MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing its largest journal contract as overwhelmingly positive. MIT has long tried to avoid vendor lock-in through big deal contracts and, in 2019, maintained individual title-by-title subscriptions to approximately 675 Elsevier titles. In 2020, they took the significant step of canceling the full Elsevier journals contract – all 675 titles – leaving users with immediate access to only pre-2020 backfile content. Since the cancellation, MIT Libraries estimates annual savings at more than 80% of its original spend. This move saves MIT approximately $2 million each year, and the Libraries provide alternative means of access that fulfills most article requests in minutes.
After laying the groundwork with faculty and university administrators, the transition has been relatively seamless with minimal push back from researchers. Most faculty have been supportive of the Libraries in taking a principled stand in line with MIT values and are finding alternative means of access to needed research without an Elsevier subscription. Four years out, the faculty who continue to be most challenged by lack of immediate access are in the life sciences.
…
I wonder whether this is because the subscription method was overpriced compared to the number of articles they actually accessed or if academics are now just thinking twice about whether they really need to access a particular article if it’s not easy and “free”. I’ve certainly downloaded articles I never actually got around to reading.
It’s still wild that universities don’t just en masse refuse to use the for-profit journals. They services they provide could easily be managed and funded by a university consortium. They just need to actually make the leap.
I doubt it accounts for much, but a lot of authors pay up front now for open access. If the majority of authors did that, then subscriptions wouldn’t make sense for most people. I don’t think it’s anywhere near the majority of publications now though.