Fans Of Open Access, Unite: You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chained Libraries

from the open-access-of-our-own dept

When books were rare and extremely expensive, they were often chained to the bookcase to prevent people walking off with them, in what were known as “chained libraries”. Copyright serves a similar purpose today, even though, thanks to the miracle of perfect, zero-cost digital copies, it is possible simultaneously to take an ebook home and yet leave the original behind. For a quarter of a century, the open access movement has been fighting to break those virtual chains for academic works, and to allow anyone freely to read and make copies of the knowledge contained in online virtual libraries.

The detailed history of the movement can be found in Chapter 3 of Walled Culture the book (free digital versions available). As the timeline there, and posts on this blog both make clear, the open access movement has made only limited progress despite the enormous effort expended by many dedicated individuals. Moreover the open access idea has been embraced and then subverted by the academic publishers whose greed and selfishness it was meant to fight.

One version of open access, known as the “diamond” variant, still offers hope that the goals of free access to knowledge for everyone could still be achieved. But even this minimalist approach to academic publishing requires funding, which raises questions about its long-term sustainability. Economic issues also lie at the heart of wider discussions about what could replace copyright, which was born in the analogue world, and whose dysfunctional nature in the digital environment is evident every day.

Walled Culture the book concludes with a look at perhaps the most promising alternative model, whereby “true fans” support directly the creators whose work they value. This approach can also be applied to open access. In this case, the “true fans” of the research work published in papers and books are the academic libraries, acting on behalf of the people who use them. There are various ways for them to support the journals their academics want to access, but one of the most promising is “subscribe to open” (S2O), which helps publishers convert traditional journals into open access. The idea was formalized by Raym Crow, Richard Gallagher, Kamran Naim in 2019. Here’s their explanation of how it works:

S2O offers a journal’s current subscribers continued access at a discount off the regular subscription price. If current subscribers participate in the S2O offer, the publisher opens the content covered by that year’s subscription. If participation is not sufficient – for example, if some subscribers delay renewing in the expectation that they can gain access without participating – then the content remains gated. Because the publisher does not guarantee that the content will be opened unless all subscribers participate in the offer, institutions that value access to the content – demonstrably, the journal’s current subscribers – must either subscribe conventionally (at full price) or participate in S2O (at a discount) to ensure continued access. The offer is repeated every year, with the opening of each year’s content contingent on sufficient participation.

As with the “true fans” model, supporting S2O journals is in the self-interest of libraries, which receive subscriptions to journals their academics want, and for a lower price. But there is a collateral benefit for society because everyone else also receives access to the knowledge contained in those titles. Publishers receive a guaranteed subscription income up front, and as a consequence of the open access route, they can also reach a larger audience. For example, when the Annual Review of Public Health publication tried out the S2O model, its monthly usage factor went up by a factor of eight. Since that successful trial, the S2O model has gone from strength to strength, as a review article published at the end of last year explains:

As of 2024, thanks to the Subscribe to Open model, over 180 journals have been able to publish entire volumes in open access, which would never have been possible otherwise because of the shortcomings of the [article processing charge] models for these journals and their respective disciplines. The S2O model continues to grow, with more publishers set to launch their S2O offerings in 2025.

In August, the prestigious Royal Society announced that it would be moving eight of its subscription journals to S2O. Among those titles is Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the world’s longest-running scientific journal. In an article reflecting on that move, Rod Cookson, publishing director of The Royal Society, explained why he and other forward-thinking publishers are fans of S2O:

It is cost neutral and a relatively small change through which libraries can enable entire journals to become open access. This combination of simplicity and transparency has generated enthusiasm for S2O among librarians the world over. Publishers now need to demonstrate to those librarians that in addition to being aligned with their missions, S2O delivers a return on investment that justifies their expenditure. With sensible features that make the S2O proposition work well for both libraries and publishing houses—like multi-year agreements, “premium benefits” for S2O supporters, and collective sales packages—S2O will continue to grow as a trusted and durable model for delivering open access.

S2O represents a successful application of the true fans idea in the context of academic publishing. But perhaps supporters of open access should embrace even more of the true fan spirit and look to the example of fan fiction to help re-imagine scholarly publishing. That, at least, is the bold idea of Caroline Ball, who is the community engagement lead for the Open Book Collective, and whose advocacy work appeared in Walled Culture four years ago. Here’s why she thinks academic research should be more like fan fiction:

At first glance, fanfiction—non-commercial works created by fans who reimagine and remix existing stories, characters, and worlds—and academic research may seem worlds apart. But look closer, and both are practices of deep engagement, intertextual interpretation, and knowledge creation.

Fanfiction doesn’t just regurgitate stories; it interrogates, reinvents, and expands on them, often filling in gaps and exclusions left offscreen. Likewise, scholarship builds on prior work, challenges assumptions, and contributes new insights. Both are iterative, dialogic, and community based. And both, at their best, come from a place of passion and curiosity.

Her post explains how Archive of Our Own (AO3), a community-run digital repository for fan fiction, works, and why it could be a model for a new kind of open access:

Archive of Our Own (AO3) is a community-run digital repository for fanfiction. Launched in 2008 by the nonprofit Organization for Transformative Works (OTW), AO3 is entirely open access. It charges nothing to publish, nothing to read, and is powered by open-source code and volunteer labor. As of May 2025 (according to the OTW Communications Committee), it hosts over 15 million works across 71,880 fandoms and sees a daily average of 94 million hits.

Ball goes on to suggests ways in which scholarly publishing could learn from that evident success. Specific areas include AO3’s flexible metadata system; its innovative approach to reviews and comments; its “format agnosticism”, accepting any kind of contribution; and the way it re-imagines recognition and reputation. In summary, she writes:

AO3 reminds us that platforms can be built by and for communities, without extractive profit models or exclusionary hierarchies. It shows what’s possible when infrastructure is treated as a public good, and when participation is scaffolded, not gated. And crucially, AO3 demonstrates how practices that have been piloted in isolation across the scholarly landscape—open peer commentary, volunteer governance, flexible metadata, inclusive formats—can be woven together into a single, sustainable system.

The S2O model described above is a welcome addition to the ways in which sustainable open access can be brought in by publishers. But ultimately Ball is right in emphasizing that universal and unconstrained access to knowledge will only be achieved when the entire scholarly publishing system is re-invented with that goal in mind. It’s well past time for all the fans of open access to unite in this endeavor, and to do away with today’s digital chained libraries forever.

Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky. Originally published to Walled Culture.

Filed Under: academic journals, community funding, open access, s2o, subscribe to open

Companies: royal society