Shivanand Pandit
On November 25, 2024, the Union Cabinet approved the ‘One Nation One Subscription’ (ONOS) initiative, aiming to provide centralized access to research articles and journals for government-run higher education institutions (HEIs) and central government research and development (R&D) laboratories. This initiative is designed to enhance academic resource availability for India’s HEIs and foster equitable access to scholarly publications.
ONOS will centralize journal subscriptions for approximately 6,300 government institutions, offering access to 13,000 journals through a single platform. These journals, published by 30 leading international publishers, such as Elsevier Science Direct (including The Lancet), Springer Nature, Wiley Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, IEEE, Sage Publishing, the American Chemical Society, and the American Mathematical Society will be accessible starting January 1, 2025. Institutions only need to register on the platform to avail themselves of the resources. If specific journals outside the 13,000 are required, institutions can subscribe to them individually.
By consolidating the fragmented approach to journal subscriptions, ONOS seeks to streamline academic access for government HEIs. Both state and central government institutions, along with R&D labs, can benefit from this national subscription. The Information and Library Network (INFLIBNET) Centre has been designated as the implementing agency for the program. The central government has negotiated subscription fees with the publishers and allocated ₹6,000 crore to fund the initiative for three years (2025-2027). This strategic move aims to significantly boost research and academic capabilities across the country. Subscriptions to scientific journals impose a considerable financial burden. Research by S. Chakraborty and colleagues from the National Institute of Plant Genome Research, New Delhi, published in Current Science (April 2020), revealed that India spent approximately ₹1,500 crore on electronic and print journal subscriptions in 2018. Furthermore, institutions allocated ₹30–50 crore annually for access to citation databases like SCOPUS and Web of Science, underscoring the high costs involved.
In August 2023, during a Lok Sabha session, Subhas Sarkar, then Minister of State for Education, reported that the Indian government spent approximately ₹995 crore on journal subscriptions in 2022. This expenditure covered ten library consortia funded by various ministries and departments, as well as independent subscriptions by academic and research institutions. Between 2019 and 2022, total spending on journal subscriptions was estimated at ₹2,985 crore. To address these costs, the government launched the ONOS (One Nation, One Subscription) initiative, aimed at reducing fees for publishing in open-access journals and promoting equitable access to scientific knowledge.
Subhas Sarkar also highlighted the establishment of a core committee to oversee ONOS implementation. Chaired by the Principal Scientific Advisor to the Government of India, the committee comprises secretaries from the Ministry of Education and the Department of Science and Technology, along with a scientific secretary. This collaborative effort underscores India’s commitment to addressing the economic challenges of accessing scientific literature while fostering a culture of knowledge sharing. Proposed under the Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2020, ONOS seeks to facilitate nationwide access to research resources. A detailed implementation plan for the initiative was presented during a stakeholder consultation in August 2021, receiving broad support from ministries. Negotiations with 41 publishers—including leading STEM and social science publishers such as Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley—took place in October 2023.
Is ONOS right for India?
Although the government has touted the ONOS scheme as “a timely step towards establishing India in the global research ecosystem,” it has yet to clarify its operational framework. Concerns have emerged about potential restrictions on academic freedom, as institutions have diverse requirements. For instance, what if the government dictates that an institution can only access journals from specific countries or caps the number of journals accessible from certain nations, such as limiting access to just five journals from the USA?
The government has not explained the criteria for selecting journals or how it plans to address the unique needs of different institutions. There are no established guidelines or clarity on whether stakeholder inputs were sought before launching the scheme. The circular sent to educational institutions provides only limited information, leaving them uncertain about the norms and procedures. This raises questions about what actions to take if a required paper is unavailable in the journals included in the government’s subscriptions.
Teachers will have limited influence over the choice of journals their institution can access. At present, experienced faculty members decide which journals and publications are essential for their institutions. How can someone based in Delhi possibly understand the unique needs of an educational institution in another region? The government may not even be aware of some of the journals that these institutions regularly use. This approach restricts the academic and intellectual freedom of educational institutions.
The need for the Centre’s intervention through the ONOS scheme has been widely questioned, as most educational institutions already have robust systems in place for accessing the academic resources they require. Many institutions possess institutional subscriptions to journals and research papers and also leverage extensive networks to access additional materials when necessary. For instance, the New Delhi-based Developing Library Network connects over 9,000 institutions, allowing seamless sharing of resources. If a particular paper or journal is not directly available, institutions can access it through these collaborative networks. Additionally, global platforms like JSTOR provide access to a vast array of journals and academic materials, further reducing the need for centralized intervention.
Traditionally, educational institutions have managed their resource needs independently. They have well-established internal processes to evaluate and decide on necessary subscriptions and publications. Faculty members are often provided with grants to procure resources, and institutions receive allocated funds to support these endeavours. Central and state-run institutions are already funded for such purposes, with library department deans overseeing the efficient utilization of these funds. This decentralized system has proven effective, ensuring academic institutions maintain their autonomy. The introduction of ONOS has raised concerns about undermining academic freedom. Decisions regarding subscriptions and access to journals have traditionally been left to the discretion of individual institutions. The ONOS scheme imposes unnecessary centralisation, limiting institutions’ ability to make independent choices. As a result, it is seen as an unwarranted interference in the academic domain, potentially curbing the rightful autonomy of educational institutions.
The government may attempt to suppress publishers and publications that express viewpoints it disagrees with. This could endanger secular, critical, anti-caste, anti-racist, leftist, and other diverse perspectives. Such interference risks undermining the academic quality of journals, compelling faculty members to engage with biased materials. The suggestion of dictating what faculty should read raises concerns, as it might escalate to controlling what they write and teach. Critical perspectives, especially in social sciences, could face restricted access, with publications from Western or other nations promoting liberal, feminist, and progressive ideas being unwelcome. Political interference in education threatens to stifle intellectual freedom and hinder the country’s progress.
The ONOS model appears overly optimistic and may not deliver the intended benefits. Commercial publishers are likely to dominate negotiations with a small, centralized group, ensuring their business interests are prioritized over public or institutional concerns. Unlike multiple entities such as institutional libraries, this centralized approach could result in publishers securing the most favourable outcomes for themselves. Their primary concern will be retaining significant commercial interests, and this initiative could end up becoming prohibitively expensive, with taxpayer money flowing to already wealthy publishers.
Moreover, without clarity on which publishers are participating and the terms they demand, any celebration of the model’s potential is premature. The lack of transparency about the prolonged negotiation process further complicates matters. While similar models have been adopted in smaller countries like Egypt and Uruguay, replicating them in India—given its vast population and fragmented journal subscription landscape across multiple institutions—presents a unique challenge. Reaching a consensus on a single cost for a nationwide subscription is no easy feat. India currently has around a dozen library consortia funded by various agencies. Meanwhile, many publishers are shifting toward a model where researchers bear the cost of making their papers openly accessible. This raises an important question: is a subscription model truly the right solution if researchers must still pay to make their work publicly available?
A more sustainable and effective approach would involve the government strengthening India’s academic journals and fostering open access. Supporting platforms where preprints and manuscripts can be freely deposited and accessed by everyone would better serve the academic community and the public, ensuring equitable access to knowledge without the excessive financial burden.
