• 11 Latin American countries participated in the survey

• 82% of the surveyed countries say their expectations of Big Deals negotiations have been transformed by the importance of the Open Access movement.

• 79% of the expenditures (a little more than USD $81 million) are directed to 5 large publishers.

The First Regional Big Deals Survey 2019 showed that 11 Latin American countries spend a little over USD $100 million on information resources (journals, databases, and ebooks). This data does not include pays per APC (Article Processing Charges) either subscriptions hired by universities and other institutions that require this kind of resources.

María Soledad Bravo-Marchant and Alberto Cabezas-Bullemore, authors of the study, explain the aim was “(...) to  quantify the expenditure our countries make in subscriptions to academic journal packages through contracts and licenses” (p.4) 

This work dates back to Segunda Reunión de Consorcios de América Latina y El Caribe, held in October 2018 in Santiago, Chile. The research focuses on Big Deal contracts with five major publishers: American Chemical Society, Elsevier, Springer-Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley.

The authors note that the Big Deal must be understood as a subscription to a set of hundreds of journals, sometimes all of the publisher’s journal titles, without the buyer being able to suppress some titles or even select a collection based on local needs” (p.7). 

The authors explain “we face a failure in a market that must be intervened with specific public policies because, in the market of scientific communication, the “price” does not perform the role which the economy has always assigned it as a regulator of supply and demand” (p.6).

13 countries were invited to participate in the study with 11 countries responding to the survey: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panamá, Perú and Uruguay. 

Results 

According to the study, national governments are the main entities in charge of Big Deals’ negotiations in Latin America (46%), followed by universities consortium and other organizations (36%).

55% of the participating countries say they have a committee which oversees policies related to licensed electronic resources. These committees are usually composed of information sciences specialists and representatives from members of the consortium or the national program.

55% of the countries indicated that universities played some role in the negotiation processes, with majority (84%) having a role as a lead negotiator, and 36% as funders of the licenses.

In terms of contract negotiations, countries major concerns were: cost reduction, integrity of the collections that are contracted, and cost control.

73% of the surveyed countries explained that they have a national open access policy or strategy. However, (...) 91% of the Big Deal contracts that were taken into account in this research, do not include a clause reflecting this aspect” (p.17).

In order to support open access, several countries say that in future negotiations they want to include clauses about open access, especially concerning Green open access. 

82% of respondents indicated that their expectations about the negotiation and contracting processes have changed because of the importance of the Open Access Movement. For example, it was mentioned by one respondent:

“We have introduced this topic into the negotiation process, in spite of the indisposition of some publishers. We were successful in including clauses of Green Open Access in some of the contracts (Springer, Wiley). We have seen marginal discounts because of some titles in open access format (OUP, Wiley, Annual Reviews, Elsevier with the SCOAP3)” (p.18).

In terms of Gold Open Access, the survey asked whether the national access programs had some kind of monitoring system capable of collecting data about funds directed to pay APCs (Article Processing Charges), and just one of the countries said it collects this information. The  survey also asked whether subscriptions and pay-to-publish (APC) were included in the same contract, to which all countries answered no. 

Countries reported a total of 139 contracts, but this number is just an estimation as 73% of the countries said that there is not an organization at a national level responsible for collecting and processing information about all contracts in that country. 

Huge costs

The eleven respondents reported an approximate total annual spend in electronic resources (journals, databases and ebooks) of USD $102.788.847. This amount excludes payments for APC and subscriptions contracted by individual universities and other institutions, so the reported amount underestimates the regional spend” (p.25).

Predominantly (55%), these funds come from universities and government agencies.

Survey participants reported a total of 31 contracts with the five major publishers mentioned above, amounting to USD $81.343.894, representing 79% of total expenditures.

Regarding each publisher, 62,06% goes to Elsevier, followed by Springer-Nature (22,62%), the last spots are occupied by Wiley (7,80%), Taylor & Francis (3,85%) and American Chemical Society (3,68%). The eleven surveyed countries consider that Elsevier is the publisher that is the most difficult to negotiate an agreement with.

Another aspect addressed was the duration of the contracts. A few more than 33% are for less than a year, 26% of the contracts are for 2 years, and just 13% are for 5 years. The authors think: “the disparity speakers to a region that lives in a permanent process of contract negotiation with all the pressure that this implies both for national and institutional budgets, as well as for the teams in charge” (p.40).

Finally, the authors make a call to strengthen the scientific communication in the Latin American region and identify some efforts that have been made in recent years:

“There are relevant actors at the region like SciELO, started in Brazil in 1997, and other initiatives like LA Referencia, which connects repositories in ten countries, and that works with international standards with the aim of making more visible Latin America scientific production “ (p.45).

Find the report here (spanish version)

Para Bianca Amaro, presidenta de LA Referencia, el trabajo realizado durante su gestión se resume en distintos intentos para que otros países de la región ingresen a la Red. Este trabajo se centra en discusiones encaminadas hacia la concientización de la importancia de la ciencia abierta para los países, así como los beneficios que ofrece ser parte de LA Referencia. Esto ha llevado a que Amaro enfatice en que “estamos logrando una visibilidad como región que antes no teníamos”.

Estos esfuerzos para sumar a más países a LA Referencia, comenta Amaro, no es un convencimiento, sino más bien el enseñar que una actuación en bloque es mucho más efectiva que una actuación de un solo país o incluso, de microrregiones dentro de la misma región latinoamericana. Para Amaro, ser parte de esta Red trae muchos beneficios.

Precisamente, uno de los mayores beneficios son los avances tecnológicos que se han logrado ir articulando con el pasar de los años. LA Referencia provee a sus países miembros apoyo en este sentido, buscando crear facilidades tecnológicas para el acceso a la Ciencia Abierta.

Amaro explica que se han lanzado “muchos avances tecnológicos y estos son muy reconocidos en todo el mundo. Todas las iniciativas quieren escuchar la posición de LA Referencia”, puntualizó.

Para la presidenta de LA Referencia el reto más grande continúa siendo precisamente la ampliación de la Red. Amaro considera que las personas encargadas de asuntos de ciencia en los países, han olvidado que la ciencia es un bien público. “Pero cuando hablamos de ciencia, la gente tiene una mentalidad preconcebida y dice, público pero no tanto, entonces es difícil tratar de hacerles entender que precisamente que aquello que está hecho con recursos públicos debe ser público”, explicó Amaro.

Luchar con los mitos alrededor de la ciencia abierta y todo lo que ella significa, ha sido también otro de los muros que Amaro ha tratado de derribar. “Uno de los más graves es que me van a robar mi investigación, o nos van a robar la ciencia nacional y esto es un mito, es falso,, hay un dicho que dice: lo más abierto posible y lo más cerrado cuando es necesario”, destacó Amaro.

En cuanto a este reto, Amaro afirma que a través de esfuerzos como LA Referencia, el mundo “... va a conocer nuestra ciencia, y la van a valorar”.

Finalmente, Amaro considera que el trabajo futuro de LA Referencia debe estar centrado en la estructuración de lo que ya se ha conseguido, es decir, en fomentar las prácticas relacionadas a la Ciencia Abierta, asimismo como el impulsar la creación de legislaciones sobre el Acceso Abierto, porque, considera, que “con esto es menos difícil la actuación de los países”.

Observe aquí el video de la entrevista.