The authors have laid out some PROs and CONs of S2O models (better called "conditional OA" in this context). To be clear, there is nothing wrong with librarians "subscribing to" (as in supporting the idea of) open access and equity. However, the marketing claims of the S2O model should be examined more critically and the impact of any such "transformative" agreements (which S2O is a variant of) on the prospects of transitioning to full unconditional open access should be studied carefully [ https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.20224 , ].
The advocacy of Subscribe to Open (S2O) and other “transformative” models by publishers and uncritical uptake of these arguments by librarians highlights a familiar pattern in library strategy: sustaining legacy journals that promise to transition to open access while neglecting to support authors who wish to publish with publishers that have already made that transition. This is not supporting open access; it is cementing existing oligopolies and locking libraries into hybrid or “conditional” models. More importantly, it undermines the viability of fully open access publishers that made the transition decades ago or were born open access.
The idea that S2O succeeds through “benign neglect” — essentially, do nothing, just renew — may be administratively appealing, but it should be alarming as it exposes a deeper governance problem. When libraries simply renew subscriptions (including “read and publish” or so-called “transformative” agreements), they are effectively allocating library budgets to publishing services without applying publishing-specific procurement criteria such as cost per article, editorial quality, author satisfaction, or turnaround time. Doing nothing — or applying procurement criteria designed for subscriptions rather than publishing services — may keep the system stable, but stability is not the same as reform.
Indeed, while S2O subscriptions may signal support for open access, the opposite may be happening in practice. If fully open access publishing is not funded on an equal playing field, libraries are not only restricting academic freedom by influencing where researchers publish, but also determining the winners and losers in the publishing market. Without institutional equity mechanisms such as open access funds, the winners become hybrid or “conditional OA” publishers operating under subscription-derived models, while the losers are fully open access publishers that never asked libraries for subscription revenue in the first place.
As publisher of hIgh quality and selective open access publications we hear almost daily from students and junior faculty who say they want to publish with us but cannot, because their libraries have eliminated institutional open access funds in favor of Read-and-Publish, S2O, or other transformative agreements. These policies redirect authors toward journals covered by institutional deals. When libraries frame APC-based gold OA as “inequitable” while subsidizing publication in S2O or hybrid journals, author behavior predictably changes: submissions shift toward publishers with whom libraries have agreements, particularly when unfunded researchers lack alternative institutional support.
In my view, the procurement process for publishing services deserves much closer scrutiny. The current procurement practices for publishing services bundled with "access" to past content also raises important legal questions from a competition and market fairness perspective.
The “equity” argument often promoted by legacy publishers against APCs — and in favor of S2O or "transformative" agreements (TA) — also collapses under closer examination. Institutions are told that S2O allows “everyone to publish free of charge,” but this is neither realistic nor economically sustainable. What would happen if libraries genuinely enabled global publishing at scale? What would happen if S2O journals were suddenly inundated with submissions from researchers in developing countries or from students worldwide? Would subscription-based funding remain stable if publication volumes multiplied? Or would journals simply become more selective, preserving prestige while limiting access to publishing opportunities, and creating more leverage with libraries to continue to "subscribe" with raising costs? What does "equity" mean in a meritocracy like the scientific system?
More fundamentally, publishing costs represent part of the research process: quality control, peer review, editorial oversight, and knowledge dissemination. These costs should be budgeted in research grants whenever possible. Under S2O and transformative agreements, however, even authors with substantial grant funding are often subsidized by library budgets. Few (if any?) institutions appear to reclaim those costs from funded researchers. Doing so could actually generate resources for institutional open access funds that support unfunded authors. Criticism of APCs is often based on the assumption that APCs are "inequitable". But fundamentally, APCs enable diversified funding flows — from research grants, funders, and industry — rather than concentrating costs solely on library budgets. If anything, one might also ask whether systems that allow authors to publish without any financial accountability create their own incentive distortions.
Responsibility for equity to support unfunded researchers ultimately lies with the institution. Students pay tuition; junior researchers are early-career investments who will eventually bring in grants; and universities have effectively outsourced evaluation of these groups to publishers (“publish or advance”). Supporting these researchers through targeted open access funding is therefore both reasonable and necessary. But this should not be done by selectively supporting publishing in open access venues that offer "conditional" OA.
Many universities recognized this principle years ago when they signed the Compact for Open Access Equity (COPE), committing to support open access publishing for their authors. Institutions such as the University of California and Columbia University were among the signatories, acknowledging both the value of publishing services and the need for stable funding mechanisms to support open access journals.
Yet in practice some libraries have moved away from that commitment. For example, Columbia University states on its website that “The Columbia Libraries do not help cover open access journal article processing charges (APCs) for individual authors,” while simultaneously directing authors to a set of publisher agreements under which they can publish for free or at a discount. In other words, the "equitable" mechanism to support any author who wants to publish in an open access journal of their choice has given way to encourage authors to publish with legacy subscription journals who have open access options or offer conditional OA as long as their historical subscription revenue targets are met. Leaving aside legal, procurment and economical arguments, is it morally fair to undermine born open access publishers in this way?
This policy shift replaces author-centered support with publisher-centered agreements. That is not a neutral approach to supporting open access; it is a form of selective market intervention. When the message to researchers becomes “You can publish for free with publisher X, receive a discount with publisher Y, but must pay the full APC for publisher Z,” author behavior inevitably shifts. Such policies influence the publishing market in ways that deserve careful scrutiny from a competition policy perspective and also the long-term consequences for power and prices in the publishing ecosystem.
By contrast, the University of California has implemented one of the more equitable approaches: authors with grant funding receive a modest institutional contribution toward APCs, while authors without funding may receive full coverage. Importantly, the system does not discriminate against fully open access publishers. This type of model supports open access in a publisher-neutral way while maintaining equity for unfunded researchers.But introducing S2O into such systems risks creating new inequities and distortions. If some publishers receive full institutional subsidies through subscription-based mechanisms while others do not, the level playing field disappears.
Academic freedom includes the freedom to choose where to publish. While librarians play an important role as advisors and stewards of scholarly communication, funding structures that steer authors toward specific publishers inevitably influence scholarly behavior. The resulting cycle is self-reinforcing: libraries negotiate agreements with large publishers; libraries fund publishing only within those agreements; authors follow the funding; market share consolidates.
The consequences are already visible. Many independent open access publishers have been acquired by large commercial publishers, and the share of gold open access relative to hybrid open access has recently begun to decline. Library funding strategies are a key factor in shaping these trends.
In summary, S2O and related “transformative” agreements raise several structural concerns that are underappreciated in this article:
1) They preserve historical subscription baselines, even though subscriptions are often significantly more expensive than one-time open access publication costs.
2) They convert subscription revenue into open access without redistributing costs across the broader research funding ecosystem.
3) They provide no systematic mechanism to support publishers that are already fully open access.
4) They privilege incumbent publishers with established subscription histories.
5) They discriminate against researchers who want to publish in full open access journals that are unconditional
Supporters of S2O often emphasize the appealing vision that libraries can collectively contribute to a global public good by enabling authors everywhere to publish open access without fees. But this vision raises important questions. Should individual institutions subsidize global publishing output rather than prioritizing equity for their own researchers? Is it sustainable — or even desirable — to create a system in which anyone can submit and publish without any financial accountability? How would subscription-derived funding respond if publication volume increased dramatically?
Ultimately, funding structures shape outcomes. Conditional open access funding will produce conditional open access.
If the goal is truly unconditional and permanent open access, then institutions should support the publishers that have been delivering exactly that for decades. There are not many of them left.
It may "feel good to contribute to a global public good" (as the authors write) by simply renewing subscriptions, but that feeling rests on an assumption—that passive participation will reliably produce equitable outcomes. That is far from guaranteed. ‘Benign neglect’ may preserve existing revenue streams, but it also preserves legacy cost structures and incumbent advantages, without ensuring that the benefits actually reach those who need support most.
There is an alternative that may feel even more aligned with the stated goal: actively reallocating funds. Cancelling a subscription and redirecting those resources into an institutional or global author equity fund would create a transparent, targeted mechanism to support unfunded researchers—regardless of where they choose to publish. That approach replaces passive hope with deliberate equity, and aligns funding directly with authors rather than with legacy subscription relationships.
If the objective is truly to enable global open access publishing, then intentional redistribution may be both more effective—and ultimately more honest—than simply renewing and hoping for the best.
To answer the question from the title of this article, Subscribe to Open may be convenient for libraries, but it is not necessarily “good” if it preserves legacy pricing, favors incumbent publishers, and allocates publishing funds without transparent, equitable, and publisher-neutral criteria.
JMIR Publications has been delivering unconditional open access for decades. Does your library have a systematic mechanism to support publishers that never asked for subscription revenue? Contact us to discuss how we can partner on a sustainable, non-discriminatory funding model for your researchers.