs” (i.e., researchers not selecting OA even though they are eligible under a TA) were a topic in a number of studies. Quantitative studies showed decreases in opt-out rates over time, including studies that found that small portions of authors who opted out intentionally chose to publish their article closed. Rates may have decreased because of improved publisher workflows and communications and increases in general awareness of TAs.

A common point of discussion in the OA community is whether TAs affect where authors choose to publish. Earlier studies by Olsson (2018), Kronman (2018), and van der Graaf (2017) reported authors being unaware of TAs, thus TAs were not a factor in deciding where they would publish. However, later quantitative studies found some evidence of the German DEAL agreements with Wiley and Springer Nature having an effect on journal choices in different disciplines (Haucap et al., 2021; Schmal, 2024a; Schmal et al., 2023). It is unclear if the change is due to geography, discipline, or simply that TAs have become more common.

Many studies addressed costs, cost savings, and cost avoidance. Criteria used to evaluate TAs often required a reduction in cost, or “cost neutrality.” Although studies reported cost data, they did not necessarily provide a comparison value. Some case studies and quantitative studies presented cost data in terms of “savings” or “avoidance” by comparing the price of the TA to the subscription plus some amount of APCs, whether it was a value based on historical APC payments or an estimate of the cost of the APCs for all articles covered under an agreement. Without having a clear definition of what the price of a TA should be compared to, it is not possible to provide an accurate assessment of the value of these agreements. An additional layer that is not often discussed is the difference between cost and price. The costs reported were typically APC prices, but publishers have stated that their APC prices are not based on costs, but rather what the market will allow, and as APC prices continue to increase, TAs may appear to be providing increasing “value,” despite not providing any more tangible benefits (Butler et al., 2024; Informa UK Limited, 2022; Tan et al., 2021).

Across different research designs, a lack of transparency and standardization of TAs was observed. Studies found that TAs and publishers were not transparent, and other studies indicated stakeholder concerns and frustrations around a lack of transparency around pricing, total revenue, and publishers’ plans to transition to full OA (Brayman et al., 2024; Estelle et al., 2021; Kramer, 2024; Marques et al., 2019; Wise & Estelle, 2019a, 2019b). From the executive summary of the EU’s Study on Scientific Publishing in Europe: Development, Diversity, and Transparency of Costs:

With the growth of open access, financial flows have become progressively complex. They are also in large part untransparent, especially where they are tied to previous subscription spending. Academics, researchers, librarians, and eventually national funders, often lack information on how public money is being spent in publishing research, and what conditions are attached. (Kramer, 2024, p. 5)

TAs are meant to be “transformative” and transitional, yet many studies reported a lack of transformation. Case studies discussing this topic described TAs as essentially formalizing double-dipping, meaning that publishers are using TAs to increase their income. Steinrisser-Allex and Grossmaier-Stieg (2019) raised concerns in 2019 that if TAs remain expensive and do not lead to a transformation, they may become a “luxury good” that not all institutions can afford. A comprehensive study of TAs in the UK, published in early 2024, found that many publishers did not have clear plans, or were not able to publicly share their plan, for flipping to full OA (Brayman et al., 2024). Despite studies reporting libraries and consortia desiring a reallocation of subscriptions toward OA publishing, the lack of evidence of a shift in the system despite years of TAs was a concern. Libraries and some publishers (generally smaller publishers or learned societies) expressed concern that TAs will continue to take larger portions of library budgets, without the promised transformation, resulting in even more consolidation with large commercial publishers.

The spread and level of “transformation” of TAs also impact the potential for a transformation of the publishing system. Studies reported the number of TAs at various points in time, with various publishers, and in various countries, although much of this is based on data from the ESAC Registry, which relies on voluntary entry and thus does not contain all TAs. The geographical distribution of the populations included in this review reflected the skewed nature of TA uptake, with 145 of 151 studies looking at data from Europe and North America. The content analysis studies demonstrated the high variability of TA designs: there is no standard model. With some TAs appearing to be more transformative than others, it is unclear whether current practices will lead to a full transformation (Borrego et al., 2020).

Limitations

Although quality appraisal is not a required component of this review type, we observed varying levels of rigor within the included studies. Data extraction and the resulting synthesis was difficult because the individual studies did not always disclose pertinent information such as sample size and dates of agreements. Langham-Putrow et al. (2021) noted a similar issue of suboptimal reporting of bibliometric studies in a recent systematic review. Standards are needed and currently lacking for bibliometric research, but guidelines are in development, and the authors look forward to future bibliometric research adhering to these guidelines (Ng, 2022).

As stated, synthesizing across, or even comparing, these vastly different studies was difficult. Some of the studies may have been agenda-driven—with authors or funding from for-profit entities directly involved in negotiating and supporting TAs.

While we were very dedicated to identifying all relevant literature on the topic via electronic searches as well as forward and backward citation chaining, due to dissemination practices and irregular indexing, it is possible that some studies were not discovered. The literature on this topic continues to grow and therefore future studies should include the influx of new research.

Conclusion

For this review, we retrieved and synthesized a diverse body of literature on TAs. The 151 studies identified encompassed a wide range of aspects of these agreements. Studies used a range of methods and reported varied findings.

TAs have been around for over 10 years, and this review shows how their design has changed and numbers have increased over time. With more data now in hand, we conclude that there is no evidence based or validated way to measure the effectiveness of TAs. We hope to see more thorough analyses of TAs that measure effectiveness against a well-defined goal. Before that can be done, a consensus needs to be reached as to what the goals of the agreements are. The expectations that TAs would “transform” the system from subscription to full OA have not been met. However, it is no longer clear that such a transition is the ultimate goal; rather, the transition is now sometimes described as simply for individual institutions or consortia’s budgets (ESAC Initiative, 2022).

When Plan S was announced in 2018, much of the discussion around it was about TAs and Plan S’s requirement to end funding for TAs by the end of 2024. At present, it is clear that TAs have not ended, and even if cOAlition S members were to stop funding them entirely, few agreements are directly supported by funding agencies. There is, however, a new emphasis on diamond OA (i.e., OA models that have no author-facing charges), from cOAlition S and throughout the world (cOAlition S, 2025a). Studies will be needed to understand the costs, benefits, and sustainability of both TAs and other OA models. Narrower foci in future evidence synthesis on this topic would enable meta-analytic methods on certain aspects of TAs within the quantitative research base.

Author Contributions

Amy Riegelman: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - Review & editing Allison Langham-Putrow: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - Review & editing

Data Availability

Appendix A contains the full search strings for reproducibility. Appendices B through D contain data tables for all 151 included studies.

Funding

None

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Shuqi Ye for her help with refining translations of studies originally written in Chinese. They thank Sebastian Scholz for his help with refinements of studies originally written in German. And they would like to thank author 2’s TI-81 and TI-85 for their 33 and 27 years of service, respectively.

References

An asterisk indicates references included in the scoping review.

*Alencar, B. N., & Barbosa, M. C. (2022). Guidelines to sign read and publish agreements in Brazil from the analysis of the transformative agreements of Germany and Colombia. Transinformação, 34. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889202234e220020

*Alkhaja, A. (2022). Using agile methods to navigate complex publisher open access workflows: The case of the Qatar National Library open access fund. First Annual Forum for Open Research in MENA (FORM). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7307318

*Anderson, G., Heyman, J., & Simmons, M. (2022). How transformative agreements are actually transforming the subscription system: A society publisher’s perspective. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 35. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.579

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

*Asai, S. (2024). Choice of open access in Elsevier hybrid journals. Publishing Research Quarterly, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-024-09978-0

*Austrian Transition to Open Access. (n.d.). About AT2OA. https://at2oa.univie.ac.at/en/about.html

*Bakker, C., Langham-Putrow, A., & Riegelman, A. (2024). The impact of transformative agreements on publication patterns: An analysis based on agreements from the ESAC Registry. International Journal of Librarianship, 8(4), 67–96. https://doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2024.vol8.4.341

*Baldwin, J., & Cavanagh, P. (2022). “Transforming decision-making in the library”: The University of Nottingham perspective on read and publish agreements. The UKSG 45th Annual Conference and Exhibition. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22001717.v2

*Baldwin, J., & Cavanagh, P. (2024). When will we be transformed? Reflections on the experience of working with transformative agreements as a cross-library working group. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.645

*Bansode, S. Y., & Pujar, S. (2022). Open access and transformative agreements: A study. Annals of Library & Information Studies, 69(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.56042/alis.v69i1.57094

*Baquero-Arribas, M., Dorado, L., & Bernal, I. (2019). Open access routes dichotomy and opportunities: Consolidation, analysis and trends at the Spanish national research council. Publications, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/PUBLICATIONS7030049

*Bauer, B. (2017). Open access in Österreich. In K. Söllner & B. Mittermaier (Eds.), Praxishandbuch open access (pp. 207–214). De Gruyter Saur. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110494068-024

*Bergel, E., Byström, K., Dahrén, B., Lindström, L., Wiberg, N., & Åkesson Kågedal, E. (2021). Öppet, hållbart och forskarnära: En konsekvensanalys för framtida arbete med avtal och publiceringsstöd vid Uppsala universitetsbibliotek. Uppsala Universitet. https://web.archive.org/web/20220709210445/https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1537734/FULLTEXT01.pdf

*Borrego, Á., Anglada, L., & Abadal, E. (2020). Transformative agreements: Do they pave the way to open access? Learned Publishing, 34(2), 216–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1347

*Bosch, S., Romaine, S., Albee, B., & Cynthia M., E. (2023, April 11). Going for gold, deep in the red. Library Journal. https://www.libraryjournal.com/story/going-for-gold-deep-in-the-red

*Brainard, J. (2021). Open access takes flight. Science, 371(6524), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.371.6524.16

*Brayman, K., Devenney, A., Dobson, H., Marques, M., Vernon, A., Maw, L., Milloy, C., Reeve, H., & Pollock, D. (2024). A review of transitional agreements in the UK. Jisc. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10787391

*Broschinski, C. (2019). Springer Compact coverage analysis. https://www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/~cbroschinski/presentations/slidy/2019_01_17_Workshop_for_OA_data_experts.xhtml#(1)

*Buck, S. (2018). The “upside down”: Exploring offset pricing models and article deposit terms at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST). Insights: The UKSG Journal, 31, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.438

Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). (2022, March 15). The Budapest open access initiative: 20th anniversary recommendations. https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/

*Butler, L.-A., Hare, M., Schönfelder, N., Schares, E., Alperin, J. P., & Haustein, S. (2024). An open dataset of article processing charges from six large scholarly publishers (2019-2023) (No. arXiv:2406.08356). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.08356

*Calder, C., Lucraft, M., Monaghan, J., Pyne, R., & Spinka, V. (2018). Gold open access in the UK: Springer Nature’s transition. Springer Nature. https://figshare.com/articles/Gold_Open_Access_in_the_UK_Springer_Nature_s_Transition/6230813

*Chen, J. (2023). Case study and inspiration of open access publishing and transformation of Cambridge University Press. Journal of Academic Libraries, 41(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.16603/j.issn1002-1027.2023.01.009

cOAlition S. (2025a). Diamond open access. https://www.coalition-s.org/diamond-open-access/

cOAlition S. (2025b). “Plan S” and “cOAlition S” – Accelerating the transition to full and immediate open access to scientific publications. https://www.coalition-s.org/

COAR & UNESCO. (2016). Joint COAR-UNESCO statement on open access. https://web.archive.org/web/20160902115340/http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/news/coar_unesco_oa_statement.pdf

*Craig, E., & Webb, H. (2017). Bringing together the work of subscription and open access specialists: Challenges and changes at the University of Sussex. Insights, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.337

*Dodd, A. (2024). Navigating open access and transformative agreements: A case study of the University of Maryland. Library Resources & Technical Services, 68(1). https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.68n1.8219

*Doddy, J. (2021). Our path to open scholarship: Read & publish from the Biochemical Society and Portland Press. Biochemist, 43(2), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1042/bio_2021_130

*Drake, T., Gulliver, S., & Harle, J. (2023). Research publishing is an under-recognised global challenge: Opportunities for the G20 to act (No. 306; CGD Policy Paper). Center for Global Development. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/4813136/research-publishing-is-an-under-recognised-global-challenge/

*Drey, J., & Emery, C. (2022). Creating new pathways: The Springer Nature and Jisc transformative agreement. Springer Nature. https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Creating_new_pathways_the_Springer_Nature_and_Jisc_Transformative_Agreement/21196111/1

*Earney, L. (2017). Offsetting and its discontents: Challenges and opportunities of open access offsetting agreements. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 30(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.345

*Earney, L. (2018). National licence negotiations advancing the open access transition—A view from the UK. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 31, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.412

ESAC Initiative. (n.d.). Transformative agreements. https://esac-initiative.org/about/transformative-agreements/

ESAC Initiative. (2022, April). How transformative is it? A spectrum of transformation drivers leading to an open scholarly publishing paradigm. https://esac-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/ESAC_HowTransformativeIsIt_Apr2022.pdf

*Estelle, L., Jago, D., & Wise, A. (2021, June 2). How to enable smaller independent publishers to participate in OA agreements. cOAlition S and The Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2203865/how-to-enable-smaller-independent-publishers-to-participate-in-oa-agreements-_-2-june-2021-_-final/

European Science Foundation. (2023). cOAlition S confirms the end of its financial support for open access publishing under transformative arrangements after 2024. Plan S. https://www.coalition-s.org/coalition-s-confirms-the-end-of-its-financial-support-for-open-access-publishing-under-transformative-arrangements-after-2024/

Farley, A., Langham-Putrow, A., Shook, E., Sterman, L., & Wacha, M. (2021). Transformative agreements: Six myths, busted: Lessons learned. College & Research Libraries News, 82(7), 298-301. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.82.7.298

*Fessler, G., & Hölbling, L. (2019). Ausbau von open access an den österreichischen Universitäten: Budgetärer Mehrbedarf für die Jahre 2019–2021. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.2621015

Finch, J. (2012). Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: How to expand access to research publications. http://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/finch-report-final.pdf

*Finn, M. (2019). Plan S and the history journal landscape. Royal Historical Society. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1803188/plan-s-and-the-history-journal-landscape/

*Finnie, E. (2022). UC transformative agreements as a tool for global OA: What we are learning. NASIG. https://nasig.figshare.com/articles/presentation/Another_Week_Another_Transformative_Open_Access_Agreement/21304893/1

*Fosci, M., Richens, E., & Johnson, R. (2019). Insights into European research funder open policies and practices. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3401277

*Frontiers. (2022, June). It is not transformation if nothing changes. Frontiers. https://www.researchinformation.info/sites/default/files/content/white-paper/pdfs/Frontiers_transformative_agreements_whitepaper_2022.pdf

*Geschuhn, K. K., Campbell, C., White, N., Stimson, L., Lehnert-Bechle, M., Gaston, T., & Peck, L. (2021). Monitoring the transition to open access: The 2019-2020 Projekt DEAL–Wiley transformative agreement report. John Wiley & Sons and Max Planck Digital Library. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/3757988/monitoring-the-transition-to-open-access-the-2019-2020-projekt-deal-wiley-transformative-agreement-report/

*Geschuhn, K., & Stone, G. (2017). It’s the workflows, stupid! What is required to make “offsetting” work for the open access transition. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 30(3), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.391

*Goddard, M. W., & Brundy, C. (2024). Open access workflows for academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 85(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.4.503

*Government of Canada. (2023). Tri-agency open access policy on publications: Policy review survey results. https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/interagency-research-funding/policies-and-guidelines/open-access/tri-agency-open-access-policy-publications-policy-review-survey-results

*Grogg, J., Price, J. S., Rickards, L., Rouhi, S., Young, C., & Kati, R. (2021). How do we ensure “read” institutions can still contribute to a “publish”-oriented OA ecosystem? Serials Librarian, 80(1–4), 65–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2021.1865762

*Gruenpeter, N., Rycko, N., Siewicz, K., & Szprot, J. (2021). Transformative agreements: Overview, case studies, and legal analysis. Wydawnictwa ICM. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4543421

*Gustafson-Sundell, N., Rusch, E., & Lienemann, P. (2023). Thirteen ways of looking at a license. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 49(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102737

*Hall, S., & Kromp, B. (2017). Two perspectives on offsetting from one of the earliest experiments: Austria and IOP Publishing. In 13th Berlin Open Access Conference. https://oa2020.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/B13_Steven_Hall_Brigitte_Kromp.pdf

*Han, Z., Yan, Q., & Tian, T. (2022). Game analysis of database procurement prices based on open access conversion agreements—Taking the ACM OPEN Model as an example. Journal of Academic Libraries, 40(5), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.16603/j.issn1002-1027.2022.05.006

*Harris, R., Lange, J., & Lasou, P. (2024). Plan S and open access (OA) in Quebec: What does the revised FRQ OA policy mean for researchers? Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 19(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30413

*Haucap, J., Moshgbar, N., & Schmal, W. B. (2021). The impact of the German “DEAL” on competition in the academic publishing market. Managerial Decision Economics, 42(8), 2027–2049. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3493

*Higton, J., Welford, J., Pinfield, S., Wilsdon, J., Steer, R., & Birkin, G. (2020). UKRI open access review: Consultation analysis. UK Research and Innovation. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2444932/ukri-060821-ukriopenaccessreviewconsultationanalysis-final/

Hirt, J., Nordhausen, T., Fuerst, T., Ewald, H., Appenzeller-Herzog, C., & TARCiS study group (2024). Guidance on terminology, application, and reporting of citation searching: The TARCiS statement. BMJ, 385. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-078384

*Hoogendoorn, C., & Redvers‐Mutton, G. (2024). Scaling up open access publishing through transformative agreements: Results from 2019 to 2022. Learned Publishing, 37(2), 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1601

*Hosoi, M. (2021). Negotiating open access journal agreements: An academic library case study. Pennsylvania Libraries: Research & Practice, 9(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.5195/palrap.2021.252

*Huffman, J. (2022). E-journal package renewal through a transformative agreement: Our first experience. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 34(3), 276–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2022.2099055

*Inchcoombe, S., Winter, S., Lucraft, M., & Baker, K. (2021). Transforming transformative agreements. LOGOS: The Journal of the World Book Community, 32(4), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1163/18784712-03104023

*Informa UK Limited. (2022). Taylor & Francis position on open access pricing. Taylor & Francis. https://web.archive.org/web/20221004131122/https:/taylorandfrancis.com/our-policies/open-access-pricing/

IOP Publishing. (2014, February 5). New open access funding pilot for Austria. https://ioppublishing.org/news/austria-open-access/

*Jahn, N. (2024). How open are hybrid journals included in transformative agreements? arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.18255

*Jahn, N., Matthias, L., & Laakso, M. (2021). Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher‐provided metadata: An article‐level study of Elsevier. JASIST: Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 73(1), 104–118. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24549

*Jisc. (2015). Principles for offset agreements. https://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/Global/News%20files%20and%20docs/Principles-for-offset-agreements.pdf

*Jisc. (2022). Working with transitional agreements. https://beta.jisc.ac.uk/guides/working-with-transitional-agreementshttps://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/working-with-transitional-agreements

*Jobmann, A. (2018). Analysing the article coverage of offsetting contracts. National Contact Point Open Access OA2020-DE. https://oa2020.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/en/blog/2018/03/23/analysing-article-coverage-offsetting-contracts/

*Johnson, R., Fosci, M., Chiarelli, A., Pinfield, S., & Jubb, M. (2017). Towards a competitive and sustainable open access publishing market. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.401029

*Jones, F. (2015). Open access good practice project: GW4 offset implementation review. https://gw4openaccess.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/open-access-good-practice-project-gw4-offset-implementation-review-v3.docx

Jussieu Call. (2017, October 10). Jussieu call for open science and bibliodiversity. https://jussieucall.org/jussieu-call/

*Karlstrøm, N., & Andenæs, N. (2021). Norway. In N. Gruenpeter, N. Rycko, K. Siewicz, & J. Szprot (Eds.), Transformative agreements: Overview, case studies, and legal analysis. Wydawnictwa ICM. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4543421

*Kelley, A., & Bursey, N. (2022). An introduction to transformative agreements in Canada: Federal Science Library Network (FSLN) Springer Transformative Agreement. https://www.crkn-rcdr.ca/sites/crkn/files/2022-05/An%20Introduction%20to%20Transformative%20Agreements%20in%20Canada_EN.pdf

*Kendal, Z. (2023, February 28). Open access at the University of Melbourne. Digital Science APAC Showcase 2023. https://melbourne.figshare.com/articles/presentation/Open_Access_at_the_University_of_Melbourne_-_Digital_Science_APAC_Showcase_2023/22181731/1

Kiley, R. (2024). Transformative journals: Analysis from the 2023 reports. Plan S. https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/transformative-journals-analysis-from-the-2023-reports/

*Kingsley, D. (2017). Whose money is it anyway? Managing offset agreements. Unlocking Research. https://web.archive.org/web/20210419045952/https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1458

*Kita, J.-C., Duchange, N., & Ponsati, A. (2016). Open access publishing policies in Science Europe member organisations: Key results from Science Europe and global research council surveys. Science Europe. http://hdl.handle.net/10261/138242

*Kramer, B. (2024). Study on scientific publishing in Europe: Development, diversity, and transparency of costs. Directorate General for Research and Innovation (European Commission). https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/89349

*Kromp, B., Blechl, G., & Pinhasi, R. (2019, April 29). Transformative publishing agreements within the context of “Plan S.” In Präsentation im Rahmen der Veranstaltungsreihe Rethinking Academia. Rethinking Academia, University of Vienna. https://rethinkingacademia.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/kromp_cc-by.pptx

*Kromp, B., & Ćirković, S. (2016, September 27). Open access: Road to nowhere or stairway to heaven? Transformationsmodelle mit verlagen in Österreich. In ODOK 2016. ODOK 2016, Eisenstadt, Austria. https://open-access.network/fileadmin/oat/oat16/Dokumente/OAT16_Kromp_Cirkovic.pdf

*Kromp, B., Hölbling, L., & Pinhasi, R. (2022). Sharing the costs of transition from closed to open: The quest for a fair cost allocation model in Austria. UKSG 45th Annual Conference and Exhibition, Telford, UK. https://at2oa2.univie.ac.at/wp-content/uploads/Sharing-the-costs-of-transition-from-Closed-to-Open.pdf

*Kronman, U. (2018). Evaluation of offset agreements–report 3: Springer compact. Technical Report. https://www.kb.se/download/18.2705879d169b8ba882a5560/1556566760356/Evaluation_of_offset_agreements_SC_Report_3.pdf

*Kronman, U., Olsson, L., Aldberg, H., Francke, H., & Willén, N. (2017). Utvärdering av offset-avtal–delrapport 2: Springer Compact och Institute of Physics. Kungliga Biblioteket. https://www.kb.se/download/18.2705879d169b8ba882a5563/1556566786235/Utva%CC%88rdering-av-offset-avtal-SC-och-IOP-delrapport-2.pdf

Langham-Putrow, A., Bakker, C., & Riegelman, A. (2021). Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles. PLOS ONE, 16(6), e0253129. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253129

Langham-Putrow, A., & Riegelman, A. (2023). Transformative agreement effects: A scoping review. OSF Registries. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3VFKW

*Langrell, K., & Stephenson, C. (2022, May 11). The regional consortia experience so far with Royal Society Journals R&P and Microbiology Society Journals P&R. CRKN Transformative Agreement Webinar Series. https://www.crkn-rcdr.ca/sites/default/files/2022-05/CRKN%20Transformative%20Agreements%20Webinar%201%20COPPUL%20slides_EN.pdf

*Lawson, S. (2016). Report on offset agreements: Evaluating current Jisc collections deals. Year 1 – evaluating 2015 deals. Jisc. https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4047777.v1

*Lawson, S. (2017). Report on offset agreements: Evaluating current Jisc collections deals. Year 2 – evaluating 2016 deals. Jisc. https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:22847/

*Lawson, S. (2018). Report on offset agreements: Evaluating current Jisc collections deals. Year 3–evaluating 2017 deals. http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/26075/

*Lawson, S. (2019). Evaluating UK offset agreements (2015–17). University of London. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3256642

*Levine-Clark, M., McDonald, J., Price, J., Staines, H., & Rapoza, D. (2022, May 24). Using data to determine value for both read and publish agreements [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvPGKhokp2I

*Li J., & Lin M. (2021). Library journal contracts in transition: A preliminary study on subscription and contribution pricing items. Educational Materials and Library Science, 58(1), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.6120/JoEMLS.202103_58(1).0002.OR.AM

*Lin, M.-L. (2022). Understanding the OA2020 and ESAC initiatives: The reflection of transformative agreements in Taiwan. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 59(3), 347–376. https://doi.org/10.6120/JoEMLS.202211_59(3).0038.OR.AM

*Lindelöw, C. (2019). Expenditure on scholarly publishing: Swedish universities and university colleges 2017. Kungliga biblioteket.

*Lovén, L. (2019). Monitoring open access publishing costs at Stockholm University. Insights the UKSG Journal, 32, 3. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.451

*Lundén, A., & Wideberg, B.-M. (2021). Sweden. In N. Gruenpeter, N. Rycko, K. Siewicz, & J. Szprot (Eds.), Transformative agreements: Overview, case studies, and legal analysis. Wydawnictwa ICM. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4543421

*Maron, N., Alperin, J. P., & Shockey, N. (2021). COVID impact survey: Better understanding libraries’ approach to navigating the pandemic and its impact on support for open initiatives. Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1815759/sparc-covid-impact-survey-092021/view/

*Marques, M. (2016, July 6). The Springer Compact offset model: Update on progress. Jisc Scholarly Communications. https://scholarlycommunications.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2016/07/06/the-springer-compact-offset-model-update-on-progress/

*Marques, M. (2017a). Findings from institutional survey on the Springer Compact agreement. Jisc Scholarly Communications. https://scholarlycommunications.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2017/07/12/institutions-survey-on-the-springer-compact-agreement/

*Marques, M. (2017b). Springer Compact agreement: First year evaluation. Jisc Scholarly Communications. https://scholarlycommunications.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2017/03/06/compact-agreement-first-year-evaluation/

*Marques, M., & Stone, G. (2020). Transitioning to open access: An evaluation of the UK Springer Compact agreement pilot 2016-2018. College & Research Libraries, 81(6), 913–927. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.81.6.913

*Marques, M., Woutersen-Windhouwer, S., & Tuuliniemi, A. (2019). Monitoring agreements with open access elements: Why article-level metadata are important. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 32. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.489

*Marquez Rangel, S., Juárez Santamaria, B., & Plata García, J. E. (2023). La iniciativa del Plan S en la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Ibersid, 17(1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.54886/ibersid.v17i1.4827

*Maurer, J., Sykes, A., Majors, R., & Willmott, M. (2019, December 17). Developing open access partnerships and transformative agreements [Video]. Charleston Hub. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vBQLg5flBY

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://hrcak.srce.hr/89395

*McLain, R., & McKelvey, H. (2024). Shifting the collection development mindset: Moving from traditional journal subscriptions to transformative agreements. Library Resources & Technical Services, 68(1). https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.68n1.8218

*Mellins-Cohen, T., & Redvers-Mutton, G. (2020). Transformation: The future of society publishing. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 33(1). https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.486

Ministère de lʼEnseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche. (2016). Amsterdam call for action on open science. Ouvrir La Science. https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/amsterdam-call-for-action-on-open-science-2/

*Mittermaier, B. (2021). Transformationsverträge–Stairway to heaven oder highway to hell? Zeitschrift Für Bibliothekskultur, 8(2). https://0277.pubpub.org/pub/9dl74haa/release/1

*Monaghan, J., Lucraft, M., & Allin, K. (2020). “APCs in the wild”: Could increased monitoring and consolidation of funding accelerate the transition to open access? https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/_APCs_in_the_Wild_Could_Increased_Monitoring_and_Consolidation_of_Funding_Accelerate_the_Transition_to_Open_Access_/11988123/4

*Mongale, H., & Taylor, W. (2022). Assessing and managing transitional read and publish deals: A University of Salford case study. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 35(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.581

*Morais, R., Bauer, J., & Borrell-Damián, L. (2018). EUA big deals survey report—The first mapping of major scientific publishing contracts in Europe. European University Association. https://eua.eu/resources/publications/321:eua-big-deals-survey-report-the-first-mapping-of-major-scientific-publishing-contracts-in-europe.html

*Morais, R., Stoy, L., & Borrell-Damián, L. (2019). 2019 big deals survey report—An updated mapping of major scholarly publishing contracts in Europe. European University Association. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/3786847/2019-big-deals-survey-report/

*Moskovkin, V. M., Saprykina, T. V., & Boichuk, I. V. (2022). Transformative agreements in the development of open access. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 34(3), 165–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2022.2099000

*Moulton, O. C. (2022). Transformative agreements: Just how transformative are they proving to be in practice? The view from a small not-for-profit publisher. NASIG. https://nasig.figshare.com/articles/presentation/Another_Week_Another_Transformative_Open_Access_Agreement/21304893/1

*Muñoz-Vélez, H., Pallares, C., Echavarría, A. F., Contreras, J., Pavas, A., Bello, D., Rendón, C., Calderón-Rojas, J., & Garzón, F. (2024). Strategies for negotiating and signing transformative agreements in the Global South: The Colombia Consortium experience. Journal of Library Administration, 64(1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2023.2287945

*Nazarovets, S., & Skalaban, A. (2019). Plan S pardon impossible to execute. S&I, 12(202), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.29235/1818-9857-2019-12-80-84

Ng, J. Y. (2022). GLOBAL – Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses. EQUATOR Network. https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#GLOBAL

OA2020. (2024). Expression of interest in the large-scale implementation of open access to scholarly journals. OA2020. https://oa2020.org/mission/

OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en

*Oefelein, T. (2021). BIBSAM compact 2019-2020 impact study. Springer Nature. https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/BIBSAM_Compact_2019-2020_Impact_Study_pdf/14573190/1

*Olsson, L. (2018). Evaluation of offset agreements–report 4: Springer Compact. https://www.kb.se/download/18.2705879d169b8ba882a5561/1556566760424/Evaluation_of_offset_agreements_SC_Report_4-20181008.pdf

*Olsson, L., Aldberg, H., Francke, H., Kronman, U., Neidenmark, T., & Willén, N. (2017). Utvärdering av Springer Compact–halvårsrapport 1. https://www.kb.se/download/18.2705879d169b8ba882a5562/1556566786206/springer_compact_evaluation_report1.pdf

*Olsson, L., Francke, H., Lindelöw, C. H., & Willén, N. (2020). The first Swedish read & publish agreement: An evaluation of the Springer Compact pilot. Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, 30(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10309

*Olsson, L., Lindelöw, C. H., Österlund, L., & Jakobsson, F. (2020). Cancelling with the world’s largest scholarly publisher: Lessons from the Swedish experience of having no access to Elsevier. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 33. https://doi.org/10.1629/UKSG.507

*Olsvik, C. (2022, May 11). An introduction to transformative agreements in Canada [Video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/710838132

*Ottesen, L. (2020). Fra abonnement til åpen tilgang: Et blikk på Units konsortieavtaler med krydder fra UiT. Ravnetrykk, 39, 44-52. https://doi.org/10.7557/15.5498

*Pampel, H. (2021). Strategische und operative handlungsoptionen für wissenschaftliche einrichtungen zur gestaltung der open-access-transformation [Dissertation]. Humboldt Universitaet zu Berlin. https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/23636/dissertation_pampel_heinz.pdf?sequence=3

*Parmhed, S., & Säll, J. (2023). Transformative agreements and their practical impact: A librarian perspective. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 36. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.612

Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-20-00167

*Pieper, D., & Broschinski, C. (2018). OpenAPC: A contribution to a transparent and reproducible monitoring of fee-based open access publishing across institutions and nations. Insights the UKSG Journal, 31, 39. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.439

*Pinhasi, R., Blechl, G., Kromp, B., & Schubert, B. (2018). The weakest link—Workflows in open access agreements: The experience of the Vienna University Library and recommendations for future negotiations. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 31. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.419

*Pinhasi, R., Hölbling, L., & Kromp, B. (2021). Austrian transition to open access: A collaborative approach. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 34, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.561

*Pinhasi, R., Kromp, B., & Blechl, G. (2019). Are we “Plan S” ready? Level of compliance at the University of Vienna. LIBER 2019, Dublin. https://openaccess.univie.ac.at/news-events/detailansicht/news/are-we-plan-s-ready-level-of-compliance-at-the-university-of-vienna/

*Pinhasi, R., Kromp, B., Blechl, G., & Hölbling, L. (2020). The impact of open access publishing agreements at the University of Vienna in light of the Plan S requirements: A review of current status, challenges and perspectives. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 33. https://doi.org/10.1629/UKSG.523

Royal Society of Chemistry. (2012, July). RSC launches £1 million gold for gold initiative as open access transition begins. https://www.rsc.org/news-events/articles/2012/07-july/rsc-launches-1-million-gold-for-gold-initiative-as-open-access-transition-begins/

*Russell, J. (2022). Transformative agreements: Just how transformative are they proving to be? The view from an academic library at a large public research university. NASIG. https://nasig.figshare.com/articles/presentation/Another_Week_Another_Transformative_Open_Access_Agreement/21304893/1

*Säll, J., & Parmhed, S. (2020). Transformative agreements and their headaches: New roles for librarians. https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/178317/NOAF_%20Transformative_agreement_and_their_headaches.pdf?sequence=1

*Schalken, A. (2022). Five ways to optimize open access uptake after a signed read and publish contract: Lessons learned from the Dutch UKB consortium. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 35. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.595

*Schimmer, R., & Campbell, C. (2021). Germany. In N. Gruenpeter, N. Rycko, K. Siewicz, & J. Szprot (Eds.), Transformative agreements: Overview, case studies, and legal analysis. Wydawnictwa ICM. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4543421

*Schimmer, R., Geschuhn, K. K., & Vogler, A. (2015). Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access. MPG.PuRe. https://doi.org/10.17617/1.3

*Schmal, W. B. (2024a). How transformative are transformative agreements? Evidence from Germany across disciplines. Scientometrics, 129(3), 1863–1889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04955-y

*Schmal, W. B. (2024b). The “must stock” challenge in academic publishing: Pricing implications of transformative agreements v. 1. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.03597v1

*Schmal, W. B., Haucap, J., & Knoke, L. (2023). The role of gender and coauthors in academic publication behavior. Research Policy, 52(10), 104874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104874

*Schuchardt, A. (2023). Deal or no deal? Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

Science Europe. (2018). cOAlition S: Making full and immediate open access a reality. https://web.archive.org/web/20190207020007/https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/271118_cOAlitionS_Guidance.pdf

*Shamash, K. (2017). Article processing charges in 2016. Jisc. https://scholarlycommunications.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2017/08/23/article-processing-charges-in-2016/

*Simmons, M., & Strachan, R. (2023, March 1). The Society’s journey towards open access publishing. Geoscientist. https://geoscientist.online/sections/news/the-societys-journey-towards-open-access-publishing/

*Šimukovič, E. (2023). Of hopes, villains, and Trojan horses: Open access academic publishing and its battlefields. Universität Wien. https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/server/api/core/bitstreams/7f3e69c1-fd1d-4dad-ac0d-dab025791392/content

*Smith, M., Anderson, I., Bo-Christer, B., McCabe, M., Solomon, D., Tananbaum, G., Tenopir, C., & Willmott, M. (2016). Pay it forward: Investigating a sustainable model of open access article processing charges for large North American research institutions. Mellon Foundation. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8326n305

Springer (2015, October 21). Max Planck Society researchers to benefit from open access agreement with Springer. Springer. https://www.springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/press-releases/corporate/max-planck-society-researchers-to-benefit-from-open-access-agreement-with-springer--/835358?srsltid=AfmBOoq6XsW72DQRDmUeVanshhEdz_comLN2PHyavmtYDPCAE__4ibEq

*Steinrisser-Allex, G., & Grossmaier-Stieg, K. (2019). Open access an der Medizinischen Universität Graz – Therapieentscheidungen im spannungsfeld zwischenfForschung und klinischem alltag. GMS Medizin-Bibliothek-Information, 19(1/2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3205/mbi000437

*Tan, S., Eickhoff, S., Fabiani, M. & Moore, A. J. (2021, April 6). Maximizing the transition to open access: Your questions answered. Wiley. https://web.archive.org/web/20230119161458/https:/www.wiley.com/en-us/network/publishing/research-publishing/editors/maximizing-the-transition-to-open-access-your-questions-answered

*Taubert, N., Hobert, A., Jahn, N., Bruns, A., & Iravani, E. (2023a). Understanding differences of the OA uptake within the German university landscape (2010–2020): Part 1—Journal-based OA. Scientometrics, 128(6), 3601–3625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04716-3

*Taubert, N., Hobert, A., Jahn, N., Bruns, A., & Iravani, E. (2023b). Understanding differences of the OA uptake within the Germany university landscape (2010-2020)—Part 2: Repository-provided OA. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.11965

*Tian, X., & Li, X. (2022). Contents, cases and implications of open access conversion agreements. Journal of Academic Libraries, 40(2), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.16603/j.issn1002-1027.2022.02.010

*Tickell, A. (2018, June). Open access to research: Independent advice—2018. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-access-to-research-independent-advice-2018

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

*UK Research and Innovation. (2020, December). Economic implications and benefits of updated UKRI open access policy. UK Research and Innovation. https://www.ukri.org/publications/economic-implications-and-benefits-of-updated-ukri-open-access-policy/

*Urbán, K., Lencsés, Á., Sütő, P., Dániel, Á., Ujházi-Patrus, O., & Faragó, D. (2020, July 17). Milestones from the recent history of EISZ project. EISZ. https://eisz.mtak.hu/index.php/en/389-milestones-from-the-recent-history-of-eisz-project.html

Valente, A. (2021, May 23). Wiley. DEAL Konsortium. https://deal-konsortium.de/en/agreements/wiley

*Van Barneveld-Biesma, A., Campbell, C., Dujso, E., Ligtvoet, A., Scholten, C., Velten, L., van der Vooren, R., & van der Veen, G. (2020, July). Read & publish contracts in the context of a dynamic scholarly publishing system. Technopolis Group. https://www.eua.eu/images/read_and_publish_contracts_in_the_context_of_a_dynamic_scholarly_publishing_system.pdf

Van Den Akker, O. R., Peters, G.-J. Y., Bakker, C. J., Carlsson, R., Coles, N. A., Corker, K. S., Feldman, G., Moreau, D., Nordström, T., Pickering, J. S., Riegelman, A., Topor, M. K., Van Veggel, N., Yeung, S. K., Call, M., Mellor, D. T., & Pfeiffer, N. (2023). Increasing the transparency of systematic reviews: Presenting a generalized registration form. Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02281-7

*van der Graaf, M., Johnson, R., & Chiarelli, A. (2017). The role of hybrid open access in extending author choice. The Publishing Research Consortium. https://zenodo.org/record/3958621

*Vernon, A., Devenney, A., White, N., Gaston, T., & Peck, L. (2021). Monitoring the transition to open access: Jisc-Wiley transitional agreement. Jisc. https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/8348/

*Walsh, M. P., Springs, G. R., & Foster, A. K. (2024). Exploring a read and publish agreement: The three-year Taylor & Francis pilot. Library Resources & Technical Services, 68(1). https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.68n1.8213

*Wenaas, L. (2022). Choices of immediate open access and the relationship to journal ranking and publish-and-read deals. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 7, 943932. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.943932

*Wideberg, B.-M., & Söderbergh Widding, A. (2018). Verksamhetsberättelse 2017: Bibsamkonsortiet, 2018. National Library of Sweden. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kb:publ-557

*Wise, A., & Estelle, L. (2019a). How libraries can support society publishers to accelerate their transition to full and immediate OA and Plan S. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 32. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.477

*Wise, A., & Estelle, L. (2019b). Society publishers accelerating open access and Plan S (SPA OPS). cOAlition S. https://wellcome.figshare.com/articles/Society_Publishers_Accelerating_Open_Access_and_Plan_S_-_Final_Project_Report/9805007

*Wise, A., & Estelle, L. (2020). How society publishers can accelerate their transition to open access and align with Plan S. Learned Publishing, 33(1), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1272

*Yuan, W., & Slaght, G. (2022, May 11). A read & publish open access agreement for Karger journals [Webinar]. CRKN webinar—An introduction to transformative agreements in Canada. https://www.crkn-rcdr.ca/en/crkn-webinar-series-transformative-agreements

Appendix A

Electronic Search Strategy Details

Databases

Academic Search Premier (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=121

Last searched 20240419

Africa-Wide Information (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=4

Last searched 20240419

African Journals Online (AJOL)

("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")

Ignore publications pre-2012.

n=2

Last searched 20240419

Anthropology Plus (Ebsco)

1. TI ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=0

Last searched 20240419

APA PsycINFO (Ovid)

1. ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*").ti,ab,id.
2. Limit 1 to yr="2012-2024"

n=14

Last searched 20240419

Applied Science & Technology Source (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=49

Last searched 20240419

Business Source Premier (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=56

Last searched 20240419

CAB Abstracts (Ovid)

1. ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*").ab,id,ti.
2. limit 1 to yr="2012-2023"

n=3

Last searched 20240419

Chicano Database (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=0

Last searched 20240419

CINAHL Ultimate (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=7

Last searched 20240419

Communication & Mass Media Complete (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=5

Last searched 20240419

Criminal Justice Database (Proquest)

1. abstract(( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) ) OR title(( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=1

Last searched 20240419

eBook Collection (Ebsco)

1. TX ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=46

Last searched 20240419

eBook Open Access (OA) Collection (Ebsco)

1. TX ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=29

Last searched 20240419

EconLit (Proquest)

1. summary( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")) OR title( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"))
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=4

Last searched 20240419

Education Source (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=35

Last searched 20240419

EMBASE (Ebsco)

1. ("read & publish" or "publish & read" or "read and publish" or "publish and read" or "Read-and-Publish" or "Publish-and-Read" or "transformative agreement*" or "offset agreement*" or "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*").ab,kf,ti.
2. Limit 1 to yr="2012-2023"

n=15

Last searched 20240419

ERIC (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=3

Last searched 20240419

Fish, Fisheries & Aquatic Biodiversity Worldwide (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=0

Last searched 20240419

GreenFILE (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=1

Last searched 20240419

History of Science, Technology & Medicine (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=0

Last searched 20240419

IEEE Xplore

1. ("Publication Title":("read & publish" OR "Publication Title":"publish & read" OR "Publication Title":"read and publish" OR "Publication Title":"publish and read" OR "Publication Title":"Read-and-Publish" OR "Publication Title":"Publish-and-Read" OR "Publication Title":"transformative agreement*" OR "Publication Title":"offset agreement*" OR "Publication Title":"offsetting agreement*" OR "Publication Title":"transitional agreement*")) OR ("Abstract":("read & publish" OR "Abstract":"publish & read" OR "Abstract":"read and publish" OR "Abstract":"publish and read" OR "Abstract":"Read-and-Publish" OR "Abstract":"Publish-and-Read" OR "Abstract":"transformative agreement*" OR "Abstract":"offset agreement*" OR "Abstract":"offsetting agreement*" OR "Abstract":"transitional agreement*")) OR ("Author Keywords":("read & publish" OR "Author Keywords":"publish & read" OR "Author Keywords":"read and publish" OR "Author Keywords":"publish and read" OR "Author Keywords":"Read-and-Publish" OR "Author Keywords":"Publish-and-Read" OR "Author Keywords":"transformative agreement*" OR "Author Keywords":"offset agreement*" OR "Author Keywords":"offsetting agreement*" OR "Author Keywords":"transitional agreement*"))
2. Refine to 2012-present

n=0

Last searched 20240419

JSTOR

1. (ab:"("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")")
2. Refine to 2012-present

n=3

Last searched 20240419

1. (ti:"("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")")
2. Refine to 2012-present

n=17

Last searched 20240419

Library & Information Science Source (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=91

Last searched 20240419

Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=91

Last searched 20240419

OpenDissertations (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=0

Last searched 20240419

Ovid MEDLINE All

1. ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*").tw,kf.
2. limit 1 to yr="2012-2024"

n=18

Last searched 20240419

PAIS Index (Proquest)

1. abstract(("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*" )) OR title(("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")) OR if(("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"))
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=0

Last searched 20240419

Policy Commons

1. title:("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") OR summary:("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=270

Last searched 20240419

Proquest Global Dissertations & Theses

abstract(("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")) OR title(("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"))

Limit to 2012-present

n=9

Last searched 20240419

Redalyc

1. "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"
2. Refine to 2012-present

n=21

Last searched 20240419

SciELO

"read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"

n=1

Last searched 20240419

Scopus

1. TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( "read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*" ) ) AND PUBYEAR > 2011 AND PUBYEAR < 2024

n=132

Last searched 20240419

Sociological Abstracts (Proquest)

1. abstract(("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR title(("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR if(("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"))
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=0

Last searched 20240419

SPORTDiscus with Full Text (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=1

Last searched 20240419

TRANSPORT Database (Ovid)

1. ("read & publish" or "publish & read" or "read and publish" or "publish and read" or "Read-and-Publish" or "Publish-and-Read" or "transformative agreement*" or "offset agreement*" or "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*").ab,ti.
2. Limit 1 to yr="2012-2024"

n=1

Last searched 20240419

Web of Science Core Collection

Exact search turned on

1. TI=(("read & publish" or "publish & read" or "read and publish" or "publish and read" or "Read-and-Publish" or "Publish-and-Read" or "transformative agreement*" or "offset agreement*" or "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"))
2. AB=(("read & publish" or "publish & read" or "read and publish" or "publish and read" or "Read-and-Publish" or "Publish-and-Read" or "transformative agreement*" or "offset agreement*" or "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"))
3. AK=(("read & publish" or "publish & read" or "read and publish" or "publish and read" or "Read-and-Publish" or "Publish-and-Read" or "transformative agreement*" or "offset agreement*" or "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"))
4. #1 OR #2 OR #3
5. Limit to 2012-present

n=96

Last searched 20240419

WOS CC includes:

Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)--1900-present

Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)--1900-present

Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI)--1975-present

Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science (CPCI-S)--1990-present

Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH)--1990-present

Book Citation Index – Science (BKCI-S)--2005-present

Book Citation Index – Social Sciences & Humanities (BKCI-SSH)--2005-present

Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)--2005-present

Current Chemical Reactions

(CCR-EXPANDED)--1985-present

Index Chemicus (IC)--1993-present

Wildlife & Ecology Studies Worldwide (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=4

Last searched 20240419

Women's Studies International (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=0

Last searched 20240419

World Politics Review (Ebsco)

1. TI ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR AB ( ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR KW ("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=1

Last searched 20240419

Worldwide Political Abstracts (Proquest)

1. summary(("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR title(("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") ) OR if(("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") )
2. Limit to 2012-present

n=6

Last searched 20240419

Grey Literature

AgEcon Search

"read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*" site:ageconsearch.umn.edu

n=3 results from 2012-present

Last searched 20240419

arXiv

1. title="read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*" OR abstract="read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "Read-and-Publish" OR "Publish-and-Read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"

n=13

Last searched 20231030, not updated in 2024 due to overlapping coverage in Web of Science Preprint Citation Index

OSF Preprints

"read & publish" "publish & read" "read and publish" "publish and read" "Read-and-Publish" "Publish-and-Read" "transformative agreement*" "offset agreement*" "offsetting agreement*" "transitional agreement*"

n=0

Last searched 20240419

Europe PMC

1. (ABSTRACT:"("read & publish" or "publish & read" or "read and publish" or "publish and read" or "Read-and-Publish" or "Publish-and-Read" or "transformative agreement*" or "offset agreement*" or "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")" OR TITLE:"("read & publish" or "publish & read" or "read and publish" or "publish and read" or "Read-and-Publish" or "Publish-and-Read" or "transformative agreement*" or "offset agreement*" or "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*")") AND (SRC:"PPR") AND (FIRST_PDATE:[2012-01-01 TO 2026-12-31])

n=0

Last searched 20240419

Web of Science Preprints Citation Index

Using Exact Search

1. TI=(("read & publish" or "publish & read" or "read and publish" or "publish and read" or "Read-and-Publish" or "Publish-and-Read" or "transformative agreement*" or "offset agreement*" or "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"))
2. AB=(("read & publish" or "publish & read" or "read and publish" or "publish and read" or "Read-and-Publish" or "Publish-and-Read" or "transformative agreement*" or "offset agreement*" or "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"))
3. AK=(("read & publish" or "publish & read" or "read and publish" or "publish and read" or "Read-and-Publish" or "Publish-and-Read" or "transformative agreement*" or "offset agreement*" or "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*"))
4. #1 OR #2 OR #3
5. Limit to 2012-present

n=3

Last searched 20240419

Handsearching

https://openaccess.univie.ac.at/ueber-uns/publikationen-und-vortraege/

n=33

Last searched 20240131

Zenodo

Hand searched in Google Scholar

("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") source:zenodo

n=5

Last searched 20240419

Figshare

Hand searched in Google

("read & publish" OR "publish & read" OR "read and publish" OR "publish and read" OR "transformative agreement*" OR "offset agreement*" OR "offsetting agreement*" OR "transitional agreement*") site:figshare.com

n=18

Last searched 20240419

Appendix B

Case Studies

Table B1

Case Study Codes

Code	Description
TA effects on OA publishing	Changes in OA publishing due to TA; can be modified with (positive) for increases in OA publishing and/or (quantitative) when quantitative data is provided
Labor	Description of (human) labor involved in negotiating, implement, and administer TAs; can be (labor intensive) when difficulties or additional requirements are added, (labor reduction) when the TA is noted to have eased labor, or (change in staff roles) when institutions change their operations to accommodate a TA.
Implementation	Details of how the agreement is implemented, including topics such as opt-out rates, workflows (human labor goes under Labor intensity), difficulty in communicating with authors
Evaluation criteria	Description of criteria used to evaluate offers or reliance on consortium criteria. Other codes may arise as an evaluation factor, these are not included unless there is substantial detail.
Cost sharing/APC distribution	Generally for a report on a consortial TAs, describes how costs are distributed across institutions (by some criteria) or for a capped TA how the APC credits are distributed across institutions
Negotiation (process)	Describes negotiation process at a level of detail deeper than providing criteria
Cost savings/cost avoidance	Describes cost savings or cost avoidance an agreement has over the OA financing model
Lack of transformation/double dipping	Claims of a lack of transformation across the system or within a publisher's portfolio. Also includes concerns about TAs maintaining double-dipping by publishers; Can include publishers flipping journals but prices not changing

Table B2

Case Studies With Codes

Citation	Lead author country / Original language	Population type	Publisher/s	Document type	Short summary	Codes
Alencar, 2022	Brazil / Portuguese	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	Project DEAL agreements with Wiley and Springer increased OA publishing. They achieved their goal of more than 10,000 OA articles per year with Wiley. For Springer Nature, the increase was primarily in their hybrid journals.	TA effect on OA output (positive)
Alkhaja, 2022	Qatar / English	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Presentation slides	Qatar National Library has up to 15 TAs. It is difficult to manage the different models across publishers. There can be delays in approving articles.	Labor (intensive)
Anderson et al., 2022	United Kingdom / English	Publisher perspective	One publisher	Journal article	Geological Society had its first TAs in 2021 (25 TAs). Agreements are uncapped and they have not seen an unsustainable increase in submissions. Uncapped agreements reduce administration.	Labor (reduced), Publisher perspective
Anderson et al., 2022	United Kingdom / English	Publisher perspective	One publisher	Journal article	The amount of OA content increased along with the number of OA articles through PAR agreements. The Jisc example shows increase in OA and decreases in closed articles and OA with individual APCs paid.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Publisher perspective
Anderson et al., 2022	United Kingdom / English	Publisher perspective	One publisher	Journal article	The Royal Society decided on R&P model, thinking it easier than S2O or PAR. Institutions who have signed up have published more OA articles [not quantitative]. They have a price transparency mechanism. They note the importance of workflow and have automatic approval but manually check and offer retrospective OA. Number of TA institutions increased from ~170 to ~320 from 2021 to 2022. In first year with TAs (2021), published more than half of articles OA.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Labor (reduced), Publisher perspective
Baldwin & Cavanagh, 2022	United Kingdom / English	One institution	Unspecified publisher(s)	Presentation slides	University of Nottingham was participating in 25 TAs and considering 5 more. They created a group to review R&P options. Review and implementation are challenging and labor intensive. Evaluation criteria include: how many publishers benefit, equity of benefits across authors, meeting funder requirements, total cost, and others. They review offers through Jisc.	Labor (intensive), Evaluation criteria, Consortial support
Baldwin & Cavanagh, 2024	United Kingdom / English	One institution	Unspecified publisher(s)	Journal article	University of Nottingham has a TA review group that has reviewed 69 agreements (33 in place at time of article). Evaluation criteria for "read" include cost per use, campuses covered, accessibility and COUNTER standard compliance. Criteria for "publish" include cost (including VAT), historical publishing, author experience/options. Labor has moved from working with funded researchers to managing TAs. They are concerned about costs and transition to full OA.	Labor (change in staff roles), Evaluation criteria, Lack of transformation
Baquero-Arribas et al., 2019	Spain / Russian	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	Researchers like TAs want more publishers and journals to be included. Libraries struggle with funding TAs and managing additional workload they create. If they paid for publishing for all corresponding author articles, they estimate they would pay €1 million less than they had paid for subscriptions + APCs for corresponding author articles made OA in 2017.	Labor (intensive), Implementation, Cost savings/ avoidance
Bansode & Pujar, 2022	India / English	Multiple institutions	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	Most agreements in the ESAC Registry lack real transparency (no full text). TAs in the Registry are mostly between research intensive universities and commercial publishers. There are opportunities for negative effects of TAs (e.g., increased prices despite promise of cost neutrality, difficulty for libraries to sustain increasing costs). Common facets of agreements include quotas for things like number of OA articles, limits on eligible journals for publication, restriction on publication type. There were 7 TAs in India (with CUP and Springer), but they are not in the ESAC Registry.	Other
Bauer, 2017	Unspecified / German	One consortium	One publisher	Book chapter	The KEMÖ agreement with Springer (Springer Compact) led to the publication of 461 articles from 23 (of 58) KEMÖ members in the first half of 2016.	TA effect on OA output (positive)
Bergel et al., 2021	Sweden / Swedish	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Report/ Report chapter	Uppsala's agreements have increased OA publishing with those publishers. For most the library pays more for the subscription and APCs (paid by publishers). They saved money by cancelling their agreement with Elsevier and using that to fund TAs. Agreements cost less than paying APCs individually. Journals are removed from the agreement when they flip from hybrid to fully OA. Uppsala is one of the highest publishing institutions in Bibsam and they need extra funds for some agreements. They want to avoid having researchers pay. The library changed its budget model due to TAs. Authors changed behavior (choosing corresponding author) due to the agreements, they find the agreements complicated to understand. There is some concern not paying APCs directly from grants could cause issues if grant funding decreases, but costs do not.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Implementation, Cost sharing/ APC distribution, Lack of transformation, Survey/interview (author)
Brayman et al., 2024 [Edgehill University]	United Kingdom / English	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Report/ Report chapter	Edge Hill University (UK) is a low publishing institution and did not participate in any Jisc agreements that increased their previous costs (subscriptions + APCs paid). They were using their subscription budget to pay for TAs because they did not receive UKRI blog grants. Edge Hill will look into the rights retention route of OA compliance and want more transparency in TAs.	Evaluation criteria, Consortial support
Brayman et al., 2024 [University College London]	United Kingdom / English	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Report/ Report chapter	University College London participates in the ACM agreement that does not meet cost reduction principles because of its design. They created new systems for paying the "publish” of agreements (needed due to VAT on publishing) and have had changes in staff requirements to manage implementation. When UKRI and Wellcome funding for TAs ends they will only support TAs with the journals their authors publish most with. UCL relies on Jisc assessments of agreements and want evidence that publishers are not double dipping.	Labor (change in staff roles), Evaluation criteria, Consortial support, Lack of transformation
Brayman et al., 2024 [University of Lancaster]	United Kingdom / English	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Report/ Report chapter	University of Lancaster has experimented with agreements that have increased costs (subscription + APCs previously paid) when the increase was less than £3,000. They keep their "read" and "publish" amounts separated in their budgets and they rely on Jisc analysis to determine whether to participate in agreements. Lancaster will look into rights retention policy when UKRI funding ends.	Evaluation criteria, Consortial support
Buck, 2018	Saudi Arabia / English	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	KAUST evaluated four agreements and decided against entering into any because they were seen as labor intensive, there was the possibility of overpaying (i.e., having credits left at the end of the year), or faculty were not convinced of the model.	Labor (intensive), Other
Craig & Webb, 2017	United Kingdom / English	One institution	Unspecified publisher(s)	Journal article	University of Sussex library is considering making changes in who manages TAs. They have offset agreements with Wiley and IOP and find it challenging to figure out what to do with the money that is returned to them. Agreements are hard to communicate about and some researchers have concerns about the costs of TAs.	Labor (change in staff roles), Survey/interview (author)
Dodd, 2024	United States / English	One institution	Unspecified publisher(s)	Journal article	Narrative of University of Maryland negotiations with a non-profit society publisher, through a consortial agreement with a large commercial publisher, and through a consortial agreement with a university press. They looked at past publishing patterns and subscription prices. Non-profit society: TA price was 158% increase from previous year’s subscription. Large commercial publisher: cost per use was higher than with the non-profit society, agreement increased OA output by 96%. University press: Subscription price went up. Overall the low publishing rate raised questions about the value of the agreement but felt university press support is a "public good"	TA effect on OA output (positive), Evaluation criteria, Reading usage
Drey & Emery, 2022	Unspecified / English	One consortium	One publisher	Report/ Report chapter	Springer Nature analysis of Jisc Springer Compact shows a compound annual growth rate for OA articles of 12% (from 3,088 to 4,356) comparing 2015 to 2016-2021. Opt-outs decreased from 34.5% in 2016 to 4.6% in 2021. Provides analysis of the reading (usage) component.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Reading usage, Publisher perspective
Earney, 2017	United Kingdom / English	One consortium	One publisher	Journal article	On TAs overall: expenditures have not decreased meaning offsetting agreements are "nothing more than an ‘advantageous lock-in for status quo publishers'". TAs are "a very profitable additional revenue stream" with the publishers who already dominate the subscription market dominating the OA market.  Allocating costs across institutions (in Jisc) is difficult--historic print spend does not align with publication output. The cost of the agreement was less than paying for 3,000 OA articles published between October 2015 and November 2016, but this was cost avoided, not cost savings.	Cost sharing/ APC distribution
Earney, 2018	United Kingdom / English	One consortium	One publisher	Journal article	Through Jisc, the number of subscriptions with an OA component increased from 2013 to 2017. The increase has resulted in savings and cost avoidance. TAs can maximize OA output, constrain costs, lessen administrative burden, and reduce author confusion. The Springer Compact resulted in 2085 OA articles in 2016 and 3817 in 2017, by over 200%. "we also note that it does little to address the concern of many about the absence of a competitive market demonstrating real price sensitivity" (p. 4).	TA effect on OA output (positive), Evaluation criteria, Lack of transformation
Fessler, 2019	Austria / English	One country	Multiple/many publishers	Report/ Report chapter	Austrian Science Fund (FWF) provided funding to support TAs through AT2OA. KEMÖ is essential for managing TAs; individual institutions could not manage alone. TAs are the most cost-saving and efficient way to achieve more OA but promote more market concentration with the largest publishers and support the hybrid model over fully OA projects.	Labor (intensive), Consortial support
Finnie, 2022	United States / English	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Presentation slides	UC uses a "multi-payer model". TAs have increased OA output from single digits to ~50%, authors. Managing workflow, metadata and identifiers, and messaging is important.	TA effect on OA output (positive)
Geschuhn et al., 2021	Germany / English	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Report/ Report chapter	OA publishing increased during the DEAL-Wiley agreement while closed decreased. Author uptake was high. An author survey (by Wiley) found that authors who opted out mainly did not understand their options or opted out accidentally; 2% did not want their article OA. Authors wanted more communication. They could not determine if total publishing with Wiley increased because of COVID effects. The TA increased usage, likely because there was more access to subscription content. Wiley increased the number of OA journals during the agreement.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Implementation, Reading usage, Survey/interview (author)
Goodard & Brundy, 2024	United States / English	One institution	Unspecified publisher(s)	Journal article	Library workflows changed due to TAs. They identify publishers to negotiate with. They do not do much promotion so they can remain "neutral". Librarians check that each article published through the TA is actually made OA.	Labor (change in staff roles), Implementation
Grogg et al., 2021	United States / English	One consortium	Unspecified publisher(s)	Journal article	SCELC is paying two to three times more to read than they would under a pay to publish model (SCELC publishes 15-20% of the output across three major California consortia but pays 30-65% of the costs for the top three journal publishers). SCELC will be avoiding multi-year deals unless they are transformative and are working with the other California consortia on TAs	Cost sharing/ APC distribution
Gustafson-Sundell et al., 2023	United States / English	One institution	Unspecified publisher(s)	Journal article	MNSU evaluated an offer from a "major publisher" that offered OA publishing at no additional cost.	Evaluation criteria
Hall & Kromp, 2017	Austria / English	One consortium	One publisher	Presentation slides	The agreement with IOP Publishing was more labor intensive than some other agreements. There were increases in OA output of ~150 articles in Q1 of 2015 compared to Q1 2016 (and a decrease of ~125 non-OA articles) and ~235 articles between Q2 of 2015 to 2016 (and a decrease of ~150 non-OA articles). The agreement would be more effective if license fees were more closely aligned with "value" (e.g., weighting fees according to research intensity or number of staff in physics instead of historical print spending).	TA effect on OA output (positive), Labor (intensive)
Han et al., 2022	China / Chinese	One country	One publisher	Journal article	Evaluation of the ACM model for 42 Chinese universities. If ACM flips all of their journals to full OA 2025, only three universities (Tsinghua, Peking, and Shanghai Jiao Tong) would pay less in the ACM Open model than they would if they paid an individual APC for each article.	Evaluation criteria, Cost savings/ avoidance
Hoogendoorn & Redvers-Mutton, 2024	United Kingdom / English	Publisher perspective	One publisher	Journal article	Publisher perspective on R&P implementation: OA Output increased from ~40% in 2019 to between ~55-75% (2021-2022) after R&P agreements were implemented. TAs are most effective in regions with high research funding and output and consortia. They are considering alternative models for regions with low funding and research output and lack of consortia.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Consortial support, Publisher perspective
Hosoi, 2021	United States / English	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	Penn State's negotiation team used criteria to evaluate offers from publishers, including cost neutrality (based on previous subscription + APC costs) and the ability for the library budget to cover the cost, which journals are eligible for publishing, caps, author eligibility, and how the publisher will manage the agreement, among others.	Evaluation criteria, Negotiation
Huffman, 2022	United States / English	One institution	One publisher	Journal article	UW Stevens Point describes their experience evaluating a TA with Wiley that was negotiated through the UW flagship campus with the BTAA. They accepted the agreement	Evaluation criteria
Inchcoombe et al., 2021	Unspecified / English	Publisher perspective	One publisher	Journal article	Springer Nature reports the negotiations and agreements with VSNU, Bibsam, Projekt DEAL, and University of California. VSNU had published ~14,000 articles through TAs (2015 to 2021), the Springer; Projekt DEAL negotiation took 3 years and will cover 13,000+ hybrid articles from 900+ German institutions each year. The average length of negotiation was 12 months.	TA effect on OA output, Negotiation, Publisher perspective
Jisc, 2022	United Kingdom / English	One institution	Unspecified publisher(s)	Guide	Description University of Liverpool's evaluation process. Collecting and checking data is the most time consuming, standardized data from publishers would reduce this.	Labor (intensive)
Jones, 2015	United Kingdom / English	Multiple institutions	Multiple/many publishers	White paper	GW4 institutions [UK] participate in some TAs but they do not meet all of the Jisc offsetting criteria. Implementation is not smooth for all agreements and librarians and authors have had difficulties.	Labor (intensive), Implementation, Lack of transformation
Karlstrøm, & Andenæs, 2021	Norway / English	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Report/ Report chapter	Norway had labor intensive negotiations with Elsevier and Wiley, Springer Nature, and T&F. The Elsevier and Wiley agreements start in 2019 and cover 2100 and 1250 articles. Springer Nature and T&F agreements start in 2020 and cover 725 and 900 articles. Negotiations were strengthened by participation of vice-chancellors from four universities. Provides list of Norway's negotiation objectives.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Labor (intensive, negotiating), Evaluation criteria, Negotiation
Kelley & Bursey, 2022	Canada / English	One consortium	One publisher	Presentation slides	Government of Canada's Chief Science Advisor released the Roadmap for Open Science in 2020 and FLSN started TA negotiations with Springer that year. Their negotiation objectives were OA publishing and fair and sustainable pricing. They agreed to a capped agreement based on historical publishing rates. They were on track to use all APC credits for the first year. Their estimated cost avoidance is $1.3 million (USD). Administration is easy for authors and librarians. However, it is difficult to manage cost sharing, to predict future publishing and how to manage credits. Concerns about reaching the cap and whether they would have to find funding or change implementation.	Evaluation criteria, Negotiation, Cost sharing/ APC distribution
Kendal, 2023	Australia / English	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Presentation slides	University of Melbourne evaluates offers from CAUL based on cost, value based on publishing history, publisher reputation, which disciplines benefit, and if/how Australian journals are covered. They estimate 40.5% of publications will be covered by TAs, an increase of 15.6% for 2023.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Evaluation criteria
Kingsley, 2017	United Kingdom / English	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Blog post	Cambridge uses subscription funding to pay for the reading part of the TAs, they use COAF and RCUK funding to pay the publishing portion. For their T&F TA they have to manage individual APCs; Wiley returns money to them at the end of the year based on APCs paid. They had to determine how to use the returned money.	Implementation
Kromp et al. 2022	Austria / English	One country	One publisher	Presentation slides	AT2OA institutions had 56% coverage of publications in 2022. The cost sharing model was updated from the 2016-2018 Springer Compact to the 20119-2021 agreement because "APC market value" varied across different types of institutions.	Cost sharing/ APC distribution
Kromp et al., 2019	Austria / English	One consortium	One publisher	Presentation slides	The Springer Compact increased OA publishing from KEMÖ institutions from 2013 to 2015 (10%-13%) to 2016 to 2018 (81% to 88%).	TA effect on OA output (positive)
Kronman, 2017	Sweden / Swedish	One consortium	One publisher	Report/ Report chapter	In the first year (2017) of the Bibsam Springer Compact, 1232 OA articles were published in hybrid journals compared to 220-230 previous years. The number of OA articles was 20% less than they had anticipated and paid for. They created a new cost distribution model because the agreement price is primarily due to the publishing component. Labor intensity varies by institution publishing rates. Results of an author survey: 25% knew of the TA before submitting, 15% said it was a factor in journal choice; 67% said they will look favorably on covered journals in the future. 88% would like more TAs. The Springer TA is easier to implement than the IOP agreement.	Labor (intensive), Cost sharing/ APC distribution, Survey/interview (author)
Kronman, 2018	Sweden / English	One consortium	One publisher	Report/ Report chapter	For the Springer Compact, Bibsam prepaid for 4162 articles to be OA over 2.5 years. The TA increased OA publishing, controlled publishing expenditures, was easy for authors to use, and flipped part of their payment from reading to publishing. But the agreement was expensive and oversized; institutions published 20% less than expected and there was no rollover or return. They estimate the Compact cost 42% to 51% more than if they had paid for only the number of articles published OA in previous years (with some growth over years). They published 1399 articles in 2017 compared to 162 in the year before the TA. They used a tired model for distributing costs but 9 of 40 institutions did not publish at all. Administrators did not spend much time implementing the agreement. Most authors surveyed did not change their publication patterns due to the agreement. Authors liked the agreement, but 8% said they needed more information to be able to determine if the agreement is good (negatives: costs of APCs, green OA alternative, academic publishing should not be commercial). Comparisons of Compacts with Netherlands, UK, Max Planck, and Austria	TA effect on OA output (positive), Labor (reduced), Implementation, Cost sharing/ APC distribution, Survey/interview (author)
Langrell & Stephenson, 2022	Canada / English	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Presentation slides	Two consortia negotiated TAs in Canada. One included hybrid and fully OA journals and price was based on a 5% discount from subscription prices for current subscribers, but non-subscribing institutions had to pay. The other was based on a 20% discount off the previous subscription plus what APCs had been paid in the previous years. They had different experiences with the publishers. It was difficult to get and organize publishing data, multiple librarians needed to be involved in the discussion, there were concerns about the costs of switching to a TA and sustainability of the pricing. Needed increased communications with vendors, across consortia, and within institutions.	Labor (intensive), Other
Levine-Clark et al., 2022	United States / English	One consortium	One publisher	Presentation recording	The TA increased OA content for institutions but it was less than 50% for two. Some institutions did not publish any OA during the agreement. And cost avoidance reported in the publisher data was generally lower than what they estimated APC spending would have been. They propose a method for calculating total value by including subscription, APCs, and reading cost per use and "Read Cost Per Controlled Use".	Cost sharing/ APC distribution, Cost savings/ avoidance, Reading usage
Lin, 2022	Taiwan / Chinese	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	There was an increasing rate of articles published OA through TAs starting around 2018. The largest proportion of articles (per ESAC registry) was from the UK. CONCERT (Taiwan) had 4 TAs plus discounts on a few hybrid journals and fully OA journals. Interviews of librarians reported that it was possible to enter TAs with their current funding but researcher budgets were separate and it was unclear how they would work together. An agreement of the Chinese Academy of Sciences reached consensus in 2021 but was cancelled because the funding source did not support paying OA.	Survey/interview (administrators/libraries/institutions)
Lindelöw, 2019	Sweden / English	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Report/ Report chapter	Bibsam's expenditures on TAs were ~8% of the total; 85 organizations participated in at least one. Updates on agreements (cost and number of articles) with IOP, RSC, Springer. Used 1399 of 1600 Springer Compact APC credits. Compact subsidized by the National Library and Swedish Research Council. Efforts underway to capture and estimate APC spending.	TA effect on OA output (positive)
Lovén, 2019	Sweden / English	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	Stockholm University tracked publishing with Springer the year before the agreement. The Springer Compact increased the amount of OA in Springer journals. Agreements make it easier for the University to monitor OA costs. The Springer Compact is subsidized by the National Library of Sweden and Swedish Research Council.	Labor (reduced), Cost sharing/ APC distribution
Lundén, & Wideberg, 2021	Sweden / English	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Report/ Report chapter	Using the assumptions in the MPDL white paper, Sweden would be able to cover OA publication with their existing subscription budget. Bibsam's three main objectives for agreements are immediate OA (CC-BY license) for hybrid and fully OA journals, reading access to the publishers' entire portfolio, and sustainable prices. Negotiations have been difficult in Sweden, with one agreement taking one year to negotiate and six months post-start date to finalize. They cancelled their Elsevier agreement in 2018 because they could not get an OA provision.	Evaluation criteria, Negotiation, CC licenses
Marques & Stone, 2020	United Kingdom / English	One consortium	One publisher	Journal article	UK-Springer Compact Pilot providing data needed to improve implementation of future agreement. Some data provided, number of institutions participating increased 2016-2018; cost avoidance for 2016-2018 was $27 million; OA increased from 23% pre-Compact to over 72% in 2018. Articles were rejected due to author ineligibility, opt-out rate was higher in the first year but decreased.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Labor (reduced), Implementation, CC licenses
Marquez Rangel et al., 2023	Mexico / Spanish	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	Describes existing agreements between UNAM and many publishers, in light of Plan S. They estimate they will save more than half a million dollars in APCs in the first year; and with the signing of three-year contracts, the savings can be doubled in the medium term.	Cost savings/ avoidance
Maurer et al., 2019	United States  / English	One institution	One publisher	Presentation slides	It took nearly a year for the University of California-Cambridge University Press (CUP) agreement to be developed. It required changes to CUPs systems and processes.	Negotiation
McLain & McKelvey, 2024	United States / English	One institution	One publisher	Journal article	Montana State University formed a group to negotiate TAs. Evaluation criteria include: fit with publishing patterns, caps, copyright options, and more. Two librarians manage agreements. They published 52 articles through agreements with CUP, Royal Society, T&F, and Wiley. They did not publish any articles with three other publishers. They claim cost savings of $290,000. Challenges include lack of buy-in from constituents, differing perspectives on TAs, relationships with publishers.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Labor (change in staff roles), Evaluation criteria, Negotiation
Mellins-Cohen & Redvers-Mutton, 2020	United Kingdom / English	Publisher perspective	One publisher	Journal article	Microbiology designed their model by analyzing the market, testing pricing, and comparing PAR revenue to subscription revenue. They will need a tiered pricing model. Institutions that were interested were those that published 4 corresponding author articles per year. Feedback responses mentioned budget challenges but 22% of respondents said they did not expect budget issues with the PAR model.	Publisher perspective, survey/interview (administrators/libraries/institutions)
Mongale & Taylor, 2022	United Kingdom / English	One institution	Unspecified publisher(s)	Journal article	University of Salford had challenges in implementing TAs because of caps, author confusion of journals included, time-consuming for staff. They hoped for but are not seeing decreases in APC spending due to TAs.	Labor (intensive)
Moulton, 2022	Unspecified / English	Publisher perspective	One publisher	Presentation slides	Company of Biologists launched R&P agreements for hybrid journals in 2019 (uncapped and "cost-neutral"). Increase in number of institutions covered by TAs from 10 in and number of countries from 1 January 2020 to 415 in 32 countries in January 2022. Journal OA content increased between 10% to 15% across hybrid journals. OA output from Canada and US increased between 2020 and 2021 mostly due to TAs. Managing TAs is labor intensive for publishers.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Labor (intensive, publisher), Publisher perspective
Muñoz-Vélez et al., 2024	Colombia / English	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	Eight members of the Colombia Consortium implementation of 2022-2024 agreements. They set specialized personnel at the consortium to manage the TAs. They created two tiers of institutions based on publishing output and split APC credits based on these.	, Labor (change in staff roles), Cost sharing/ APC distribution, Consortial support
Olsson et al., 2017	Sweden / Swedish	One consortium	One publisher	Report/ Report chapter	Bibsam published 528 OA articles in the second half of 2016 through the Springer Compact, compared between 133 and 176 for 2013 to 2015. Administrators manually approve each article. Workflows are more complicated at a large institution (Stockholm University) compared to a smaller one (University of Borås). Administrators have had challenges with determining author affiliation and authors wanting to change corresponding author upon learning of the agreement.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Labor (intensive), Implementation
Olsson et al., 2020	Sweden / English	Multiple consortia	One publisher	Journal article	Sweden published less OA than the UK and the Netherlands did through their Springer Compacts. The Swedish Springer Compact was more expensive than it would have been to pay individual APCs. Smaller and non-publishing institutions have helped finance the agreement. Administrative time was minimal, less than processing individual APC invoices.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Labor (reduced), Cost sharing/ APC distribution, Survey/interview (administrators/libraries/institutions)
Olsson et al., 2020	Sweden / English	One consortium	One publisher	Journal article	Bibsam cancelled their Elsevier subscription after failed negotiations. Elsevier did not offer an acceptable TA. They negotiated an unlimited OA agreement for hybrid and fully OA journals 17 months later. They estimate cost reduction of 1.7 million EUR compared to subscription + APCs paid. They found the cancellation improved communications between the vice-chancellors and libraries, and this could lead to a "more efficient transition" to OA.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Negotiation, Cost savings/ avoidance, CC licenses
Olsvik, 2022	Canada / English	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Presentation slides	CRKN had 3 TAs in 2022. The most expensive subscription was not with a TA. When evaluating an offer they look at current subscription spending, number of articles published, TAs with other consortia, publisher type (including country). For some agreements there were cost increases (due to an increased number of participating institutions and to include APCs paid by authors previously). TAs increased percent of OA publishing.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Evaluation criteria
Ottesen, 2020	Norway / Norwegian	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	Norway has guidelines saying that R&P agreements must be cost neutral and transparent, but not all are. They are not sure how libraries should manage increased costs. Not all journals are covered by their agreements and the agreements benefit some disciplines over others. Participating in the TAs will increase the amount of information UiT has about publishing.	Implementation, CC licenses, Lack of transformation
Parmhed & Säll, 2023	Sweden / English	One institution	Unspecified publisher(s)	Journal article	Librarians from two institutions identify challenges with TAs: keeping information updated and disseminating it, difficult to determine eligibility, publishers can change which journals are included or what types of articles. More articles have been published in the agreements and authors have started asking which journals they can publish without paying an OA. TAs benefit hybrid journals and larger publishers.	Labor (intensive), Implementation, Survey/interview (author)
Pinhasi et al., 2019	Austria / English	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Presentation slides	Negotiating TAs is time and labor intensive, requiring new types of data, new licensing terminology, and new business models. There is not a clear definition of "cost neutral" (e.g., is it based on historic spending, publishing output, APCs paid to date?). University of Vienna has some concerns that publishers are double dipping.	Labor (intensive, negotiating), Lack of transformation
Pinhasi et al., 2018	Austria / English	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	Publisher mechanisms for identifying eligibility can drastically affect uptake (86% for one publisher versus 4% for another).  Publisher workflow (timing of when authors get information), words used, metadata quality can influence author uptake. OA support staff could never interact with every author about each agreement. University of Vienna’s library prefers agreements that eliminate APC invoices but most offsetting and gold publishing agreements do not do this. Negotiations are difficult and "often take place in a politically charged environment, and against the backdrop of the often ostensibly opposing goals of the publisher and the University".	Labor (intensive), Implementation, Negotiation
Pinhasi et al., 2020	Austria / English	One institution	Unspecified publisher(s)	Journal article	For AT2OA, Austria analyzed publication rates in hybrid and fully OA papers, funding sources. They find that OA articles increase with a TA, but TAs are difficult and time consuming to negotiate, are challenging to implement, and it is hard to find funding (cost neutrality is not clearly defined and for fully OA agreements additional funding is needed). Publishers want to keep hybrid and fully OA journals in separate agreements.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Negotiation, Cost savings/ avoidance
Pinhasi, Hölbling, & Kromp, 2021 [SP1]	Austria / English	One country	Unspecified publisher(s)	Journal article	For Austria, if all relevant expenditures were repurposed for publishing, they could have a cost-neutral transition to OA if the average APC was €2,476 or less. This value varies significantly on an institutional and cluster level.	Cost savings/ avoidance
Pinhasi, Hölbling, & Kromp, 2021 [SP2]	Austria / English	One consortium	One publisher	Journal article	AT2OA analysis of the Wiley agreement found that 74% OA output for KEMÖ agreement, compared to 10% worldwide. The articles (26%) that were not OA include authors who chose not to publish OA or were not identified by Wiley. Over the agreement non-OA decreased due to improved workflows and communication. They moved to a new cost sharing model, based on publication output, because AT2OA funding was ending.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Implementation, Cost sharing/ APC distribution
Russell, 2022	United States / English	One institution	One publisher	Presentation slides	University of Florida has criteria for how TAs should work (e.g., easy for authors, affordable, low administrator burden, movement towards full OA). They have agreements mostly with smaller/society publishers with moderate costs. UF asked for ASERL evaluations of 5 agreements; they joined 4.	Evaluation criteria, Consortial support
Säll & Parmhed, 2020	Sweden / English	Multiple institutions	Multiple/many publishers	Presentation slides	Librarians from Karolinska (large university) and Södertörn (smaller institution) compare experiences, workloads of TA. TAs have increased the total number of articles published with those publishers. TAs have had mixed effects on author choices and most authors would like more TAs.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Labor (intensive), survey/interview (author)
Schalken, 2022	Netherlands / English	One consortium	Unspecified publisher(s)	Journal article	Agreement information can change over time: publishers can change which journals are included, there could be a cap that is reached. OA uptake can be reduced based on publisher communication to authors. Of ~200 UKB authors surveyed, only one deliberately chose not to use the agreement; others were confused by wording of the offer. Uptake of UKB agreements increased over the three years. Publisher data is not always accurate, so they collect their own, and also collect grant funding. UKB worked with publishers to get authors to choose the license required by their funder.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Implementation, CC licenses, Survey/interview (author)
Schimmer & Campbell, 2021	Germany / English	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Report/ Report chapter	DEAL used publication data (by publisher, institution, corresponding author, hybrid/fully OA journals) to estimate APCs paid and use this to negotiate agreements. They set criteria including license type, perpetual access, cost, and author eligibility. The Wiley agreement is a P&R agreement starting in 2019 that is based on a price of €2750 per article. The cost allocation model will spread costs across participating institutions as high publishing institutions would not be able to pay for all of their articles.	Evaluation criteria, Cost sharing/ APC distribution, CC licenses
Steinrisser-Allex & Grossmaier-Stieg, 2019	Austria / German	One institution	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	The Austrian Springer Compact increased the number of OA articles in Springer journals by Medical University of Graz, but they do not like that it does not include Nature journals. Reading usage has increased. Wiley OA content increased and Wiley data suggests there is OACA and Altmetric advantages for articles published OA through the agreement.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Lack of transformation, Reading usage
Taubert et al., 2023a	Germany / English	One country	Multiple/many publishers	Preprint	There does not seem to be a relationship between the share of publication output covered by a TA and the share of OA in the institutional repository. There is no evidence that TAs affect differences in the share of OA in subject repositories.	Other
Taubert et al., 2023b	Germany / English	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Journal article	The DEAL agreements (Germany) have a positive effect on the share of hybrid OA publications in Springer Nature and Wiley journals.	TA effect on OA output (positive)
UK Research and Innovation, 2020	United Kingdom / English	One consortium	One publisher	Report/ Report chapter	Wiley-Jisc TA started in March 2020 and published 3600 articles in the first 6 months, 78% articles published with Wiley were OA compared to 30% in the same period of 2019. UKRI modeled a scenario where UKRI funds OA in journals that are covered by TAs; at the time this would have meant 44% of articles would not be compliant with UKRI policy. Publishers like TAs because they provide constant revenue; funders like TAs because they stop double dipping; Small publishers worry about sustainability and their ability to comply with UKRI policy. TAs require labor on the publisher part (e.g., training sales staff, approval portals, submission system upgrades).	TA effect on OA output (positive), Labor (intensive, publisher), survey/interview (funder)
Urbán et al., 2020	Hungary / English	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Blog post	Hungarian institutions think that their TAs will be cost neutral. They currently cover ~25% of their output and expect to increase to ~75% by 2020. The TAs make joining the consortium more attractive.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Consortial support, CC licenses
Vernon et al., 2021	United Kingdom / English	One consortium	One publisher	Report/ Report chapter	The Jisc-Wiley agreement started in March 2020 and 5,220 articles were published OA in 2020, a 68% increase from 2019. The TA covered 6,838 articles, but there were more articles submitted and a higher opt-in rate so they had to put limits on eligibility by June. There are 11 bands based on institution size, with only 5 having published OA with Wiley in the past. Contains many details of publishing rates.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Cost sharing/ APC distribution, CC licenses
Walsh et al., 2024	United States / English	One institution	One publisher	Journal article	Narrative description of the OSU negotiation with Taylor & Francis: OSU proposed it in 2019; finalized in April 2020. Chose T&F because it had the highest share of ILL and journals were most requested. Agreement based on previous publishing patterns, was capped. They exceeded the cap in 2021 and 2022. Pre-agreement 19% of T&F articles had an OSU corresponding author and 2% were published OA; during the agreement 63% of 552 eligible articles were published OA (waiving $1.06 million). More details of implementation (opt-outs, ineligible articles, disciplinary differences)	TA effect on OA output (positive), Implementation, Negotiation, Cost savings/ avoidance
Wideberg & Söderbergh Widding, 2017	Sweden / Swedish	One consortium	Multiple/many publishers	Report/ Report chapter	Bibsam undertook internal preparations for transition from subscription to OA publishing. Bibsam agrees with the MPDL white paper ("enough money in the system"), but Elsevier disagreed and was unwilling to do an offsetting agreement. Bibsam has agreements with T&F (offsetting, "aim of moving to" R&P); Royal Society of Chemistry (R&P with 13 institutions, uncapped); De Gruyter (90% discount on APCs); Springer Compact (40 institutions, ~1900 articles published 2016-07 to 2017-12).	Negotiation
Yuan & Slaght, 2022	Canada / English	One institution	One publisher	Presentation slides	University of Toronto had the first TA in Canada; with Karger. It was an experiment to test library OA workflows. They wanted the TA to be cost neutral, include all journal types and all article types, direct deposit to their IR. The TA increased OA articles in Karger journals. It became easier to implement over time but there were concerns over managing eligibility and costs, communications on campus took a lot of time. The library created a working group to consider TAs, how they might affect author behavior and what will happen post-transformation.	TA effect on OA output (positive), Labor (intensive), Implementation, CC licenses

Appendix C

Qualitative Studies

Table C1

Qualitative Codes

Code	Definition
Publisher-perceptions	Descriptions of publishers' expectations, concerns, expected challenges, expected benefits, levels of interest in entering into TAs. Includes negotiations.
Publisher-experiences	Descriptions of publishers' experiences entering into and managing TAs.
Societies-perceptions (2025/01/09)	Descriptions of learned societies' expectations, concerns, expected challenges, expected benefits, levels of interest in entering into TAs. Includes discussions of learned societies partnering with larger publishers.
Librarians-perceptions	Descriptions of libraries', consortia, and institutions' expectations, concerns, expected challenges, expected benefits, levels of interest in entering into TAs. Includes negotiations.
	‘Institution’ refers to studies where data from higher education institutions is reported, without specifying a unit within the institution.
Librarians-experiences	Descriptions of libraries', consortia, and institutions' experiences entering into and managing TAs. Includes issues of workflow and uptake.
	‘Institution’ refers to studies where data from higher education institutions is reported, without specifying a unit within the institution.
Researchers-perceptions	Descriptions of researchers' (i.e., authors' or potential authors') expectations, concerns, expected challenges, expected benefits of the TA model.
Researchers-experiences	Descriptions of researchers' (i.e., authors') experiences publishing through TAs. Includes TA availability on publishing choices.
Researcher usage	Subcode of researchers-experiences indicating descriptions of how researchers/authors use TAs
Content analysis	Studies analyzing the content of entries in the ESAC Registry or the full text of agreements available through the ESAC Registry

Table C2

Qualitative Studies With Codes

Citation	Lead author country / Original language	Country or countries of institution/s included in study	Year	Qualitative Method	Codes
Borrego et al., 2020	Spain/ English	Australia, Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Qatar	2020	Content analysis	Content analysis (Agreements)
Brayman et al., 2024	United Kingdom/ English	United Kingdom	2024	Survey	Publisher-experiences, Librarian-perceptions, Librarian-experiences
Estelle et al., 2021	United Kingdom/ English	Unspecified	2021	Survey	Publisher-perceptions, Societies-perceptions, Librarian-perceptions
Estelle et al., 2021	United Kingdom/ English	Unspecified	2021	Multi-Methods (Interview, Focus Group, Survey)	Publisher-perceptions, Publisher-experiences
Finn, 2019	Unspecified/ English	United Kingdom	2019	Survey	Societies-perceptions
Fosci et al., 2019	Unspecified/ English	Many European countries	2019	Survey	Funders experiences
Geschuhn & Stone, 2017	Germany/ English	Many (Europe, United States, Japan)	2017	Focus Group	Librarian-experiences
Government of Canada, 2023	Canada/ English	Canada	2023	Survey	Librarian-perceptions, Researchers-perceptions
Gruenpeter et al., 2021	Poland/ English	Hungary, Finland, Austria, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands	2021	Content analysis	Content analysis (Agreements)
Higton et al., 2020	United Kingdom/ English	United Kingdom	2020	Survey	Publisher-perceptions, Societies-perceptions, Librarian-perceptions, Librarian-experiences, Researchers-perceptions
Johnson et al., 2017	Netherlands/ English	Many European countries	2017	Survey	Researchers-experiences, Researcher usage
Kita et al., 2016	Belgium/ English	Many (all European)	2016	Survey	Science Europe Member Organisations perceptions
Li & Lin, 2021	Taiwan/ Chinese	Taiwan, United States, Netherlands, Ireland	2021	Content analysis	Content analysis (Agreements)
Maron et al., 2021	United States/ English	United States; Canada	2021	Survey	Librarian-perceptions
Marques, 2017a	United Kingdom/ English	United Kingdom	2017	Survey	Librarian-experiences,
Monaghan et al., 2020 [Part 1]	Unspecified/ English	Many/Unspecified	2020	Survey	Researchers-experiences, Researcher usage
Monaghan et al., 2020 [Part 2]	Unspecified/ English	Australia, Austria, China, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Qatar	2020	Interview	Librarian-perceptions, Librarian-experiences
Morais et al., 2018	Unspecified/ English	Many European countries	2018	Survey	National Rectors’ Conference members experiences
Morais et al., 2019	Unspecified; EUA based in Belgium and Switzerland/ English	The countries that are represented in the European University Association	2019	Survey	Library consortia perceptions
Olsson, 2018	Sweden/ English	Sweden	2018	Survey	Researchers-perceptions, Researchers-experiences, Researcher usage
Pampel, 2021	Germany/ German	Germany	2021	Survey	Librarian-perceptions, Librarian-experiences
Schuchardt, 2023	Germany/ German	Germany	2023	Interview	Researchers-perceptions, Researchers-experiences
Šimukovič, 2023	Austria/ English	Netherlands	2023	Interview	Publisher-perceptions, Librarian-experiences, Researchers-experiences, Researcher usage
Smith et al., 2016	United States/ English	United States	2020	Survey	Publisher-experiences
Tian & Li, 2022	China/ Chinese	Many	2022	Content analysis	Content analysis (Agreements)
van Barneveld-Biesma et al., 2020	Unspecified/ English	Unspecified	2020	Survey	Publisher-perceptions, Librarian-perceptions, Researchers-perceptions
van der Graaf et al., 2017	Netherlands/ English	United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany	2017	Interview	Researchers-experiences, Researcher usage
Wise & Estelle, 2019a	United Kingdom/ English	Many	2019	Survey	Publisher-perceptions, Societies-perceptions
Wise, 2019b	United Kingdom/ English	Unspecified	2019	Focus Group	Societies-perceptions
Wise, 2019b	United Kingdom/ English	Unspecified	2019	Focus Group	Publisher-perceptions, Publisher-experiences
Wise & Estelle, 2020	United Kingdom/ English	Many	2020	Survey	Publisher-perceptions, Societies-perceptions

Appendix D

Quantitative Studies

Table D1

Quantitative Codes

Code	Subcodes
Number of articles published through a TA	By discipline
	By time
	By institution or consortium (if more than one institution/consortium)
	By country or region (if more than one country or region)
	By OA mode (if other than hybrid)
	By gender
	Articles per publisher (if more than one publisher)
	Articles opted-out
	Projection
Number of transformative agreements	Analysis of ESAC agreements
	By time period
	By country (if more than one country)
	By publisher (if more than one publisher)
Costs of transformative agreements	By publisher (if more than one publisher)
	By country (if more than one country)
	Administrative costs
	Prospective/simulated
	Read v. publish costs
Cost avoidance or cost savings

Table D2

Quantitative Studies With Codes

Citation	Reported disciplinary category	Lead author country / Original language	Country or countries of institution/s included in study	Year	Document type	Population type	Codes
Asai, 2024	Natural sciences; Engineering and technology; Medical and health sciences; Agricultural and veterinary sciences, Social sciences; Humanities and the arts	Japan / English	Many	2024	Journal article	Multiple countries; Multiple publishers	Number of TAs (by country)
Bakker et al., 2024	Natural sciences; Engineering and technology; Medical and health sciences; Agricultural and veterinary sciences, Social sciences; Humanities and the arts	Canada / English	Many	2024	Journal article	Multiple countries; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by discipline, by country/ region, by OA mode)
Bosch et al., 2023	Natural sciences; Engineering and technology; Medical and health sciences; Agricultural and veterinary sciences, Social sciences; Humanities and the arts	United States / English	Unspecified	2023	Journal article	Multiple countries; Unspecified publisher(s)	Costs of TAs
Brainard, 2021	Unspecified	Unspecified / English	Germany; Unspecified	2021	Journal article	Multiple countries; Unspecified publisher(s)	Number of TAs (by time period)
Brayman et al., 2024	Unspecified	United Kingdom / English	United Kingdom	2024	Report	One consortium and Multiple countries; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by time, by OA mode, by publisher, opted-out), Number of TAs (by time period, by country), Costs of TAs (By publisher, Projected), Cost avoidance/ savings
Broschinski, 2019	Unspecified	Unspecified / English	United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Sweden	2019	Presentation slides	Multiple countries; One publisher	Number of articles via TA (by time, projected)
Calder, 2018	Natural sciences; Engineering and technology; Medical and health sciences; Agricultural and veterinary sciences, Social sciences; Humanities and the arts	Unspecified / English	United Kingdom	2018	Report	One consortium; One publisher	Number of articles via TA (by discipline, by time, opted-out)
Chen, 2023	Unspecified	China / Chinese	China, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Japan, Singapore	2023	Journal article	Multiple consortia; One publisher	Number of articles via TA (by institution/ consortium), Costs of TAs (By country)
Doddy, 2021	Natural sciences	United Kingdom / English	Many	2021	Journal article	Publisher perspective/Multiple institutions; One publisher	Number of TAs (by time period)
Drake et al., 2023	Unspecified	United States / English	Agreements in the ESAC Registry	2023	White paper	Multiple countries; Unspecified publisher(s)	Number of TAs
Estelle et al., 2021	Unspecified	United Kingdom / English	Unspecified	2021	Report	Multiple consortia; Unspecified publisher(s)	Number of articles via TA (projected)
Frontiers, 2022	Unspecified	Unspecified / English	Unspecified	2022	Report	Multiple countries; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by publisher)
Harris et al., 2024	Unspecified	Canada / English	Canada	2024	Journal article	One country; Multiple publishers	Other
Haucap et al., 2021	Natural sciences	Germany / English	Germany	2021	Report	One consortium; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by discipline)
Jahn, 2024	Natural sciences; Engineering and technology; Medical and health sciences; Social sciences; Humanities and the arts	Germany / English	Many	2024	Preprint	Multiple countries; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by discipline, by time, by country/ region, by publisher)
Jahn et al., 2021	Natural sciences; Engineering and technology; Medical and health sciences; Agricultural and veterinary sciences, Social sciences; Humanities and the arts	Germany / English	United Kingdom, Netherlands, United States, Norway, Hungary, Poland, Unspecified	2021	Journal article	Multiple countries; One publisher	Number of articles via TA (by discipline, by country/ region, opted-out)
Jobmann, 2018	Unspecified	Germany / English	Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom	2018	Blog post	Multiple consortia; One publisher	Number of articles via TA (by journal)
Kramer, 2024	Unspecified	Netherlands / English	30 European countries	2024	Report	Multiple countries; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by country/ region), Number of TAs (by time period, by country, by publisher), Costs of TAs (Read v. publish)
Kromp & Ćirković, 2016	Unspecified	Austria / German	Austria	2016	Presentation slides	One consortium; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by discipline, by time, by publisher), Costs of TAs, Cost avoidance/ savings
Lawson, 2016	Unspecified	United Kingdom / English	United Kingdom	2016	Report	One consortium; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by publisher), Costs of TAs (Administrative costs, By publisher), Cost avoidance/ savings
Lawson, 2017	Unspecified	United Kingdom / English	United Kingdom	2017	Report	One consortium; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by publisher), Costs of TAs (Administrative costs, By publisher), Cost avoidance/ savings
Lawson, 2018	Unspecified	United Kingdom / English	United Kingdom	2018	Report	One consortium; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by publisher), Costs of TAs (Administrative costs, By publisher), Cost avoidance/ savings
Lawson, 2019	Unspecified	United Kingdom / English	United Kingdom	2019	Report	One consortium; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by time, by publisher), Costs of TAs (Administrative costs, By publisher), Cost avoidance/ savings
Marques, 2016	Natural sciences; Engineering and technology; Medical and health sciences; Social sciences; Unspecified	United Kingdom / English	United Kingdom	2016	Blog post	One consortium; One publisher	Number of articles via TA (by discipline, by time) Cost avoidance/ savings
Marques, 2017	Natural sciences; Engineering and technology; Medical and health sciences; Social sciences; Humanities and the arts	United Kingdom / English	United Kingdom	2017	Blog post	One consortium; One publisher	Number of articles via TA (by discipline, by time, by institution/ consortium opted-out) Cost avoidance/ savings
Marques et al., 2019	Unspecified	United Kingdom / English	United Kingdom, Netherlands, Finland, France, Germany	2019	Journal article	Multiple countries; Unspecified publisher(s)	Other
Mittermaier, 2021	Unspecified	Germany / German	Germany, Austria, Switzerland	2021	Journal article	Multiple countries; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by time, by country/ region, by publisher)
Morais et al., 2019	Unspecified	Unspecified / English	The countries that are represented in the European University Association	2019	Report	Multiple countries; Multiple publishers	Number of TAs (by publisher)
Moskovkin et al., 2022	Unspecified	Russia / English	Many	2022	Journal article	Multiple countries; Unspecified publisher(s)	Number of TAs (by time period, by country, by publisher)
Nazarovets & Skalaban, 2019	Unspecified	Ukraine / Russian	Belarus; Ukraine	2019	Preprint	Multiple countries; One publisher	Costs of TAs (By country, Projected)
Oefelein, 2021	Natural sciences; Engineering and technology; Medical and health sciences; Agricultural and veterinary sciences, Social sciences; Humanities and the arts	Unspecified / English	Sweden	2021	Presentation slides	One consortium; One publisher	Number of articles via TA (by discipline, by time, by institution/ consortium)
Olsson, 2018	Unspecified	Sweden / English	Sweden	2018	Report	One consortium; One publisher	Number of articles via TA (by time, by publisher), Costs of TAs (Read v. publish)
Pieper & Broschinski, 2018	Unspecified	Germany / English	Germany, Austria, United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands	2018	Journal article	Multiple consortia; One publisher	Number of articles via TA (by journal)
Schmal, 2024	Natural sciences; Engineering and technology; Medical and health sciences; Social sciences; Humanities and the arts	Germany / English	Germany	2024	Journal article	Multiple countries; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by discipline, by country/ region, by publisher)
Schmal et al., 2023	Social sciences	Germany / English	Germany	2023	Discussion paper	One Country; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by discipline, by gender)
Shamash, 2017	Unspecified	United Kingdom / English	United Kingdom	2017	Blog post	One consortium; Multiple publishers	Other
Simmons & Strachan, 2023	Natural sciences; Engineering and technology	United Kingdom / English	Unspecified	2023	Journal article	Publisher perspective/Multiple institutions; One publisher	Other
Tickell, 2018	Unspecified	United Kingdom / English	United Kingdom	2018	Report	One consortium; Unspecified publisher(s)	Number of TAs (by time period), Costs of TAs (Projected)
Wenaas, 2022	Natural sciences; Engineering and technology; Medical and health sciences; Social sciences; Humanities and the arts	Norway / English	Norway	2022	Journal article	One Country; Multiple publishers	Number of articles via TA (by discipline, by time, by OA mode)

---

[1] Note that cOAlition S is a group made up primarily of national funding bodies, which typically do not enter into publishing agreements directly