OA business models must be sustainable over the long term, and article processing charge payments do not work for all; Subscribe to Open (S2O) is proposed, and being tested, as an alternative model. The S2O model motivates subscribers to participate through economic self‐interest, without reliance on institutional altruism or collective behaviour. The S2O offer targets current subscribers, uses existing subscription systems, and recurs annually, allowing publishers to control risk and revert to conventional subscriptions if necessary. An Annual Reviews pilot is currently testing the S2O model with five journals.

For decades, universities, researchers, and libraries have sought a systemwide transition of scholarly publishing to open access (OA), but progress has been slow. There is now a potential for more rapid and impactful change, as new collaborative OA publishing models have taken shape. Cooperative publishing arrangements represent a viable path forward for society publishers to transition to OA as the default standard for disseminating research. The traditional article processing charge OA model has introduced sometimes unnavigable financial roadblocks, but cooperative arrangements premised on collective action principles can help to secure long-term stability and prevent the risk of free riding. Investment in cooperative arrangements does not require that cash-strapped libraries discover a new influx of money as their collection budgets continue to shrink, but rather that they purposefully redirect traditional subscription funds toward publishing support. These cooperative arrangements will require a two-way demonstration of trust: On one hand, libraries working together to provide assurances of sustained financial support, and on the other, societies’ willingness to experiment with discarding subscriptions. Organizations such as Society Publishers Coalition and Transitioning Society Publications to Open Access are committed to education about and further development of scalable and cooperative OA publishing models.

In this paper we present the CERN Analysis Preservation service as a FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) research data preservation repository platform for LHC experiments. The CERN Analysis Preservation repository allows LHC collaborations to deposit and share the structured information about analyses as well as to capture the individual data assets associated to the analysis. We describe the typical data ingestion pipelines, through which an individual physicist can preserve and share their final n-tuples, ROOT macros, Jupyter notebooks, or even their full analysis workflow code and any intermediate datasets of interest for preservation within the restricted context of experimental collaboration. We discuss the importance of annotating the deposited content with high-level structured information about physics concepts in order to promote information discovery and knowledge sharing inside the collaboration. Finally, we describe techniques used to facilitate the reusability of preserved data assets by capturing and re-executing reproducible recipes and computational workflows using the REANA Reusable Analysis platform.

Are the scholarly publishing tools we’re using today still the right ones? Is the monograph still the best format in the humanities? Is the journal article still best in STM? These products can be difficult to produce and edit, nearly impenetrable to read, and—as in the case of clinical research information—they aren’t necessarily the best-suited formats for capturing every piece of necessary information (like protocols and datasets in medical research) and showing how this information is all connected to other scholarship. What other formats and options are being considered or used? What are the prospects of change? How about the stakeholder universe itself? How are roles, responsibilities and expectations changing (and where might they end up)? Are we “settling” on half-measures or on the best possible solutions?