Cambridge University Press Hits Major Open Access Target

Cambridge University Press announced this month that 75 percent of the research articles it publishes in 2026 will appear open access. Half its journals have already flipped to full open access status. The press achieved this by converting more than 130 established titles over the past three years rather than relying on new launches or hybrid models.

Chris Bennett, its global commercial director for academic publishing, described the approach as a paced transition. The goal is to reach the vast majority of journals by 2032 while protecting societies, libraries and the wider research ecosystem. Eight years ago open access accounted for just 10 percent of Cambridge articles. The shift now rests on transformative agreements that set publishing costs upfront and adjust subscription fees to avoid double charging.

Equity Measures and Practical Details

Cambridge also runs an open equity initiative that waives article processing charges for authors in more than 100 low- and middle-income countries. The model aims to keep trusted peer review and editorial standards intact during the change. Bennett stressed that sustainable open access requires collaboration across libraries, funders and learned societies rather than a rushed overhaul.

These steps represent concrete progress on one front. Yet the announcement arrives against a backdrop of friction elsewhere in the UK market.

Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

Here's the catch

Several universities have walked away from the latest Elsevier deal negotiated through Jisc. Sheffield, Lancaster and Surrey confirmed in January they would not sign the three-year agreement. Essex, Kent and Sussex had already taken the same step. These institutions cited unsustainable price increases and insufficient movement toward a genuinely affordable open access model.

The previous big deals with the five largest publishers expired at the end of 2025. UK universities collectively spent £112 million on those agreements in 2024. Negotiators had sought reductions of 5 to 15 percent. While many institutions accepted revised terms with Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, Wiley and Sage, Elsevier proved the sticking point for a growing number of libraries.

Elsevier responded that participation remains high across the sector and that it continues to work with Jisc on sustainable open access. Individual institutions facing budget pressure can still negotiate separate access. The pattern shows that transparency over costs has made it harder for libraries to accept deals that feel out of step with their financial reality.

What the Opt-Outs Reveal

Sheffield’s library statement tied the decision to a three-year plan to cut resource spending amid broader financial pressures and doubts about the commercial publishing model’s long-term viability. Lancaster and Essex echoed concerns about price rises and the pace of open access conversion. Researchers at these universities will lose direct access to roughly 2,800 Elsevier titles and must rely on interlibrary loans, preprint servers or other routes for affected papers.

The split highlights differing institutional priorities. Larger or better-resourced universities such as Cambridge, Oxford and Edinburgh signed the full suite of deals. Others chose to redirect funds or test alternative routes. The outcome is not a sector-wide boycott but a selective pressure that forces publishers to justify every pound.

Photo by Emmanuelle Marcade on Unsplash

Broader Market Context

Transformative agreements were intended to accelerate open access while maintaining revenue. In practice they have exposed tensions between legacy subscription pricing and the desire for immediate, unrestricted access. Cambridge’s emphasis on whole-journal flips and upfront pricing offers one template. Elsevier’s experience shows that scale alone does not guarantee acceptance when budgets tighten.

UK libraries now review subscriptions more rigorously each year. The Jisc process delivered new agreements for four of the five major publishers, yet the Elsevier shortfall demonstrates that national deals can still fracture when individual institutions calculate the numbers differently.

Looking Ahead

Further negotiations and individual library decisions will shape access for the rest of 2026 and beyond. Cambridge’s milestone proves that steady conversion of existing journals can deliver measurable open access gains without launching dozens of new titles. The Elsevier opt-outs show that cost and conversion pace remain live issues for a noticeable minority of UK institutions.

Both developments point to the same underlying shift: libraries and researchers now have clearer data on what they pay and what they receive. That clarity changes the conversation even when the headlines celebrate progress at one press.