This is part of a series of profiles detailing the experiences of institutions that have unbundled or canceled big deal journal contracts. The aim of the series is to provide insights, lessons learned, and inspiration to libraries that might consider a similar move.
Summary
As the cost of journal subscriptions packages continued to rise faster than library budgets, librarians at Emory University began exploring options in 2020 to reduce expenses. They gathered data, conferred with university administrators and faculty and ultimately made the decision to walk away from two big deals. Beginning in 2024, the private Atlanta university ended its $1.25 million per year contract with Wiley, reducing its spend by 25%. That unbundling process with Wiley laid the foundation for subsequently assessing then exiting its $3.5 million big deal with Elsevier in late 2025, resulting in a savings of about 22.5%.
Preparation
Librarians at Emory knew that, in order to be successful, they had to engage with both the university administration and faculty before making changes to their approach in providing access to journals. This engagement was aided by an Open Access policy adopted in 2011. The passage of this policy and ongoing associated discussions about academic publishing helped set the tone for productive conversations about leaving big deals.
Unbundling from these big deal contracts was prompted by financial pressures, but it was also a matter of principle, said Chris Palazzolo, director of collections and open strategies at Emory’s Woodruff Library where he has worked for more than 20 years. In 2021, when the library’s budget was reduced significantly, the staff began to plan for a Wiley reduction. The Libraries were able to maintain the package until 2023 when, due to additional budget cuts, a subscription reduction became inevitable.
In their presentations on campus, library leaders talked about the scholarly communications ecosystem, including rising prices and publisher profits as well as the increasing alternatives to article access outside of journal subscriptions. Lisa Macklin, university librarian (retired in April 2026), began the discussions with the Provost and key members of the Provost’s Office to provide context and garner support. Macklin made presentations to, and led additional discussions with, members of Deans Council, Council of Associate Deans, and the library’s advisory group of faculty and students. Macklin co-led the campus-wide conversations which resulted in the 2011 Open Access policy, and took a similar approach to share information and context while also soliciting feedback and input to effectively address questions and concerns of administrators and faculty.
“The administrators and faculty have gained a more nuanced understanding of the scholarly communications ecosystem, publisher pricing practices, and the impact of open access,” Macklin said. “The federal funder policies, particularly the NIH Public Access Policy, and the COVID pandemic have also contributed to greater awareness of prohibitive costs and restrictive practices as well as the benefits and opportunities for broadly sharing scholarship.”
Rethinking big deal subscriptions was part of a broader review of the library’s collections strategy and responsibility to be good stewards of the funds the library was given, Palazzolo said. Emory used the tool Unsub, as well as analysis of locally-generated data, to analyze usage patterns, publication and citation trends, and alignment with existing and upcoming academic programs and faculty hires. This analysis had to account for the differences in usage patterns and needs for faculty and students in the health sciences programs.
The library established a set of libguides (this one for Elsevier) that included lists of journals that were under consideration for cancellation and those suggested for retention, along with FAQs regarding rationale and alternative access options available to users. The FAQs were of particular importance to Macklin, who sent a letter to all faculty members, graduate students, and other interested parties explaining the logic behind the proposed cuts and asking for their input to create the new customized Wiley, and then Elsevier, journal collections. She included an invitation to provide feedback, and Palazzolo noted that input was particularly helpful in making final selections about which titles to retain.
In addition, subject librarians in the main library and informationists in the health sciences center library worked closely with department representatives. They pulled from their disciplinary expertise of publishing patterns and Emory’s curricular and research needs when reviewing lists for the construction of new customized collections. They also detailed why the move was needed and how the library planned to provide ongoing access to articles via Article Galaxy Scholar (AGS), Interlibrary Loan (ILL), and promotion of open access availability.
Decision, Outcomes, and Campus Response
Largely because of their commitment to being transparent and proactive in communicating the reasons for unbundling, library staff heard few complaints once the big deals ended: Wiley in 2024 and Elsevier in late 2025. The recent integration of Article Galaxy Scholar with Libkey Nomad (Third Iron) most likely contributed to this relatively smooth transition.
“It’s still early days, but I hope faculty have a clear understanding of why we made these decisions,” Palazzolo said. “It was not to just save money, but also to address scholarly communication issues in the long term, such as the growth of open access availability and the need to re-balance library resource acquisitions towards more unique and in-demand resources to align with curricular and research needs.”
The change also forced the library to look deeply at provision and fulfillment – what needs to be perpetual, what is critical, and what is not necessary. The library did environmental scans of other institutions to assess how best to provide ongoing access outside of big deals. Emory made the decision to use a combination of on-demand purchasing through AGS (integrated with the Libraries’ long-standing Libkey installation) and ILL to meet user needs.
Emory made only the most heavily used Elsevier titles available for on-demand purchasing (locally referred to as “expedited article delivery”). This approach was different from the one it took with Wiley, where all titles were included. ILL has seen an increase in first-time users who have been directed to the services for content that is not eligible for expedited fulfillment.
Emory initially saved about $250,000 in its contract with Wiley and $770,000 with Elsevier. Costs for individual article fulfillment so far have been reasonable (averaging around $2,500 monthly). Palazzolo acknowledges that the costs of on-demand purchasing are likely to increase over time as more content becomes unavailable through backfiles, but said that the costs of these packages would have increased as well. He also noted that much depends on options for providing access outside of big deals and the availability of content via aggregators (sometimes with embargos).
Emory Libraries found that members of the community were largely satisfied with the methods of access to articles that the library made available after cancellation of the big journal packages. While costs for acquiring specific articles are expected to increase over time, the overall cost of providing the access their community needs has been significantly reduced. Emory researchers, however, are increasingly asking the library to financially support article processing charges that are being levied by publishers. Over time and contingent on further university support, the library is reallocating funds to other subject areas in order to respond to new academic programs and to invest in the broader scholarly communication collection ecosystem in support of open access initiatives, Palazzolo noted.
Advice and next steps
The biggest lesson to ensure success in leaving big deals, Palazzolo said, is to create a project management plan. Communication is also important, and libraries should be clear to all stakeholders on the “why” behind unbundling, Palazzolo said.
Palazzolo emphasized the utility of having an ongoing campus conversation about the future of academic publishing and research communication – and the added credibility for the library that these conversations contributed to. “It helps to have good trust before you do any of this. Use the relationships you’ve built between the library and faculty,” he said.
“Stand firm as a librarian in your expertise,” he said. Palazzolo also recommends leveraging the experience of other colleges and universities and the resources of SPARC and others. “There is no need to reinvent the wheel,” he said. “As a community, we are strong.”