The event was moderated by Heinz Pampel (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin). In his introduction, Pampel referred to Susan Leigh Star’s (1999) influential essay “The Ethnography of Infrastructure”, in which she defined infrastructures as sociotechnical systems characterized by their embeddedness in everyday uses – an embeddedness that often renders them invisible to users. The relevance of infrastructures often only “becomes visible upon breakdown” (p. 182). This characteristic of infrastructures not only hampers public understanding of their role in system maintenance but also presents a policy challenge. For it is precisely the invisibility of infrastructures in everyday operations that makes it difficult to secure their financing in the long term or to anchor their relevance on the policy agenda. In the context of open science, this means that the sustainable financing of established open access infrastructures is particularly challenging – not because their functionality is in question, but because their stability is an expression of their successful, invisible integration into everyday research activities.

Pampel’s welcome address was followed by 5-minute statements by experts from the field:

Mapping Open Access Services in Germany
Michael Geuenich (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft – DFG, German Research Foundation) presented the results of a comprehensive mapping of open access services in Germany (Biela et al., 2023), the key finding of which was that non-profit open access infrastructures are a decentralised backbone of the academic publishing culture and often face uncertain long-term funding. Whereas innovation is often externally funded, funding is lacking for maintenance. Guenich stressed that investments in these infrastructures are of strategic importance for digital sovereignty.

Global Sustainability Coalition for Open Science Services (SCOSS)
Olaf Siegert (ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics) presented SCOSS (Global Sustainability Coalition for Open Science Services), an international initiative that facilitates consortial funding models for open science services on the basis of a selection process within the framework of a defined set of quality procedures. Since 2018, selected and quality-controlled international open science infrastructures have been supported (e.g. DOAJ, DOAB, arXiv). In total, around 7.3 million euros have been raised in this way for 19 infrastructures. SCOSS itself acts primarily as a quality-assessment entity and facilitator rather than a funder. In addition, it organises an active exchange between the infrastructures with the aim of promoting good governance and best practices.

Open Access Monitor Deutschland
Bernhard Mittermaier (Central Library, Forschungszentrum Jülich) presented the Open Access Monitor Deutschland, which was initially project-financed and is now maintained from the Central Library’s own funds. He particularly stressed the interplay between institutional support and the pragmatic allocation of resources.

DeepGreen
Beate Rusch (Zuse Institute Berlin – ZIB, KOBV Network Office) provided an insight into the project DeepGreen, a delivery service for open access articles. DFG funding expired in 2021, and the service is currently being financed by the three operating institutions. From 2026 onwards, additional pay-as-you-go funding is planned, which will be graduated according to institution type and size.

Electronic Journals Library (EZB)
Silke Weisheit (University Library of Regensburg) presented the Electronic Journals Library (EZB), which provides information on open access journals and academic publishing. The EZB is financed via a graduated pay-as-you-go model and, additionally, through third-party funded projects (e.g. OpenCost). Its organisational implementation is supported by a Scientific Advisory Board.

These presentations were followed by a discussion with participants. Focusing on three thematic areas, three key topics related to securing sustainable financing were addressed.

In the thematic area “financing”, various models for the sustainable support of open access infrastructures were discussed. Frequently mentioned approaches included flat-rate funding models, usage-based models, and contributions graduated, for example, according to the size of the institution or the number of scientific staff members (full-time equivalents, FTEs).

It became clear during the discussion that each variant involves its own specific challenges: Although flat-rate models offer administrative simplification, they may not capture the actual use by or the performance of the institution. Usage-based models, by contrast, presuppose the precise collection and analysis of access numbers, which involves additional effort and may result in complex invoicing. Graduating contributions according to size appears fair but could disproportionately burden smaller institutions.

One key discussion topic was the “added value” for institutions – that is, the question of why they should be willing to invest in an infrastructure in the long term. Besides classic user-benefit arguments such as stability, quality, and access, one particularly highlighted aspect was the opportunity to play a part in shaping the infrastructure. Institutions that participate financially in an infrastructure should also be structurally involved – for example via committees or voting processes. It also became clear that making visible the possible loss of an infrastructure can be a strong argument for payment, as the potential loss or reduction of established services whose use has hitherto been taken for granted can increase willingness to contribute to their financing.

To avoid small-scale, administratively cumbersome financing, the idea of consortial solutions was raised several times. By joining forces, libraries, federal state initiatives, or university alliances could bundle contributions and distribute administrative burdens. The question of whether library alliances could increasingly be involved as coordinating or invoicing bodies was also discussed.

In the thematic area “governance”, the focus was on the question of how organisational and decision-making structures for open access infrastructures should be designed in order to make them as legitimate, transparent, and at the same time manageable as possible. Various membership models were discussed, for example in the form of active or passive participation with different voting rights. It was stressed that financing institutions must be included, irrespective of their contributions.

The development of clear decision-making structures was recommended, for example via an executive board, as an operative decision-making body, and a scientific advisory board representing the interests of the participating institutions and the community. Steering bodies should be transparently elected to their roles on a regular basis and should be accountable to the user community. At the same time, it was stressed that governance structures should remain lean and efficient, especially to keep the administrative burden low. In addition, in order to create trust and ensure legitimacy, governance must be visible to the outside world.

One recurring topic was the legal framework. Non-profit status was considered crucial, also to ensure the independence of the services. There was consensus that the sale or commercialisation of the infrastructure at a later date should be precluded – also contractually. Finally, two areas of tension permeating the governance questions were mentioned: first, the opposition between idealism and pragmatism, for example when weighing up participatory breadth and decision-making efficiency when deciding on the composition of the deployed bodies; and second, the conflict of objectives between innovation and preservation. Whereas project financing often aims to achieve something new, there is a frequent lack of structures to secure existing services in the long term. Therefore, despite the related question of the involvement of the financing institutions, a membership model appears to be expedient.

The discussion on the topic of communication revealed that many sustainable financing strategies may fail because of a lack of clear and strategically planned communication. The importance of a target-group-specific approach was particularly stressed: Depending on the type of institution (e.g. university library, university of applied sciences, research performing organisation), arguments must be weighted and formulated differently. The DeepGreen example shows that two-track communication – that is, addressing repository operators and policymakers in parallel – can be successful.

The timing of communication was also considered decisive. Instead of soliciting support shortly before financing ends, infrastructures should continuously report on their use, impact, and needs. One key concept was transparency: Not only costs but also usage data, download numbers, and concrete application examples should be openly communicated. Indicators such as these help to make the relevance of services transparent – especially for policymakers, who do not regularly use the services themselves.

Some participants recommended that in their public self-portrayal, infrastructures should follow the example of professional science marketing, for instance by using testimonials of satisfied users or by mentioning well-known partner institutions by name. A visually attractive presentation on websites and in reports can also create trust. And finally, it was suggested that communication strategies be regularly evaluated and developed further together with supporters.

The hands-on lab impressively demonstrated that the sustainable financing of open access infrastructures involves both institutional and cultural challenges. Although various financing, governance, and communication models have been tried and tested and to some extent successfully established, they face the challenge of holding their own in the long term in the distributed system of information provision.

The discussions confirmed that to be viable in the long term, infrastructures need not only sustainable financing models but also recognition of their own worth. Sustainable financing is more than an administrative question; it is an expression of strategic decisions for a digital research landscape oriented towards the common good.

• Biela, J., Stalla, M., Hohmann, L., & Holzer, A. C. (2023). Kartierung und Beschreibung der Open-Access-Dienste in Deutschland: Studie der Technopolis Group im Auftrag der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft für die Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen [Mapping and describing open access services in Germany: A study by the Technopolis Group commissioned by the German Research Foundation for the Alliance of Science Organizations]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11121906
• Pampel, H., Siegert, O., Mittermaier, B., Geuenich, M., Rusch, B. & Weisheit, S. (2025, June 26). Open-Access-Infrastrukturen nachhaltig finanzieren [PowerPoint slides from a hands-on lab on the topic “Sustainably financing open access infrastructures”]. 113th BiblioCon in Bremen 2025; 9th Library Congress, Bremen. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0290-opus4-194917
• Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326

You can find further information about the Information Management research group at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin on our official web page.

Geuenich, M., Höfting, J., Mittermaier, B., Pampel, H., Rusch, B., Siegert, O., & Weisheit, S. (2025). Open-Access-Infrastrukturen nachhaltig finanzieren. Bericht über ein Hands-on Lab auf der 113. BiblioCon. open-access.network. doi.org/10.64395/wz87n-ga210.