The Union Cabinet's recent approval of the One Nation One Subscription (ONOS) scheme on November 25, 2024, marks a significant milestone in India's educational landscape.
With an allocation of Rs 6,000 crore over three years (2025-2027), the government aims to provide countrywide access to nearly 13,000 e-journals from 30 major international publishers.
The initiative is designed to benefit over 1.8 crore students, faculty, researchers, and scientists across more than 6,300 government higher-education institutions and Central government Research & Development (R&D) institutions.
Trying to understand the diverse opinions surrounding ONOS and its potential impact, EdexLive spoke to a wide range of individuals directly connected to academia and research. Their perspectives span enthusiastic support, cautious optimism, and outright criticism, reflecting the complex implications of such a sweeping policy change.
A visionary leap towards equitable access
Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, Chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC), is a key architect and ardent supporter of ONOS. In an exclusive response to EdexLive, Kumar articulated the transformative potential of the policy.
"ONOS is specifically designed to address the inequities in access to scholarly resources," he stated, adding, "By centralising journal subscriptions and negotiating favourable terms, we aim to make high-quality research materials accessible to all Indian universities, regardless of their size or funding."
Kumar emphasised that smaller and underfunded institutions, which often struggle with prohibitive subscription costs, stand to gain significantly. "This levels the playing field, enabling students and faculty at these institutions to engage with cutting-edge research," he explained, saying, "It will contribute to advancements in their fields and ultimately enhance the quality of education and research across the country."
Addressing concerns about institutional autonomy, Kumar assured that ONOS would not impede universities' freedom to access additional resources. "Universities will continue to have the freedom to subscribe to additional journals using their internal resources beyond the ONOS packages," he clarified, before adding, "The primary goal of ONOS is to maximise access to high-quality research while respecting the individual needs and preferences of each institution."
Reserved optimism from the academic frontlines
Ashish, a PhD scholar in Theoretical and Computational Chemistry at the Central University of Punjab highlighted the challenges faced in accessing recent and specialised journals due to high costs.
"Some papers, especially the latest ones from journals like the American Chemical Society or the Royal Society of Chemistry, are out of our reach," Ashish lamented, describing how he often has to rely on friends at other institutions to access them. “ONOS could be a game-changer by providing us direct access to these resources,” he explained.
A social science scholar from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay highlighted many scholars’ reliance on resources like LibGen and Sci-Hub (shadow library websites that provide free access to millions of research papers, regardless of copyright, by bypassing publishers' paywalls in various ways) due to limited access, even in prestigious institutions.
"We often use these platforms because not all journals are available through our university subscriptions," he admitted, and added, "ONOS could help, but only if it includes a comprehensive range of journals."
Despite general optimism, several scholars express apprehensions about the policy's implementation. Debjani, a senior research fellow in Mass Communication and Media Studies, sees potential benefits but with reservations, raising concerns about the selection process for journals included in ONOS.
"The government should take inputs from scholars across the country before finalising the list," she argued, adding, "Everyone has a different understanding of what's important. Without consulting us, it might defeat the purpose if the journals we need aren't included."
The scholar from IIT Bombay echoed these sentiments. "Access to journals is crucial for our research. But the decision-making process should be more decentralised and democratic," he said.
ONOS or ONOFA? The All India Research Scholars' Association speaks out
The All India Research Scholars' Association (AIRSA), representing thousands of researchers across the nation, brings a different perspective to the table. Lal Chandra Vishwakarma, National President of AIRSA, argues that while ONOS addresses access to journals, it overlooks more pressing issues faced by research scholars.
"Frankly speaking, the government should focus on the fundamental problems first," Vishwakarma asserted, adding, "Researchers are struggling because they don't receive their stipends and fellowships on time. How can we focus on innovative research when we're worried about daily expenses?"
He pointed out that multiple funding agencies often lead to delays and inefficiencies. "More than One Nation One Subscription, we need One Nation One Funding Agency," he proposed. "If the government consolidates funding under one agency, scholars could receive their fellowships regularly, just like Central government employees receive their salaries on time."
Vishwakarma emphasised that access to journals is important but secondary to ensuring that researchers have the financial stability to conduct their work. "What's the use of accessing journals when we can't even afford to pay for our basic needs?" he questioned.
Addressing the Department of Higher Education’s directive to all Centrally Funded Technical Institutes (CFTIs) and Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) to halt renewing their journal subscriptions until further notice, Bipin Tiwari, General Secretary of AIRSA, said “The temporary suspension of journal subscriptions is undoubtedly a setback for ongoing research activities. However, we hope that this pause will be utilised to refine the One Nation One Subscription policy and ensure its smooth implementation.”
“We urge the government to expedite the process and restore access to essential research resources as soon as possible. In the interim, researchers may need to explore alternative avenues, such as inter-institutional collaborations and open-access resources, to sustain their work,” he added.
A critical dissection by experts
Among the most vocal critics of ONOS is Muthu Madhan, a librarian at OP Jindal Global University. With over two decades of experience in research and academic librarianship, Madhan offers a nuanced critique rooted in his deep understanding of scholarly communication and believes that the ONOS policy should be discontinued.
"Instead of rationalising expenditure and investing savings to sponsor article processing charges for open access, as it was intended by the ONOS proponents, we are now spending much more money without saving anything," Madhan argued. An article processing charge (APC) is the fee that authors pay to publish their work in an academic journal.
He raised concerns about the lack of consultation and transparency in the policy. "These kinds of blunt orders are very opaque and haven't followed a proper consultative process," he observed. "It's the job of librarians, institutions, and researchers to decide what journals they need. The government cannot dictate how a university's library should be organised."
He pointed out that the policy could lead to wasteful expenditure. "We are throwing Rs 6,000 crore over three years to 30 publishers," he noted, before questioning, "When we're not able to pay research scholars their stipends on time or invest in building good laboratories, is this the best use of our resources?"
Highlighting the international trend towards more customised and cost-effective models, he explained "Institutions like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have cancelled big subscription deals and have moved towards purchasing individual articles," he noted, adding "Rich institutions are being frugal, while we're throwing money at publishers without proper cost analysis. Why opt for big deal packages instead of more flexible purchasing models?"
He also questioned the logic of negotiating with only 30 publishers. "What should universities do if they do not want access to, say, 5,000 journals out of the 13,000 in the package?" he asked. "How did the ONOS leadership determine that all 13,000 journals are important and considered core journals?"
According to Web of Science databases, Madhan says, roughly 240 publishers published at least 1,000 papers each in their journals during the academic year 2022-2023. If one includes all small publishers as well, the number is allegedly higher than 5000.
In response to such concerns, the UGC chief clarified to EdexLive that “The journals were selected based on their global reputation and the quality of journals they publish. They represent a wide range of disciplines, ensuring that the needs of students, researchers, and faculty from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) and non-STEM fields are met.”
“The publishers were chosen through rigorous negotiations to provide access to the maximum number of high-quality journals at the most cost-effective rates offering comprehensive collections that align with the educational and research needs of Indian institutions,” he stated.
Open-access and the wider context
Rahul Siddharthan, a Computational Biology professor at the Institute of Mathematical Sciences (IMSc) in Chennai, provides a perspective that bridges both optimism and caution.
Having been involved in discussions on open access policies since 2019, including a meeting on National Framework for Open Access of Scientific Literature organised by the office of the Principal Scientific Adviser in Delhi in 2019, and chairing the thematic group on Open Science during the drafting of the Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2020 (STIP 2020), Siddharthan believes that while ONOS has potential, it falls short in a few critical areas.
"At that time, the ONOS idea was to cover all of India — not just educational institutions," he recalled, referring to the original conception of the idea by scientists from the Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, the Indian Academy of Sciences, Bengaluru, and the National Academy of Sciences India, Allahabad, in 2019.
"This was important to enable access to scientific literature for students, journalists, educators outside the academic system, and the general public. It's unfortunate that this goal seems to have been abandoned."
Siddharthan also highlighted the emergence of ‘predatory publishing’ practices by a few publishers exploiting the global shift toward open-access publishing models such as the author-pays model, whereby the author pays for the cost of publishing a scientific article. He explained that, while this model is not inherently predatory, some publishers misuse it by charging authors thousands of dollars to publish their papers, often without rigorous scientific vetting.
“This should, in principle, be covered by the authors’ research grants, but most scientists in India don't have such lavish grants. I had argued that the ONOS agreement with leading publishers should include article-processing-charge waivers for Indian scientists," he explained, adding that "This is a serious issue that is not addressed by ONOS as it stands."
He acknowledged that ONOS could help create a more equal academic environment but cautioned that access to literature is only one piece of the puzzle. "Thanks to the open access movement, preprint servers, and more questionable resources like Sci-Hub, access to literature is probably far from the biggest hurdle faced by most Indian institutions," he concluded.
Preprint servers are online archives, or repositories, containing works or data associated with various scholarly papers that are not yet peer-reviewed or accepted by traditional academic journals.
Breaking the paywall, or reinforcing it?
Shambhavi Naik, Head of Research at the Takshashila Institution, expressed mixed feelings about ONOS. In a series of posts on X, a social media platform, she questioned the assumptions underlying the policy.
"Assuming publisher buy-in for unlimited access to these e-journals, I'm curious to understand the ROI of this policy," she wrote. "As a cancer researcher, I hardly read papers from other life science fields, let alone other subjects. Do 1.8 crore people really need to access everything?”
She added, “There is an expectation that this access to knowledge will lead to publications from these institutions. But Tier 2/3 institutions need far more than access to knowledge for this - the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act (ANRF) whose one objective is to plug the infra gap itself has INR 2800 crore annual govt funding.”
“Could part of the ONOS-ANRF budget be better positioned as a holistic development fund for research specifically in Tier 2/3 institutions?” she questioned. Naik further suggested that ONOS might inadvertently reinforce traditional paywall models instead of promoting open science.
"Perhaps, as a leader of the Global South, the expectation is that India should challenge the traditional model of publishing," she argued. "As ONOS rolls out, I hope there are plans to make scientific knowledge truly open to all."
Balancing aspirations with practicality
Amidst the debate, it's clear that the ONOS policy is a bold attempt to reshape India’s academic landscape that embodies both lofty aspirations and significant challenges. Proponents like Kumar believe it's a crucial step towards democratising knowledge and enhancing India's global standing in academic research.
"While the full impact of ONOS will unfold over time, it lays the foundation for Indian researchers to participate more actively in international dialogues," Kumar asserted, remarking that ONOS would be a significant step towards building a strong research presence on the global stage.
Critics, however, urge a more cautious and considered approach. "We need to focus on strengthening open scholarly infrastructure in the country," Madhan argued, saying "The government should support local communications better, increase collaboration among us. Throwing money at publishers isn’t what will make us 'atmanirbhar' (self-reliant)."
The collective aspiration here, across the board, is evident — a more informed, empowered, and innovative India. But the ONOS policy’s success hinges on careful implementation, transparent processes, and meaningful engagement with the academic community.
Balancing the desire for equitable access with the need for cost-effectiveness and open science will determine whether ONOS becomes a milestone in India's educational journey or a cautionary tale of unmet expectations.
