Preamble

Progress of Subscribe-to-Open (S2O) and Its Implications for the Transformation of Chinese University Libraries

Yuxiang Zhang¹, Lirui Cui¹, Chengguo Xin²
¹Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, 250355
²Qilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences), Jinan, 250014

Abstract: Subscribe-to-Open is emerging as an alternative to the APC model, poised for comprehensive growth in 2025 and increasingly attracting attention from stakeholders such as libraries and publishers. Currently, China has no practical cases of S2O implementation, with existing research focused on introducing and analyzing foreign experiences. This article systematically outlines the development trajectory of the S2O model, using the online statistical table from the S2O Community of Practice and the S2O online journal list from the Open Access Directory as data sources to analyze key features and conduct visual analysis. Finally, a qualitative analysis examines the impact and implications of this transformation model for university library transformation.

Keywords: Open Access; Subscribe-to-Open; Visual analysis; Library Transformation

1. Origin and Research Status of the S2O Model

1.1 Origin and Development of the S2O Model

Annual Reviews has been exploring stable and universally applicable pathways for OA transition. From 2017 to 2019, its pilot journals repeatedly flipped between subscription and OA models. By tracking the impact of licensing changes, Annual Reviews discovered that OA could greatly enhance journal dissemination and usage efficiency, strengthening its commitment to OA. Since 2020, nine non-profit or small publishers—including Annual Reviews, the European Mathematical Society Press, and EDP Sciences—have launched S2O pilots and established the S2O Community of Practice (S2O CoP) to continuously track S2O progress.

In April 2021, Coalition S began recognizing the S2O model and encouraged publishers to "seriously consider S2O as a means to achieve full transition to open publishing and compliance with Plan S." Harvard University's Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) also monitors S2O developments in real time. In March 2025, DOAJ launched a tagging feature, with S2O as its first tag to identify journals adopting this model. Johan Rooryck, a French linguistics researcher at Leiden University, considers S2O the second-best solution after Diamond OA. A Plan S-related survey by the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) identified S2O as "the most promising transformative agreement for publishers because it provides predictable revenue."

From 2020 to present, multiple publishers have experimented with S2O. The European Mathematical Society Press's first-round S2O program achieved open publishing for ten journals in 2021, while EDP Sciences successfully converted six mathematics journals the same year. During 2023–2024, more publishers piloted S2O: Karger with three journals, the American Society for Microbiology with six, and Taylor & Francis Group with three. From late 2024 to 2025, these pilots evolved into formal implementations, with publishers announcing official S2O adoption and positive future outlooks. In February 2025, Project MUSE announced its S2O program had achieved 2025 sustainability goals, with over 100 journals from 27 publishers available open access on the MUSE platform for the 2025 volume year. Unlike publisher-initiated S2O, MUSE S2O was launched by the platform itself; if successful, S2O journals would comprise about 1/8 of the platform. Starting in 2025, S2O open transformation has entered a rapid development phase.

1.2 Current State of Theoretical Research

As an emerging OA model, S2O theoretical research remains in its initial stages globally, though the model has gained increasing recognition from publishers, libraries, and research institutions. A. Langham-Putrow [4] described S2O in detail, viewing it as a roadmap for publishers transitioning to full OA. Crow R [5] analyzed Annual Reviews' pilot of five journals, explaining the internal logic behind S2O's success. Sara B [6] argues that for non-profit, low-volume publishers, APC or TA models involve significant financial risks, whereas subscription-based S2O enables sustainable openness. Ellysa Cahoy, editor of portal: Libraries and the Academy, reviewed journals' participation in MUSE's Subscribe-to-Open program [7], with the journal achieving S2O publishing in 2025. André Gaul [8] analyzed EMS Press's 2023 first-round S2O open publishing practices, identifying sustainability and equity as key success factors.

Hoogendoorn C [9] examined the Biochemical Society's "Read and Publish" agreement conversions (2019–2022), finding highest conversion efficiency in well-funded, high-output regions with strong institutional commitment. In less-equipped regions, S2O was planned for 2025 supplementation; indeed, the Biochemical Society achieved five S2O journals in 2025. Borchardt R noted that approximately half of library and information science (LIS) journals use APC for openness, with most not discussing no-fee OA transitions. S2O could be considered an option while ensuring revenue [10].

Chinese scholarship on S2O remains limited. Lijun Chen [11] used two-sided market theory to analyze domestic open transformation, arguing that mandating subscription cancellations is arbitrary. Liyuan Cui [12] compared 75 early S2O journals from nine publishers, concluding S2O is an emerging model with uncertainties requiring continuous improvement. Linxi Yu [13] and Yang Liu [14] used EDP Sciences as a case study to summarize S2O transition experiences and implications for Chinese journals.

In summary, foreign research includes S2O model explanations, case summaries, and individual journal studies, showing richness and annual growth, attracting increasing scholarly attention. Domestic theoretical research lags behind in both quantity and depth, primarily introducing foreign cases. Overall, Chinese S2O research remains in its infancy. Notably, domestic scholars are extremely cautious about open transformation. Yaqi Shen et al. [15] explicitly propose that Chinese university libraries should cautiously respond to open access transformation with adequate preparation.

1.3 Domestic University Library Practice

Web searches and visits to university library websites and WeChat accounts reveal only four Chinese university libraries have adopted S2O transformation (see Table 1 [TABLE:1]). All four subscribed to corresponding publishers' products with essentially identical agreement terms. Journal types primarily involved publishers' S2O journals, plus hybrid and sponsored journals. Xiamen University Library secured discounts on page charges and supplemental material fees. All agreements had one-year validity periods and required author/institution identification processes consistent with other OA models.

Table 1 [TABLE:1]. Chinese University Libraries' S2O Agreement Status

S2O Agreement Content Validity Period Deadline Open Access Conditions De Gruyter No APC Dec 31 Hybrid, sponsored OA, and S2O journals; unlimited access American Physiological Society No APC Dec 31 Hybrid, sponsored OA, and S2O journals; unlimited access (260 humanities/social science titles) American Society for Microbiology No APC Dec 31 ASM Press 6 hybrid subscription journals Xiamen University Library No APC, plus 25% discount on page charges and supplemental material fees (unlimited quantity) Dec 31 Institutional domain email / ROR identifier / Institutional domain email

Note: Information from university library official WeChat accounts or websites.

2. Quantitative Statistical Analysis of S2O Model Practice

The S2O CoP community continuously tracks S2O progress, compiling publisher information since 2020 in an online shared spreadsheet (Table 2 [TABLE:2]) [16]. The Open Access Directory (OAD) is a scholar-maintained online resource helping researchers understand OA developments. OAD's metadata originates from OATP, and its S2O list maintainer Ross Mounce (Arcadia Fund OA Program Director) has joined S2O CoP. This article's data derives from both S2O CoP and OAD's S2O journal list [17].

2.1 Quantity Analysis

Table 2 shows that S2O publishers grew from 4 in 2020 to 29 in 2025—a more than sixfold increase with steady annual growth. Project MUSE has the most S2O journals as a non-profit aggregation platform integrating 27 publishers. De Gruyter shows strong performance, becoming the first major academic publisher to announce S2O as its core OA strategy in 2024, planning approximately 270 S2O journals by 2028. Both exceed originator Annual Reviews in quantity. Total journals grew exponentially from 24 in 2020 to 378, with peaks in 2023 and 2025. Annual growth rates fluctuate strongly, likely due to publisher pilots or adjustments (e.g., IWA Publishing's September 2024 S2O model adjustment). Support from KU and JISC also contributed to rapid growth. Overall, S2O is becoming an important academic publishing option.

2.2.1 Discipline Distribution

OAD's S2O journal list identifies three discipline types, with annual distributions shown in Figure 1 [FIGURE:1]. SSH consistently dominates S2O applications with the most pronounced growth trend. LS grew significantly in 2023 and 2025, while PSM declined markedly in 2025. 2025 saw the most significant S2O journal growth, particularly in SSH, indicating accelerating adoption in social sciences and humanities.

Recent three-year data shows substantial 2023 growth across all disciplines: LS (24 journals), PSM (19), SSH (29). In 2024, SSH continued growing to 20 journals, PSM remained at 4, and LS had no new additions.

2.2.2 Institutional Affiliation and Adoption Timeline

After filtering institutions/societies with ≥3 journals and creating a temporal heatmap (Figure 2 [FIGURE:2]), journals without clear affiliations ("none") dominate numerically. Other major institutions include the American Physiological Society (APS), American Society for Microbiology, Biochemical Society, and European Mathematical Society.

Unaffiliated journals adopted S2O with 16 titles in 2020, surging to 28 in 2021, peaking at 66 in 2023, and adding 41 more in 2025. Professional society participation came later: APS and American Society for Microbiology journals all adopted S2O in 2025, while European Mathematical Society journals concentrated in 2020 (9 titles) then declined significantly.

These results show distinct temporal patterns: independent journals are early adopters, while professional society journals joined relatively later, possibly due to disciplinary characteristics or policy changes.

2.2.3 Growth Rate and Country Analysis

After counting journals by country, calculating annual growth rates, and visualizing countries with ≥3 years of data (Figure 3 [FIGURE:3]), significant country associations emerge.

The U.S. saw explosive 4,900% growth in 2023, maintaining 2,240% growth in 2025. Germany grew steadily (averaging 33%), reaching 236% in 2025. France grew 400% in 2021, adjusted, then surged 1,800% in 2025. The UK started strong in 2021, rebounding 500% in 2024. The Netherlands anomalously withdrew after 2021 growth. Most countries corrected in 2024 then rebounded strongly in 2025.

European and American countries dominated early development (2020–2022). The U.S. achieved absolute dominance after 2023 (63% of total). Non-English-speaking countries (Germany, France) maintained stable participation, while Asian countries (China) emerged in 2025.

Implications: national S&T policies and OA strategies significantly impact S2O development. English-speaking countries have first-mover advantages, but non-English-speaking countries sustain participation. 2023 may be a critical global S2O policy turning point. S2O development correlates closely with national research policy environments, language advantages, and academic publishing traditions, showing a clear "core-periphery" distribution with U.S. absolute dominance.

3. Impact of Transformation Models on University Libraries

3.1 Higher Demands from Academic Ecosystem Changes

Authors, libraries, research institutions, funders, publishers, and the public all face Plan S challenges, adjusting to new roles within an open framework to create novel academic communication models and support systems. University libraries must fundamentally change: (1) Role shift: from literature providers to open publishing participants promoting policies, formulating implementation plans, and communicating frequently with publishers, researchers, and administrators. Libraries must quickly adjust business and service functions to meet these challenges [18]. (2) Choice expansion: Diamond OA, Green OA, transformative agreements, and Community Action Publishing (CAP) all promote open science. Whether "Publish and Read" or "Read and Publish," these are transitional path selections. S2O offers libraries/consortia another option, requiring more professional knowledge and skills for path selection. (3) Service content evolution: transformative agreements enable libraries to provide publishing services, assist institutions and researchers in adapting to open science, leverage resource collection/management capabilities, become information resource centers, and enhance status and value. Libraries must align with technology trends, actively foster open science atmospheres, and vigorously practice open science [19]. Whether Chinese universities have OA transformation conditions, feasible models, and mature timing requires library exploration [20]. Responding to academic ecosystem changes demands higher-level library capabilities.

3.2 Comprehensive Transformation Pressure

Plan S's 2024 Annual Review Report indicates a shift from "policy-driven" to "ecosystem reconstruction" toward "a public good for all." Domestic university libraries have hesitated to join this new ecosystem, showing significant shortcomings in staffing, funding, and open infrastructure.

Staffing: Only the Chinese Academy of Sciences has open access specialists. Fudan University's transformative agreements are managed part-time by reference librarians. Shanghai Jiao Tong University Library and others have conducted open librarian training, but with low frequency and participation [21]. The lack of professional librarians is the primary transformation obstacle.

Funding: Chen Qing estimates [22] that China's "Double First-Class" universities pay 780 million yuan annually for OA article publishing fees. University Library Work Committee statistics show significant funding imbalances—some libraries exceed 50 million yuan annually while others have less than 10,000 yuan. This imbalance, plus double payments for subscriptions and transformation, creates the second obstacle: breaking the "paywall."

Infrastructure: Limited funding and expertise constrain open infrastructure development. Tsinghua University built a public welfare academic resource platform and "International Open Access Journal Recommendation List"; the Chinese Academy of Sciences launched APCheck. Most libraries remain at the information dissemination level, lacking open platforms—the third transformation obstacle.

With many open access pathways, libraries must cautiously respond. When transformation is difficult, continuing original subscription models is advisable [15]. Selecting appropriate transformation models requires comprehensive evaluation and testing—the fourth transformation pressure.

3.3 Changes in Resource Construction Models

Open access transformation affects library resource construction models and fund reallocation [23]. The traditional subscription model's streamlined supply—purchasing digital resources for specific users—no longer suits the open research environment, failing to meet diverse needs or effectively monitor resource construction benefits.

Resource types must expand beyond traditional journals to include preprints, OA repositories, OA books, and open data. Service content must encompass policy explanation/promotion, copyright selection assistance, predatory journal identification, APC review/management, and even transformative publishing/negotiations. Evaluation and monitoring must assess transformation conditions early, select strategies based on policy, funding, and user needs, then dynamically track transformation effects for timely adjustments. In this context, digital resource construction quality is becoming a "core" issue, requiring libraries to fulfill professional duties, expand literature resource construction, actively participate in OA database price negotiations, promote favorable policies, and enhance discourse power [24].

3.4 Urgent Need for Library Consortia

The shift from subscriptions to OA, combined with COVID-19 impacts and restricted physical services, has significantly reduced library funding. Library consortia should actively expand open publishing and transformative agreement services [25]. Foreign consortia like Germany's Projekt DEAL and California Digital Library play key roles in publisher negotiations. JISC has signed 118 effective transformative agreements with publishers since 2019 and launched negotiations with five major publishers in March 2025 to ensure unified UK higher education positions.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences promotes domestic open science development. Since its Documentation and Information Center signed China's first transformative agreement, services have extended to the University of Science and Technology of China, ShanghaiTech University, and Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology by March 2025, with unified APC reduction policies. Shanghai Jiao Tong University leads DRAA, playing a crucial role in domestic transformation practices. However, neither NSTL nor DRAA are national-level consortia, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences system remains relatively small, lacking discourse power and bargaining ability in foreign publisher negotiations. DRAA's joint negotiation processes and organizational methods are also immature [26]. Nationally-led consortia have obvious advantages in publisher negotiations, while individual efforts face greater difficulties [27]. China's OA environment urgently needs a well-developed library consortium.

4. Implications for Chinese University Libraries

4.1 Thorough Pre-Transformation Assessment and Preparation

Transformative agreements are transitional, aiming to shift from paying to read to paying to publish, ultimately achieving open science. When subscription payments cease, transformative agreements will disappear. Their phased, dynamic nature makes appropriate path selection crucial. Libraries must prepare adequately before transformation.

First, conduct in-depth research. Capable libraries should perform theoretical research, master transformation knowledge and frontiers, analyze typical cases, and internally promote and train staff in open science, establish specialized departments, cultivate professional open access librarians, and create institutional open research ecosystems.

Second, comprehensively grasp resource conditions. Data-wise, collect accurate collection and OA publication data, including researchers' OA willingness and publishing experience. Funding-wise, calculate transformation costs based on demand data, compare subscription and transformation fees, and determine if special transformation funding is available beyond original subscriptions. Maintain original subscription models if double payment is significant or transformation costs are excessive.

Third, utilize analytical tools. Fully employ digital infrastructure like ESAC's Transformative Agreement Reference Guide (detailed workflows) and toolkits from Coalition S and ALPSP. Additional open tools include Dimensions, Delta Think, APCheck, and IOPP Journal Finder for data analysis.

4.2 Discipline-Based Transformation Practice

Under China's "Double First-Class" construction, disciplines' supporting roles are more prominent, yet uneven development forces some universities toward "characteristic development." Comprehensive open science support is unrealistic for underfunded institutions. Jiang Zhu proposed national, consortium, and institutional three-level transformation paths, with consortia meeting discipline-level OA needs [26]. Foreign research shows APCs vary by discipline—biomedicine far exceeds humanities/social sciences—meaning transformation costs differ across disciplines. Discipline and resource volume affect transformation suitability; small-volume disciplines more easily achieve sustainable openness [28]. For small/medium or discipline-characteristic universities, selective transformation is feasible.

SCOAP3 focuses on High Energy Physics (HEP), successfully implementing three phases with funded OA HEP papers exceeding 90% of global annual HEP publications. In 2021, SCOAP3 funded 102 HEP books, earning CERN recognition. Chinese participants include the University of Science and Technology of China, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Tsinghua University, and DRAA. Early S2O participation was higher in social sciences/humanities; EDP Sciences piloted six mathematics journals sustainably. Chinese S2O participants include Guangzhou University of Foreign Studies, Southern University of Science and Technology, and Xiamen University. Under incomplete infrastructure conditions, small/medium libraries can participate through library or disciplinary consortia.

4.3 Building Author-Centered Communities

The March 2025 Berlin Open Access Conference (B17) continued focusing on open science sustainability and "collective responsibility" transition, listing "academic autonomy restoration" as the top next-stage goal, advocating author copyright retention and CC BY licenses for barrier-free dissemination. MPDL's Ádám Dér concluded that "letting funds follow authors" achieves seamless OA integration, as libraries select journals authors trust most without requiring author changes, reducing conflict and ensuring participation [29].

Surveys show domestic researchers have concerns about uneven development, security, quality control, costs, intellectual property, and convenience [30]. A Kunming Institute of Botany researcher stated "professional relevance" was the main OA selection reason (2020 interview), indicating low domestic OA acceptance. True OA transformation requires libraries to shift thinking by building author-centered communities for leapfrog development.

First, redefine stakeholder roles—libraries, researchers, publishers, and society funders must all change. Second, libraries must shoulder transitional responsibilities, integrating stakeholder interests through strategic layout and refined services. Xiamen University Library's thematic seminars, OA publishing policy guides, and TA execution disclosures effectively meet user needs. Third, build new academic communication environments. Tsinghua's OpenSign public welfare platform provides resources, data, information, publishing, and push services. Future research communities should also include discussion, negotiation, and emotional support functions, truly achieving author-led, collaborative networks.

4.4 Timely Evaluation and Real-Time Monitoring

Open access advocate Peter Suber stated that OA's core idea is research results online unconstrained by price and most permissions. Transparency and fairness have always hindered open science transition. Transformations require continuous exploration, adjustment, and adaptation, making timely evaluation and real-time monitoring essential for error correction.

First, promptly evaluate transformation effectiveness. Germany's DEAL consortium released its 2019–2023 transformative agreements progress report in 2024, enhancing transparency. Coalition S releases annual review reports for adjustment references.

Second, monitor transformation fund flows in real time. Jing Guo et al., analyzing Shanghai Jiao Tong University Library's experience, advocate using data to eliminate uncertainty—collecting APC price and payment data to formulate funding reorganization plans that reduce transformation costs [31]. Prevent fund flows to predatory journals and guard against new monopolistic "paywalls."

Finally, dynamically monitor changing user needs. Transformative agreements are time-limited and dynamic, as are user needs. Libraries must dynamically grasp actual needs—transformation, specific journal, and copyright selection requirements—to find transformation methods that match evolving demands.

References

[1] ESAC Transformative Agreement Registry [EB/OL]. [2025-7-10]. https://esac-initiative.org/about/transformative-agreements/agreement-registry/
[2] Plan S 2024 Annual Review Report [EB/OL]. [2025-7-10]. https://www.coalition-s.org/plan-s-annual-review-2024/
[3] OASPA [EB/OL]. [2025-7-10]. https://www.oaspa.org/news/announcing-oaspas-next-50-project-a-different-conversation-about-the-open-access-transition.
[4] Langham-Putrow A, Carter S J. Subscribe to Open: Modeling an open access transformation[J]. College and Research Libraries News, 2020, 81(1): 18.
[5] Crow R, Gallagher R, Naim K. Subscribe to Open: A practical approach for converting subscription journals to open access[J]. Learned Publishing, 2020, 33(2): 181-185.
[6] Sara B, Rod C, Philipp H. Open access through Subscribe to Open: A society publisher's implementation[J]. Insights, 2022, 356.
[7] Cahoy E S. 25 Years of portal: Libraries and the Academy[J]. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 2025, 25(1): 1-3.
[8] André Gaul. EMS Press Criteria for Sustainable Open Access with Subscribe to Open (2023)[J]. 20.
[9] Hoogendoorn C, Redvers-Mutton, Gaynor. Scaling up open access publishing through transformative agreements: Results from 2019 to 2022[J]. Learned Publishing, 2024, 37(2).
[10] Borchardt R, Schultz T, Dawson D D. Financial and Other Perceived Barriers to Transitioning to an Equitable No-Publishing Fee Open Access Model: A Survey of LIS Journal Editors[J]. College & Research Libraries, 2024, 85(1): 19.
[11] Lijun Chen. Competitive Analysis of Open Access Journals and Traditional Subscription Journals—From the Perspective of Two-Sided Market Theory[J]. Library Work and Research, 2014, (08): 14-19.
[12] Liyuan Cui, Chunli Liu. "Subscribe to Open" (S2O): An Emerging Model for Transitioning from Subscription Journals to OA Journals[J]. Library and Information Service, 2021, 65(22): 65-73.
[13] Linxi Yu, Yinhua Kang, Sihui Yao. Research and Analysis of the "Subscribe to Open" (S2O) Model[J]. Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, 2024, 35(01): 9-16.
[14] Yang Liu, Yuanyuan Liu, Charlotte Van Rooyen, et al. The Origin and Development of the "Subscribe to Open" (S2O) Model—A Case Study of EDP Sciences[J]. Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, 2024, 35(01): 1-8.
[15] Yaqi Shen, Yihua Zhang, Jing Guo, et al. Research on Subscription Transition Strategies for Document and Information Resources of Chinese University Libraries Under the Open Access Transformation Environment[J]. Library and Information Service, 2024, 68(21): 45-53.
[16] Publisher-based S2O Journal Statistics Table [EB/OL]. [2025-7-10]. https://subscribetoopencommunity.org/.
[17] S2O Journal List [EB/OL]. [2025-7-10]. https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Subscribe_to_Open_(S2O)_journals.
[18] Juan Chen, Yuehua Lin. Global Open Access Transformation Practices and Their Implications for Chinese University Libraries[J]. Library and Information Service, 2023, 67(21): 136-146.
[19] He Chen. Practice and Reflection on Promoting Open Science Development in University Libraries—A Case Study of Xiamen University Library[J]. Information Exploration, 2025, (05): 98-105.
[20] Juan Chen, Yuehua Lin. A Preliminary Study on Open Access Transformation Policies and Practices of Major Global Academic Journal Publishers[J]. Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, 2024, 35(09): 1271-1282.
[21] Liyuan Cui, Yaxin Zhu, Bo Qu. Foreign Open Access Librarians: Position Settings, Core Roles, and Training Strategies for China[J]. Library and Information Service, 2022, 66(19): 72-83.
[22] Qing Yuan, Xingchen Chen. Dilemmas and Solutions for University Libraries Promoting the Transformation of Academic Journals from Subscription to Open Access Models[J]. Library and Information Service, 2020, 64(18): 15-20.
[23] Can Lai, Ya Chen. Analysis of Open Access Research Progress in Chinese Libraries in the 21st Century[J]. Library Research and Work, 2025, (05): 39-44+90.
[24] Zijing Han, Qinying Yan, Ji Tian. Price Game Analysis of Database Procurement Based on Open Access Transformation Agreements—Taking the ACM OPEN Model as an Example[J]. Journal of Academic Libraries, 2022, 40(05): 48-57.
[25] Jiali Xiang, Yuehua Lin. Research on the Current Status and Development Trends of Foreign Library Consortium Services[J]. Library Construction, 2023, (05): 157-166+175.
[26] Jiang Zhu, Yu Luo, Miaoling Chai, et al. Problems and Strategies for China in Responding to Open Publishing Transformation Agreements[J]. Library and Information Service, 2025, 69(10): 110-124.
[27] Xing Dai. Progress, Impact, and Implications of the Open Access S Plan and Transformation Agreements[J]. Library Journal, 2021, 40(12): 108.
[28] Jiawei Zhao. Research on Influencing Factors of Library Resources Transition to Open Publishing[D]. Peking Union Medical College, 2022.
[29] Ádám Dé r. What Gets Missed in the Discourse on Transformative Agreements[EB/OL]. [2025-7-10]. https://katinamagazine.org/content/article/open-knowledge/2025/transformative-agreements-discourse-what-gets-missed.
[30] Yang Zhou, Yi Zhang. China's Open Science Development Strategy—A Discussion from the Perspective of Researchers[J]. Library Tribune, 2023, 43(12): 161-168.
[31] Jing Guo, Yihua Zhang, Yaqi Shen, et al. Empirical Research and Response Strategies for Open Access Transformation in Chinese University Libraries[J]. Journal of Library and Information Science in Agriculture, 2024, 36(10): 53-62.

Author Biographies:

Yuxiang Zhang: Male, born 1984, Master's degree, Librarian. Research interests: Open access, digital libraries. Email: yxzhang84@163.com. Address: No. 4655 Daxue Road, Changqing District, Jinan, Shandong, 250355.

Lirui Cui: Female, born 1979, Master's degree, Associate Research Librarian. Research interests: Library management.

Chengguo Xin: Male, born 1986, Master's degree, Librarian. Research interests: Library transformation, information retrieval.