Recently I read yet another article urging libraries to stop focusing so much on building local collections (pejoratively characterized as “walled gardens”) that primarily benefit their host institutions, and instead to “embrace… open investments” (i.e., underwrite open-access [OA] publishing programs). And a few weeks ago, I attended yet another conference session in which libraries were scolded for focusing on the needs of the institutions they serve rather than joining collective efforts to transform scholarly communication into a globally open-access ecosystem.

If I were to attempt a summary of the narrative behind this messaging, it would be something like this: “Libraries need to expand their vision beyond the borders of their institutions and start working for the good of the global community. This means redirecting resources away from things that primarily benefit local users and towards things that create global change and benefit the whole world.”

Who can gainsay such a sentiment? Given the choice between supporting a few privileged users and benefiting a global population, many of whom are radically underprivileged, who could argue for the former in good conscience? Given the choice between perpetuating a system that provides more essential scholarly content to the rich and less to the poor, who would want to support the system that favors the rich?

These are excellent questions, especially when applied to questions about how to use one’s own resources.

The problem, of course, is that academic libraries are not using their own resources. They’re using the resources of their host institutions – resources that have been entrusted to them for the purpose of pursuing specific institutional goals, which may or may not always be global in nature and may or may not have anything to do with transforming the scholarly communication ecosystem. It’s all well and good to decide not to build a private walled garden on your own property with your own money, but when you’ve been hired and given a budget from someone else for the purpose of building a private walled garden on their property, would it be ethical to decide unilaterally to use that budget for building a public garden instead?

Now, I’ve had a lot of conversations on this general topic in recent years – enough to provide fodder for a list of FAQs:

Q: Shouldn’t I assume that my institution wants to expand global access to scholarship?

A: I think most of us would be quite safe in assuming that our institutions like the idea of expanding global access to scholarship, in principle. Again: who could be against it? But if you’re the library, that’s not the right question. The right question is “Would my institution be in favor of me taking money that was allocated to the library for one worthy purpose, and using it instead for a different worthy purpose?” Now, if your institution is actually allocating money to your library for the purpose of underwriting OA publishing, then of course you’re all set; in that case, we’d have to question the ethics of spending that money on toll-access content. But in the vast majority of cases, what’s actually happening is just the opposite: institutions allocate money to their libraries for the purpose of buying access to content, not for the purpose of underwriting the publication of open content. If you want to take money intended for the former purpose and redirect it to the latter, you should first talk to the people whose money you’re using.

Q: But isn’t underwriting OA publishing just another form of collection development? Instead of buying content, I’m supporting the creation of content – and it’s content that will be available to everyone, not just my institution. Why is that distinction one that my institution would care about?

A: Supporting the creation of content and buying access to content are very different things – though if you’re pretty sure that your administration would see them as equally good ways of pursuing your host institution’s goals, then confirming that with them should be a low-risk proposition. Have that conversation and then you’ll know for sure, and you’ll be confident that your use of the allocated budget is aligned with the goals of those who allocated it.

Q: So you’re saying that libraries shouldn’t be globally engaged, but should care only about the local, specific needs of the privileged people who have access to them?

A: No. There are lots of ways for libraries to be globally engaged and to work for the broader public good. One very important way is by contributing to the education of students who will go on to make the world a better place; another is to support the research of faculty who are doing the same thing. (In other words, it’s important to recognize that the library collections currently being deprecated as “walled gardens” actually do contribute to global welfare.) But these aren’t the only ways, obviously. Libraries have institutional memberships, and professional development funds, and personnel time that staff can use to contribute to all kinds of larger initiatives. If your university is like the ones in which I’ve worked, it fully expects those funds to be used in ways that benefit directly the world outside the university. But when the host institution allocates money to the library for collections, it generally expects that the money will be used for building collections, not for other purposes.

Q: With some OA publishing programs, like subscribe-to-open (S2O), I’m not actually doing anything differently – I’m just continuing to do what we’ve always done: pay subscription fees. Why would I ask permission to do something different with collections money when I’m really just doing the same thing?

A: The idea that participating in S2O and other direct-subsidy publishing models amounts to the same thing as continuing a subscription is based on a superficial and paper-thin structural similarity between the two models (in both cases, the library continues to pay an annual invoice) that masks a deep and fundamental difference (in one case, the library is paying for access to content; in the other, the library is underwriting the creation of content to which it would have access regardless of whether it contributes financially). Before embarking on such a venture using the university’s money, the wise librarian will make sure that the university supports that use of it. Because the thing is, your university is trying to do lots of things that make the world a better place. It may have people working on cures for childhood diseases or on programs to alleviate poverty; it may want to offer more scholarships for first-generation college students; it may have dormitories that need renovation. Given the choice between directing funds toward those initiatives and underwriting a publisher’s OA program, supporting the publisher may not always be the most effective way for the university to make a difference in the world.

Q: My institution trusts us to use our allocated budgets as we see fit; they don’t ask us to account for every dollar we spend. Why would I ask permission to underwrite publication of an OA book or journal if I don’t ask permission to buy a particular toll-access book or journal?

A: Your institution trusts you to use your collections budget as you see fit because, for decades, it has been understood that the budget will be spent on physical documents or access to online ones. Choosing one book or journal over another is exactly what the university expects you to do with your collections budget; a shift from buying access to underwriting an OA publishing service represents a big change – one that it would be wise to discuss ahead of time with those providing the budget.

Q: But the pay-for-access model is on its last legs; we’re on the verge of a global transition to OA. If we invest our collections budget in toll-access subscriptions and book purchases, aren’t we just throwing good money after bad?

A: Rumors of the pay-for-access model’s demise have been significantly exaggerated. It’s certainly true that OA publishing has grown significantly over the past 20 years – but that growth does not seem to have been at the expense of subscription publishing. Consider this chart from a few months ago, provided by STM and based on Scopus data:

Note that it shows 9% growth in “subscription-only” articles, reviews, and conference papers over the eleven-year period 2013-2023. Granted, that’s not exactly explosive growth – certainly not in comparison to Gold OA – but it’s hardly evidence of decline. For examples of decline, we have to look at Green and Bronze OA, which fell over the same period by 27% and 20% respectively. (For books, growth of OA has been real and also much more gradual.)

Q: Our university administration is clueless about scholarly communication generally and open access in particular. Why should I let their ignorance stop me from using the library budget to do something more constructive than just building a walled garden?

A: It may well be that they’re clueless about scholarly communication and OA; it may also be that they know more about those things than you think — or simply see and experience the scholarly communication ecosystem from a very different, but equally legitimate, vantage point, and therefore have a perspective different from the library’s. If you’d like to make a major change in the use of your collections budget, why not use that as an opportunity to bring the issue up with the administrators who allocate your budget? Take stock of what they do and don’t know about scholarly communication and OA; explain why you believe it makes sense to move away from the “walled garden” approach and towards an investment in OA. Listen to what they tell you, and consider the issues from their perspective. Then you’ll either proceed with your plan confident that you’re using university money in a way the university supports, or you’ll be warned away from a course of action that the university doesn’t support. It’s even possible that you’ll actually come away from that exchange understanding something new about the scholarly communication ecosystem.

Q: Scholarly publishing must change! How will that happen if libraries won’t commit resources to bringing change about?

A: Here the real question isn’t about “change” generically – scholarly publishing has changed, is now changing, and will continue to change no matter what libraries do. But remember that there’s no such thing as generic change; there are only specific changes to specific things. The real question being asked is more specific: “How will we ensure a global shift to OA unless libraries start underwriting OA programs?”. And the answer is: while there seems to be pretty broad agreement among librarians that a global shift to OA is a desirable thing, it’s not yet obvious that there is such broad agreement among those whose money libraries are spending, or even among those producing the scholarship. What if the broader academic and scientific community is less convinced that such a global shift would yield a net benefit to the world? Should a library unilaterally decide to invest university resources in such a shift without the university’s knowledge?

I’m sure there are questions I haven’t thought of. Pose them in the comments and I’ll answer as best I can.