MDPI are a gold sponsor of the ALPSP Annual Conference and Awards 2025. 

 

Lessons from 30 years in OA publishing

 

At a Crossroads: Rethinking the Future of Society Publishing 

In recent years, the future of learned societies on publishing conversation is becoming an increasingly urgent topic. New evidence suggests that the pressures they are facing on increasing operational complexity, declining revenues, and the fast-moving landscape of Open Access (OA) mandates (especially for their subscription-hybrid journals) mean they are left questioning their long-term viability and identity in the publishing ecosystem.  

One of the latest posts by The Scholarly Kitchen [1] emphasized that these society publishers are at a crossroads, facing tough decisions about how they publish, with whom, and at what cost, particularly when trying to keep their autonomy in a highly commercialized environment.  

This situation is indeed critical, but it is not without hope. We believe that societies do not need to choose between going alone or surrendering control to a large commercial publisher. We should work on building a third collaborative strategic path where societies remain mission-driven and independent, while gaining support on the publishing infrastructure and scale needed individually to succeed in a rapidly evolving landscape.  

 

Collaborative Strategy: Beyond the Two Marked Paths 

The prevailing narrative right now suggests that small- and middle-sized societies must either remain fully independent but risk operational fragility or be absorbed by a larger publisher and compromise their autonomy and identity. It does not need to be one way or another. Societies are cornerstones of academic communities. Their vital role in advancing scientific knowledge, fostering community engagement, shaping education, and driving policy with expert recommendations is well established. Given this, the collaborative route rests on shared infrastructure, flexibility, integrity, mutual understanding, and, most importantly, a deep respect for each society’s unique mission and goals.  

This is not just a theory. The publications by Rob Johnson in Research Consulting [2] and, with Elle Malcolmson, in UKSG [3], have highlighted the potential of this collaborative approach: by working together, societies can gain access to the publishing tools and  platform support they might need to publish effectively in the OA environment without compromising their values or unique identity. 

 

What Should These Collaborative Partnerships Look Like? 

The most important aspect of these collaborative partnerships is the retention of control. Societies should not lose it. On the contrary, the most effective and fruitful partnerships are totally consolidated when societies are allowed not only to retain ownership of their journals, but also to maintain editorial independence [4], shape their publishing strategies in alignment with their expectations and goals, and care for their memberships. All of that can be achieved either by providing joint publishing arrangements with publishers, shared infrastructure and technology platforms that reduce operational costs, and/or co-hosting journals that extend reach without diminishing identity. 

Regardless of the chosen route, what matters is that the structure is flexible, respectful, and responsive to each society’s needs.  

As publishers, we must never forget that learned societies are more than publishing units (market value). They are communities with distinct voices, individual priorities, and robust responsibilities to their members. Thus, any successful future partnership between publishers and a learned society must reflect that. 

 

Lessons Learnt from +10 Years Collaborating with Learned Societies 

Having navigated the OA landscape for nearly 30 years, we have witnessed the full arc of OA’s evolution: from early skepticism that once surrounded OA models, through the gradual implementation of OA mandates, to the slow but steady growth in acceptance, and now the strong demand for OA options that preserve revenue.  

Alongside this transformation, we have seen firsthand how publishing partnerships can thrive when they are built on trust, transparency, flexibility, and a shared commitment to open science. 

In our experience, the most successful collaborations deliver four consistent benefits for societies: full ownership of their journals, editorial independence in policy and direction, financial return, and flexibility in keeping the brand, outreach, and member engagement. On the publisher’s side, it is about providing a robust publishing infrastructure and support (from technology and production workflows to discoverability and compliance expertise) while staying aligned with what makes them thrive. 

Of course, it is worth mentioning that this approach has a variable factor, as not all societies are alike. That is precisely why flexibility matters. The strength of this collaborative approach lies in its adaptability by offering a framework that can be tailored to meet the unique needs of each individual society, rather than forcing them into a one-size-fits-all model.  

In a time of uncertainty, the lesson from a decade of experience is that when these tailored partnerships are built around values that societies hold most dear, they can provide the best path to resilience, relevance, and long-term impact for both parties. 

 

Looking Ahead 

We are aware that the pressures that society publishers are facing are real, and in many cases, intensifying. However, this can also be a good time to think strategically, move forward, and take actions that provide new opportunities in a way to evolve tailored collaboration without giving up what makes them unique.  

Mission-driven publishing can and should thrive in a market-driven world as a new strategy. However, it will only succeed if we create new balanced models of robust collaborations, based on transparency, flexibility, integrity, and shared purpose. 

The next few years will be decisive, but the partnerships we form today may determine what the next generation of scholarly publishing looks like. At MDPI, we are committed to be part of the change.  

 

References: 

[1] Johnson, B., and Greaves, S. The Scholarly Kitchen, Guest Post. Available online: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/07/30/guest-post-society-publishers-at-a-crossroads-new-evidence-of-an-accelerating-crisis/ (accessed on 31 July 2025). 

[2] Johnson, R. Research Consulting. Available online: https://www.research-consulting.com/collaboration-is-critical-to-the-future-of-society-publishing/ (accessed on 1 August 2025). 

[3] Johnson, R. and Malcolmson, E. You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone: the changing landscape of UK learned society publishing. Insights, 2024, 37:16, 1-2; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.664 

[4] COPE Council. COPE position – Editorial independence, 2025. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/editorial-independence (accessed on 1 August 2025). 

 

About MDPI: 

Headquartered in Switzerland, MDPI is an Open Access publisher with a portfolio of more than 470 journals across all scientific disciplines. To date, MDPI has published the works of over 3.7 million researchers, collaborating with an extensive network of academic institutions and scientific societies worldwide. Above all, MDPI is committed to ensuring that high-quality research is freely accessible to readers across the globe. 

 

About the Author: 

Dr. Clàudia Aunós is Senior Manager in Society Partnerships at MDPI. With a PhD in Chemistry applied to the medical field and a deep understanding of the research community, she joined MDPI in 2018, transitioning from managing a biomedical journal to taking on a strategic role in the Society Partnerships Department. In her current position, she works closely with learned societies worldwide, exploring collaborative opportunities, conducting market analyses, and optimizing the MDPI publishing services to meet the societies’ unique needs. Her work focuses on creating sustainable, tailored solutions that strengthen society publishing in an evolving scholarly communication landscape.