https://katinamagazine.org/content/article/open-knowledge/2024/what-have-we-learned-from-subscribe-to-open
I was not sure what to make of the above piece about subscribe to open, it’s not a model that I know very well. So I asked GPT O1 to do a critical read of this piece and the below seems fair.
:
From the evidence in the text, Subscribe to Open (S2O) has developed into a robust and increasingly popular pathway for journals (and some books) to achieve open access without relying on the traditional article processing charge (APC) model. However, “reading between the lines” suggests a more nuanced picture than simple exponential growth. While the model continues to gain traction, it also relies heavily on the communities surrounding each journal—particularly scholarly societies—to underwrite its sustainability.
I was not sure what to make of the above piece about subscribe to open, it’s not a model that I know very well. So I asked GPT O1 to do a critical read of this piece and the below seems fair.
:
From the evidence in the text, Subscribe to Open (S2O) has developed into a robust and increasingly popular pathway for journals (and some books) to achieve open access without relying on the traditional article processing charge (APC) model. However, “reading between the lines” suggests a more nuanced picture than simple exponential growth. While the model continues to gain traction, it also relies heavily on the communities surrounding each journal—particularly scholarly societies—to underwrite its sustainability.
How Is the S2O Model Going?
1. General Progress & Uptake:
• The text highlights that over 180 journals have published entire volumes in open access via S2O, including new offerings expected in 2025.
• A thriving cross-stakeholder S2O Community of Practice (CoP) has emerged, bringing together nearly 100 participants (publishers, societies, funders, librarians, etc.).
• Librarians are increasingly enthusiastic because S2O addresses inequality concerns posed by APC-based models and aligns with open-access goals.
2. Viability for Different Disciplines:
• Social Sciences (Berghahn): Anthropology communities have eagerly embraced S2O to avoid the “pay-to-play” APC system. For underfunded fields, S2O is a more equitable route to OA.
• STM Fields (EDP Sciences): Early adoption across astronomy, mathematics, and radioprotection journals shows that S2O can work in STEM contexts as well. However, these fields face different financial pressures (e.g., a sudden influx of submissions can strain the S2O subscription base).
3. Key Strengths of S2O:
• Equitable Access: Authors publish OA without needing APC funds, which is particularly vital in fields or regions with limited research budgets.
• Community Engagement: Successful S2O implementations often rely on strong library and society advocacy.
• Flexibility & Conditionality: Journals remain open access if—and only if—enough subscribing institutions renew. If threshold support is not met, content reverts behind a paywall. This conditionality is a core principle: it motivates libraries and societies to rally behind a journal, but also provides a safety net for publishers.
4. Challenges & Caveats:
• Budget Constraints & Sustainability: S2O has not magically solved the fundamental funding shortfalls in scholarly publishing. Publishers must still continually make the case to libraries to renew at stable or slightly increased rates.
• Data & Impact Measurement: Demonstrating the success and “value” of S2O to libraries requires gathering and interpreting large amounts of usage and citation data—often complicated by unauthenticated usage.
• Risk of Growth Mismatch: With some journals (e.g., Astronomy & Astrophysics), a major surge in submissions can strain S2O budgets if subscription revenue no longer scales with publication volume.
How Much Does S2O Depend on Society Support?
Societies appear to be critical—if not essential—to S2O’s success:
• Legitimacy & Community Buy-In: Scholarly societies often have built-in member loyalty and can rally the discipline’s support. For instance, the European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA) and the International Society for Ethnology and Folklore (SIEF) made deliberate moves to adopt S2O with Berghahn, citing alignment with their values and the desire for an alternative to high APCs.
• Financial Underpinning: Societies sometimes contribute direct funding (as with the French Society for Radiation Protection for Radioprotection) or at least drive library/institutional support. Their endorsements can tip the balance in meeting subscription thresholds that keep the journal open.
• Moral and Political Authority: Societies can influence debate about how scholarly communication “should” function, elevating S2O as a more equitable solution than APC-based publishing.
Bottom line: Societies aren’t just peripheral supporters; they’re often the linchpin that makes S2O financially and culturally feasible. By bringing their journals, membership, and sometimes direct funding on board, they underwrite S2O’s conditional model. In underfunded or niche disciplines especially, society backing can be the deciding factor in whether or not S2O succeeds.
Summary
• How’s S2O Doing?
It’s growing and increasingly recognized as a more equitable alternative to APC models, with significant participation from publishers and libraries. However, the model requires careful ongoing stewardship—budget constraints, data tracking, and subscription-level thresholds pose perennial challenges.
• How Much Does It Rely on Societies?
Heavily. Societies play a pivotal role both financially and in rallying community support. Their endorsement often determines whether an S2O journal meets its subscription threshold and successfully flips (or stays) open in a given year.
In short, S2O has momentum and a strong community base, but ongoing sustainability hinges on continued—and often growing—library investment and, crucially, society support.