Licensing the World’s Collective Knowledge

Copyright and licensing in academic publishing is a complex and fast-changing landscape, writes Tim Gillett

by Tim Gillett

If there’s one constant in the world of academic publishing, it’s change. 

In an ecosystem where publishing companies have traditionally held the whip hand – certainly in terms of revenue creation – power now appears to be shifting somewhat into the hands of scientists, content creators and their institutions, with ever-more complex licensing structures coming into play as a result. Academic publishers are said to be some of the most profitable businesses in the world, with profit margins reported to be close to 40% – so, naturally, they are keen to protect their revenues through different payment and licensing models.

The move towards open access (OA) publishing, driven in large part by mandates from Western governments, is designed to allow academics and the general public to access scholarly articles – and, increasingly, the data behind them – without having to pay subscription fees. The scholarly communications market is dominated by five major publishers – Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature and Sage Publications – but the move to open access is impacting their traditional subscription and licensing models, and therefore profit margins. Proponents of open access, however, point to a broader dissemination of knowledge and increased citations as a favorable result of this shift.

A wide range of OA models has been developed in recent years – some analysts suggest as many as seven distinct types – offering a compromise to the traditional revenue model that relies on library subscriptions and individual article purchases. For example, hybrid open access journals – increasingly being offered by the major for-profit publishing houses as well as society publishers such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and university presses including Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press – offer both OA and paid-for content, allowing academic publishers a softer landing as they navigate to move to a more open world.

Different funding processes have been introduced too – such as article processing charges (APCs), whereby the author’s institution pays the publication costs to ensure that the content is freely available to readers. There are pros and cons associated with this model, with some concerns that this arrangement places a monetary burden on research institutions, particularly in developing countries. 

Alongside the move towards open access the academic publishing world is facing increasing scrutiny regarding copyright arrangements, with many authors demanding more control over their outputs. Where, previously, publishers assumed the rights to a given article on publication – meaning that authors were restricted in terms of sharing their work and enabling its use in others’ research – there are increasing calls for authors to retain the rights to their published research.

Again, compromise arrangements are emerging, with many APC models allowing publishers to retain the copyright to a given article while authors are still free to share their work with the wider scientific community. Such models have been driven in part by the development of the Creative Commons license, which allow authors to retain rights to their work while permitting others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material so long as attribution is given to the creator.

Access to academic work – and the cost of such access – is increasingly influenced by the institutions that are paying publishers via APCs, as scholarly publishers strike more and more deals with libraries or groups of libraries. The bigger the consortium, the better deal it is likely to strike. And technology is increasingly playing a big part in strengthening institutions’ bargaining power; text mining, predictive analytics tools such as Google Analytics and ‘altmetric’ scores such as those published the Digital Science company Altmetric are allowing libraries to look at metadata, audience insight, usage patterns, identify the most valuable (and least valuable) content, and use this information as part of their negotiations with publishers.

Of course, libraries are not having it all their own way, with publishers coming up with ever more creative models to ensure their financial viability. Freemium models, such as that operated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for example, allow libraries, readers and authors free access to some parts of the scholarly content – but require payments to be made for ‘added-value’ services such as accessing the underlying data.

As in many industries, opinions on the advent of technological developments such as artificial intelligence and blockchain technology are mixed – and nowhere more so than in the sphere of licensing.

While many scientists and the wider scholarly communications industry are conflicted over whether AI is to be welcomed or feared, there appears to be agreement that it is playing an important role in the world of licensing and copyright. AI tools are capable or analyzing enormous volumes of work and completing compliance checks in quick time, meaning faster

and more accurate license negotiations and compliance checks. 

Likewise, blockchain and its decentralized ledger system is already playing a large part in making licensing agreements more transparent, secure, and accurate – with many observing that trust between education institutions and academic publishers has improved as a result.

That’s not to say it’s all been plain sailing for academic publishers when it comes to licensing in recent times. 

The case of Sci-Hub – a shadow library website that provides free access to millions of research papers, regardless of copyright, by bypassing publishers’ paywalls – is a case in point. The organization, which has been sued for copyright infringement, sharply divides opinion; many in academic circles say it helps by increasing access to scholarly work and thereby advances science – while, unsurprisingly, publishers (no doubt concerned about the potential impact on their revenue) have criticized it for violating copyright.

The perceived rise in so-called ‘predatory publishing’ has fast become one of the key talking points in the world of scholarly communications – and represents a major challenge for authors and institutions in terms of licensing. Publishers that exploit the open access model by charging excessive amounts despite providing poor editorial service and little or no peer review are being pilloried for undermining the scholarly record.

Much has been made of the relationship between scholarly publishers and academic librarians – and with good reason. Librarians perform a crucial role when it comes to negotiating licensing agreements for academic institutions; prioritizing and allocating their financial resources by analyzing and evaluating the relevance of books, journals and databases. This might include negotiating packages through content aggregators such as ProQuest or EBSCO.

These complex arrangements encompass requirements that are rare or non-existent outside the world of academic publishing – including access to literature for multiple users, loan arrangements between academic libraries or consortia such as the library consortium OCLC, and perpetual access to content. In addition, librarians can be fierce advocates for their institutions amid increasing budget restraints and a need to provide their researchers with free and unhindered access to scholarly resources.

Of course, academic publishing is a global industry. Science is not, and should not be, constrained by international borders – but different rules regarding copyright and licensing exist in different jurisdictions around the world and this is reflected in the rules governing the distribution, sharing, and copying of academic content.

International copyright laws are clearly crucial when it comes to negotiating licensing agreements, and academic publishers need a thorough knowledge of the relevant regulations as they aim to maximize the distribution of their content. For companies with a global presence, this is no small matter – and, in a wider context, a lack of the relevant knowledge can also stifle the sharing and dissemination of crucial science around the world.

Licensing and copyright remains a crucial and complex part of scholarly communications – and, as the industry continues to evolve, a sound knowledge of content licensing and copyright law continues to be a massively important part of the academic publisher’s armory. 


Tim Gillett is a senior journalist with more than 25 years of experience across local and national newspapers, consumer and trade magazines, and websites. He has extensive academic publishing model insights and is the former head of content across six print/digital titles at Europa Science in Cambridge. He loves to travel and is an avid photographer.