21 February 2025
Siobhan Haimé, Birkbeck, University of London (with thanks to Tristan Smith for copyediting assistance)
(See also the news item here)
In a rather seismic announcement, Clarivate has announced the phase-out of perpetual access purchases for print, eBooks and digital collections by the end of 2025. Described as a supposedly transformative “subscription-based strategy”, this approach is explained as “following changes in demand from libraries” and posed to support libraries in their mission. This is to be achieved by removing the option for libraries to own content (as far as one can own licensed digital materials) and moving to a subscription model with an AI research assistant.
Key changes:
For those still blissfully unaware, the fundamental changes have been briefly outlined below, as well as a timeline provided by Clarivate:
- The cessation of one-time perpetual purchases for eBooks through Ebook Central by 31-10-2025. Titles already purchased will remain accessible under their existing terms.
- The cessation of print book sales through both OASIS and Rialto by 31-08-2025.
- Open orders for out-of-stock or back-ordered titles will be cancelled on 31-07-2025.
- The sunsetting of the OASIS marketplace by 31-12-2025.
- Demand-driven acquisition (DDA) will no longer be supported. Existing programs will run until 31-10-2025, but no new set-ups will be approved.
- Rialto will only provide publisher-direct and aggregator platform eBooks going forward. It is set to “expand to offer enhanced collection development capabilities and workflows”. What exactly this means is unclear as of yet.
For those less familiar with acquisitions, it is worth noting here that ProQuest (Coutts/Ringwold) are a main supplier of shelf-ready print books for many UK libraries and that for those who have not hedged their bets with EBSCO-GOBI, eBook Central licenses will — in most instances — be the cheapest licences available (though arguably not always the best value for money).
This change in direction cannot be viewed in isolation. More than anything, this ‘transformation’ – presented under the rhetoric of modernisation and AI-readiness – represents a troubling shift in the power dynamics between academic libraries and commercial providers, especially those who hold (near) monopolies. The lack of customer consultation before this announcement demonstrates how this pattern of market consolidation can lead to unilateral decision-making that disregards the needs of libraries.
Thus far, this announcement has raised serious concerns about collection development, budgetary planning, and general business continuity. The timing is particularly interesting, as it comes at a time of subscription cancellations and transformative agreement negotiations. While the library community demonstrates increasing resistance to journal subscription models, Clarivate attempts to force libraries into similar arrangements for book content. This move has not been well-received by library and information professionals across the globe.
Clarivate’s announcement, as stated above, raises a range of questions and concerns — especially regarding the stability and sustainability of library services, as well as challenges to the core missions of academic libraries. Some of these have been briefly outlined below, though these are unfortunately complete nor exhaustive.
The shift to subscription-only access creates a dynamic where libraries must maintain subscriptions to preserve access to core content. This is worrying when viewed through the lens of reading lists, where stable access to key titles is essential in the service provided to students and their education. This issue mirrors the ‘big deal’ journal packages that have strained library budgets. The timing of this announcement creates immediate pressure to restructure budgets around recurring costs rather than investment in permanent collections. It is worth noting that it only allows six to eight months to plan and implement new workflows and processes to deal with this change and that it will come into full effect during the busiest period of the year for acquisition teams. It is unlikely either of these aspects are coincidental.
Furthermore, the transition to subscription-only access represents more than a change in purchasing models – it fundamentally undermines the ability of academic libraries to build collections that serve their specific institutional needs. It is likely to impede our ability to maintain comprehensive research — let alone teaching — collections. Especially considering these proposed subscriptions will be centred around the ProQuest One framework. As the existing ProQuest One collections have demonstrated (causing great frustration), content can be removed without library input or prior announcement. Clarivate states: “We will continue our bi-annual schedule of title removals from subscriptions in June and December. There may be occasional off-cycle removals due to legal reasons or loss of publisher rights.”[1] Whilst meant to reassure, this does not bode well — losing essential materials in the middle of the academic year can create nightmarish scenarios, especially in smaller institutions that may not have the budget for any emergency solutions. The loss of Evidence-Based Acquisition (EBA) and Demand-Driven Acquisition (DDA) is also likely to be another blow to institutions whose budgets do not allow for the up-front purchase of all texts on lists.
Whilst this product promises “carefully curated”, extensive, multidisciplinary coverage, librarians (across the globe) have indicated they doubt whether subscription packages could realistically fulfil the needs of academic institutions while remaining affordable. Thus far, similar existing models have not been wildly successful as most lack the provisions required for this. However, Clarivate arguably has the influence with publishers to aggregate sufficient content to make this model potentially feasible — though only time will tell how many will buy into this model and have their content on ProQuest made available solely through subscriptions.
So who does this serve?
Many librarians I have spoken to in the last 36 hours have asked the same question: Who does this serve? The answer, as is often the case in capitalism and technology, is deceptively simple: stakeholders and the bottom line. The answer can be found in the 2024 Q3 Clarivate earnings call (thanks to Thomas Padilla for pointing this out!):
“We’re looking further into the one-time business is low-margin, it’s low profit, it’s low-growth, it’s extensive. It’s very hard to predict and part of the — my impression is we are currently contemplating this and taking away this volatility and making rooms to focus — to help us focus more on product innovation, subscription, reoccurring predictable profit revenue streams. That’s where we’re going.”[2]
In the 2024 Q4 earnings call, Clarivate CEO Matti Shem Tov affirms and states that eBook sales have a “very low margin” and later refers to them as “a distraction” and “a drain” — signalling a commitment to a full transition to subscription-based models, though also suggesting a high-reliance on that model for success. Whilst one can appreciate the need for innovation and change to keep a business sustainable and to increase performance against a worrying backdrop in previous quarters, this approach risks alienation of academic customers as it has certainly not had a positive reception. The fact that the Academic AI Advisory Council were not informed ahead of this change and found at the same time as us (despite there being an AI element to this), nor Clarivate staff (allegedly[3]), further suggests an understanding this strategy would not be well-received.
Furthermore, there appears to be a disconnect between Clarivate’s market strategy and the financial reality faced by universities. It is questionable whether libraries could afford these subscriptions even if they wanted to. The UK is not alone in this, as the US is currently facing a barrage of federal cuts following President Trump’s executive orders. And this issue isn’t unique to Anglophone countries. The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and France (to name a few) are also facing financial pressures and are equally unlikely to take this change lightly.
Whilst Clarivate CEO responds to concerns about this (albeit specifically in the US-context) with optimism: “I’ve seen the academia business going through a lot of different cycles. And I remain optimistic that academia will prevail and will continue to grow in a certain — although in a low single-digit to mid-single-digit over time. […] I’m optimistic about the trajectory and the future of this industry. I’ve been there for 20 years, gone through several cycles. I’m optimistic and positive about the future of the business.”[4] However, this optimism is not mirrored within universities or libraries. And whilst business and academic spending are cyclical, it does not guarantee institutional acceptance of models that conflict with the library’s core mission. Even if funding levels recover, libraries are unlikely to allocate resources to subscriptions that oppose their strategic priorities and professional values — especially in the face of the recent rejection of similar models.
It may not stop at this announcement as more changes could be forthcoming. To once more quote Clarivate CEO Matti Shem Tov himself in today’s Q4 earning call:
“And over time, we have a high degree of conviction that we believe we can transition this onetime business, maybe not one to one, but over time, we’ll transition it into more subscription, recurring subscription base. This is what we do. A big portion of our business is going subscription. I mentioned we are moving from 80% to 87% subscription reoccurring after the disposals, and I believe we can go even higher.”[5]
Considering the range of products Clarivate offers that have a high uptake within libraries (especially around hosting and infrastructure), one might be apprehensive about what this may signal.
However, alternatives exist.
EBSCO have released a statement affirming their commitment to one-time perpetual access eBook purchasing, print book purchasing, DDA/EBA, and are developing a purchasing platform of their own which may provide a viable alternative (EBSCO Mosaic).
Moreover, this development further emphasises the need to increase bibliodiversity in the market and our collections. Actions such as investing in open monographs and open educational resources (and open more generally), as well as titles from smaller presses, can foster a more diverse and resilient information ecosystem. Especially if the big five acquiesce to this new strategy and have their content licenced through these subscriptions.
This may signal the moment to increase (international) collaboration towards open-access initiatives and collective action. With recent developments around journals, a match has been lit and — whilst not in the way intended — this strategy shift may prove transformative for our approach to books as well. So perhaps my earlier scepticism of this being ‘transformative’ was incorrect. This strategy may prove to be transformative if we take this as an opportunity to radically explore alternative models to protect equitable access. Our response to these changes may shape the future of academic library collections for years to come – and hopefully for the better.
Relevant readings:
Research information announcement
Introducing ProQuest Digital Collections
ProQuest Support for ProQuest eBooks
Clarivate Q3 2024 earnings call transcript
Clarivate Q4 2024 earnings call transcript
Clarivate – Q4 report – news item
[1] ProQuest Support for ProQuest eBooks
[2] Clarivate Q3 2024 earnings call transcript
[3] This could not be formally confirmed, though it has been stated by various, independent sources.
[4] Clarivate Q4 2024 earnings call transcript
[5] Clarivate Q4 2024 earnings call transcript