Understanding Read and Publish Agreements in UK Higher Education

Read and Publish (R&P) agreements represent a transitional model in academic publishing, where universities pay a bundled fee that covers both subscription access to journals for reading ('read') and the open access publication of their researchers' articles ('publish'). In these deals, corresponding authors from participating institutions can publish in hybrid journals—those offering both subscription and open access options—without paying additional Article Processing Charges (APCs), which can range from £2,000 to £5,000 per article. This shift aims to accelerate the move toward full open access (OA), where research is freely available immediately upon publication, aligning with funder mandates like those from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).

The UK higher education sector has relied on such national negotiations led by Jisc, a not-for-profit organization that procures digital content and services for universities and colleges. Jisc's role ensures collective bargaining power against dominant publishers like Elsevier, which controls over 2,800 journals including high-impact titles such as Cell and The Lancet. Historically, UK institutions spent around £112 million annually on deals with the 'Big Five' publishers—Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Sage—prompting demands for 5-15% reductions amid escalating costs.

This model emerged post-Plan S in 2018, a funder initiative requiring immediate OA for publicly funded research. However, R&P deals have faced criticism for being unsustainable: they often maintain high overall costs, with 'read' elements subsidizing 'publish' for research-intensive universities, burdening teaching-focused ones that read more but publish less.

Jisc's Landmark Negotiations for 2026 Deals

In March 2025, Jisc launched nine months of simultaneous talks with the Big Five under its Next Generation Open Access programme. These culminated in December 2025 with agreements enabling read access to over 11,000 journals and OA publishing for more than one million articles annually across disciplines. A key innovation: trials converting certain journals to full OA without per-article fees once publication thresholds are met—a global first.

The previous 2023-25 deals expired at the end of 2025, with a one-month grace period into January 2026 for opt-ins. Universities decide individually via Jisc's portal, reflecting diverse financial situations. While Jisc hailed the deals as 'market-leading' with savings versus historic pricing, local analyses revealed issues, particularly with Elsevier's offer deemed too costly by some despite sector-wide acceptance in principle.

Elsevier's deal covers its vast portfolio, but opt-outs signal frustration over price hikes and sluggish progress beyond transitional models. Jisc supports non-participants with tools for alternative access models.

Universities Leading the Opt-Out Movement

A growing number of UK universities have publicly declined the new Elsevier R&P deal for 2026. Pioneers include the Universities of Sheffield, Surrey, and York, which cancelled access at the start of 2025 after rigorous reviews. More followed: Kent, Essex, and Sussex confirmed non-renewals in January 2026, citing unaffordability. Lancaster, Swansea, and Kingston joined, with the latter also dropping Nature titles. Swansea opted out of Springer Nature too, calling it unsustainable.

• University of Kent: Funds redirected to sustainable OA, including APCs for Elsevier journals.
• University of Essex: Unhappy with price rises and Elsevier's OA commitment; monitoring usage in 2026.
• University of Sussex: Prioritizing other publishers' deals.
• University of York: Pursuing selective individual subscriptions.

At least eight institutions confirmed, with 'silent decoupling' suggesting double figures soon. Research-intensive Russell Group members like Sheffield mix with others, showing broad discontent.

Financial Pressures Driving Decisions

UK higher education faces acute challenges: domestic tuition fees frozen since 2012, declining international enrollments due to visa changes, and inflation outpacing funding. Universities seek £500 million in savings, targeting library budgets. Elsevier deals, despite Jisc savings, appeared inflationary locally—up to 10% hikes per some librarians.

Teaching-intensive institutions argue they subsidize research-heavy peers under R&P, paying for reads without proportional publishes. Opting out frees funds for targeted access or OA block grants. As one anonymous librarian noted: 'We couldn’t afford the Elsevier deal... Sheffield, Surrey, and York showed researchers could cope.'

For context, Elsevier captures ~30-40% of Big Five spend. Redirected funds support hybrid strategies: interlibrary loans (often <30 minutes) and pay-per-use.

Photo by Clay Banks on Unsplash

Stakeholder Perspectives: Voices from the Sector

University leaders emphasize value: Essex stated the deal was 'not acceptable locally' due to costs and OA stagnation. Swansea committed to 'sector-wide discussions on sustainable models.' Elsevier counters: 'High participation... working individually with opt-outs.'

Jisc's David Prosser highlights 'silent decoupling' as finances plus model dissatisfaction. Researchers worry about access but demonstrate resilience via repositories and loans. David Sweeney, ex-Research England, warns of 'value for money' scrutiny.

Balanced views: Opt-ins like Oxford and Cambridge prioritize seamless access for global impact.

Impacts on Researchers and Publishing

Opting out means no 'big deal' ScienceDirect access: researchers use VPNs for partial views, request via British Library/ILL (95% success, low cost), or self-archive green OA versions post-embargo. Publishing requires APCs, but unis fund via central pots—Kent exemplifies.

• Pros: Cost savings (£100k+ per uni), forces sustainable OA.
• Cons: Workflow friction, potential citation impacts if access lags.

Early evidence from 2025 dropouts: minimal disruption, with usage shifting to free platforms like Google Scholar or CORE.Explore research assistant jobs amid evolving publishing landscapes.

Alternatives and Adaptation Strategies

Universities adopt 'mixed economy': selective subscriptions (York), consortia for high-use titles, diamond OA (no-fee community journals), and preprint servers (arXiv, bioRxiv). Jisc aids with offsetting tools and next-gen pilots sans APCs.

Long-term: UKRI's push for zero-embargo OA by 2027. Jisc landmark deals

Broader Implications for Open Access Transition

This trend pressures publishers toward non-article-based models, echoing German Projekt Deal or Swedish cancellations. UK could lead 'decoupling,' boosting society-led OA. Risks: fragmented access harming collaboration; upsides: innovation, equity.

For academics, it underscores publishing strategy: diversify journals, leverage academic CV tips emphasizing OA impact.

Photo by byVlado on Unsplash

Future Outlook and Sector Recommendations

Expect 20+ opt-outs by mid-2026, per insiders. Jisc eyes 2028 renewals with full OA focus. Recommendations: unis audit usage quarterly; researchers embrace preprints; policymakers tie funding to OA compliance.

AcademicJobs.com supports navigating this: browse higher ed jobs, rate professors, and career advice. Post a job at /post-a-job or explore university jobs.