Dominant publisher overshadowing smaller open-access publishers.

Are 'Transformative Agreements' Really Transforming Academic Publishing? What You Need to Know

Author's portrait.
Soraya Malik in Business & Economy August 2025 • 4 min read.

"A new study reveals how these agreements, intended to democratize research access, might inadvertently reinforce the dominance of major publishers and create new challenges for smaller, open-access alternatives."


For years, the promise of the internet has fueled the dream of readily accessible knowledge. The academic world, in particular, envisioned a future where groundbreaking discoveries were instantly available to anyone, anywhere. However, the reality has been far more complicated. While open-access journals emerged, many researchers continued to publish in well-established publications, inadvertently preserving the influence of major publishing houses that controlled access through paywalls.

Enter 'transformative agreements' – a strategy designed to transition the academic publishing landscape. Under these agreements, institutions pay publishers for their researchers to publish open access, rather than paying subscription fees. The intention is clear: unlock research, remove barriers, and foster broader dissemination of knowledge. But are these agreements truly delivering on their transformative promise?

A recent study casts a critical eye on these agreements, suggesting that they may not be the simple solution many hoped for. Instead, they could be creating new challenges, potentially solidifying the position of dominant publishers and hindering the growth of smaller, open-access alternatives. This article breaks down the key findings of this research, exploring the unintended consequences of transformative agreements and what they mean for the future of academic publishing.

The 'Must-Stock' Dilemma: How Big Publishers Retain Their Power

Dominant publisher overshadowing smaller open-access publishers.

The study highlights a core issue: the 'must-stock' nature of major academic publishers' journal portfolios. Universities feel compelled to subscribe to these journals, regardless of cost, because they are essential resources for their researchers. This gives large publishers significant leverage in negotiations.

Transformative agreements, in theory, should weaken this leverage by shifting the revenue model from subscriptions to open-access publishing fees. However, the study suggests that publishers with extensive portfolios of paywalled publications can use these assets to ensure high revenues, even if the number of publications decreases. They can essentially leverage their existing content to maintain their financial standing.

  • Leveraging Existing Content: Publishers use their existing paywalled content to negotiate favorable terms in transformative agreements.
  • Maintaining High Revenues: This strategy allows them to maintain high revenues, even with decreasing publication numbers.
  • Potential Harm to Competitors: The approach can disadvantage smaller, open-access publishers that lack such extensive portfolios.
This dynamic can be detrimental to competition. New publishers or smaller open-access ventures often struggle to compete with the established giants. Transformative agreements, if not carefully structured, could inadvertently perpetuate the dominance of incumbent players, making it harder for innovative, open-access models to thrive.

Revisiting the Revolution: Are We Devouring Our Children?

The study's findings echo a historical warning: 'La Révolution Dévore ses Enfants' – the revolution devours its children. In the context of academic publishing, the well-intentioned push for open access, facilitated by transformative agreements, may inadvertently harm the smaller, open-access publishers that are essential for a truly competitive and diverse landscape. It is important to remain alert, to foster competition, and to adjust these contracts so that the academic revolution succeeds in more fairly creating a knowledge ecosystem.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

1

What are 'transformative agreements' and what is their primary goal?

Transformative agreements are arrangements in academic publishing where institutions pay publishers for their researchers to publish open access. The main goal of these agreements is to unlock research, remove barriers to access, and foster broader dissemination of knowledge, moving away from traditional subscription models that restrict access behind paywalls.

2

How do 'transformative agreements' potentially affect competition within academic publishing?

The study suggests that 'transformative agreements' could inadvertently harm competition. They might strengthen the position of major publishers due to their extensive portfolios, known as the 'must-stock' nature of their journals. Smaller, open-access publishers that lack such extensive portfolios can struggle to compete, potentially hindering the growth of innovative open-access models and limiting diversity in the academic publishing landscape.

3

What is the 'must-stock' dilemma, and how does it relate to the power of major academic publishers?

The 'must-stock' dilemma refers to the situation where universities feel obligated to subscribe to major publishers' journals because they are essential for their researchers, regardless of cost. This gives large publishers significant leverage in negotiations for 'transformative agreements', as institutions are compelled to maintain access to these crucial resources, allowing publishers to secure favorable terms and maintain high revenues.

4

In what ways might 'transformative agreements' lead to unintended consequences within academic publishing?

While intended to democratize research access, 'transformative agreements' might inadvertently reinforce the dominance of major publishers. Publishers can use their existing paywalled content and the 'must-stock' nature of their journals to negotiate favorable terms, potentially disadvantaging smaller, open-access alternatives. This could lead to a less competitive and diverse academic publishing landscape, hindering the progress toward open access.

5

What does the phrase 'La Révolution Dévore ses Enfants' mean in the context of academic publishing and 'transformative agreements'?

The phrase 'La Révolution Dévore ses Enfants', meaning 'the revolution devours its children', suggests that the well-intentioned push for open access, facilitated by 'transformative agreements', may inadvertently harm the smaller, open-access publishers. These smaller publishers are essential for a truly competitive and diverse academic publishing landscape. This analogy serves as a warning to remain vigilant in how 'transformative agreements' are structured, so that the original goals of democratizing knowledge are not undermined by the unintended consequences of these agreements.

Newsletter Subscribe

Subscribe to get the latest articles and insights directly in your inbox.