Skip to main content

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback.

Elsevier
Publish with us
Connect

Transformative agreements are on the rise – we spoke with institutions to find out why

3 July 2024

By Linda Willems

colleagues around a computer

In our new case study series, three library leaders offer a fascinating insight into the growth and impact of these partnerships

Transformative agreements are increasing steadily in volume and scope as institutions and consortia work with scholarly publishers to achieve their reading and open access (OA) publishing goals. 

While increasing OA publications is often the major driver for these agreements, librarians have reported reaping other, sometimes unexpected rewards, from raised visibility of their own roles, to a greater understanding of open access on campus. 

To learn more about the transformative agreement process and its potential for change, we spoke with three library leaders whose organizations have signed and delivered a combined 35+ deals to date.  

Our three interviewees

Andy Corrigan, Associate Dean of Libraries at Tulane University, USA. A four-year transformative agreement his university signed with Elsevier in 2022 was the first of five now in place with publishers.

Corrigan, Andy square2

Bob Gerrity, former Program Director of the Procurement Program for CAUL (Council of Australian University Librarians) and University Librarian at Monash University, Australia. CAUL signed a three-year transformative agreement with Elsevier in 2022 — the largest of its kind in the Australasian region — bringing the total number of CAUL’s transformative deals to 24.

Bob Gerrity portrait square2

Keith Webster, Helen and Henry Posner, Jr. Dean of the University Libraries at Carnegie Mellon University, USA. In 2019, the university signed its first transformative agreement with a publisher: a four-year deal with Elsevier. It was also the first deal of its kind between Elsevier and a US university. Today, CMU has agreements in place with an additional five major publishers.

Keith Webster square2

We have captured the results of those conversations in three case studies that explore each phase of our interviewees’ journeys. Below are some of the key takeaways and tips they’ve shared. 

Case study 1: Preparing for a transformative agreement 

  • Establish goals: If your reasons for pursuing an agreement are clear, it’s easier to communicate those needs effectively – and ensure they are met. Increasing open access at scale proved to be a major factor. For Bob and his fellow CAUL Board members, transformative agreements offered a compelling alternative to the green open access policy then prevalent in Australia. “Despite the investment in repositories, roughly half of Australian researcher-produced publications in the last 10 years was still behind paywalls,” he reveals. In addition, Andy and his colleagues at Tulane had a goal of budget sustainability that provided the impetus to “roll up our sleeves and think OK, what can we do to make this different from the usual multi-year agreement?

  • Talk with stakeholders: Stakeholders can include your institution's administration, consortia members, faculty, and researchers. An understanding of their pain points and priorities provides valuable information to guide your later discussions and helps the library better meet your institution’s needs. It also helps to increase stakeholder knowledge of open access. In Keith’s case, this consultation stage encouraged the first “mature” discussion about the publishing model on campus. “Taking individual publishers out of the equation, we were able to discuss: what is our view as a university?” 

  • Secure buy-in: Another benefit of the consultation stage is that it can help drum up support for the transformative agreement approach – a vital first step towards securing successful adoption of any deal. For Keith, a key priority was to ensure that CMU’s Board understood the value of these agreements. Those discussions also offered him an opportunity to gain Board members’ perspectives on “market timing and market reactions.”

Case study 2: Securing and implementing a transformative agreement

  • Identify priorities: With the early information gathering stages complete, our interviewees moved on to an honest appraisal of their requirements. Questions included, ‘what kind of deal am I looking for?’, ‘does it align with my organizational research profiles and aims?’ and ‘what are my priorities?’. As Keith notes: “When you embark on something like this, you need to recognize the trade-offs that you will probably have to make.” In Andy’s case, he recognized that it wouldn’t only be Tulane making compromises. “I’m sure that deciding how to work on an agreement like this wasn’t easy for Elsevier either. These agreements are a pretty big leap for the publisher.”

  • Tailor your roll-out: A thoughtful implementation plan can encourage successful adoption of an agreement. According to Bob, the key for CAUL has been to keep it simple: “We are a small organization, so we want as little administrative overhead as possible.” Over at Tulane, Andy has taken a similar approach to keep it as “seamless as possible for the author.”  

  • Work with your publisher to achieve the best outcome: Transformative agreements are still relatively new, with no one size fits all template. That means you might hit the odd road bump along the way. In Elsevier’s case, we are learning and iterating in partnership with the librarians and researchers we work with. Keith recalls: “Looking back on the implementation process [with Elsevier], it was all very easy. It took a few months, because we were responding to each other’s suggestions and requests, but it was very productive and positive.” 

Case study 3: Partnering for an open future: Sharing successes and lessons learned

  • Evaluate progress: While their definition of success varies in some respects, our interviewees do report some common benefits.   

  • A growth in open access publications: According to Bob, CAUL’s transformative agreements have resulted in a much higher number and percentage of OA research publications in Australia and New Zealand. “That’s a real benefit,” he adds. 

  • Increased visibility for the library and stronger stakeholder bonds: Bob says the agreements have been “a great vehicle” for CAUL’s members to “engage within their own institutions and show the relevance of what libraries are doing.” He adds: “The old discussions about gold versus green versus diamond have been replaced by better, more constructive conversations about open access.” In the case of Tulane, Andy has seen his relationship with Elsevier deepen: “There was this sense that Elsevier was willing to look at things differently, which was not something we had seen from other publishers.” 

  • Potential safeguarding of budgets: As Andy notes, the university administration, “knows that we’re offsetting the research cost for the faculty. That’s absolutely the most important thing… I think had we not done something like this, there would be less pause in cutting [the library] budget...” 

We would like to thank all three of our interviewees for taking the time to speak with us and share their experiences so openly. Their stories provide valuable insights as we continue to work together, finding solutions to sustainable open access.  

For more insights into the agreement process and its benefits, read the full case studies.

Contributor

Portrait photo of Linda Willems

LW