Governments, funders and institutions around the world are making increasingly different choices about how research is funded, published and accessed For publishers, this means a model that works in one market may not work in the next.
The question of how publishers should respond was at the heart of our recent webinar, Scholarly Publishing: Everything, Everywhere, All at Once, chaired by Research Consulting’s Dylan Storan and featuring Cathy Foley, former Chief Scientist of Australia; Alice Meadows, Consultant-at-Large at ORE Consulting; and Ning Zhang, CEO and Founder of TopEdit.
The discussion ranged from China’s investment in domestic publishing infrastructure to a proposed national licensing model in Australia and political pressure on research in the US. But it also raised the question: how much regional differentiation do publishers really need?
One global system, increasingly different pressures
Alice Meadows challenged the idea that scholarly publishing has ever been entirely global. Differences between countries, disciplines and communities have always mattered. At the same time, she cautioned against overstating those differences, suggesting an “80/20” approach: much of what researchers and other stakeholders need from scholarly communication is shared, but there will always be differences that need to be understood and accommodated.
The discussion illustrated just how significant some of those differences are becoming.
In China, Ning Zhang described efforts to build a more complete domestic research and publishing ecosystem. As China’s research output has grown, its publishing capacity has not grown at the same rate. Investment is now going into journals, publishing platforms and research evaluation infrastructure, alongside measures addressing the cost of publishing. Ning described this as a move “from borrowing a ship to go global to building their own ship.” Chinese researchers continue to value international publishers, he said, but the development of greater domestic capacity is a significant trend for international publishers to watch
In Australia, Cathy Foley described a different approach to the challenge of access and cost. As Chief Scientist, she developed a proposal for national agreements with publishers, drawing on the model of Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Rather than individual institutions negotiating separately, a central body would negotiate access on behalf of the country, with the aim of making research literature available to anyone in Australia while making Australian research openly accessible internationally. Cathy is now raising the proposal again in her role as President of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.
And in the US, Alice described how changes in government research policy are affecting what gets funded and published. She pointed to additional scrutiny of grant applications containing particular words and phrases, alongside proposed changes that could give political appointees a greater role in decisions about research funding. She also described the consequences publishers and journal editors are already having to navigate, including requests from researchers to withdraw papers or remove their names from author lists.
Taken together, these examples showed why publishers need to understand the very different policy, funding and infrastructure changes taking place within individual markets, as well as the overall direction of travel.
Funding pressure is front of mind
Funding came through clearly in our audience poll. Asked about the biggest challenge facing their organisation, 41% of respondents chose funding and business-model pressure, twice as many as the 20% who selected AI.
The result was striking, particularly at a time when AI often dominates discussions about the future of scholarly communication. It reinforced one of the webinar’s central themes: questions about who funds research, who pays for publishing and whether current models are sustainable remain unresolved.
The case for publishing needs a collective voice
That led to another recurring theme: the gap between how scholarly publishing works and how it is perceived outside the sector.
Cathy highlighted the limited understanding among policymakers of the costs and processes involved in publishing, even as governments seek greater access to publicly funded research. Alice argued that publishers and the wider research community need to become much better at explaining the value they provide to researchers, institutions and society more broadly.
Making that case is not something individual publishers can do alone. Asked how publishers can engage with policymakers without appearing to be protecting their own commercial interests, Alice highlighted two priorities: relationships and collective action. Rather than multiple organisations making different arguments, policymakers need a clearer collective account of the role and value of scholarly publishing.
For publishing leaders, the discussion suggested that operating internationally will increasingly require both perspectives: an understanding of what remains common across the global research system, and close attention to the policy, funding and infrastructure changes reshaping individual markets.
Watch the webinar on demand
If you were unable to join the live session, or would like to revisit the discussion, you can register to access the webinar recording on demand.
With thanks to Cathy Foley, Alice Meadows and Ning Zhang for a wide-ranging and generous discussion.
Research Consulting’s market intelligence service helps publishers, societies and vendors track changes like these and work out what they mean for their strategy. Find out more.
