I registered for a virtual version of the Charleston Conference. I’ve steadily been watching the sessions since they were released last November, with a lot of binge-watching over winter break. A few trends:

A year ago I could’ve rattled off all WFU’s Transformative (a.k.a. Read and Publish) Agreements from memory. Now they’re starting to proliferate, so that’s no longer possible. I’m glad Molly’s got a list on a research guide. As that list gets longer — who knows? — we may need to replace it with a grid detailing the slight differences among them. (Capped or uncapped? Automatic or not? All the journals or just some? 100% covered or APC discount?) The Charleston presenters similarly discussed outreach and assessment. On the assessment side, it seems reasonable that the success metric for an OA article would be the worldwide usage of it — not simply the local use. Several publishers and organizations are working on that problem.

This model is also taking off, especially in areas where APCs are not viable. I’ve filed away a handful of notices about single journals or smaller packages taking this route. Should we make some kind of list? Do these need publicity? There were a couple of presentations, typically from the publishers’ point of view, about how transition has gone for them.

There are seemingly tons of these out there. Several presenters discussed how their libraries developed criteria to decide which ones they should support in a holistic way instead of just reacting to a well-timed appeal. WFU is likely to go this route. Stay tuned for more from the CEC.

Again a lot on this, but one memorable presentation was from ERIC. They discussed how they and their parent organizations within the Dept. of Education are working out how to comply.