Open Access

The Read & Publish Dilemma

Is this a losing proposition?

Read & Publish (R&P) agreements (referred to by many names, but most commonly “transformative agreements”) are package subscription deals offered to academic libraries by publishers, sometimes by way of library consortium negotiation. What distinguishes an R&P agreement from the classic “big deal” is the allure of open access (OA) publishing support: as part of the agreement, an institution’s affiliated authors can receive coverage for article processing charges (APCs) required to publish OA in a portfolio of the publisher’s academic journals. This can look a few ways: a limited pool of APC-dedicated funds that replenishes annually; or a limited pool of credits or tokens; or rarely, an uncapped automatic waiver for all accepted articles; and these funds or credits might be limited to hybrid OA journals (journals that allow authors to either publish their articles behind a subscription paywall without direct cost, or publish OA for a fee) or gold OA journals (journals that require all articles be published OA for a fee).

The premise of R&P agreements was first proposed by faculty at the Max Planck Digital Library in 2015. It quickly captured the imagination of many influential OA advocates as a potential path toward mass conversion of the academic publishing system away from the traditional subscription model to a fully OA future, and R&P agreements have since proliferated across Europe and the U.S. After reflecting on how events have unfolded over the past decade, many of those same proponents (e.g. cOAlitionS, Jisc) are no longer confident in the promise of R&P agreements.

The question of R&P agreements asks whether the ends justify the means. On one hand, R&P agreements and the APC model upon which they are based have significantly increased the overall market share of OA publications over the past 10 years, now up to around 50% of all journal articles published annually (although that trajectory has plateaued over the past several years). R&P agreements also provide a neat solution for federally funded authors who are worried about potential caps on the amount of grant dollars they can spend on APCs.

On the other hand, many smart folks have pointed out that, under the hood, R&P agreements with large publishers are still the same big deals with the same big deal problems. R&P agreements help sustain the APC model, which has essentially moved the cost barrier from readers to authors, naturally excluding authors from underfunded disciplines, from institutions without R&P agreements, and largely from the Global South. The APC model also incentivizes journals to publish more articles and generate more revenue, which causes additional stress on the peer review system and contributes to higher retraction rates. Hybrid OA journals provide publishers a “double dip” revenue stream by charging libraries for subscription access while also reaping APCs, without reducing journal subscription costs when articles are published OA. Publishers don’t seem keen to speed up the rate of transition from hybrid to gold (it would take 70 years to reach fully gold OA at the 2018-2022 journal flipping rate, per Jisc). And why would publicly traded publishers change anything about their behavior when they’re enjoying tidy returns (to the tune of a 38% profit margin worth $1.5 billion annually, for instance)?

Of course, not all publishers behave in the same way, and not all R&P agreements are created equally. Dér recently raised the point that, to be truly “transitional/transformative,” the Max Planck team always envisioned that R&P agreements would evolve through regular negotiations, and eventually, libraries would “…unbundle fixed lump-sum OA payments or capped OA article allowances and adopt a post-payment model. This way, investments can be linked, objectively, to the actual number of articles published…” Although university presses and society publishers seem more willing to explore alternative R&P conceptions, this goal has ostensibly been lost in the shuffle during negotiations with big publishers.

Ultimately, in their current common form, big R&P agreements ask research institutions to further sacrifice control of the scholarly communication system to for-profit publishers by incentivizing submissions to their journals. This relationship undercuts efforts to promote author and/or institutional engagement with other OA publishing and distribution models (e.g. diamond OA, pre-prints, self-archiving). When factoring in the bloated subscription packages attached to these distorted OA perks, it seems increasingly difficult for the ends to justify the means.

—

For those interested, here is some more leisure reading in addition to the links scattered above:

Measuring the Success of Transformative Agreements (Anderson, 2020)
The Drain of Scientific Publishing (Beigel et al., 2025)
If not a transformative agreement, then what? Nine questions and answers about an alternative (Boston, 2023)
Tangled Terms: How we talk about Transformative Agreements (Butler et al., 2026)
Transformative Zombies (Ghamandi, 2023)
Where Open Access Collections Meet the Publishing Integrity Crisis, an Opportunity for Libraries (Goddard & Motts, 2025)
Implementation of Transformative Agreements at the University of Chicago Library: A Case Study (Harris et al., 2025)
Estimating global article processing charges paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023 (Haustein et al., 2024)
Leveraging Transformative Agreements for Research Integrity (Hinchliffe, 2024)
Are Transformative Agreements Worth It? An Analysis of Open Access Publication Data at the University of Kentucky (Rawlins, 2024)

…so what exactly is going on between publishers and the NIH?

We’ve reached an important historical inflection point in the funder/author/publisher triangular relationship.

Background

If you work at a university, you’re likely aware of the current presidential administration’s dramatic mandates to federal agencies that fund research, most infamously requiring them to cancel thousands of active grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and attempting to significantly decrease indirect costs paid to universities for overseeing federal grant compliance.

Interestingly, however, the current administration and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Michael Kratsios have given no indication that they will backtrack mandates laid out by the previous administration’s Nelson Memo, which advised federal funders that grant recipients should make their funded research outputs publicly available without an embargo period (among other things). The goal of the Nelson Memo was to “…promote the rapid sharing of federally funded research data with appropriate protections and accountability measures [that] will allow for greater validity of research results and more equitable access to data resources,” along with the rationale that “There should be no delay between taxpayers and the returns on their investments in research.” This memo was widely seen as a major win in the open knowledge community, and also apparently meets the approval of the current presidential administration and their appointees (more on that below).

For those unfamiliar, publishers of scholarly journals often require authors to agree to an embargo period, which means no version of their article may be made publicly available on any other platform for a certain amount of time (usually 6 to 24 months depending on the journal). This allows publishers to profit from subscription-only access to new research during its period of highest readership. After the embargo period, publishers have generally allowed authors to make available the “author’s accepted version” of the article (the version after peer review but before publisher copyediting and typesetting) in a funder’s repository, institutional repository, or disciplinary repository. The practice of sharing items openly in this way is often referred to as “self-archiving” or “green open access.” It is also very common for journals to offer a pay-for-open model, through which authors can pay an article processing charge (APC) to apply a Creative Commons license to their article instead of transferring all rights to the publisher. This is often referred to as “gold open access.” Federal funders have typically allowed authors to use grant funds for APCs.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) has long required grant recipients to deposit copies of grant-funded articles in their openly accessible PubMed Central repository, but until this year, the NIH allowed publishers to retain sole distribution rights for a 12-month embargo period if authors chose not to pay for open access. In turn, many publishers have offered authors the service of depositing the appropriate article version in PubMed Central on their behalf after the embargo period ends.

Showdown

Last year, in compliance with the Nelson Memo, the NIH announced an updated Public Access Policy, originally slated to take effect on December 31, 2025. On April 30, newly appointed NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya announced a 6-month acceleration of the policy’s effective date, to begin on July 1. The new policy “…requires Author Accepted Manuscripts accepted for publication in a journal, on or after July 1, 2025, to be submitted to PubMed Central upon acceptance for publication, for public availability without embargo upon the Official Date of Publication.” Unsurprisingly, it seems several of the largest publishers are not happy about this new public access policy.

As an early career librarian trying to parse this complicated, evolving situation, I’ve relied heavily on my professional communities. Conversations on the University Information & Policy Officers listserv have been really helpful for my understanding. Jeremy York, Assistant Director of the Copyright Office at University of Michigan Library, kindly granted me permission to quote his summary of publisher reactions.

“Publishers are responding to the new policy in different ways. Some publishers, like Wiley and Springer Nature will no longer deposit works in PubMed Central on behalf of authors unless authors pay an Article Processing Charge (APC) to make the work available under an open license. They also are not allowing deposit by the author of the author accepted manuscript (AAM) in PubMed Central and see the pursuit of this ‘green open access’ route by authors as a violation of their publishing agreement.

The American Chemical Society (ACS), on the other hand, has implemented an Author Development Charge (ADC). If authors do not pay the APC to have their work published with an open license, they can still pay the ADC to be able to deposit the author accepted manuscript (AAM) in PubMed Central to comply with NIH’s policy.[1] If authors deposit the AAM in PubMed Central without paying the ADC, ACS sees this as a violation of the publishing agreement.”

The complicating factor here is that the NIH’s claims over funded research outputs predate any author’s agreement with a publisher. The NIH is simply exercising a right that all federal funders have held for a long time, called the Federal Purpose License. In the NIH’s case, their version of federal purpose license states grant recipients “…may copyright any work that is subject to copyright and was developed, or for which ownership was acquired, under a Federal award. The HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] awarding agency reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work for Federal purposes, and to authorize others to do so.”

In response, certain publishers are advising authors that the only way to comply with both a) the NIH public access policy and b) their journals’ copyright agreements is to pay some sort of fee. They are signaling an unwillingness to publish paywalled articles that will be made publicly accessible on another platform; if a preexisting claim to an article exists, then publishers may simply choose not to publish that article despite acceptance by an editorial board, unless the author pays a fee.

Yet, the purpose behind federal funders’ public access policies is not to force authors to pay for open access, as evidenced by the NIH’s announcement on July 8, which revealed plans to cap the amount of NIH-funded dollars that authors can spend to make articles open access (or in other words, cap the amount authors can spend on APCs) beginning in 2026.[2] Clearly, the NIH does not want to pay exorbitantly for articles it already holds rights over via the federal purpose license.

Breakdown

This is an important historical inflection point in the funder/author/publisher triangular relationship, in part because the NIH awarded over $26 billion across 41,304 research project grants in 2024, up from $22 billion in 2019 (although those numbers may deteriorate going forward given the current presidential administration’s proposed budget). Needless to say, federal funding is integral to the United States’ research infrastructure, meaning federal funders possess a lot of leverage to shift that infrastructure. What happens over the coming months as other federal funders’ public access policies take effect may significantly alter available open access publishing pathways for scholarly authors and influence subscription negotiations for libraries.

For interpretations of what this ongoing situation means for authors and advice about how to navigate the publication process as a grant recipient, I recommend Authors Alliance, who put together this excellent FAQ page [and update here] on the current “contradictory policy environment,” and are co-hosting a webcast on August 5, 2025 focused on new federal funder sharing requirements.

For academic libraries, one likely outcome in the immediate future is increased traffic on existing read-and-publish deals and increased pressure to engage in new and/or bigger read-and-publish deals from research faculty.[3] However, many academic libraries receive some portion of indirect costs paid by federal funders to universities for grant oversight, so any budget squeeze due to the White House’s proposed cap on indirect costs would make it difficult for those libraries to invest in new or more expensive read-and-publish deals.

On the other hand, if both publishers and federal funders were to hold firm in their current standoff, public access policies and publication fee caps could gradually redirect authors away from pay-for-open publishing models and toward outlets that allow for self-archiving or use a free-to-read, free-to-publish model (sometimes referred to as “diamond open access”). Big for-profit publishers are relying on their journals’ prestige and importance in tenure portfolios to withstand these shifting sands, but if the cost of publishing in their journals remains unaffordable for authors, readership and tenure committees could begin to elevate free or affordable open access journals in their place. Many such alternative outlets exist; for journals with zero-embargo deposits, you can check JISC open policy finder, and diamond open access journals are easily found on the Directory of Open Access Journals by selecting the “without fees” filter. It is worth noting that, among the big publishers, Sage stands apart by providing a relatively generous zero-embargo self-archiving policy.

A world in which libraries regain some financial relief from big publishers, and in which more people can benefit from openly accessible research findings, is one we should hope for. The actual outcome of this standoff is impossible to predict but is certainly worth monitoring for academic librarians.

[1] Several smart folks, including Authors Alliance, have doubts about whether authors will be allowed to use NIH grant funding to pay for an ADC. From Jeremy York’s summary: “The NIH guidance states that ‘Costs for publishing services that are charged differentially because an Author Accepted Manuscript is subject to the NIH Public Access Policy or the work is the result of NIH funding are unallowable because charges must be levied impartially on all items published by the journal, whether or not under a federal award’ (GPS 7.9.1).”

[2] The announcement did not indicate an effective date or exact cap amount.

[3] For those unfamiliar, read-and-publish deals (sometimes referred to as “transformative agreements”) between libraries and publishers provide a mechanism for an institutions’ authors to publish through an open access pathway without themselves paying APCs. Instead, the institution can draw from a pool of funds or credits to cover the APC on behalf of the author. This open access mechanism is part of the library’s subscription to the publisher’s journal portfolio. Aside from libraries shouldering massive subscription costs, the main drawback of read-and-publish deals are that libraries are often subscribing to journal access as opposed to purchasing perpetual access for that year’s journal issues. This move toward conditional access and away from ownership creates an increasingly difficult situation for libraries to extract themselves from, lest they lose access to journal backlogs from the years they subscribed instead of purchased.

Reflecting on Open Access Week as a First-Year Academic Librarian

As an Affordability & Digital Initiatives Librarian, planning, hosting, and executing events and workshops on campus for Open Access Week is an essential part of my position. For those unfamiliar with Open Access Week, Open Access Week is a designated week, typically towards the end of October, to celebrate and spread awareness of the open access movement. This year’s theme was “Community over Commercialization.” I did not incorporate the theme into the programming primarily because I want to center our events around the university’s Affordability Initiative.

Monday

We started the week off with a celebration of affordability and open access on our campus. The purpose of the event was to highlight accomplishments made throughout the past year, such as increased use of Open Educational Resources (OER) and submissions to our Institutional Repository (IR). Next, I hosted a workshop on OER adoption, adaptation, and creation with my new faculty cohort. During the workshop, we discussed the impact OER has on equity as well as resources for finding and creating OER. New faculty were intrigued by OER and expressed interest in exploring what is available in their field. I hosted the same workshop for all faculty in the afternoon. Interestingly, this workshop sparked more of a discussion regarding Creative Commons and self-publishing.

Tuesday

On Tuesday, my colleague and I hosted two launch parties for our new sponsored affordability development opportunities, one in-person and one virtual. We were promoting the launch of the textbook affordability self-paced course we created on D2L Brightspace (our LMS). The course was designed for faculty to strengthen their knowledge about the open movement, pathways to open authoring, and research related to textbook affordability and OER. Additionally, we were promoting our new program in which faculty could apply and receive sponsorship to adopt, adapt, or create OER.

Wednesday

Wednesday was dedicated to the Institutional Repository. My colleague hosted an event regarding the role of the IR on campus. He also encouraged faculty to bring their CVs to see how they could contribute to the IR.

Thursday

On Thursday, I hosted a small panel event about the power of self-publishing your expertise. The panelists were faculty with experience creating OER and had all authored at least one textbook. The panelist offered great insight into the process of self-publishing in varying disciplines.

Friday

To conclude the week, I hosted affordability and faculty collaboration hours. These hours give faculty a chance to meet with me directly and discuss where to search for OER, how to navigate Creative Commons, how to make textbook selections for the bookstore, etc.

Reflection

Unfortunately, attendance for almost every event was lower than I had hoped. Most of the events were held in-person in the library. Next year, I would try doing more virtual events that could be recorded and sent to those interested. I also wondered if the time of day was a factor in the low attendance. We varied the times in hopes of reaching as many people as possible, but the inconsistency in time might have been a deterrent.

An idea for next year would be to incorporate events or activities for students. Our library’s student advisory board did hand out snacks to students on Wednesday and told them about our Textbooks on Reserve program and textbook donation drive; however, I think we could do more. An opportunity to connect with students and amplify their voice on the topic of textbook affordability and open access would be beneficial to our Affordability Initiative.

Lastly, not having experience coordinating a week full of campus events, I was thankful to have the support of the University Library’s Dean’s Office. They scheduled rooms, ordered refreshments, organized swag (pens, stickers, water bottles, keychains, etc.), and coordinated social media posts throughout the week advertising events, highlighting campus affordability champions, and listing resources to adopt, adapt, and create OER. I could not have survived the week without their help.

Open Access and the Benevolence of Multinational Corporations

As with much of its history the academic library is at a crossroads. The exploding budgets for journal subscriptions which are necessary to the living and breathing research institution is slowly strangling libraries. This, of course, is obvious and much maligned and talked about. Getting back to the perceived roots of librarianship and the values of intellectual and learning freedom is an increase in open access publishing and learning in the minds of our left-leaning colleagues. The narrative has been pretty simple; open access moves the dissemination of information away from large corporate publishers and into the hands of “radical” faculty members who use their clout and expertise to provide information for the masses.

Gold open access (journals which publish fully open with little or no strings attached) is hardly the norm, and is outpaced in all metrics by Green open access (the self-archiving of pre or post print versions from non-open access journals). Gargouri, Larivière, Gingras, Carr, and Harnad (2010) found that unsurprisingly that subscription-based journals dominated STEM fields for publications, and only about 21% of their articles were available by green open access means. At the time of their study, only ~3% of publications were fully open access, evidence suggests this number has grown but not by much. While this number has surely grown in many fields, currently OA is dominated by Green and the dreaded hybrid journals.

Oftentimes, green OA is only possible with copyright strings that make it difficult for scholars to keep straight the versions, the citations, and the identifiers necessary to comply with author’s agreements. The burden is on the scholar to provide the necessary versions to libraries or other disciplinary repositories for the green model to work. While this can be seen as an open path set forth by the publishers, the hurdles and the arcane rules behind it makes the benevolence more of a blind eye. Some scholars I’ve spoken with do not want work viewed as “unfinished” or “unpolished” out on the internet, which is a far assumption to make. The “pre-print” especially because of its lack of peer-review and editing is very unappealing in some disciplines, while others, with long standing histories in open science have embraced it (looking at you Physics). On a practical side, how do we cite pre-prints and post-prints? I’m a librarian and I’m not actually sure the best action on that. When a journal owns the copyright on the very page numbers, how can I cite a passage I glean from an IR?

This has led me to often wonder whether green OA operates under the assumptions that overworked faculty and librarians will not follow through on the rules and therefore keep the article behind subscription walls.

The present and future of Open relies heavily on the benevolence of corporations to provide avenues for their content to be openly accessible. The success that libraries and scholars have had with green open access is limited by the rules set up by journals as well as the initiative of individual scholars. With many of the larger publishers showing anything from reluctance to open hostility to open access measures, this is a precarious proposition for libraries. Pressure from researchers and the past Presidential administration has made OA an important part of the scholarly communication environment yet we as researchers and as librarians are at the mercy of the large publishers to make this happen and need their partnerships and the continued patiences of our patrons to make this happen. Publishers, knowing the field’s love affair with open, have provided for open access in a pay-to-play model known as “hybrid.”

For many librarians, hybrid journals are seen as double dipping. Institutions are asked to provide extra money on top of growing subscription fees to make locked access articles fully open. APCs, the most common way to pay for these articles to be made open, range from a couple hundred dollars to upwards of $3000 depending on the field. For libraries chaffing under the threat of rising subscription fees this is not something many are willing to pay for no matter what our good intentions are to do. The elitist and competitive nature of publications and tenure requirements reinforce the need to publish in certain journals published expensively by certain publishers. The best journal in your field will allow you to have an open access version with rules that are complicated and impossible to understand or with the low price of several thousands of dollars make it gold open access for you. Wealthier scholars will soon pay the APC rather than jump through the hoops of green open access, if they know such a path even really exists.

What we are left with is a system that is built to perpetuate the subscription crises without any real and easy solution to full open accessibility. We either pay for subscriptions, pay for APCs, or pay for both. International and national boycotts, like the ones striking Western Europe hurt the bottom line of publishers but harm faculty who need the journals to survive in this current scholarly climate. Pirate websites prey on our log in systems to provide “open” access to every published article but put our institutions, as well as researchers, at risk. While green avenues might be appealing, they are only the most common method of providing open access materials because of their inherently difficult nature. A journal wanting you to pay their hybrid fee would be happy to provide you with many hoops to jump through for a post-print. Relying on faculty to provide the correct versions is like relying on faculty respond to your Friday afternoon emails during the Summer; some will be pros at it but most will ignore you.

For now, we wait with baited breadth for the benevolence of publishers like the cave children who could be saved by Elon Musk’s submarine.

No, Fair! Evolving Perspectives on Excessive Use in Research

Midterm brings its share of bustle to the library with last minute research questions to ask and copiers and printers to locate. Library staff are also busy negotiating licenses, finalizing renewals, and troubleshooting access to the resources on which faculty and students rely. I’d like to shed some light on a subtler side of the troubleshooting task that, while not a frequent occurrence, is a growing concern for me as a librarian and researcher. The technologies that enable this bustle of research activity can at times inadvertently trigger what publishers call excessive use or excessive downloading. This is considered a breach of contract according to the licenses for these resources. Remedying this breach usually involves working with university IT security to identify, inform, and prevent such use, assuring publishers that the breach is cured, and publishers then unblocking the network IP or IP range necessary to restore access to content.

Recently, I’ve been contemplating researchers’ expectations when working with scholarly content and technology. What technologies are they using? Are they compatible across content provider platforms? How might they trigger excessive use breaches? What exactly is excessive use or excessive downloading in an online research environment?

What publishers think

Sometimes the publisher’s license language specifies the use of bots, link-checker, crawlers, spiders, automated software, and even indexing as excessive or unauthorized. But more often, breaches associated with this activity are not explicitly defined, nor are they put in context of excessive use within the license. This leaves it fairly open to interpretation.

Publishers must consider the perspective of copyright holders, and typically enforce equivalent limitations for online use that they would for physical print materials uses. It sounds reasonable, but because in reality we use print and online resources very differently, such licenses terms may give up fair use and other scholarly exceptions granted by copyright law. Publishers take an even heavier hand when responding to excessive use breaches. Blocking the user’s IP access, or sometimes an entire campus IP range, presumes malicious intent (which it almost never is). This response also exaggerates the stakes involved and misunderstands what is necessary to perform digital research. Strict reinterpretation of print use restrictions in the online environment denies advances in research technology, from basic citation management software to APIs used for text and data mining. It also ignores the very structure of the linked-data world we live in.

What most people think

When users learn that their actions violate library license agreements, their reactions are surprised, apologetic, and most often confused. While some may be aware of the technologies that makes excessive downloading possible, most don’t believe they constitute unethical or unlawful actions. Breach of contract itself is kind of a boogey-man phrase that brings more readily to mind data breaches like Equifax. If people are aware of breaches occurring in academia, attention more often goes to those involving individual student records.

According to one IT security expert I asked, the kinds of scholarly content breaches I’m talking about don’t even register on the scale of data sensitivity or security. Unless credentials were stolen in order to download excessively, it is not security issue; it’s a copyright issue. Publishers who treat copyright infringement as a security issue might be mitigating risk, but they are not serving or educating their customer.

What librarians think

Librarians, naturally, do approach this from the service and education mindset. Increasingly that means a not just serving end-users within the academy, but the general public who pay for the research through their tax dollars. As researchers assert the right to retain copyright of their own content and share it more widely, more diverse collaboration is possible, increasing potential for innovative research discoveries. Libraries assert copyright exceptions and expose inequities in traditional publishing structures in order to make openness for innovation possible as well.

By Fred Benenson - User: Mecredis [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

I’ll digress briefly to the story of Aaron Swartz for illustration and comparison. He was an advocate of openness, yet his deliberate action to hack and release scholarly content provides, I suppose, a perfect case for publishers’ insistence to treat copyright as a security issue. In this case, the breach involved 4 million documents. The scope in numbers (less than 3% of the Equifax breach) pales by comparison, especially considering nature of the data and the consequences (or lack of) to those responsible and to those harmed.

Rarely are scholars’ actions as deliberate or the stakes of intellectual property loss as high as this scholarly breach (or breaches of individuals’ personal data). In fact many legitimate uses of scholarly research technologies are being blocked even to those with “rights” to use them. Some examples of technology uses I’ve seen publishers block include citation management software like EndNote that indexes and stores full text where available. As early as 2006, librarians reported browser technologies that link and open an articles’ cited references, triggering such use. What about mining text and data to discover disciplinary concepts across time and from journal publications that span multiple publishers? Innovating digital researchers are developing their own programming for this, but can they use it? Are there alternatives, and are they open or proprietary?

My role as an acquisitions librarian means I must balance the needs of publishers supplying the content we license with needs of users who access that content for their research and study. That balance falls somewhere between stoic realism and OAnarchy for me. But I’m still a teacher at heart, so educating all sides remains my goal. In the traditional, profit-based publishing system, where flat library budgets mean buying power decreases each year, I must follow open access developments carefully, just as I must work to negotiate the best deal within these existing structures. There is always room in this to educate publishers, librarians, and users.

Learning more about the tools researchers use, wish they had, or wish they could use without being blocked from access is my next goal. In my troubleshooting experience so far, tools like EndNote, Papers on Mac, Abstraktr, RedCap, WGET are just a few. So tell me…

What digital research
(or reference citation management)
technologies are your researchers using?