The Growing Resistance to Elsevier's Publishing Model in UK Higher Education

In a significant development for academic publishing, three prominent UK universities—Sheffield, Lancaster, and Surrey—have opted out of the new Elsevier Read and Publish agreement for 2026-2028, following negotiations led by Jisc on behalf of the sector. This decision marks a continuation of their previous stance, as these institutions already terminated earlier deals at the start of 2025, citing unsustainable costs. Read and Publish agreements, also known as transformative agreements, combine traditional subscription access ("read") to journals with funding for open access publishing ("publish") through Article Processing Charges (APCs). While intended to ease the transition to full open access, these deals have ballooned in expense, prompting pushback from cash-strapped universities.

The move underscores mounting financial pressures on UK higher education institutions, where library budgets are increasingly squeezed amid stagnant funding and rising operational costs. Elsevier, the world's largest academic publisher with over 2,800 journals including high-impact titles like Cell and The Lancet, has faced criticism for profit margins exceeding 37% in recent years, far outpacing typical academic sectors. UK universities collectively spend around £112 million annually on deals with the 'big five' publishers—Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Sage—making these the largest line items in many library budgets.

This rejection is not isolated; universities like Essex, Kent, Sussex, and potentially York have similarly walked away, signaling a potential tipping point in the open access transition. For researchers in Europe, where similar mandates like Plan S drive open access, these actions highlight a pan-continental shift toward more equitable publishing models.

Financial Unsustainability: Core Reasons for the Opt-Out

At the heart of the decisions lie escalating costs that outpace inflation and institutional budgets. For the University of Sheffield, the Elsevier deal represented 12% of its total content spend in 2023/24, with big deals overall consuming 30% of the library's content budget. The university's library stated unequivocally: "Unfortunately, the Elsevier deal continues to be financially unsustainable and we will not be in a position to subscribe to this deal." This reflects executive board proposals to slash library resource spending over three years amid broader financial pressures and doubts about the commercial scholarly publishing model's viability.

Lancaster and Surrey echoed these concerns, confirming non-renewal without detailed public breakdowns but aligning with sector-wide calls for 5-15% price reductions during Jisc talks. Surrey had previously dropped its deal in January 2025, deeming it "not sustainable in the current financial climate." These choices prioritize value-for-money reviews, redirecting funds to sustainable open access alternatives rather than perpetuating hybrid models that subsidize subscriptions alongside APCs, which can exceed £3,000-£5,000 per article.

• High APCs bundled with subscriptions lead to double-dipping accusations.
• Lack of transparency in pricing and output metrics.
• Above-inflation annual increases despite sector pleas.

Experts note that without intervention, these deals could consume up to 25% of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) block grants by 2024, diverting funds from research itself.

Spotlight on Sheffield, Lancaster, and Surrey: Individual Perspectives

The University of Sheffield, a Russell Group member, led with a transparent announcement on January 27, 2026, opting into deals with Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, Wiley, and Sage while explicitly rejecting Elsevier. Its library emphasized annual subscription audits, positioning the opt-out as part of a strategic pivot. Researchers are directed to FAQs on cancellations and open access discounts for guidance.

Lancaster University's spokesperson confirmed: "While agreements with Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley for 2026 onwards are in place following Jisc negotiations, [the university's] deal with Elsevier has not been renewed." This selective approach allows continued access to other major portfolios.

Surrey followed suit, building on its 2025 exit. Though specific 2026 statements are concise, the pattern aligns with financial prudence, freeing resources for targeted APC funding or green open access via repositories.Surrey's Open Access page details ongoing strategies.

These institutions, known for strong STEM and social sciences research, demonstrate that high-output universities can thrive without Elsevier's bundle.

Immediate Impacts on Researchers: Access and Publishing Challenges

From January 2026, faculty and students at these universities lose walk-up subscription access to Elsevier's vast portfolio. Step-by-step, this affects workflows:

1. Subscription-based reading requires alternatives like interlibrary loans or pay-per-view.
2. Publishing in hybrid Elsevier journals shifts to self-funded APCs or green routes (self-archiving post-embargo).
3. High-impact submissions may face hurdles without deal-covered OA.

Yet, precedents show resilience. Sheffield researchers, post-2025 cancellation, adapted via existing OA content (20-30% of Elsevier output is already open), document delivery services, and Rights Retention Statements—policies allowing immediate repository deposit regardless of publisher embargo. Essex cited similar reallocations for APC support.

Stakeholder views vary: Librarians applaud cost controls, while some researchers worry about prestige and collaboration. Elsevier maintains high sectoral uptake and offers individual negotiations.

Photo by Turquo Cabbit on Unsplash

Navigating Alternatives: Sustainable Paths Forward

Universities are not left stranded. Common strategies include:

• Green Open Access: Deposit accepted manuscripts in institutional repositories like Sheffield's.
• Document Supply: Efficient ILL services for articles.
• Other Deals: Full access via Sage et al., covering thousands of titles.
• APC Funds: Redirected savings support selective gold OA.
• Community Models: Diamond OA journals without fees.

For example, MIT's 2025 Elsevier cancellation proved minimal disruption with 95% access retention via alternatives. UK unis leverage Jisc's Elsevier agreement page for hybrid options where possible.

Researchers eyeing faculty positions can explore higher ed faculty jobs at supportive institutions via our listings.

Jisc's Role and the National Negotiation Landscape

Jisc, the UK's higher education IT and research body, spearheaded nine-month talks ending December 2025, securing deals extended to January end. While many like Oxford and Cambridge joined all, opt-outs highlight decentralized choice. Prior 2022 Jisc-Elsevier deal yielded 15% savings and unlimited hybrid OA, but next-gen terms fell short on affordability.

This mirrors UKRI's push for 100% OA by 2026, straining budgets as hybrid deals persist.

Broader Open Access Movement: Historical Context and Momentum

The Cost of Knowledge petition (2012+) has seen over 25,000 academics boycott Elsevier. UK actions follow global precedents: Germany's Projekt DEAL stalled in 2018, Norway exited 2023 deals. In Europe, Horizon Europe mandates immediate OA, amplifying pressures.

Plan S (2018), backed by EU and UK funders, accelerates diamond and subscribe-to-OA flips. UK libraries now scenario-plan 'no deal' futures, promoting consortia like Open Library of Humanities.

Economic Pressures Reshaping UK and European Higher Education

UK unis face £2.5bn deficits projected by 2026, with libraries hit hardest. International students down post-Brexit, domestic fees frozen. In Europe, similar woes: Dutch VSNU deals capped prices, French similar.

Stakeholders urge untethering read/pay, transparent pricing, output caps. LSE analysis warns TAs have stalled OA progress.

Photo by Fotos on Unsplash

Future Outlook: Implications and Actionable Insights

More opt-outs could force Elsevier concessions or portfolio unbundling. Positive: Boosts green OA (70% cheaper), researcher-led platforms. Challenges: Short-term access gaps, career impacts for early-career scholars.

Actionable advice:

• Use tools like Unpaywall for free versions.
• Prioritize OA-friendly journals.
• Advocate via unions like UCU.

For career navigators, rate my professor insights and higher ed jobs help benchmark institutions. University jobs in open access advocates abound.

This watershed may herald a fairer system, prioritizing knowledge dissemination over profits.