The transition to Open Access (OA) is no longer a distant goal; it is a rapidly accelerating reality. As we navigate this shift, the ESAC (Efficiency and Standards for Academic Collecting) Initiative is a useful compass, tracking the rise of Transformative Agreements (TAs) globally.
| Rapid TA Growth: Transformative Agreements (TAs) are exploding in number, locking libraries into a cycle of constant renegotiation. |
| OA as Reinvestment: For most, the shift to Open Access (OA) is a significant reinvestment, risking budget diversion from independent publishers and stifling bibliodiversity. |
| Concentration & Consolidation: Extreme concentration of publication volume in large TAs accelerates industry consolidation, creating a "winner-take-all" effect. |
At JMIR Publications, we believe in an open science ecosystem that is not only accessible but also diverse and sustainable. However, a recent analysis of the ESAC registry data reveals trends that every researcher and librarian should consider. While TAs are moving the needle on OA volume, they also raise critical questions about industry consolidation, cost, and the future of independent publishing.
Here are the three key takeaways from the latest ESAC data and what they mean for the scholarly community.
The shift toward OA publishing models has moved from a trickle to a flood. In 2014 and 2015, the registry recorded only two new agreements per year. Fast forward to 2023, and that number skyrocketed to over 300.
We are currently in the "peak period" of adoption. Between 2023 and 2025, nearly 830 new agreements are slated to commence. With a median duration of just under three years, the library community is now locked into a cycle of constant renegotiation. This rapid adoption proves that the "Big Deal" has successfully evolved into the "Transformative Big Deal," but it also suggests that the window for defining what a "fair" agreement looks like is closing fast.
One of the primary arguments for TAs is that they bring transparency and control to library budgets. The data shows a mixed reality:
Cost Control: For 858 of the 1,548 agreements analyzed, costs remained within previous spending ranges. This suggests that librarians are successfully holding the line against runaway inflation.
The Growth Factor: However, nearly 600 agreements resulted in an overall cost increase! Only a tiny fraction (90 agreements) saw a decrease.
This indicates that for many institutions, the shift to OA is not a cost-saving measure but a significant reinvestment. As budgets are funneled into these large-scale agreements to cover APCs (Article Processing Charges) and Big Deal Subscriptions (Access) for legacy commercial publishers, we must ask: What happens to the budget for independent, born-OA publishers? If the "transformation" simply reallocates the same (or more) money to the same dominant players, we risk stifling the bibliodiversity that independent publishers provide.
Perhaps the most startling finding in the ESAC data is the extreme concentration of publication volume.
The median number of annual publications per agreement is just 50 articles.
The mean (average) is 440 articles—over eight times the median.
At the top end, some agreements cover a staggering 14,000 articles annually.
This discrepancy highlights a "winner-take-all" dynamic. A small number of massive agreements with the largest commercial publishers are responsible for the bulk of OA growth. This concentration accelerates industry consolidation. When a few large publishers capture the vast majority of library "read and publish" funds, independent and society-led publishers—who often offer more innovative, mission-driven OA models—are left to compete for the remaining crumbs.
As an independent publisher, JMIR Publications remains committed to the idea that a healthy scientific ecosystem requires a variety of venues, niches, and business models.
If the future of Open Access is dictated solely by the largest TAs, we risk creating a monoculture where "open" only applies to those within the most powerful consortia and those publishing with the largest firms. Consortia, Librarians and researchers have a unique opportunity to support bibliodiversity by ensuring that their transition strategies include space for independent, high-quality, and community-focused publishers.
The ESAC data proves we are succeeding in making research open. Now, we must work together to ensure that the "new normal" is also fair, diverse, and truly competitive.
Are you attending the UKSG Annual Conference in Glasgow? I will be there in person and would love to discuss these findings, the importance of bibliodiversity, or how we can work together to support a more equitable publishing landscape.
Let’s connect: If you’d like to grab a coffee or schedule a dedicated time to chat, please reach out to our team at this link to coordinate. I look forward to seeing many of you there!
Interested in how JMIR Publications supports institutional OA goals without the "Big Deal" baggage? Explore our Institutional Memberships and help us maintain a diverse publishing landscape