Criticism of Projekt DEAL points to the fact that it focuses on the largest publishers only and that it would therefore encourage authors to publish open access exclusively with the two largest publishers with which there are agreements in place. Under this assumption, Projekt DEAL would therefore put smaller and emerging fully open access publishers at a competitive disadvantage, and would have the potential to harm the long tail of fully (gold) open access publishers, undermining fair competition between publishers. As commented by
OASPA: [...]Many are not even of sufficient size to make agreements directly with institutions. For a healthy, competitive market in the longer term, the needs of fully open access publishers must not be overlooked at this critical stage. Smaller publishers, learned societies and innovative new platforms will be at a significant disadvantage unless they are properly considered and steps are taken to ensure they are able to compete fairly in the market. Conducting discussions with smaller publishers, both fully OA and those with mixed models, and sharing the outcomes and ideas that arise could therefore be enormously helpful.Proponents of transformative agreements such as those signed by Projekt DEAL disagree with this view, highlighting the fact many national consortia have reached central agreements with open access publishers:[...]Virtually all of the institutions with agreements logged in the ESAC Transformative Agreement Registry have entered into central agreements with open access publishers—some as early as well over a decade ago—fully subsidizing their authors, through a variety of OA business models, to publish in their journal portfolios(…). These central agreements reflect institutional and library policies that prioritize openness and, in the case of financial strain, protect funds supporting open access over closed venues. ==See also==