Opening Access to AAA’s Publishing Future | Society for Cultural Anthropology

“The American Anthropological Association (AAA) publishing contract with Wiley comes to term in 2022. In light of this pressing deadline, several journal editors and section presidents have been meeting to uncover the common ground in our commitments and to determine what collective action might keep AAA’s expression of values front and center in our publishing practices and decisions.

We share AAA’s commitment to five “bedrock values” for our publishing program: quality, breadth, sustainability, access, and equity. Open access (OA) can be compatible with all five values, and should be a strategy that AAA considers deliberatively. We also advocate that in this moment of transition, AAA takes stock of ways in which all our interactions around publishing can become more democratic. We want more transparency around the publishing contracts and valuations that govern sections’ relative capacities. We want more input from editors as a collective in publishing decisions. And we want equitable labor practices that benefit our community.

We know from the 2020 AAA Editors Survey that there’s wide interest in and strong support for OA across AAA sections and journals. In June 2021, we carried out our own survey of twenty-seven journal editors and publishing section leaders, representing at least twenty-two AAA sections. We found that respondents had disparate understandings of what OA is and what it means for authors and journals. Nonetheless, 9 out of 24 respondents (37.5 percent) indicated that “if the AAA decides to renew its (previously 5-year) contract with Wiley and postpones discussion of Open Access publishing,” then “Yes,” their journal would “be interested in pursuing alternative means of going OA in the next year or so,” with another 13 (54 percent) indicating openness to the possibility (“Maybe”). Only 2 said “No.” We recognize that the questions OA raises about funding and revenue are significant. We further believe that once one learns more about the current academic publishing and OA landscape, these concerns are no longer as daunting….”

Game theory and scholarly publishing: premises for an agreement around open access

Actors in research and scientific publishing are gradually joining the Open-Access (OA) movement, which is gaining momentum to become nowadays at the heart of scientific policies in high-income countries. The rise of OA generates profound changes in the chain of production and dissemination of knowledge. Free access to peer-reviewed research methods and results has contributed to the dynamics of science observed in recent years. The modes of publication and access have also evolved; the classic model, based on journal subscriptions is gradually giving way to new economic models that have appeared with the arrival of OA. The objective of this article is twofold. First, propose a model for the publishing market based on the literature as well as on changes in open science policies. Second, analyze publishing strategies of publishers and institutions. To do so, we relied on game theory in economics. Results show that in the short term, the publisher’s equilibrium strategy is to adopt a hybridpublishing model, while the institutions’ equilibrium strategy is to publish in OA. This equilibrium is not stable and that in the medium/long term, the two players will converge on an OA publishing strategy. The analysis of the equilibrium in mixed-strategies confirms this result.

OPERAS report “Future of Scholarly Communication. Forging an inclusive and innovative research infrastructure for scholarly communication in Social Sciences and Humanities” | Zenodo

Avanço, Karla, Balula, Ana, B?aszczy?ska, Marta, Buchner, Anna, Caliman, Lorena, Clivaz, Claire, … Wieneke, Lars. (2021, June 29). Future of Scholarly Communication . Forging an inclusive and innovative research infrastructure for scholarly communication in Social Sciences and Humanities. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5017705

 

This report discusses the scholarly communication issues in Social Sciences and Humanities that are relevant to the future development and functioning of OPERAS. The outcomes collected here can be divided into two groups of innovations regarding 1) the operation of OPERAS, and 2) its activities. The “operational” issues include the ways in which an innovative research infrastructure should be governed (Chapter 1) as well as the business models for open access publications in Social Sciences and Humanities (Chapter 2). The other group of issues is dedicated to strategic areas where OPERAS and its services may play an instrumental role in providing, enabling, or unlocking innovation: FAIR data (Chapter 3), bibliodiversity and multilingualism in scholarly communication (Chapter 4), the future of scholarly writing (Chapter 5), and quality assessment (Chapter 6). Each chapter provides an overview of the main findings and challenges with emphasis on recommendations for OPERAS and other stakeholders like e-infrastructures, publishers, SSH researchers, research performing organisations, policy makers, and funders. Links to data and further publications stemming from work concerning particular tasks are located at the end of each chapter.

Enabling smaller independent publishers to participate in Open Access transformative arrangements: a commitment from key stakeholders – ESAC Initiative

The ongoing transition of scholarly publishing to full and immediate Open Access is a process that requires all stakeholders to adapt.

Alignment amongst research funding organizations, publishers and research performing organizations – with their research communities, their libraries and library consortia – is particularly needed to enable smaller independent publishers to transition to open access publishing models. These publishers are highly valued by the research community for their activities in promoting excellence in research, for the scholarly communication services they provide, and for the key role they play in ensuring a diverse, open scholarly publishing landscape.

Open access article processing charges 2011 – 2021 | Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir les savoirs communs

by: Heather Morrison, Luan Borges, Xuan Zhao, Tanoh Laurent Kakou & Amit Nataraj Shanbhoug

Abstract

This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 – 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon & Björk (2012). Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data is drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data (Morrison et al, 2021). Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 USD to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 USD to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC and pricing trends. About half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation, and a suggestion that support for the university sector, responsible for the majority of journals, nearly half the articles, with a tendency not to charge and very low average APCs, may be the most promising approach to achieve economically sustainable no-fee OA journal publishing.

Open Hardware Distribution and Documentation Working Group: Pyramids versus circles — the need for more cooperative/collaborative business models for OScH | by Journal of Open HW | Jun, 2021 | Medium

“One of the biggest challenges in scaling open science hardware is finding the right business model. It’s a topic that has come up at every GOSH event I’ve been to, and it’s something we as a community need to figure out if we hope to “make OScH ubiquitous by 2025”. I’ve been thinking about this problem deeply over the past 5 years as part of my entrepreneurial journey at Sci-Bots where I’ve been working to commercialize DropBot, an open-source digital microfluidics controller that was the product of my PhD research. Starting a business is hard even in the best-case scenario, but it can be especially difficult when the type of business you are trying to create doesn’t follow the traditional narrative….”

Open Access: Understanding the Mission, the Models, and the Mindsets

“Over the past 20 years, Open Access publishing has evolved from an aspirational idea into a widely accepted practice in scholarly communications. For those just getting started in publishing and scholarly communications, it can seem like everyone just “knows” what is meant by open access. But how OA is defined and how widely it is adopted differs among institutions, regions, and disciplines. Understanding how open access is funded, how it is operationalized, and to what extent content it is truly “open” can vary widely depending on the stakeholder—librarian, funder, publisher, or researcher. 

Attendees of this introductory workshop will learn about the history and evolution of open access, from the Budapest Open Access Initiative to Plan S, and explore the evolution from the original green and gold OA models to the latest transformative agreements and other business models.

Specifically, the workshop will cover:

Brief history of open access and its position in the broader context of Open Science
Different types of open access and how these definitions are contested
Affordances and limitations of open access
Perspectives of different stakeholders 
Approaches to funding models: transformative agreements, pure publish agreements, memberships, subventions, and micro-payments
Ways that open access may develop in the future…”

What’s Wrong with Paying for Peer Review? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“It’s also worth quantifying the additional direct costs — especially in a system that is already considered too expensive by many. In an APC world, the authors of the accepted articles cover the costs of reviewing all those other articles that get rejected. For an Open Access journal with a 25% acceptance rate and an average of 2.2 reviews per article, paying the reviewers for one article’s worth of review comes in an 2.2 * $450 = $990. The journal reviews 1/0.25 = 4 articles to find one that is publishable, and the authors of the publishable article pay the costs for reviewing the other three. So, the modest proposal of a $450 fee for each review balloons to an additional $3960 being added to the Article Processing Charge for an average journal. …”

 

Boldly growing: PLOS’ new titles and business model update for institutions

“With PLOS’ recent announcement of five new titles in April, PLOS is keen to introduce our newest titles and business model to the library community.

Join PLOS’ outreach, publishing, and partnerships teams for an introduction to these new titles and PLOS’ newest non-APC based, equity-focused business model.

You can learn more about the rationale for launching new titles on the PLOS blog: https://theplosblog.plos.org/2021/04/launching-new-journals-2021/
and recent coverage from Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01907-3

This webinar is open to libraries, consortia, and PLOS institutional partners and registration is required….”

Introducing Direct to Open – YouTube

“Direct to Open (D2O) is a sustainable framework for open access monographs and edited collections from the MIT Press. D2O moves professional and scholarly books from a solely market-based, purchase model to a collaborative, library-supported open access model. Instead of purchasing a title once for a single collection, libraries now have the opportunity to fund them one time for the world through participant fees. See how it works….”

arXiv’s membership program is now based on submissions | arXiv.org blog

“arXiv’s members have provided approximately 25% of our operating budget for the past ten years, supporting arXiv’s mission to provide a reliable open platform for sharing research. By becoming arXiv members, more than 230 institutions around the world have made a strong statement in favor of open access, open science, and sustainable academic publishing. Thank you, members!

We are happy to announce our updated membership program, which was developed in collaboration with the Membership Advisory Board. This program is part of our sustainability model, complements arXiv’s diverse funding sources, including societies and other organizations, and ensures that arXiv will have the funding required to continue meeting researchers’ evolving needs.

arXiv membership is inclusive, flexible, and offers your institution a high value, low-risk, budget-conscious option to serve your scholarly community. Members receive public recognition, institutional usage statistics, eligibility to serve in arXiv’s governance, and more….

Universities, libraries, research institutes, and laboratories are invited to join or renew. For standard memberships, annual fees are based on submissions by institution, averaged over three years….”

„Wir müssen in Fachdisziplinen denken, um mehr Titel und Programme im Open Access zu ermöglichen“ | Open Research Community

From Google’s English:  “The financing model “wbv Open Library,” which the publisher and Knowledge Unlatched have jointly launched, is oriented towards the disciplines of adult education and professional and business education. This interview is about the framework that had to be defined, about pricing, planning processes – but also about the fun it is to try something new. Your goal: to provide the funding institutions and libraries with discipline-oriented access to Open Access publications….”

Librarian Community Call: the Subscribe to Open (S2O) model

“Join us for the June OpenCon Librarian Call to discuss the Subscribe to Open (S2O) model which has been gaining traction as a sustainable and equitable open publishing model without the headache of contract negotiations. Allison Langham-Putrow, University of Minnesota and Ashley Farley, Gates Foundation will provide an overview of S2O, what you need to know as a librarian, and some of the challenges the model may face. We will leave time for questions and would love to hear your thoughts and experiences with S2O.

This call brings together all librarians working with, or learning about, all things Open–and gives folks an opportunity to connect with each other to better their work and librarianship. …”

PAPPI Public Wiki

“This wiki introduces a scoring system to evaluate publishers’ practices through the values of higher education, libraries, and learned societies. In this provisional scoring system, tentatively called Publishers Acting as Partners with Public Institutions of Higher Education & Land-grant Universities (PAPPIHELU, hereafter referred to as PAPPI), partners are publishers that focus on empowering researchers and scholars and also the institutions of higher education that support them. They see faculty, students, and institutions of higher education as essential partners, not customers, and emphasize the rights of content creators and disciplinary experts in the publishing process. PAPPI criteria evaluate how well a publisher’s practices are in synchronization with the common worldview and ethic of public and land-grant institutions of higher education and their libraries….

Credit is determined by a publisher’s score in the following main categories:

Public Access
Article Processing Charges
Copyright
Author Use
Educational Use
Business Model
Discoverability
Business Practices
Publishing Practices
Other Innovations …”