TLDR: Many things are driving cost for small and medium sized publishers. Our stakeholders are in constant disagreement. Libraries and authors often want very different things, often with little awareness/interest in equities driving other stakeholders in the
ecosystem. Result? Do the best you can. Partner and collaborate across the ecosystem
transparently. Engage with good faith feedback. Iterate.
We’ve done that with our new model. I’d like to see other open infrastructure and open science advocates provide the level of transparency that we have re: their costs/margins. It’s not easy. I get it, trust me.
Statements like "The hunt for growth and profit making for journals is a scourge on the whole academic endeavour” are reductive and unhelpful, in my view. The snarky response would be, “Great. Call us when you’ve changed the global research incentive structure."
That, too, is reductive and unhelpful.
PS - I know I promised a synthesis of our knowledge sovereignty webinar and more on AIP Fusion — all coming next week, when I come up for air. Haven’t forgotten!
Sara Rouhi
Director of Open Science and Publishing Innovation
AIP Publishing
Remote, based in Washington DC (GMT - 5hr)
m +1.202.505.0814
srouhi@aip.org│publishing.aip.org
ORCiD: 0000-0003-1803-6186
Bluesky │LinkedIn
AIPP respects flexible work schedules — no need to reply outside of your workday.
Do not go gentle into that good night, … Rage, rage against the dying of the light. ~Dylan Thomas
> I think language is important and on a spectrum
sustainability currently can
> perhaps be seen as anywhere between GROWTH <_______________> SURVIVAL.
I agree, and I like the way you’ve laid this out, Bernie. I also think that this would make a compelling topic for a conference session.
---
Rick Anderson
University Librarian
Brigham Young University
(801) 422-4301
[log in to unmask]
I take that point Rick but "“scaling or monetizing the journals’ steady expansion" is not synonymous with sustainability in its true sense.
The community is talking at cross purposes if sustain can refer to survival, maintenance, growth and expansion all at the same time.
I don't mean to dance on the head of a pin but talking from a small organisation where every € is carefully managed and growth and expansion a dream, sustainability means something specific to me that differs from how it was used in other settings I have experienced.
I want to make it clear this is not a commentary on AIP or any other organisation that thankfully is prepared to experiment with different models to find greater participation. This is to be applauded..
I think language is important and on a spectrum sustainability currently can perhaps be seen as anywhere between GROWTH <_______________> SURVIVAL.
Maybe there's an OASPA session in this...
Bernie
Bernie Folan
Communications, Engagement and Outreach Manager, OASPA
OASPA, Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association
[log in to unmask]
_____________________________________________________________
Support our work - Become an OASPA
Supporter
Stay up to date - Sign
up for OASPA news by email
Follow us on LinkedIn
/ Bluesky
On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 at 19:23, Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
If we came up with a different word, would it affect the structural reality referred to in AIP’s announcement? When all the rhetorical framing has been done, the bills either can be paid or can’t.
---
Rick Anderson
University Librarian
Brigham Young University
(801) 422-4301
[log in to unmask]
As often is the case, I'm pondering the word sustainable and acknowledging it means different things to different people and organisations. This gets serious, job losses and acquisitions seem abundant.
After a trip down an online dictionary rabbit hole I think "uphold", "maintain" and "at a certain level" are where interpretations may differ in terms of method.
Undeniably, etymologically speaking, to sustain has to do with supporting to keep in existence.
Do we need a different word?
Bernie
On Wed, 5 Nov 2025, 17:17 Juan Pablo Alperin, <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
And why does a journal need a path for steady expansion? It sounds to me like S2O was working perfectly well for actually sustaining the journals. Operational cost increases could likely be absorbed with incremental increases to the subscription price, or by
changing the S2O targets to encourage additional subscriptions. The hunt for growth and profit making for journals is a scourge on the whole academic endeavour.
On Sun, 2 Nov 2025 at 20:55, Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
AIP Publishing has announced that it is concluding its subscribe-to-open pilot program, observing that “while S2O offered a level of stability, it did not provide a path for scaling or monetizing the journals’ steady expansion.
With operational costs increasing, this balance was not sustainable for the long term.”
More here:
https://publishing.aip.org/about/news/evolving-our-open-access-strategy-aip-publishing-concludes-the-subscribe-to-open-pilot/
---
Rick Anderson
University Librarian
Brigham Young University
(801) 422-4301
[log in to unmask]
Access
the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]
Access
the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]
Bernie Folan
Communications, Engagement and Outreach Manager
OASPA, Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association
Access
the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]
Access
the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]
Access
the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask]