One nation, one subscription

While heralded as a potential game-changer for academia, the ONOS has ignited intense debate among scholars and researchers

In the series of ‘one nation’ comes yet another addition and this time it is about subscription of academic journals. The Indian government’s recent approval of the ‘One Nation, One Subscription’ (ONOS) scheme has sparked considerable debate within academic and research communities. Touted as a transformative step for Indian academia, the scheme seeks to centralise access to academic journals and publications for higher education and research institutions across the country. While the initiative promises benefits such as cost efficiency and wider access to resources, concerns about its implementation, implications for academic freedom and necessity remain significant. Under the ONOS scheme, managed by the Information and Library Network (INFLIBNET), over 6,300 institutions will have access to 13,000 e-journals from 30 major international publishers through a unified digital portal. With a budget allocation of Rs 6,000 crore for its first three years, the government aims to empower approximately 1.8 crore students, researchers and faculty members. This move could enhance India’s standing in the global research ecosystem, reducing resource disparities across institutions. The ONOS scheme could democratise access to academic knowledge.

Smaller institutions, often constrained by limited budgets, could benefit immensely from comprehensive access to high-quality publications. Students and researchers in remote or underfunded regions may now have the same access as those in premier institutions, fostering equity in education and research. Centralising subscriptions could also significantly reduce costs. A unified portal ensures that these resources are optimised, potentially freeing budgets for other academic priorities. This could encourage more efficient and effective research practices. Despite its potential benefits, the ONOS scheme has raised several concerns. One major issue is the lack of clarity on how journals will be selected. Academic needs are diverse, varying by discipline, institution and research focus. Centralising the decision-making process risks overlooking specific requirements, leading to an inadequate or unbalanced collection of resources. Critics argue that the government could limit access to publications or perspectives it disagrees with, thereby influencing academic discourse. Another critique is that the scheme might disrupt established systems that currently work well. Many institutions already have mechanisms to access journals through collaborations, institutional networks like the Developing Library Network (DELNET), and platforms like JSTOR. Moreover, the scheme’s centralised approach risks reducing the autonomy of academic institutions. Faculty members, who currently play a significant role in determining which journals their institutions need, might find themselves sidelined. This loss of autonomy could hinder academic innovation and responsiveness to emerging research trends. It would be hasty to implement the scheme which  has advantages for sure, but the concerns of academicians must be addressed.