12 June 2026
UKSG is arguably one of my favourite conferences, in one part because I get to catch up with people I don’t see very often, but also because my role sits at a sometimes awkward intersection of librarian, publisher and infrastructure provider – UKSG is one of the few conferences where that doesn’t feel like an identity crisis! Everyone there is grappling with the same ecosystem from different vantage points, and the conversations that emerge from that overlap are rarely ones I can find elsewhere.
The red thread(s) running through the sessions I attended this year were Open Access and Open Educational Resources. The contrast between the sessions – from the University of Leeds and Pressbooks/Sylla in the UK context, to the University of Illinois Chicago in the US, to the University of Cape Coast in Ghana – was striking but instructive. The UK and US framings of the OER problem are already quite different: UK students don’t pay for their reading materials directly, but that cost doesn’t disappear; it falls on library budgets already under pressure and increasingly in the form of (unaffordable) subscription models. In the US, the challenge is more viscerally financial for students who simply cannot afford their textbooks. An image shared of a poster advertising blood donation in exchange for textbook money drove the point home. Seeing different libraries and their approaches to OERs made me consider how we can better provide this work and avoid unnecessary friction when different systems need to ‘talk to each other’. It was, however, the session from the University of Cape Coast that genuinely shifted something in my thinking.
Whilst it was not the central point of their presentation, their discussion of OER in the Ghanaian context reframed infrastructure not as a background assumption but as the central challenge. Connectivity, device access, power reliability become central concerns that need consideration. When I think about discovery and accessibility in my own work, I realise how thoroughly my mental model is shaped by a Global North context: fast internet, 24/7 electricity, a range of broadly compatible devices, no concerns about image file sizes, etc. The presentation made me reconsider who we design our systems for when we talk about availability and open access for all. And whilst I work for one of the smaller publishing software providers, it still places me in a position to consider these challenges and bring about tangible, positive change.
At this conference, I’d hoped to connect with colleagues working in East Asian contexts – I’ve been wanting to learn more about open access developments in China in particular. It’s something that had been in the back of my mind since my first UKSG conference (also in Glasgow) in 2024 after chatting to a colleague from China. Whilst I still use the very nice bookmark I was given, I unfortunately lost the business card! Unfortunately, I had no luck on that front directly, but a silver lining: during Jen Bayjoo and Emma Thompson‘s networking session, I reconnected with an acquaintance from Karger who may be able to put me in touch with someone better placed to discuss OA in China. Nicely illustrating that often the value of a networking session is less in the structured activity and more in the serendipitous conversation that happens alongside it.
Besides OERs, finances were a quiet undercurrent throughout the conference, surfacing in different forms across sessions. Library budget pressures, acquisitions, membership models, and questions of long-term sustainability. These came up repeatedly, and it was notable that the squeeze seems to be felt most acutely by smaller organisations on both sides: smaller publishers and smaller libraries alike. The larger (commercial) players, meanwhile, continue to report stronger returns, which doesn’t go unnoticed. It made for some uncomfortable conversations, but I think they need to happen openly.
I spoke with other technology and infrastructure providers, both for-profit and not-for-profit, about sustainability at both the organisational and personal levels.
A sentiment that came up more than once was the assumption, often unspoken, that many services and infrastructures will simply always be there, particularly those underpinning critical functions. In reality, a good number of them rely quite heavily on voluntary labour, goodwill, and a genuine willingness on the part of their creators and maintainers to absorb a degree of personal cost for the broader benefit of the sector. (It’s worth saying clearly: this isn’t a complaint, nor a universal observation, nor a suggestion that anything is imminently at risk.) One conversation I found particularly thought-provoking was with a colleague also working in the open space, but in a small-scale for-profit context. They raised the point that (they felt) there was an assumption for one to prioritise the ‘moral good’, even in the face of financial/personal struggle and when such a commitment was never made. Whilst we agreed to disagree on certain points in our discussion, it left me reflecting on some of the vocational-awe-adjacent assumptions that quietly shape how we think about sustainability and labour in the ‘open’ space.
Both contrasting with this and preventing it from feeling entirely dispiriting was Sara Rouhi‘s breakout session on affordable publishing models, which I found genuinely energising. Working on diamond OA myself, there’s always something gratifying and interesting about hearing other organisations implement non-APC approaches. The statistics and journey from ACM‘s OA transition were particularly interesting, and they gave me a few things to think about regarding what’s demonstrably achievable. Seeing the investment numbers from the Max Planck Institute and their shift to open were another highlight. The session was unfortunately cut short by a fire alarm mid-flow – rather anticlimactic and annoying, especially as it was the one day I hadn’t stashed a spare cardigan in my bag.
The plenary this year included a formal tribute to Elaine Sykes, which was moving (even if I could imagine Elaine’s protest at having her photo projected on the large stage)! Together with Tom Morley and Marilyn Clarke, Elaine was instrumental in inviting me to speak at my first event — an experience that, more than I perhaps acknowledged at the time, gave me both confidence and direction. I owe a quiet professional debt to that invitation, and it was meaningful to see her recognised as part of the programme. Hearing from the Lancaster team is always a pleasure, and I hope there will be lighter occasions to celebrate their work in future.
Ironically, my most productive conversation happened at the pre-UKSG volunteers’ reception (if anyone needs another reason to volunteer for one of the UKSG groups!) A catch-up with Tasha from COUNTER was particularly useful: I came away with a much clearer picture of the pathways to COUNTER membership programme, which is something directly relevant to my daily work and potentially other Janeway users. Additionally, it was fun to unexpectedly put faces to names I had only ever seen in my inbox or on little squares on Teams. I also had the pleasure of conversations with participants from several different countries, which served as a useful reminder that the challenges and opportunities in scholarly communications look quite different depending on where you sit in the world — a theme that, fittingly, ran through much of the formal programme too.