Institutional principles for negotiating with publishers

This list is part of the Open Access Directory.

• This list is still under development. Every part of it may change before the official launch, including its title, URL, scope notes, and method of organization.

• This is a list of library and university principles for negotiating with publishers. Some are from consortia rather than individual institutions.
  • When possible, include the date of public release.

• Related lists in OAD: University statements on OA

• Also see: Negotiation principles internationally from Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC).

• Alphabetical by institution.

---

A

• Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) [consortium]
  • Recommended Principles and Terms for Electronic Resource Agreements, version 1.0 dated Spring 2022 (announced February 15, 2022).
  • Also see the Google Doc version.

C

• Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) [consortium]
  • 2022 Agreement Principles, April 2021.
  • Principles & Framework for Pricing Digital Content, June 2019.

F

• FORCE11
  • Declaration of Researcher Rights in Negotiating the Future of Scholarly Communication, June 1, 2021

G

• Grand Valley State University (GVSU)
  • Principles for GVSU negotiations as summarized by librarian A. Scarlet Galvan, January 8, 2020

• Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA) [consortium]
  • GWLA Licensing Principles, June 12, 2020
  • GWLA Model License, last revised November 2019

I

• Iowa State University
  • The ISU principles themselves, October 15, 2019
  • Article about the ISU principles, October 19, 2019

L

• Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherche (LIBER) (Association of European Research Libraries)
  • Open Access: Five Principles for Negotiations with Publishers, September 7, 2017.

M

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
  • The MIT Framework itself, October 23, 2019
  • Announcement of the MIT Framework, October 23, 2019
  • Harvard Library statement in support of the MIT Framework (part of a larger statement on OA), October 23, 2019.
  • UCalifornia statement in support of the MIT Framework, December 17, 2019
  • NERL endorsed the MIT Framework, January 21, 2020
    • NERL endorsed it again in its own negotiating principles (more under NERL below), March 3, 2021

N

• NorthEast Research Libraries Consortium (NERL) [consortium]
  • NERL demands a better deal, March 3, 2021. These are the NERL negotiating principles.
  • NERL endorsed the MIT Framework in the doc above and in a separate doc, January 21, 2021
  • This blog post has a useful table of the NERL negotiating goals, May 26, 2021.

• Norwegian directorate for ICT and joint services in higher education and research (UNIT)
  • Its cancellation of the Elsevier big deal included five principles for future negotiations, March 12, 2019.

U

• University of California
  • The UC principles themselves, April 25, 2018
    • Another copy, June 3, 2019.
  • Announcement of the UC principles, June 21, 2018
  • Berkeley blog post about the principles, July 27, 2018
  • Negotiating with scholarly journal publishers: A toolkit from the University of California, May 2019

• University of Massachusetts Amherst
  • UMass Amherst Framework Principles for Provider Agreements, February 2021
  • Framework for Provider Agreements
  • Framework for Provider Agreements Frequently Asked Questions

• University of Maryland
  • Licensing principles, n.d.
  • Announced May 27, 2021.

• University of North Texas
  • Expectations for Library Vendors, first released February 2, 2018; subsequently revised more than once.

• University of Washington
  • UW apparently has similar principles but we haven’t found them yet. U Maryland mentions them in its principles (above).