17 April 2026
Megumi Ohsumi, Assistant Librarian, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford
I would like to express my sincere thanks to UKSG for the opportunity to attend this conference through the Sponsored Places scheme. The event was both professionally and personally enriching, and it gave me a much deeper understanding of the publishing and library sectors.
The conference proved genuinely eye-opening. In addition to learning more about open access, publishing models and research integrity, I was surprised at how strongly the programme would reshape my understanding of the wider scholarly ecosystem. The most striking theme running through the sessions was the constant tension between the ideals of openness, accessibility and equity and the realities of funding, sustainability and institutional pressures.
One of the most memorable sessions was Plenary 1, ‘Achieving Sustainable, Widespread Adoption of Open Access for Books’, as it set the tone for many of the discussions which followed. While I was already familiar with the principles of open access, I had not fully appreciated the scale of the financial challenges involved. The session made it clear that even well-resourced institutions face significant difficulties in sustaining open access schemes. This led me to reflect on the broader question of whether open access can be scaled fairly without major structural changes in funding and incentives.
What I found particularly valuable was Lancaster University’s approach to embedding open access into institutional culture rather than treating it as an optional add-on. Recognising open access outputs in promotion criteria and celebrating authors’ achievements in library spaces show that culture matters as much as funding. It reinforced my view that if prestige continues to be tied primarily to traditional publishing routes, open access will remain difficult to normalise.
‘A Fox in the Henhouse? University Presses, Corporate Takeovers, and Implications for the Future of Scholarly Books’ broadened this discussion further. It highlighted the complexity of the publishing landscape and the difficult balance between independence and sustainability. I was struck by the analogy which compared university presses to football teams being bought out by larger entities, as it captured the tension between mission-driven publishing and commercial pressures. The session made clear that there are no simple answers. While concerns persist that commercial consolidation can undermine academic values, there is also the argument that mergers and acquisitions can provide resources and stability. This intriguing ambiguity was a recurring theme throughout the conference.
Workshop 1, ‘Diamond Open Scholarly Communication fund PANEL’, offered a useful contrast by presenting a more collaborative, community-led publishing model. The principle that neither authors nor readers pay is compelling, but the workshop also demonstrated how limited the model currently is in practice. What stood out to me was the importance of national coordination and the role of consultation with faculty and subject librarians. This highlighted how local context shapes the viability of any publishing model. It also reminded me not to treat Diamond Open Access as a universal solution, but rather as one part of a wider and evolving ecosystem.
Another important thread was research integrity. The breakout session, ‘Trust but Verify: Preventing Fakesters in the Research Ecosystem’, introduced a more unsettling but necessary perspective on trust in scholarly publishing. I found the distinction between legitimate anonymity and deliberate deception to be especially thought-provoking. It challenged some of my assumptions and underscored the importance of context when assessing credibility. The session also raised questions about how emerging technologies, including AI, may complicate these issues further in the future. It felt like a timely reminder that maintaining trust in research is an ongoing responsibility rather than a fixed achievement.
Funding emerged as the unspoken central theme across many of the sessions. Coming from an academic background, I had previously associated funding challenges mainly with research grants or the dearth of tenure track positions. This conference showed me that libraries and publishers are constantly negotiating financial pressures while trying to support equitable access to knowledge. Rather than functioning simply as service spaces, they operate via complex financial and strategic planning. That was one of the most important professional insights which I gained.
The conference also addressed infrastructure and technology in ways which felt highly practical. Although Plenary 2, ‘Beyond the Big Deal: Lessons from the Big 5 Negotiations and Retaining Sector Voice and Strength at a Time of Radical Uncertainty’ and ‘Preparing Disaster-Ready Library Leaders: Advancing Advocacy for Libraries and the Communities They Serve’, took different approaches in addressing research systems infrastructure, they both raised questions about whether current systems are fit for purpose, particularly where institutions lack robust research data management support. I found the discussions encouraging in their emphasis on adaptability, but they also reminded me that institutional capacities vary widely. Lightning Talk 2, ‘Small Changes: Taking Back Control of our Universities Through Open Software’, which introduced alternatives to Microsoft Office and Zoom, such as Zettlr and kMeet, was especially engaging because it connected everyday tools with wider questions of accessibility, flexibility and user support. It was a useful reminder that innovation is not only about large systems but also about the tools which we use in daily practice.
One of the most positive examples of open access in action came from the Breakout Session Group D, Day 2, ‘Insights into a Scalable, Sustainable, and Pedagogy-Led “Open First” Learning Resource Approach with Sylla’. The fact that textbooks were provided to 20.000 students at Coventry University at no additional cost demonstrates how open access principles can make a direct and tangible difference to learners. This was one of the clearest examples of equity in practice which I encountered during the conference, and it reinforced the significance of open education in supporting student success.
Plenary 4, ‘What the Scholarly Community Can – Must – Do About Digital Preservation’, was another standout session. It presented a strong case that preservation is no longer a back-office concern but a core strategic function. In an increasingly digital environment, research outputs are vulnerable to loss, platform obsolescence and organisational change. The discussion made the risks feel very concrete. Without active preservation, access can disappear, scholarly integrity can be weakened and collective memory can be lost. This session deepened my understanding of the long-term responsibilities which libraries and publishers share.
Similarly, ‘Disappearing Data: Responding to Government Web Content Takedowns’ highlighted the importance of preserving at-risk information. I found this especially relevant in relation to grey literature, public records and evidence-based research. The work of data rescue initiatives and concerns around disappearing public information showed how preservation supports accountability, scholarship and civic memory.
In addition to the Breakout Sessions in Group C, ‘Leading Introverts (and Being an Introverted Leader) in Libraries and Publishing’ and in Group D, ‘Africa in the Open: Reimagining Global Knowledge Beyond Western Publications Models’, the final plenary, ‘What’s Keeping Librarians and CISOs Up at Night?’, was timely and practical. It reminded me that libraries and academic institutions are increasingly vulnerable to cyber threats and that this has implications not only for systems but also for trust, privacy and continuity of service. The discussion made clear that cybersecurity is now a shared responsibility across scholarly institutions and not just a technical concern for specialists.
The exhibition and networking opportunities were equally valuable. I spoke with representatives from Bloomsbury, Elsevier, EBSCO, De Gruyter Brill, Oxford University Press and MIT Press, which gave me a broader view of how different organisations position themselves within the publishing landscape. These conversations helped me understand the sector in a more practical and human way. The social events also played an important role. The sponsored supper, the quiz and other informal networking opportunities created space for genuine conversation across institutional and commercial boundaries. A particularly memorable moment was being invited to Elsevier’s whisky masterclass – although I do not drink! – after meeting a representative at the first timers’ reception. These informal interactions served as reminders that professional relationships are often built as much in social settings as in formal sessions.
The conference app also contributed significantly to the experience. Whova rendered it easy to navigate the programme, connect with other delegates and submit questions during sessions. The messaging function was especially useful for following up with people whom I had met between sessions. Overall, the use of technology across the event was seamless and enhanced the experience throughout.
Finally, my main takeaway is that librarianship and academic publishing are not simply about disseminating knowledge. They are about navigating systems, incentives and structures which shape what knowledge becomes visible and how it is preserved. The event challenged some of my assumptions, deepened my awareness of sector-wide issues and left me with a much richer understanding of the pressures and possibilities facing libraries and publishers today. I would strongly recommend the Sponsored Places scheme to others. It provides not only access to valuable sector knowledge but also the chance to connect with professionals, reflect critically on current practice and develop a more nuanced understanding of librarianship and publishing landscapes.