Research Group Information Management @ Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - New preprint on Transformative Agreements

"One of our core findings is that TAs may not just be a stepping stone toward full OA but could be trapping libraries in hybrid models indefinitely. Here’s what stood out:

1. Dominance of Big Publishers: We found that a small number of publishers, mainly Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley, dominate these agreements. These “Big 3” often secure longer contracts with more favorable terms for themselves, locking libraries into longer commitments and substantial costs.

2. Rising Costs, Limited Flexibility: While TAs have led to more OA articles, they don’t always reduce costs for libraries. In fact, we discovered that the larger the initial TA contract, the more likely it is to be renewed, creating a cycle of dependency. Libraries often face increased administrative burdens and costs without the savings they expected.

3. Capped vs. Uncapped Contracts: Contracts come in two flavors—capped (with a limit on the number of OA articles) and uncapped. Uncapped contracts are generally preferred, as they reduce the risk of libraries exceeding their article limit and facing additional charges. However, even uncapped contracts often exclude fully OA journals, limiting the growth of the OA movement.

4. Workflow Wins and Woes: One bright spot is that many libraries reported improvements in their workflows under TAs, especially where automated tools like CCC RightsLink and others and real-time dashboards were used. Yet, issues remain—many libraries still struggle with complex, manual workflows and limited monitoring capabilities.

5. Mixed Feelings on Sustainability: Libraries are split on the sustainability of TAs. While some view them as a positive, affordable transition tool, others worry about long-term financial strain, especially as publishers maintain their market power and high fees...."