AAA Publishing Looks Toward the (Murky) Future – Anthropology News

“As a committee, we have discussed various business models for open access, from transformative agreements like the one between Elsevier and the University of California system to the Subscribe to Open model now being implemented at Berghahn and Annual Reviews. We have begun to consider a more federated approach to AnthroSource that would bring together AAA content from multiple sources, inspired by the work of the Next Generation Library Publishing project. Over the past decade, different iterations of the PFC have also thought about the possibility of creating a larger mega-journal composed of Sections corresponding to some of the subfields represented in our current portfolio….

The second step of the process will be to engage a third-party scholarly communication consultant to assist in plotting out scenarios for a sustainable future for the AAA publishing program. Experience with a range of open access models and a demonstrated understanding of the challenges facing social science society publishers will be our primary considerations in selecting a consultant. A consultant who sees the advantages of partnering with different types of publishers will be given the highest consideration. The committee regards the results of the self-study as critical to the consultant’s work, and we will request that prospective consultants outline a process for reaching out to and collaborating with the Sections. It is the PFC’s hope that the consultant will be able to provide each publishing section with a clearer understanding of not only a future for their journal but also of the portfolio as it moves toward a more open future.”

How can I persuade my institution to support collective funding for open access books? | Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (Part One) · Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

By Lucy Barnes and Tom Grady

As part of our work at COPIM, we speak to a lot of librarians. Many are personally convinced of the need to support collective funding models for open access (OA) books because these serve as equitable alternatives to the Book Processing Charge model,[undefined] but many librarians find themselves in the position of needing to convince their management team or budget holders to invest in Open Access initiatives.

For librarians who find themselves in this position, we have compiled a list of resources and arguments to help inform decisions to invest in OA monograph initiatives. This will be a two part blog post: in the first we’ll give some background by laying out the problems with Book Processing Charges (BPCs) and disentangling the various alternative models; in Part Two we’ll go into more detail, with practical steps on how colleagues might convince their budget holders to invest in collective funding models.

So, why should a library or institution invest in collective funding for open access books?



How can I persuade my institution to support collective funding for open access books? (Part Two) | Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

This is the second part of a two-part blog post. Part One explores why your institution should support collective funding for open access books. This second post highlights practical steps you can take to build a case to management for supporting collective OA book funding.


JSTOR and University Press Partners Announce Path to Open Books Pilot | SSP Society for Scholarly Publishing

“JSTOR, part of the non-profit ITHAKA, and a cohort of leading university presses announced today Path to Open, a program to support the open access publication of new groundbreaking scholarly books that will bring diverse perspectives and research to millions of people.

Launching as a pilot, Path to Open libraries will contribute funds to enable participating presses to publish new books that will transition from licensed to open access within three years of publication. The initial pilot will produce about one thousand open access monographs. If successful, it will lay the foundation for an entirely new way to fund long-form scholarship while vastly increasing its impact….”

figshare plus

“Figshare has been helping researchers make their data openly available for more than 10 years. We want to offer a way to get more support for sharing larger datasets in a trusted generalist repository.

Figshare+ offers data deposit as a one-time Data Publishing Charge (DPC) to share the datasets and materials supporting a specific publication or project. Added features and expert guidance are also included for sharing your data FAIR-ly….”

The benefits of publishing in society?owned scientific journals

Editorial on the need to publish in society-owned scientific journals that share interests with the scientific community, instead journals managed by private companies.

“Scientific societies publish journals to facilitate communication among scientists (using peer-based quality reviews) and to advance their respective fields. Some universities, museums, research institutes and non-profit academic publishers also publish scientific literature with the same motivation. It is in their interest to keep costs as low as possible, both for authors in the case of open-access publishing
and for readers in the case of subscription-based funding. In contrast, private companies publish journals for profit, and it is in their interest to keep article-processing charges (APCs) or subscription fees as high as possible.”

DIAMAS: Supporting High Quality Diamond Open Access Publishing (podcast)

In this episode, we are discussing the project Developing Institutional Open Access Publishing Models to Advance Scholarly Communication, in short: DIAMAS. At the heart of the project is support for Diamond Open Access, i.e. free for the reader as well as the author (no publishing charges). Co-lead of DIAMAS, Pierre Mounier explains the importance of lending support to not-for-profit institutional publishing. Besides the diversity offered by such scholar-led, high quality publication outlets, the multilingualism that they represent is key when the dissemination of knowledge and the promotion of citizen science across Europe is taken into account. The Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Publishing lends verbal support to linguistically diverse scholarly outputs; the EU-funded DIAMAS Project paves the way for stronger and more sustainable infrastructures facilitating them.

Since its inception in September 2022, the project will last for 3 years. An ultimate goal of DIAMAS is to help the providers of publishing services raise the quality and visibility of diamond open access by establishing a Europe-wide capacity center. A sister project, CRAFT-OA, focusing on the purely technical aspects of institutional diamond open access publishing begins in January 2023. The preliminary Diamond OA Journals Study (published March 2021), the first ever global survey of diamond open access journals, serves as foundation for both projects.


The recording was made in conjunction with the Munin Conference on Scholarly Publishing in December 2022. First published online January 10, 2023.

The curious internal logic of open access policymaking – Samuel Moore

“This week, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) declared 2023 its ‘Year of Open Science‘, announcing ‘new grant funding, improvements in research infrastructure, broadened research participation for emerging scholars, and expanded opportunities for public engagement’. This announcement builds on the OSTP’s open access policy announcement last year that will require immediate open access to federally-funded research from 2025. Given the state of the academic publishing market, and the tendency for US institutions to look towards market-based solutions, such a policy change will result in more article-processing charge payments and, most likely, publishing agreements between libraries and academic publishers (as I have written about elsewhere). The OSTP’s policy interventions will therefore hasten the marketisation of open access publishing by further cementing the business models of large commercial publishers — having similar effects to the policy initiatives of European funders.

As the US becomes more centralised and maximalist in its approach to open access policymaking, European institutions are taking a leaf out of the North American book by implementing rights retention policies — of the kind implemented by Harvard in 2008 and adopted widely in North America thereafter. If 2023 will be the ‘year of open science’ in the USA, it will surely be the year of rights retention in Europe. This is largely in response to funders now refusing to pay APCs for hybrid journals — a form of profiteering initially permitted by many funders who now realise the errors of their ways. With APC payments prohibited, researchers need rights retention to continue publishing in hybrid journals while meeting their funder requirements….”

Science for all – 360

“Scientists or their institutions must often pay high subscription fees to multiple journals to keep up with what’s happening in their field. In response to complaints about high and rising subscription fees, the publishing houses have brought in different forms of ‘open access’, or free-to-read journals. In order to pay for the cost of curating the journals, and vetting and editing the papers, the journals may charge an up-front fee to publish.

Prestigious journal Science explains that this “allow[s] their rigorous peer review shepherded by professional editors, careful editing, access to all relevant data, striking and informative visuals, and an engaging website. Importantly, we put substantial post-publication resources into preventing misinformation by informing accurate coverage of research through mainstream and social media.”

From January 1, Science will begin allowing authors to republish their papers on a university server for free. The shift comes hot on the heels of a new US government policy requiring taxpayer funded research to be freely available.

About 20 years after the internet first threatened to upset the scientific publishing world, it seems real change is coming. A plethora of different ways of sharing scientific findings are proliferating, from draft papers on ‘pre-print’ servers, to university-hosted repositories. As science faces global challenges, the need to quickly and equitably share information will only increase. The fledging publishing models being explored today may become the engine of world change in the near future….”

How can I persuade my institution to support collective funding for open access books? (Part Two) · Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

“As Sharla Lair at LYRASIS says “The transformation of scholarly publishing happens one investment at a time. You can’t do everything, but you can do something.” In the UK, several libraries (including the Universities of St Andrews, Manchester, Sussex, and Salford, among others) are all implementing innovative strategies to enable ethically-aligned support for OA that mesh with budget constraints. The university KU Leuven has an approach worth studying (more on this below), as does that of Utrecht, Iowa State University, the University of Kansas, Guelph, Temple University, University of California and MIT Library. But even libraries that are not in a position to make strategic overhauls can still agree criteria by which they can start to assess deals. 

Practical approaches – a case study from the library at KU Leuven…

Open access for book chapters: event summary – Research

“Long form scholarly works, such as monographs, book chapters and edited collections, will become in scope of the new UKRI open access policy if published after 1 January 2024. UKRI is developing a dedicated fund to support these new requirements.

A variety of publishing models already exist to help cover the cost of publishing open access. However, many publishers have already introduced the Chapter Processing Charge (CPC) as their preferred publishing model, and similarly to the Book Processing Charge (BPC) model, there are concerns that the CPC model will not scale with this limited fund….

The inclusion of book chapters in the UKRI open access policy raises a number of issues that must be resolved prior to policy launch:

Where book chapters contain a UKRI funder acknowledgement, but the edited works that they are contained within do not, the individual book chapters must be made open access (OA) within 12 months of publication. This applies to each chapter, if more than one chapter acknowledges funding
If the whole edited work acknowledges funding, then the policy applies to the whole book, even if book chapters acknowledge different UKRI funding
Chapters in edited works from born OA publishers and those made OA via a subscribe to open or community driven (diamond) models would be compliant…”

Nature announces support for authors from over 70 countries to publish open access: Authors from low-income and lower-middle income countries to be able to publish for free in Nature and the Nature research journals

From today, primary research from authors from over 70 countries classified by the World Bank as low-income (LIC) or lower-middle-income economies (LMICs) accepted for publication in either Nature or one of the Nature research journals (e.g. Nature Chemistry, Nature Sustainability) can now be published Gold open access at no cost. This move recognises that local funding is rarely available for publishing OA in specialist journals like Nature, whose characteristics such as in-house editorial teams and low acceptance rates make it difficult for authors from these countries who are less well-funded.  

If not a transformative agreement, then what? Nine questions and answers about an alternative | Boston | College & Research Libraries News

Abstract:  Librarians are increasingly coming to agree that the scholarly record should be open and available to anyone who seeks it without financial barriers. But the topic gets murkier when we ask the question: how. How do we open the full scholarly record? One of the swiftest ways to get a mass amount of scholarly articles opened up in a short period of time is through Transformative Agreements (TA). TAs can be attractive offerings to institutions with a need or a desire to make their scholarly output open.

It is likely someone in your library has been asked by a commercial publisher if they are interested in signing a TA (sometimes called read-and-publish, publish-and-read, or pure publish deals). In these deals, a library pays a publisher to make some agreed upon number of works open access if the corresponding author is affiliated with the institution. Your library leadership holds probably one of three attitudes on this proposition: pragmatically in favor, ideologically opposed, or simply sort of confused about the whole thing.