The move toward open-access publishing got a shot in the arm with two recent developments. In early in March, the University of California decided not to renew its $10 million subscription with Elsevier. The university system did not want access to scientific knowledge to be restricted by subscriptions. They argued that, because publishers also charge authors fees to publish, their revenues had grown out of control.

The second development is an open-access mandate called Plan S, which a dozen countries and another dozen funding agencies agreed to adopt. The plan requires that researchers publish only in open-access publications if they are funded by a participating agency or organization.

Open access and other new models of publishing were identified as a driver of change for associations in the ASAE Foundation’s ForesightWorks research. For associations that earn revenue from publishing, these moves force the issue of the continued viability of traditional subscription-based publications. My association, the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), faced this issue head on four years ago, and I will share some insights on what we did.

But first, let me explain how this all works.

The Business Models

Publishers traditionally gain revenue from both authors and journal subscribers: Authors pay a fee to publish their articles, and then the university, library, or individual wishing to access an article will pay for it. If an author wants to make their article open, publishers typically charge the author an additional fee to account for the lost subscription revenue.

For associations that earn revenue from publishing, these moves force the issue of the continued viability of traditional subscription-based publications.

In the open-access model, publishers usually charge authors to publish their articles but do not require subscriptions to access them. Publishers have many pricing structures that attempt to make open-access journals financially viable.

ARVO’s Journey

Four years ago, ARVO made the difficult financial decision to go to an open-access model for our journals. It was the right decision for us to serve our authors and our community, but we lost a significant amount of subscription revenue in the process.

We had to evaluate all aspects of publishing to come up with our new business model. We looked at how we charged authors and the discounts we gave to our member authors, how we incurred our production and review expenses, whether the journals were in print or online, and much more.

For example, we changed how we charged our authors from a per-page fee to a flat fee per article. The change allowed authors to focus on the science being presented rather than trying to fit the content into the number of pages they, or their grant funds, could afford. We also adjusted many aspects of how the journals were published through our vendors. Internally, this improved our budget process, allowing better planning of expenses and the overall business.

Ultimately, we did not recoup the full net income lost from eliminating subscriptions, but we created a new normal in which our journal functions as a more integral part of how we meet our association’s mission and serve our scientific community.

A move to an open-access publishing model is difficult for organizations that rely on subscription revenue to keep their journals financially viable. Some organizations rely on this revenue to support other programs as well, so thoughtful consideration is needed.

The real impact is that researchers, like ARVO’s members, that need access to past data and results can do so without additional costs.