The DEAL system is defended by some as a step forward and a publication system that is in line with the digital transformation process. It is convenient for authors to use, and the considerable costs (‘APC’) have been borne for years by scientific institutions, in universities mostly by libraries. However, many people working in the scientific system – whether as scientists or librarians – now view these developments critically and with great concern. This is because DEAL is no longer affordable. It also creates false incentives for ‘ever more’ publications.

In addition, it has not been possible to stop the digital ‘tracking’ of authors and readers, and contract negotiations are characterised by an asymmetry of power. Does DEAL not even favour the business models of large publishers – and thus, conversely, accelerate the demise of smaller, yet equally important academic publishers? What concrete steps can universities take? Are there any ways out of the obvious crisis in the academic publishing system?

Workshop on alternatives and scope for action for universities

These pressing questions relating to DEAL will be the focus of the workshop organised by the FiF on the initiative of Vice President Peter Pelz and in cooperation with ZEVEDI on 11 March 2026.

Contributions are expected from

• Dr Angela Holzer, Programme Director, Scientific Literature Supply and Information Systems Group, DFG,
• Dr Bernhard Mittermaier, Head of the Central Library, Jülich Research Centre, and
• Dr Arne Scholtissek, Department of Mechanical Engineering, TU Darmstadt.

This is an event organised by FiF in cooperation with ZEVEDI. (opens in new tab)

When: 11 March 2026, 3–6 p.m.

Where: Lichtenberg House, Dieburger Straße 241

Register at eveeno

The workshop on the topic of “DEAL” focused on the question of how academic findings can be disseminated without becoming heavily dependent on major publishers. This issue is often described using the term ‘academic capitalism’, which highlights the central role played by economic interests in the publishing sector. Despite numerous negotiation initiatives, the situation has hardly improved fundamentally, as major publishers continue to operate primarily with a profit-oriented approach.

The challenge lies in particular in breaking the structural dominance of a few large players. Market trends show a clear concentration. Whilst in 1970 around 20% of publications were controlled by the largest publishers, this figure now stands at around 50%. This oligopolistic structure is further reinforced by takeovers and the formation of large publishing conglomerates. At the same time, academic institutions are dependent on access to these publications, which significantly limits their bargaining power. Against this backdrop, the fundamental question arises as to how a sustainable and, at the same time, fair publication system can or could be designed.

The German Research Foundation (DFG) attempted early on to respond to these developments through strategic measures. From 2005 onwards, national licences were promoted, which were supplemented by alliance licences from 2010. The aim was to embed academic standards in contracts with publishers and to create better conditions for access to research results. Nevertheless, the central problem remained. Negotiations alone are not sufficient to overcome the structural dominance of publishers.

The economic framework highlights the imbalance in the system. The average cost per article is around €3,800, without major contracts having led to significant savings. On the contrary, under such agreements, libraries in some cases had to pay up to 50% of their budgets to publishers. At the same time, Open Access was supported by funding programmes, such as grants for individual publications. It remains unclear, however, whether these measures might not actually stabilise the existing oligopoly, as market concentration remains as high as ever.

A major turning point came with the DEAL negotiations, which were initiated in 2013 with the participation of the University of Leipzig. The aim was to reduce costs, improve access to literature and consolidate demand through national licensing agreements. However, the negotiations proved difficult. At times, access to publishers’ content was suspended, which proved practically untenable, as research institutions cannot function without access to literature. International developments, such as Sweden’s termination of contracts, also show that other countries are facing similar problems.

The economic effects of these agreements are mixed. Whilst the agreement with Springer, for example, facilitated access, total expenditure rose significantly as a result of the deals. At the same time, it is evident that there were alternative offers from individual publishers, which, however, could not bring about any structural change within the overall framework. Added to this are considerable indirect costs, such as those for peer review processes, which amount to around 2 billion euros across the sector.

From the perspective of researchers, the problems are becoming even more acute. The publication system is largely based on public funding – authors, reviewers and institutional structures are all publicly funded. At the same time, the pressure to publish is rising continuously, as academic achievement is often assessed solely on the basis of the sheer quantity of publications. This makes it particularly difficult for early-career researchers to embark on an academic career.

Another key aspect is the growing role of ‘artificial intelligence’. The increasing volume of publications is no longer produced exclusively by humans, but is increasingly influenced by AI systems or even generated entirely by them. This leads to a further acceleration in the mass production of academic texts. At the same time, there is a risk that texts are produced primarily to meet formal requirements, whilst their quality of content and rigour decline. This becomes particularly critical when texts are generated by AI and in turn received by AI, causing scientific knowledge processes to increasingly move beyond human control.

In the context of exploitation rights, a fundamental structural problem is evident: researchers often no longer have control over how their content is used. These rights usually lie with the publishers, who decide whether and to what extent content may be used, for example, for training AI models. This highlights a need for regulatory action, particularly with regard to the relationship between author and publisher, and between publisher and user.

Although the issue is recognised at an institutional level, it often remains confined to individual researchers. Examples such as the high annual payments made by individual universities to major publishers illustrate the financial dimension. At the same time, transparency within the system is declining, whilst requirements for open access quotas remain in place, which cannot always be met.

A nuanced picture of possible future developments was outlined. On the one hand, it was emphasised that a complete withdrawal from the existing publishing system is not realistic in the short term. The existing contracts remain necessary for the time being to ensure the functioning of the academic sector. On the other hand, it was argued that a fundamental systemic change is inevitable in order to create sustainable structures in the long term.

In this regard, a key approach appears to be the promotion of alternative publication models, such as ‘Diamond Open Access’. Under this model, neither authors nor readers pay for publications; instead, institutional structures take on the financing. In particular, the remuneration of editors plays an important role in ensuring adequate quality assurance.

In the long term, such a structural change could also lead to significant cost reductions. A prerequisite for this, however, is that academic institutions act more actively as publishers themselves and establish the necessary infrastructure. At the same time, the question remained open as to what extent such models can prevail over established publishers, particularly in view of the latter’s economic and structural power.

Overall, it became clear that the future of academic publishing is characterised by a tension between economic interests, academic quality, technological developments and the demand for free access to knowledge. A sustainable solution requires not only technical or economic adjustments, but a fundamental transformation of the culture of academic communication.