When I'm supposed
counting confidence
to a move on to the next conference that we'll have.
We will have, Wilhelm Whitman in English there.
So he given and their son, Wilhelm Wilhelm is the library director
of a whole university since 2000.
12 since, 2020.
He's also senior advisor for the open science to the president
of Stockholm University.
He has a master of Arts
in in literature and a master of Arts
in Library and Information science from Uppsala University.
Well, he is active in the open science movement
in Sweden and Europe,
and he's the vice chairman of the Swedish Sweeties, a Bit
Sun consortium and a member of the Swedish Vector Conference.
Open Science Group.
He is also a member of the European University Association
s group Open Science and one of the director
of the European Open Science Cloud Association. So,
he's going to talk
us about one of the most,
important topic we are now lean.
Okay. So.
Thank you for the kind introduction.
And Tang, thank you for being an internal invention to talk here
at this wonderful conference about open libraries.
Open science is an open learning.
So I will talk about more
about rights, retention policies,
negotiation with publishers from the perspective of the Beeb.
Some consortium
and my talk, I would start with a little introduction
about open science, and then I will talk about
policy work and strategies that we have done in Sweden,
and also about the actual negotiations that we have had.
Finally, something about right retention strategies
and may be some small conclusions at the end.
So you heard it before, the library director at Stockholm
University, senior advisor on open science to the president of
struggling University,
director of AUC.
And I think you will have is going to program tomorrow.
I'm a vice chair of the some consortia member of the Swedish
Rectors Conference, Open Science Group
and a member of European University Alliance Open Science Group.
So I tried to run a library, but I work 100% on open science,
so the library had to solve their questions themselves.
So I'm out talking here at different conferences and
at very many meetings out in Europe.
As we understand, we need to work together internationally.
So it comes very many meetings.
So we have heard a lot about this to
achieve the normal, achieve
open science us the new normal.
It's a transition.
We're on the way making open science the new normal.
And as we heard before here, you need a policy
to make it required and rewards.
So start to have a policy.
Then you also need a plan to clarify how the university
shall achieve the goals set of the policy and clarification
of the vision of responsible responsibilities.
So you need to have a structure to work in,
then an internal organization
and infrastructure to make it possible.
And of course a central support function
and education to make it easy.
So you have to go through all of these different parts,
have policy to have infrastructure to make research on it,
and also have support and education to reach the goal.
So it's a big.
Way to go
to make open science the new normal.
So make it possible, make it rewarding and make it the new normal.
So what are the influences on Open Science?
I will talk about some of them.
So if we start with the politics in the EU,
open science is really driven by the European Union.
As we have heard before, they have a lot of recommendations
on open science and a lot of projects on open science.
And then the member states have it from their governance.
So it's really politically driven.
But I think it is important to have it top down politically.
But we really need to work bottom up as well.
Researchers don't say what politicians want
and they won't do it just because the politicians want it.
But then we have society.
Open science is really important for the society
to make it open, so that all members can have
research articles, can have it open to follow it.
It's a big step for democracy to have everything in open science
and of course, ethics and laws influence how we can do open science
your heart as open as possible and as closed as necessary.
So there you must follow the ethics and law.
What you can publish.
Open research infrastructures.
Make it possible to make open science.
We have different research organizations
that are working together to make open science possible.
Then we also have the publishers.
Of course, the publishers can do much for open science, open access,
but I'm a little bit afraid that they want to,
have too much money to make open access possible.
And we will discuss that as well.
So publishers are important,
but there are really big costs with the publishers.
Then we have the funders.
They all have our often
financed by the governance.
And then they have put mandates
on the researchers when they receive research grants,
as you have to publish in open access and you have to publish your data.
So the founders are really important in this step.
The top down movement.
But I think we always have to have that researchers in the focus.
We are doing open science together with the researcher.
It should be a movement that is bottom up
and you can really see now many young student
that stuck on the university, for instance, is much more aware
of open science that the tutors are at the universities.
So the movement is coming bottom up as well,
which is important to make it the new normal.
But you also need leadership.
This is the president of Stockholm University,
our student senate, by reading, she says, Stockholm University
advocates the visibility of its research and research results
through a research and education environment
that promotes, encourage and inform
about open science as a practice.
So give open access and open science the attention they deserve.
So you need to have this to make it work.
You can do a lot in the libraries, but you need to work
with the university management as well to make it happen.
And I'm proud to work at Stockholm University.
That is the driver of open science
in Sweden, and mostly by our president, Astrid.
So I will talk more
about open access and how we try to reach
100% open access in Sweden.
And here is a map of all the stakeholders
when you're working on open access in Sweden.
And it's a lot of stakeholders, as you can see.
But to make it possible, you need to have all the different
stakeholders at the table talking together.
How can we reach the goals?
So in the top we have the government.
Government.
They have said that in Sweden we should
that open science
should be the normal in 2026.
And they said that we should have had 100% open access
in 2021.
We didn't reach that, but we reached about 85% done.
So they have got to sign months on different parts
of open science to the National Library, has decided
to work on open access, and the Swedish research councils
have the assignment to work on open data,
and then they have to work together in different joint committees.
So if
we talk about the open access support, we have the National
Library, I have the consortia, that is the BBM consortium.
And the B of some consortium is steered by a committee
from the Rectors Conference from the universities in Sweden.
So we have the steering group is from Director's Conference.
The management is to be some
at the National Library and within the consortium,
we have all the universities and some governmental agencies,
and then we have a lot of different joint action committees
with researchers, with research funders
and the universities talking together.
And of course, we have coordination with the EU as well.
So this is some sort of map of all the stakeholders that really need
to work together to achieve the goal of open access and open science.
So the Swedish Rectors Conference,
it was established in 1995
and has 37 members, and that is the Swedish arena
for cooperation between the universities
and university team
colleges.
And within the conference we have also the library director forum,
and we have the Association
of Chair of the deep, some steering committee.
And we have a committee that is looking over
all open science questions because as we have many different
groups working on open science within the Rectors
Conference, we have to have one group that looks over that.
We are doing everything together.
And then we have had the group that we look on beyond
transformative agreements.
And I would talk more about that later.
So to help the universities and the university colleges,
we have started a roadmap for open science with nine recommendations.
And that is this is because of we have
from the Ministry of Education.
We have they said that we should become open science in 2026.
So we made a roadmap for open science and
we have nine
different recommendations within this roadmap.
And it is all all about the culture of sharing, fair research, state,
infrastructural services, cooperation and other thing.
Promote and develop incentive structures
and ensure copyright which some of the publishers
and to this roadmap.
It's all of the universities trying to follow.
But we made and guide for implementation
of the roadmap for Open Science.
So a complement to the roadmap and it contains
a comprehensive proposal for action linked to the nine recommendations.
And we have also proposed measures
that are set for from 2022 to 2026.
What should each university have done
with in, for instance, 2023?
You should have started with something
and we have recommendations here.
So we provide overall support to all the higher education
institutes, regardless of size and specializations.
And of course, the roadmap is continuously updated once a year
because a lot of things is happening and then we follow up each year.
What is happening at each university.
We then open science.
So we have a survey to all the members each spring.
And the results are published on the website.
At the last survey we discussed
we asked is the roadmap
and the implementation plan helpful for you at the university?
And I think it was 90% that said, this is really helpful,
and I'm at one university at the board on their open science project,
and they had this roadmap open and said this and this and this.
We had done now all the implementation plans.
So it's really important that we work together and had this plan.
Now, of course, it's not a mandated plan, but everybody talks on it.
But I think as I said before here,
you read it is from the rectors conference.
It is from the top management of the universities that had the plan.
Then we all the rest can contribute to make the plan had done.
And it's really hard work to do it.
So we heard
that we are in the middle of the transformation.
So from there on, Asco has two goals
on open science and really recommending open science.
And all the countries have signed up to goals for open science.
And as I said the European
Union has lot of goals and open science.
And it's really promoting open science.
And I think it is important for the countries
when you need to go to open science for democracy and everything,
and then the different governments are really taking on open science.
And I'm glad that also the new government in Sweden
looks to have done that.
And we will have a new research bill at the end of this year.
And then we will really see if the government
has implemented things about the open science in the research bill.
So when Sweden
in 2023 was had,
the presidency of the European Commission,
we wrote the Council conclusions on high quality,
transparent, open trust, trustworthy in equitable scholarly publishing
and the Council conclusions is something that is negotiating,
negotiated during the period and all the Member States
and associated countries had sign up for the Council's conclusion,
then it's not mandatory to do it, but
it's a good signal with the council's conclusions.
This is what the politicians want,
and they call for immediate
and unrestricted open access in publishing research
involving public funds, immediate
and unrestricted open access.
And it states that the cost of paywalls to access
and publish articles are becoming unsustainable.
So the path we are on now
is becoming unsustainable.
It's all of the countries of the European Union saying so.
It calls on the member states to support policies towards
a scholarly publishing model that is not for profit.
Open access and multi-format,
with no cost for authors or readers.
Here.
We have a lot of projects now
in the European Union about the diamond open access,
a new way to change the system and bring the,
power of the scholarly
communication system back to the academia and
it also says that we should encourage member states to support the pilot
program, Open Research Europe, to create a large scale,
open access research publishing service on the EU level.
And I know that many of the different founders
in Europe is now talking how we can change
or open research Europe to become a common platform
for the whole of Europe so all researchers can join it.
But it will take time, as everything
that we do together on a big scale will do.
But interesting to follow.
And of course, they in the council conclusions, they also talk
about the
about the juridical things on
how can we change the way
how we do with the law
to make open access possible for law countries.
So in Sweden, we also have
the government made an,
amendment to the National Library
to come up with national guidelines for open science for Sweden.
So they have, developed national guidelines,
and then I have made gold and gold some priorities
for open science in Sweden, divided into six areas open Scot,
open access to scholarly publication, open access to research
data, open research methods,
open educational resources,
public engagement in science and infrastructures.
Supporting open science, and it provides support and guidance
to actors in Sweden, mainly research, performing and research.
Founding on organization
They are aligned with the UN recommendations on Open science.
So here in Sweden now we have the Council conclusions
that we can follow and that you have in all your Member States,
we have the roadmap from the Director's conference, and
then we have the national guidelines from the Swedish government.
But it was the national Library that has made them. So.
We have a lot of policies and recommendations that we can follow.
But politics is not all we really need to have actual work
to do it, of course, but policies are still important.
In Sweden we have come far.
When to reach 100% open access.
We had reached about 90% and I think at Stockholm University
we have it about 95% to articles in open access.
But as we have come so far,
we had a discussion about within Director's Conference.
This is not the transition we are going on.
It is a new business model for the publishers.
So the transformative agreements have become a new business models.
It won't be changed.
So what?
We set up a group to.
Find a new negotiation
way for the agreements of the 2024 and the strategy
will be mandated from the management of the universities.
And the group also investigated alternative
publishing routes and gave suggestions on such.
And we worked for two years
in this beyond the transformative agreements
and with in the group, we had university management
researchers from different disciplines
because all know that we have different
publishing options within the different disciplines.
We can't make one way to do it work for all.
And we had the founders in the group,
the negotiators from the Gibson consortia.
So I think we were about 14 people in the group.
It is all of the stakeholders
within the community to make it happen.
So we worked during the pandemic,
and so we have only online meetings discussing these questions.
And we had a lot of international discussions, both with,
the consortium and their universities and also with the publishers,
with had different publishers,
workshops together with us to discuss
what is possible for the future.
But at the end, we had a physical meeting
where we discussed how can we come up with a strategy
to get beyond the transformative agreements.
And we had four different scenarios that we discussed.
And the first one was, of course, to stop signing transformative deals,
canceled deals with commercial publishers.
What would happen if we followed that strategy along?
And then we discussed new, different alternative publishing routes.
How can these come in to the scholarly community
communication market to make it
more open to have more alternatives
to publish then just with the commercial publishers, then,
of course, open access without APC's
article processing charges,
copyright to publications.
And we talked it through all of these different scenarios
that had come up during the work.
And we said, of course, we can't just work, walk, work on one scenario.
We have to combine all these four scenarios when we are going for.
But to get beyond transformative agreements.
So the
group, beyond transformative Agreements
made a recommendation for the strategy,
and then the Rectors
Conference took all these recommendations
and made this, some recommendations for all members within the,
within
all members within in the director's conference.
This is what we say, Sweden's path
beyond the transformative agreement is that is crucial
that control of scholarly publishing remain with the academic community,
but also that the cost of publishing decreases today.
It is really to.
It has not decreased.
It has increased and is too expensive.
And the B of some consortia should not primarily enter into agreements
for reading and publishing in so-called hybrid journals.
It should not continue to sign transformative agreements.
It should instead only negotiate agreements
for publishing and open access journals.
This approach should be implemented from 2026
and apply to all open journals, regardless of publishers.
So we say that from 2026, we should stop sign transformative agreements.
The aim should
be to manage
costs for academic reading and publishing at the national level
as much as possible, in collaboration between higher education
institutes, funders and the National Library of Sweden.
That is within the framework of the B some consortia.
And here you're here again.
We need to work together with all different parties
to make this happen.
Then in the B, some consortia,
of course, we have listened to what
we have done within the Beyond Transformative Agreements group.
So we had changed the action plan for the Gibson consortium.
The plan is the aim is to facilitate the open publication
of scholarly results, to bring about a redirection
of payment streams for subscription based on the open
access publishing system, and to achieve transparency
and overview and reduced expenses for scholarly publishing,
that the
consortium should not sign agreements
with reading and publishing in so-called hybrid journals,
and instead only negotiate for,
publication in open access journals.
From 2026, as we said, the new pathway to open
publishing are promoted and supported,
and alternative business models are developed.
And that research driven journals that want to migrate from traditional
traditional publishers to other platforms are supported.
And this is within the time open access frame as well.
To support
journals to move
from commercial publishers to
publishing within the institutions.
And that publication occurs in an open
license in accordance with the fair principles
and that copyright conditions to promote open access, for example,
we so-called secondary publishing rights are explored.
So we are exploring about these different ways
with the copyright conditions, how we can make open access
more important
and in the legal way.
So as I said, Sweden has come really far
with transformative agreements, and maybe that's
why we are late doing the other things.
But we stopped in 2021 and said we need to do more thing.
We can't rely on the transformative agreements.
So Sweden is one of the countries that had reached
longest with the transformative agreements.
We have nearly agreements with all publishers within the market,
but it has been good to try it out.
And Sweden have made a lot of mistakes during this period,
and it has really been expensive.
But as I said, we have reached about 90% open access
to articles during this time.
But what I'm always sad is to see other countries that start
making
transformative agreements, and they haven't learned anything
from the mistakes that we have done,
although that we have been talking about the mistakes.
So it when we're not moving together
and the publishers has easier to say
to the new countries what the transformative agreements
and what components it should be within the transformative agreements.
So I think we need to discuss this more
and more internationally together, how we can move
the transformative agreements to make them happen.
So I said I should talk
a little bit about actual,
negotiations with publishers.
And we when we had made the strategy that we started to negotiate
with Elsevier and, that was last year.
So we hadn't stopped the transformative agreements.
But we said to Elsevier, we want sign
a proper transformative agreements.
So when we started to negotiate,
we needed common objectives.
So we negotiated first on the common
objectives for the negotiations.
So what the common and objective was between the consortium and Elsevier
for this negotiation was to have piloting
an agreement beyond transformative agreements.
Both parties agreed to move beyond the current transformative agreements
to an agreement that is based on the services
provided by the agreement publishing reading platform, in particular,
publishing as a service, and it should be transparency.
Both parties agreed to work together to present information
that explains how prices are set for the services,
and that helps the academic community
make informed decisions and sustainable prices.
Both parties
agreed to negotiate with the aim to reach and an equitable agreement
before a year, and that will reflect the value
exchange when it comes to services granted by this agreement.
So these were the common objectives we worked for together.
Then we had on all different points.
We had different sights on those objectives.
But it was a good starting point to start negotiating.
So how could we get beyond the transformative agreement.
So we started with a brainstorming session between Elsevier,
the BBC consortia and from the BBC, consortium.
We talked about three different way to move away.
It was publishing as a service.
We will only pay for publishing a post trans formatted model
or transition to publish,
publish as a service, as a new baseline and a softer move
into publishing model or we also discussed the global
liquidity model that was around status quo, that the the difference
could use to make other countries move to open access.
But if you see to
the right here, this was what we started.
We thought in Sweden that when we compared the license
with Elsevier, with other agreements, we see that we paid,
too much for reading within these,
license.
So for our sake, we
said that in the future we shouldn't pay
for the reading.
We should be
we should find the price for the publishing.
So we negotiated for the publishing as a service
that we only should pay for publishing and not for reading.
So that was when we went into the negotiations.
We said, because we want to move away
from the part when we pay both for reading and publishing
and in the new normal way, we should only pay what we like
to pay for the service to get everything published.
And meanwhile, one Elsevier is moving to complete open access.
We shouldn't pay for that.
That is behind the table.
So we had long, long discussions about this.
But, at the end we reached, four years agreements.
So if we say that we stop
with the transformative with the
the hybrid journals in 2026, it will stop negotiating.
So now we negotiated to 2027.
So we have all the
content remaining in the agreement that we had before.
So it's science direct the complete freedom collection,
unlimited publishing in all core hybrid
journals and the gold open access journals.
And also we,
sell press within the agreement,
that it's unlimited publishing there as well, because 100 articles
per year is what we are doing in Sweden.
So when we took away the reading fee,
because the reading fee during the agreement was phased out to zero.
So when we took away the reading fee part of it, the agreement
dropped with 11%
and it will remain on the same level
for 2025 to 2026.
So from Sweden, we pray, pay
approximately €14 million for this agreement.
But for us it was really important
to may move away from the reading fee.
We moved away from it within the contract
and we could see that the contract dropped with 11%.
And that is a lot of money doing it.
But of course, this is
now we have
the agreement till 2027, and then there
will be really different discussions in 2028.
If else if we have a smooth then.
So the if we look at the price
development of the BBC, some concerts from 2012 to 2027,
we had a reading part and you can see from 2012
to 2017
it raised about seven 8% per year just for the reading part.
Then we started to negotiate into thousand and 18
to get the transformative agreement with Elsevier.
But the negotiations failed.
We moved away from the negotiation table
because we couldn't get the things that we wanted from Elsevier.
They wouldn't combine reading and publishing
in a way that we thought was possible,
because they wanted us to get 20% open access the first year
for the next year, and 60 within the third year.
And we said no, we should have 100% open access and all reading.
So we canceled with lots of fear and we was without an agreement
for one and a half year.
And then we started to negotiate again.
And then we in 2020,
we got our first read and publish agreement with Elsevier.
And it was when we reached that,
agreement, it was on the level that we were paying just for reading.
So we had unlimited publishing and reading within the same agreement
for the same price as if we had continued
to just have the reading part and then in 2023,
we started to negotiate within new strategies.
And as you can see in 2023, the expenses go down
to another place
that we stay until 2027.
And if if we had continued to
just have the reading part, you can follow the dotted line there.
Then we should pay nearly €4
million more for just reading.
So now I have ten minutes left.
But so of course
you really need to negotiate with the publishing publishers.
We are paying too much because if we look at the value
of all the open articles compared to the list price
without severe, it should cost 84,000,000.7,
€84.7 million.
And we pay now €14 million.
So something is wrong with the APC model of course.
So I think we have done something with Elsevier, and I see
that other countries are following and discussing with Elsevier
to take away the reed fee component.
So the future work for us is to continue
to negotiate for publishing as a service with other publishers.
We are doing Taylor and Francis and Springer Nature now,
and invest some of the money saved from the reductions
in, alternative publishing models.
We are starting in node for Diamond Publishing in Sweden
and trying to make
and Nordic Node working together with the Nordic countries on diamond
open access, engaged in the discussion with
on Oda.
And I think we can get beyond the transformative agreements
if we work together.
Maybe you have seen the yeast study.
They say if we continue, as we are doing now, it will take 80 years
for the transition, 80 years then it's not a transition.
So the problems here, many problems.
Is that different organization within Europe
and within the world have different policies.
Horizon Europe Asia 2020 plan as all universities and more.
We have policies for open access, but all are different.
We don't have policies together, so we haven't aligned
to one way to move
and or we united it sought to pressure the publishers.
Of course.
So will there be a transformation?
Very few publishers want to change their business models.
Some are doing it, but many don't want to do it.
Many publishers start new journals behind the paywall.
In a system when we are moving to open access,
journals would behind the table we have business
model built on print spend and APC spent.
It's crazy.
We can see now when the
journal prices for reading goes down, prices are increasing.
So of course that's not sustainable for the future.
And it's of course, no transparency about what we are paying for.
And I don't think that we can rely on the APC model for the future.
That's why we are talking about publishing as a service
not based on a disease as such.
And how can we get to the transformation?
International discussion and cooperation.
Build a toner publishing route right?
Retrenchments strategies
put pressure on the publishers to be transparent about the costs.
Be ready to walk away from the negotiating table.
If we don't act, it will be no transformation.
Take the ownership of the publishing system
back to academia, and it is the research.
It's behavior that can change and now to
I have five minutes, I hope, for the hour or as strategies
we discuss it to Sweden.
But we haven't come that far as in UK, as in Norway.
And as I'm the,
chair of the library board, a Tromso university in Norway,
I will take an example from,
Norway, the Ministry of Education and Research
has stated that all results should be openly available in 2024.
In Norway,
plans requires that
from 2020, none and unasked, of course.
Open access to scientific papers.
This is a core value in the society.
So all we have signed different declaration.
So from planning system minimum requirement.
Sera embargo by license
on the Am in a repository that is green open access
where you put your manuscript without embargo.
Author.
So the immediate open access is challenged by the publishers.
Authors must sign a copyright transfer,
transfer agreement or exclusive license to publish.
Publishers take control of the right to the author's work,
often impose an embargo for self archiving in a in repositories,
so they write
retention structured is based on simple principles.
The peer review arm is the intellectual creation of the authors.
Belong to them.
Lifting of embargoes is safeguarded
through an right retention strategy at your university.
The researchers can publish in their journals of choice.
This is it.
By license of the arm allows all authors to share the a
in a positive torium and to freely reuse their own material
as they see fit, and research is immediately open.
This sounds simple.
We can make it open we to strategy and demand
the researchers to put their arm in the repository.
And they have done that at Tromso University.
But of course
the researchers can opt out.
They have had the strategies for two years,
and it's only three researchers that have opted out.
And the library helps the researchers to put the AA,
with a license in the repository
so they are really making change share with their,
addresses strategy.
It of course,
it was the process, whether discussed internationally
with others that have done or assisted us Harvard University
really the top managers
management was involved.
US law director formally adopted a new open access policy
with the right retention strategy.
So key points here that researchers can published
in the Journal of Choice.
Authors retain intellectual property right to their work
and sell for calling them by CC, by
authors do not have to inform the publishers about their
or as the University of Trumps
take the legal responsibility.
So if any publishers will start discussing this,
they need to do it with the rector of the university or Trumps,
and they haven't start discussed that yet.
So conclusions.
We are in the
middle of the transformation to make open science the new normal,
and we need to speed it up to make it happen.
You need to have started his policies hard work.
We can reach the transformation to 100% open access,
but we need to align
our strategies within Europe and outside the Europe.
We tried.
We need to try different path to open access, new business model down
on open access, right retention strategies.
And if you want to know more about what we are doing
in the DBS, consortium, it will soon come.
A new article in the Spanish Jo.
Let's see as I see,
how can we get beyond the transformative agreements,
the Swedish perspective that I have written
a couple of months ago, and it will be published next month, I think.
Thank you.