Jump to content

User:MaryMO (AR)/sandbox/Subscribe to open

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Subscribe to Open decision process

Subscribe to Open (S2O) is a publishing model for converting subscription journal content to open access (OA). In the S2O model, subscriptions are offered by publishers to institutions in their subscriber base. If enough institutions agree to subscribe under the S2O model, the journal is published as open content, freely accessible to read by both subscribers and non-subscribers. If enough institutions do not subscribe, content remains (or returns to being) limited to subscribers.[1][2][3] S2O follows a subscription procurement model[1][4] and does not involve article processing charges (APCs).[5][6]

The Subscribe to Open model was introduced by the publisher Annual Reviews.[7][2][8][9] Publishers, agents, journals, scholarly societies, scholars, funders, libraries, licensing services and others who are interested in the Subscribe to Open model can engage with the S2O Community of Practice.[10][11][12] The Subscribe to Open model has been described as a "groundbreaking"[13][14] approach for journal publishers seeking to achieve open access.[15][5] It builds on other collaborative initiatives, including SCOAP3 and Knowledge Unlatched. It has been endorsed by cOAlition S as aligning with Plan S requirements for open content publishing[5][16] and by OA2020[17] and SPARC.[3]

The most commonly expressed concern about S2O’s viability is that libraries may try to take a "free ride" instead of subscribing, causing the model to become unsustainable.[11] In the absence of evidence until the model is tested, opinions are speculative.[4] A survey commissioned by the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers to determine how publishers aligned with Plan S, identified Subscribe to Open as one of the models that were "most promising because they offer a predictable, steady funding stream."[18]: 2 [19] Subscribe to Open has also been described as "an effective and financially sustainable OA model for HSS journals embraced by publishers and libraries alike.”[14] S2O has inspired attempts to create a similar model for monographs and books through MIT Press (Direct to Open, D2O) and the Central European University Press (Opening the Future).[11][20][21]

How S2O works

[edit]
External media
Audio
audio icon Episode 79 "Annual Reviews: Subscribe to Open", The Authority File, March 25, 2019
Video
video icon Organizing for OA: New Business Models for Collective Action, Charleston Hub, December 9, 2020
video icon Presenting our Program Subscribe to Open (S2O), Annual Reviews, December 7, 2021

Subscribe to Open is based on a mutual assurance contract.[22] While S2O is sometimes referred to as a type of transformative agreement,[23][24][7] it has been argued that the fundamental characteristic of a transformative agreement is that it shifts payment "away from subscription-based reading".[25] This definition does not apply to Subscribe to Open, which is a subscription procurement model and continues to use existing procurement processes.[1][4] The Subscribe to Open model uses subscriptions in a way that supports collaborative or collective funding[26][22][27][28] but is not a voluntary donation approach.[1] S2O avoids a number of problems that can be associated with transformative agreements.[29]

In Subscribe to Open, subscription expenditures are used to support a transition to open access.[1][6][18][30] Pricing and subscription options for journals are announced one year, and apply to the following year.[31][2] Publishers may offer either their regular subscription rate, or a discounted rate for S2O journals, depending on the publisher. If enough institutions agree to subscribe under the S2O model, the journal is published as open content, freely accessible to read by both subscribers and non-subscribers. If enough institutions do not subscribe, content remains (or returns to being) limited to subscribers.[1][6][18][30][32] The offering of S2O journals is compatible with the normal subscription procedures for a library.[31][2] Ideally, S2O offerings should be synchronized with the subscription renewal cycle to ensure that offers will reach libraries at a time when they have resources to allocate.[11]

In this way S2O appeals to the individual subscriber's economic self-interest (receiving a discount instead of paying full price), and avoids reliance on collective behavior or altruism.[1] The approach allows participating publishers to convert content from gated to open access on a year-to-year basis.[18]

Research

[edit]

Annual Review of Public Health pilot, 2017

[edit]

In 2016, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) awarded six grants for examining the potential for open science and open access, as part of an initiative for Increasing Openness and Transparency in Research.[33][34][35] Transparency and openness in publishing are increasingly seen as supporting open science and open research.[36][37]

One of the RWJF awardees was the journal publisher Annual Reviews, which was interested in finding ways to remove barriers to access to scientific publications.[33][38] Publishing consultant Raym Crow and Richard B. Gallagher and Kamran Naim at Annual Reviews jointly developed the S2O model.[8][39][1] Annual Reviews used the RWJF grant to release Volume 38 of the Annual Review of Public Health under an open access license in April 2017, and tracked the impact of the change in licensing.[40][1]

Line chart showing the PDF and HTML downloads of the Annual Review of Public Health (purple) after it became open access in 2017. The Annual Review of Medicine (blue) and the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology (red), which are paywalled, are shown for comparison.[1]

By May 2019, usage of the journal had increased eight-fold relative to 2016 to about 200,000 downloads monthly. For comparison, the titles for clinical psychology and medicine that maintained gated access showed no change in usage. In addition, the audience for the journal increased from 1,100 institutions in 57 countries (2016) to 7,220 institutions in 137 countries (2018).[1]

Project MUSE study, 2021

[edit]

In 2021, Project MUSE received funding as part of the Mellon Foundation's Public Knowledge Program, to study the viability of S2O. As an aggregator of digital content, Project MUSE has access to over 700 scholarly journals in the humanities and social sciences. Project MUSE will work within its community to assess the potential for a multi-publisher S2O pilot.[41][42]

Benefits

[edit]

To libraries

[edit]

Libraries and librarians are seen as key stakeholders in the Subscribe to Open model.[11] The S2O model gives librarians an active role in curating OA content by allowing them to select the journals they wish to support.[13] Because S2O builds upon existing library subscription procurement processes, there is no need to negotiate substantially different legal agreements.[11] Existing library infrastructure and workflows can continue to be used, ensuring ease of participation in transitioning to and working with the S2O model.[11][13] S2O publishers such as Annual Reviews offer subscription incentives to appeal to the economic self-interest of subscribers.[1][4]

S2O also offers transparency in pricing. Transparency in pricing is identified as a cornerstone of the Plan S principles.[43] Respondents in a survey of the S2O Community of Practice ranked transparency in pricing as S2O's most important feature, and one that would encourage their institution to participate in S2O.[44] S2O publishers such as Annual Reviews, EDP Sciences and Pluto Journals support transparency by making financial information public, following FAIR data guidelines in choosing the information they release.[45][44][46]

To authors

[edit]

Removing barriers to access can dramatically increase both access to and use of a scholar's work. This was clearly demonstrated in the 2017 pilot by Annual Reviews. Readership of the Annual Review of Public Health expanded from 57 countries to 137 countries, and from 1,100 academic institutions to 7,220 institutions, when it transitioned to open access.[6][1]

Subscribe to Open does not charge article processing charges (APCs),[5] an important difference between Subscribe to Open and many transformative agreements.[6] APCs can add new requirements and increase bureaucracy and costs for libraries and authors.[11] APCs have been criticized for raising barriers to authors and worsening global inequality.[47][48] This is especially important for early career faculty and those with less access to grants and other funding sources.[49]

In contrast, S2O distributes the costs of supporting open access among publishers and subscribing institutions. This avoids placing a financial burden for open content on authors, researchers, and research institutions, particularly smaller institutions and those in the humanities and social sciences.[42][11][50]

Critics of APCs express concerns that author-based fees will be a disincentive to research, and bias publication towards wealthy institutions and established researchers who have better access to funding. By providing equal levels of support for open access to authors from all institutions and areas of research, the S2O model avoids these issues and hopes to protect author equity.[3][11][47]

To readers

[edit]

While the base for converting a journal to open access may be its existing subscribers, opening the journal makes it widely readable. The collaborative impact of changing a journal to open access through Subscribe to Open goes beyond the individual author writing for the journal to the entire research community in that field. This can include researchers from countries where the subscription rates would not be affordable.[3]

Converting a journal to S2O also expands the reach of all of its content beyond academia. Making the Annual Review of Public Health open access expanded its readership to include city public health departments, farmers, and social justice and advocacy organizations, to name only a few examples. In this way, the Subscribe to Open model supports democratization of knowledge[3] and the pursuit of an equitable and inclusive society. "Eliminating barriers around access is a major step forward and a foundational imperative to achieving an equitable, just, and inclusive world."[42]

To publishers

[edit]

Subscribe to Open offers the potential to create "a predictable, steady funding stream"[18] that can provide financial sustainability for a journal and its publisher.[14][51][4] S2O may be particularly helpful for smaller independent publishers, such as those representing scholarly societies, university presses, and library presses.[42][11][50] Smaller publishers are reported to face greater challenges in transitioning successfully to open access publishing, as required by Plan S, than large publishers.[52][42][11] S2O is also a desirable option for publishers in the humanities and social sciences.[42][11][50]

EDP reported that all of its Subscribe to Open offerings in mathematics received substantially higher-than-previous rankings on Clarivate's Journal Impact Factors ™ following their S2O release.[53]

Plan S compatibility

[edit]

Plan S is an initiative for open-access science publishing launched in 2018[54][55] by "cOAlition S",[16][56] a consortium of national research agencies and funders from twelve European countries. The plan requires scientists and researchers who receive funding from state research organizations and member institutions to publish their work in open repositories or in journals that are available to all.[57][19] Plan S has put additional pressure on publishers to make some form of open access available to authors. It also has increased pressure for transparency in publisher pricing.[58]

In cases where an author is required to publish in an open access journal, in accordance with Plan S, an S2O publisher can make the required article open access on an individual basis, regardless of whether or not the journal in question has reached its Subscribe to Open target. This type of "Green Open Access" makes S2O compliant with Plan S.[31] As a result, Subscribe to Open has been endorsed by cOAlition S as aligning with Plan S requirements for open content publishing.[5][16] It is accepted by the Wellcome Trust as Plan S compatible.[59]

Participating publishers and journals

[edit]

As of September 1, 2019, the pilot program for S2O in 2020 included two publishers, Annual Reviews and Berghahn Books, both of whom opened part of their content.[38] In 2019 Annual Reviews offered five titles which were released under the Subscribe to Open model in 2020: the Annual Review of Cancer Biology, the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, the Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, the Annual Review of Political Science, and the Annual Review of Public Health.[1][60] In 2019 Berghahn offered 13 titles in anthropology as possible S2O candidates, all of which were released as open content in 2020.[61][38][48]

As of June 3, 2021, Berghahn announced that Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale, the journal of the European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA) would become part of their open-access set of anthropology journals, starting with Volume 30 in 2022. EASA members "voted overwhelmingly" to leave their existing publisher, Wiley, and "to take our journal Open Access in a way that is sustainable and equitable."[62]

Since 2019, more publishers have adopted the Subscribe to Open approach, which is seen as benefiting libraries, researchers and publishers alike.[31][63] S2O is also supported by negotiation and licensing services such as Jisc, LYRASIS, Knowledge Unlatched and EBSCO Information Services.[64][65][11][66]

Concerns

[edit]

The most commonly expressed critique of S2O’s viability is that libraries will try to get a "free ride" instead of subscribing. Several features of S2O put a check on free-riding, first of all the feature that publication access will be limited to subscribers if subscription levels are low. The only way to ensure that patrons will retain access is to subscribe, making it in the library’s best interest to participate.[11][6] S2O journals also attempt to counter the possibility of free-riding by providing incentives such as access to back catalogs,[82][4] pre-publication content,[4] and usage statistics.[83]

The question has been raised of whether such a model can support increased subscription and financial growth for publishers. Another concern is whether the model will be vulnerable to rapid changes and budget pressures.[49] Some suggest that the model is most likely to be "successful for publishers whose subscription prices are close to their publishing costs, have small price increases year to year, have lower costs in general, and currently have little reliance on APC revenue", and low variations in their subscription rates.[6] Others suggest that the model may have potential to scale.[49][42]

A concern raised within the S2O community is how to access support made available for publishing by funding bodies. The latter is provided in the form of APC payments, and along with subscription provides the income for many journals. Maintenance of an equivalent level of funder support seems essential for the success of many S2O programs, and although funders have expressed approval for S2O, a mechanism for financial support is not yet in place.[4]

Since S2O projects to date have focused on converting journals with existing subscriber bases to OA, the potential to launch new titles using S2O is untested. Monographs and book projects that are similar to S2O offer some insight onto how such this might be developed.[4]

As of 2021 best practices and standards continue to evolve, through various initiatives and the S2O Community of Practice.[11] Issues under discussion by members include the setting of deadlines for participation commitments, handling of scheduled Plan S-funded papers if a journal does not reach its threshold for opening, ability of publishers to establish viable S2O price points[6] standards for transparency,[2] the type of licensing involved for articles,[82][49] and the type of metrics that would be useful to administrators and librarians when budgeting their subscription renewals.[82]

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Crow, Raym; Gallagher, Richard; Naim, Kamran (2020). "Subscribe to Open: A practical approach for converting subscription journals to open access". Learned Publishing. 33 (2): 181–185. doi:10.1002/leap.1262. ISSN 1741-4857. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  2. ^ a b c d e f Ruimy, Anne; Henri, Agnès Henri; Veber, Amandine (April 2021). "EDP Sciences-SMAI Subscribe-to-Open program 2021 Transparency Report" (PDF). EDP Sciences. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  3. ^ a b c d e "Equity is at Heart of Subscribe to Open Model". SPARC. 29 October 2021. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i Michael, Ann (28 April 2022). "Annual Reviews' Subscribe To Open: From Idea To Full Adoption". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved April 28, 2022.
  5. ^ a b c d e f "Subscribe-to-Open (S2O)". EDP Sciences. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h Langham-Putrow, Allison; Carter, Sunshine J. (6 January 2020). "Subscribe to Open: Modeling an open access transformation". College & Research Libraries News. p. 18. doi:10.5860/crln.81.1.18. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  7. ^ a b Estelle, Lorraine; Wise, Alicia. "Transformative Agreements" (PDF). Information Power. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  8. ^ a b c Michael, Ann (April 2, 2019). "Subscribe To Open: Annual Reviews' Take on Open Access". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 4 June 2021.
  9. ^ Allen, Liz (October 22, 2018). "Developing a new OA funding model called Subscribe to Open (S2O) - OA week 2018". International Open Access Week Blog. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  10. ^ "Subscribe to Open Community of Practice". Subscribe to Open. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Brundy, Curtis; Steel, Ginny (16 August 2021). "Subscribe to Progress: Advancing Equity Through Openness". Common Place. 1 (1). doi:10.21428/6ffd8432.20811f1e. Retrieved 10 January 2022. free-riding... is the most common critique against the model's viability.
  12. ^ "Participants". “Subscribe to Open” (S2O) S2O Community of Practice. Retrieved 4 June 2021.
  13. ^ a b c d Anderson, Porter (11 January 2021). "Knowledge Unlatched Flips the Pluto Journals to Open Access". Publishing Perspectives. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
  14. ^ a b c "The Ground-Breaking Three-Year Subscribe-to-Open Initiative, Berghahn Open Anthro, Successfully Enters Year 2". Knowledge Unlatched. 3 February 2021. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
  15. ^ a b "Momentum builds for Subscribe-to-Open as mathematics portfolio transitions to open access". EDP Sciences. 19 May 2021. Retrieved 13 January 2022.
  16. ^ a b c "cOAlition S endorses the Subscribe to Open (S2O) model of funding open access | Plan S". www.coalition-s.org. 27 April 2021. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  17. ^ "Enabling smaller independent publishers to participate in Open Access transformative arrangements: a commitment from key stakeholders". OA2020. 17 June 2021. Retrieved 3 February 2022.
  18. ^ a b c d e Wise, Alicia; Estelle, Lorraine (2019). "Society Publishers Accelerating Open Access and Plan S - Final Project Report": 23–24. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.9805007.v1. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  19. ^ a b "Independent report and transformative agreement toolkit launched to support Learned Society publishers' transition to immediate Open Access and align with Plan S". Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. 12 September 2019. Retrieved 11 June 2021. Cite error: The named reference "ALPSP" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  20. ^ "D2 Direct to Open : A New, Collective Action Open Access Business Model for Scholarly Books". MIT Press. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  21. ^ "Opening the Future: A New Model for Open Access Books". CEU Press. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  22. ^ a b Hinchliffe, Lisa Janicke (March 9, 2020). "Subscribe to Open: A Mutual Assurance Approach to Open Access". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 4 June 2021.
  23. ^ Borrego, Ángel; Anglada, Lluís; Abadal, Ernest (2021). "Transformative agreements: Do they pave the way to open access?". Learned Publishing. 34 (2): 216–232. doi:10.1002/leap.1347. ISSN 1741-4857. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
  24. ^ Maranville, Angela; Diaz, Karen (1 January 2021). "The Death of the Big Deal and Implications for Technical Services". Faculty & Staff Scholarship. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  25. ^ Hinchliffe, Lisa Janicke (23 April 2019). "Transformative Agreements: A Primer". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 16 February 2022.
  26. ^ De Voe, Kristina; Fennell, Lauri; Finnerty, Erin; Johnson, Annie; Kohn, Karen; Lloyd, Rebecca; Pucci, Alicia; Tagge, Natalie (2021). "Advancing the Transition to Open Publishing at Temple University Libraries" (PDF). Temple University. Retrieved 3 February 2022.
  27. ^ Winter, Caroline (June 25, 2021). "Open Access Agreements". Open Scholarship Policy Observatory. Retrieved 16 February 2022.
  28. ^ Pooley, Jefferson (16 August 2021). "Collective Funding to Reclaim Scholarly Publishing". Common Place. doi:10.21428/6ffd8432.250139da. Retrieved 24 February 2022.
  29. ^ Wise, Alicia; Estelle, Lorraine (2020). "How society publishers can accelerate their transition to open access and align with Plan S". Learned Publishing. 33 (1): 14–27. doi:10.1002/leap.1272. ISSN 1741-4857. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
  30. ^ a b Brainard, Jeffrey (9 March 2020). "Publishers roll out alternative routes to open access". Science. Retrieved 20 August 2020.
  31. ^ a b c d e "Subscribe To Open". EMS Press. 2021. Retrieved 4 June 2021.
  32. ^ Paltani-Sargologos, Irini (2020). "État des lieux sur les accords transformants - 31 mars 2020" (PDF). hal-02538844. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  33. ^ a b Tait, Margaret; Wojcik, Oktawia (7 September 2016). "The Open Access Movement: Making Research More Accessible". Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved 7 January 2022. Cite error: The named reference "Tait" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  34. ^ Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) (April 2016). "Open Access and Research Funders: A Report on Challenges, Opportunities, and Collaboration" (PDF). SPARC*. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  35. ^ Hunt, K. (28 October 2016). "Perspectives on Open Access Publishing and Research". Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  36. ^ Kingsley, Danny (11 October 2016). "Open Research". University of Cambridge. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  37. ^ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (17 July 2018). "3. The State of Open Science". Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press (US). Retrieved 7 January 2022.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  38. ^ a b c d e "Subscribe-to-open". Libraria. September 1, 2019. Retrieved 4 June 2021.
  39. ^ Michael, Ann (24 August 2020). "News & Views: Sustainable Open Access – What's Next?". Delta Think. Retrieved 3 February 2022.
  40. ^ a b "2017 Annual Review of Public Health Now Freely Available Online". University of California. June 1, 2017. Retrieved 4 June 2021.
  41. ^ Price, Gary (25 May 2021). "Project MUSE Receives $75,000 Mellon Grant to Study Subscribe to Open (S2O) Model For Open Access Journals". infoDOCKET. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  42. ^ a b c d e f g "Project MUSE receives Mellon Foundation grant to study "Subscribe to Open" model for OA journals". Project MUSE. May 24, 2021. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
  43. ^ "Price and Service Transparency Frameworks". Plan S. Retrieved 16 February 2022.
  44. ^ a b "Subscribe-to-Open 2021 Transparency Report published". EDP Sciences. 7 May 2021. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  45. ^ "Pricing and Expenditure Transparency". Annual Reviews. Retrieved 16 February 2022.
  46. ^ "Pricing Transparency". Pluto Journals. Retrieved 16 February 2022.
  47. ^ a b Pooley, Jefferson (21 February 2020). "Read-and-Publish Open Access deals are heightening global inequalities in access to publication". London School of Economics. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  48. ^ a b c Berghahn, Vivian. "The Berghahn Open Anthro Journey: Embarking on a discipline-driven equitable open access initiative, Part I". Berghahn Books. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  49. ^ a b c d Harington, Robert (28 July 2021). "Subscribe to Open (S2O): An Interview Post in Two Parts (Part 1)". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  50. ^ a b c American Historical Society (February 4, 2019). "AHA Expresses Concerns about Potential Impact of Plan S on the Humanities (Feb 2019)". www.historians.org. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  51. ^ Anderson, Rick (20 April 2021). "Feasibility, Sustainability, and the Subscribe-to-Open Model". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  52. ^ "Open Access agreements with smaller publishers require active cross-stakeholder alignment, report says | Plan S". Plan S. June 9, 2021. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  53. ^ a b "Strong performance from maths portfolio in 2020 Journal Impact Factors from Clarivate". EDP Sciences. 8 July 2021. Retrieved 13 January 2022.
  54. ^ "Coalition of European Funders Announces 'Plan S' to Require Full OA, Cap APCs, & Disallow Publication in Hybrid Journals". SPARC. 4 September 2018. Archived from the original on 16 January 2019. Retrieved 16 January 2019.
  55. ^ "Plan S: Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications" (PDF). Science Europe. 4 September 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 September 2018. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  56. ^ "Science Europe – cOAlition S". scienceeurope.org. Archived from the original on 5 October 2018. Retrieved 15 September 2018.
  57. ^ "European countries demand that publicly funded research should be free to all". The Economist. 15 September 2018. Archived from the original on 2 October 2021. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  58. ^ Else, Holly (12 April 2021). "A guide to Plan S: the open-access initiative shaking up science publishing". Nature. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  59. ^ "Wellcome's support for Transformative Arrangements - 2021 to 2024" (PDF). Wellcome Trust. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  60. ^ "Annual Reviews announces final two journals in the 2020 pilot program for Subscribe to Open". Knowledgespeak. Scope e-Knowledge Center. October 21, 2020. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
  61. ^ "The ground-breaking subscribe-to-open pilot – Berghahn Open Anthro – will flip thirteen anthropology journals to open access in 2020". Knowledge Unlatched. January 23, 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  62. ^ a b "Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale, the flagship journal of the European Association of Social Anthropologists, will transition to Open Access starting in 2022". Berghahn Journals Press Releases. June 3, 2021. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  63. ^ a b "Subscribe to Open". De Gruyter. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  64. ^ "Jisc supports Subscribe to Open model". Research Information. 11 March 2020. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
  65. ^ a b "IWA Publishing transforms all journals to Open Access". IWA Publishing. January 28, 2021. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  66. ^ "Subscribe To Open". Knowledge Unlatched. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  67. ^ "Open Access at AUP". Amsterdam University Press Journals Online. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
  68. ^ "Subscribe to Open". Annual Reviews. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  69. ^ Berghahn, Vivian. "The Berghahn Open Anthro Journey: Embarking on a discipline-driven equitable open access initiative, Part II". Berghahn Books. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  70. ^ "General FAQ". Berghahn Journals. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  71. ^ "Berghahn Open Anthro". Berghahn Journals. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  72. ^ "Open Access Transformation for Astronomy & Astrophysics". EDP Sciences. Retrieved 13 January 2022.
  73. ^ "EDP Sciences and Knowledge Unlatched announce a Subscribe-to-Open collaboration". EDP Sciences. 10 June 2021. Retrieved 13 January 2022.
  74. ^ "SMAI awarded funding from Fonds national pour la science ouverte (FNSO) for Subscribe to Open maths journals published in partnership with EDP Sciences". EDP Sciences. 3 December 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2022.
  75. ^ "Successful Subscribe to Open pilot paves the way for a ground-breaking roll out across the EDP Sciences maths portfolio". EDP Sciences. 7 July 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2022.
  76. ^ "Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenomena transitions to open access under the Subscribe to Open model". EDP Sciences. 5 March 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2022.
  77. ^ Bosshart, Sara; Cookson, Rod; Hess, Philipp (16 March 2022). "Open access through Subscribe to Open: a society publisher's implementation". Insights. 35 (0): 6. doi:10.1629/uksg.567. ISSN 2048-7754. Retrieved 5 April 2022.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  78. ^ "Why Subscribe to Open? New Editorial from Editors-in-Chief". IWA Publishing. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  79. ^ "IWA Publishing launches pilot to flip its entire journal portfolio to Open Access using the Subscribe-to-Open model". STM Publishing News. October 7, 2020. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  80. ^ "LUP Open Planning". LUP Open Planning. Retrieved 3 February 2022.
  81. ^ "Open Access". Pluto Journals. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
  82. ^ a b c Harington, Robert (29 July 2021). "Subscribe to Open (S2O): An Interview Post in Two Parts (Part 2)". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  83. ^ "Subscribe to Open (S2O): Frequently Asked Questions | Subscribe to Open | IWA Publishing". IWA Publishing. Retrieved 24 February 2022.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MaryMO_(AR)/sandbox/Subscribe_to_open&oldid=1085156069"