Economics and equity in the development of Open Research Europe | Septentrio Conference Series

Abstract:  Open Research Europe (ORE) is the open access peer-reviewed publishing platform offered by the European Commission as an optional service to Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe beneficiaries at no cost to them. The platform enables researchers to publish open access without paying out of their research budgets and while complying with their open access obligations. This paper identifies potential financing and governance model(s) that would operationalize ORE as a collective publishing enterprise, supported by research funders and possibly research organizations, as of 2026. The aim of this study is to develop a sustainable, scalable funding model that is not based on article publication charges (APCs). To this end, the main business and financing models for not-for-profit publishing services were reviewed, based on a series of case studies and interviews with seven leading not-for-profit service providers. The paper outlines possible business model(s) for the financing of the operations of the Open Research Europe platform in the future and sets out actionable recommendations for implementing such a business model, appropriate to the scope and scale of the endeavour. It assesses how to incorporate equity into the design of Open Research Europe; and how to make Open Research Europe sustainable in the long run.

 

Humanities Commons Launches Mastodon Server Open to Scholars | Platypus, the Humanities Commons blog

Anyone using or observing Twitter will be well aware of the recent purchase of the company, which throws the future of the platform into, at best, uncertainty, and at worst, turmoil.

In response, many scholars have been considering a move to Mastodon, a non-profit, federated alternative social network. Being federated, Mastodon requires access to a server (here’s more on how Mastodon works), which is where we come in.

In response to community requests and our own recognition of the potential in this moment, we are launching hcommons.social, a Mastodon server open to all scholars (which we take to include: researchers, librarians, instructors, students, staff and anyone else with an active interest in research and education.) While we expect this space to lean Humanities-heavy, we leave it up to users whether it feels like the place they want to be. To start, there will be no limit on sign-ups, though we will review that policy over time as we learn more about the costs and overhead of managing the server.

We’ve moved quickly to get this up and running, and are doing so in the spirit of experimentation. We’ve never done this before. Many of the people who use it will probably not have either. So we’re going to have to figure things out together!

To start, we are putting in place:

Server rules that prioritize harm reduction and will be enforced via…
A clear moderation policy,

And if you’re new to Mastodon, a wonderful HC user has created an excellent guide to getting started.

[…]

 

IOI Community Investment Council: Express your interest | November 2022 | Invest in Open Infrastructure

“Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI) is excited to announce that we will be launching a fund to further investment in open infrastructure. The fund will go live in early 2024 and provide targeted support to further our mission to sustain effective digital infrastructure needed for open knowledge to flourish. Read our announcement for more information: https://investinopen.org/blog/ioi-launches-fund-to-deepen-investment-in-open-infrastructure/

The fund will serve as a means to further the following aims: Catalyze and deepen investment in under-resourced areas, addressing gaps that current funding mechanisms fail to support, enhancing access to funding to services outside of the Global North, and drive investment to enhance a more representative and accessible ecosystem. Increase and expand the pool of funders of open infrastructure, including calling for those who extract significant value from the open ecosystem to reinvest in the open systems from which they profit. Activate a mechanism for bold, higher risk investments, including exploring community investment in current infrastructure, to counter the increased corporate control of tools and technologies.

Over the course of 2023, IOI will be sharing more about our plans for the fund, and we will also be launching a Community Investment Council. The Council will bring transparency and accountability to fund stewardship, to further build on our efforts to design values-aligned ways to debias funding decisions. You can register your interest to join those conversations via this short survey….”

IOI launches fund to deepen investment in Open Infrastructure | 1 November 2022

“Invest in Open Infrastructure (IOI) is excited to announce that it will be launching a fund to further investment in open infrastructure globally. The fund will go live in early 2024 and provide targeted support to further our mission to sustain effective digital infrastructure needed for open knowledge to flourish. … The fund was announced as part of IOI’s Funders Summit, a gathering of key stakeholders involved in financing and resourcing open infrastructure. It will serve as a means to further the following aims:

Catalyze and deepen investment in under-resourced areas, addressing gaps that current funding mechanisms fail to support, enhancing access to funding to communities outside of the Global North, and driving investment to enhance a more representative and accessible ecosystem.
Increase and expand the pool of funders of open infrastructure, including calling for those who extract significant value from the open ecosystem to reinvest in the open systems from which they profit.
Activate a mechanism for bold, higher-risk investments, including exploring community investment in current infrastructure, to counter the increased corporate control of tools and technologies….

IOI’s fund builds on existing momentum to increase investment for critical, digital, open infrastructure, as seen with the recent commitment by leaders to advance and invest in the use of digital public goods such as open source software, Germany’s launch of the Sovereign Tech Fund to support vital and stable open source technologies, and continued efforts from organizations such as the Global Sustainability Coalition for Open Science Services (SCOSS).

Over the course of next year, IOI will be sharing more about its plans for the fund via a series of invited discussions. They will also be launching a Community Investment Council to bring transparency and accountability to fund stewardship, to further build on their efforts to design values-aligned ways to de-bias funding decisions. You can register your interest to join those conversations via this short survey.”

Climate data need shared and open governance

“We agree that climate-data accounting systems should be interconnected globally, but caution against putting such greenhouse-gas ledgers into corporate hands (see A. Luers et al. Nature 607, 653–656; 2022). Corporately owned platforms would put climate data at risk of centralization and commercialization, creating another data monopoly for big tech.

Collaborative efforts are under way by several groups, including our own Climate Action Data 2.0. An open community of tech entrepreneurs, climate-data providers, researchers and non-profit organizations aims to create open and decentralized solutions for interoperable, digitally supported climate data. Existing and future climate data sets will be integrated as a ‘digital commons’. This shared digital infrastructure and ownership will allow nations and other climate stakeholders to safeguard their data and data sovereignty….”

Why is managing open access so painful?

“Over the last decade or so, there has been a steady transition in scholarly publishing away from a traditional subscription based revenue model for publishers towards open access models where published articles are freely available to readers1 . During the early part of the transition, author-pays models, where a researcher finds money to pay article processing charges (APCs), were shown to be sustainable under certain conditions by publishers like BioMed Central and PLOS and grew in popularity among commercial publishers2 . In more recent years, concerns about rising APCs and lack of access to publication funds in many disciplines, coupled with funder mandates3 aimed at accelerating transitions to openness, have led to a number of new business models, from so-called ‘diamond’ open access4 where publication costs are covered by a third-party fund, to transformative agreements, such as ‘read and publish’ aimed at enabling journals to move from subscription to open access models with institutional support5 . Alongside all of these sits ‘green OA’, in which authors self-archive a version of their article in a suitable disciplinary or institutional repository while the published version appears in a subscription-based journal. This increasingly complex landscape poses a problem for universities as they find themselves administering a diverse range of open access agreements. At the same time, very little research has been done into how universities deal with open access. Anecdotally, approaches to OA funding are varied and sometimes ad hoc. In general, it appears that university libraries often distribute information to researchers and scholars about sources of open access funding, but no clear picture exists of how funds are allocated or monitored. With this in mind, in late 2021, we launched a community survey, supported by MoreBrains Cooperative6 , about the current state of the open access landscape7 . With 64 responses from 22 countries, although this is a relatively small sample, several themes emerge strongly, some of which we had already intuited, and some that were more surprising….

Half (32) of all respondents reported low levels of trust in the management of OA publishing and associated charges compared to 39% (25) who reported that they neither trusted nor distrusted the status quo and just 11% (7) who reported moderate or high levels of trust. There was strong support for open APC data (43), open standards for data exchange (41) and clear institutional ownership of data (42), with about 65% of all respondents claiming that each of those measures would increase trust. Seven of the eight free text responses also mentioned transparency and improved reporting as being desirable. Although no single measure emerged as a clear first priority, these ideas share a common theme of greater coordination and coherence across the many stakeholders involved in OA. In a similar vein, community governance structures for OA data were favoured by over half (34) of all respondents….” 

Study on the Open Data Directive, Data Governance and Data Act and their possible impact on research – Publications Office of the EU

“This study analyses the possible impact of three major legislative instruments in the European Sstrategy for data (the Open Data Directive, the Data Governance Act and the proposed Data Act) for the field of research, especially for research performing organisations and research funding organisations. It does so against the background of the European Open Science policy pursued, in which the development of a European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) is a major undertaking. Although the impact is difficult to assess at this stage, the study identifies and makes recommendations about key legal issues that need to be resolved. These have to do with ambiguities in the scope of application to research data, the interpretation of provisions, and the consistency between the instruments from the perspective of open science research policy.”

Why open science is primarily a labour issue – Samuel Moore

“Underpinning all these approaches to assessment reform is the brutally competitive nature of marketised higher education and the fact that precarious and exploited labour props up so much of what the university does. To this extent, open science is primarily a labour issue, not an epistemological one, although it is rarely approached by policymakers in this way. Knowledge production does not benefit from precarity or poor working conditions, not least due to the way they turn researchers into individuals competing with one another at every turn for scarce resources. If open science is to have any meaning, then, it must be grounded in a politics that is emancipatory from capital and the problems of researchers being oriented around capital at every point….

This, I argue, is what research assessment reform should be based on: building the capacity to explore and imagine different ways of producing knowledge, not simply reworking incentives towards open publishing, etc. In many ways, this means leaving behind assessment and replacing it with capacity building (as we’ve argued for in a different context elsewhere) or something altogether detached from the assessment of individual ‘performance’….”

The French Presidency of the Council of the EU announced the creation of a task force on digital commons.

On 7 February, during the Building Europe’s Digital Sovereignty conference, the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian along with the Secretary of State of the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Clément Beaune and the Secretary of State in charge of Digital Transition and Electronic Communications Cédric O announced the establishment of a new task force on digital commons, the latter described by the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union as “non-rivalrous and non-exclusive digital resources defined by shared production, maintenance and governance”.

As overarching goals of such an initiative, the French Presidency strives to enhance European and international cooperation to ultimately scale up existing national digital commons and open source software projects, as well as to raise awareness and promote open technologies in the EU- and Member States-level public sector and start building a governance framework to support digital commons through human and financial resources.

[…]

Development and Governance of FAIR Thresholds for a Data Federation

Abstract:  The FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-usable) principles and practice recommendations provide high level guidance and recommendations that are not research-domain specific in nature. There remains a gap in practice at the data provider and domain scientist level demonstrating how the FAIR principles can be applied beyond a set of generalist guidelines to meet the needs of a specific domain community.

We present our insights developing FAIR thresholds in a domain specific context for self-governance by a community (agricultural research). ‘Minimum thresholds’ for FAIR data are required to align expectations for data delivered from providers’ distributed data stores through a community-governed federation (the Agricultural Research Federation, AgReFed).

Data providers were supported to make data holdings more FAIR. There was a range of different FAIR starting points, organisational goals, and end user needs, solutions, and capabilities. This informed the distilling of a set of FAIR criteria ranging from ‘Minimum thresholds’ to ‘Stretch targets’. These were operationalised through consensus into a framework for governance and implementation by the agricultural research domain community.

Improving the FAIR maturity of data took resourcing and incentive to do so, highlighting the challenge for data federations to generate value whilst reducing costs of participation. Our experience showed a role for supporting collective advocacy, relationship brokering, tailored support, and low-bar tooling access particularly across the areas of data structure, access and semantics that were challenging to domain researchers. Active democratic participation supported by a governance framework like AgReFed’s will ensure participants have a say in how federations can deliver individual and collective benefits for members.

How does open science ‘democratise’ and ‘collectivise’ research? – Samuel Moore

“Yet it isn’t clear what the relationship is between the greater sharing of research materials and the so-called democratisation at work in open science. What actually is democratising and collectivising about what HELIOS is trying to do?

It is important to ask this question because HELIOS is, by all accounts, a top-down initiative led by senior figures of research-intensive universities in the US. Despite the casual association between open science and collectivity, it appears that HELIOS is more a way for university leaders to coerce researchers into a cultural change, not something that is led by the research community at large. While changing tenure guidelines to prioritise publishing in open access journals, sharing FAIR data and releasing reusable open code may have some good outcomes, they are not themselves the basis for greater collective governance of science. Instead, these changes will provide an economic reason for researchers to adopt open science practices, a reason still based on individual progress within the academy….”

OPERAS’ Assembly of the Commons

In classical governance schemes, there is a separation of powers that leads funders and policy-making authorities to discuss and make decisions on their side with no or just indirect consultation of the community. We, at OPERAS, did not want that. The OPERAS AISBL governance scheme traverses the different layers of the organization, such as management, strategy, policy, and support. Furthermore, it establishes the levels of engagement of the different types of stakeholders in the development of the OPERAS Research Infrastructure. 

The Assembly of the Commons (AoC) is one of OPERAS’ governance bodies and it gathers all Ordinary Members of the infrastructure. It is convened at least once a year and the OPERAS’ second Assembly of the Commons took place virtually on May 11th, 2022 from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM CET. It had a double objective of discussing the work completed in the Special Interest Groups over the course of the previous year and electing the two representatives of the OPERAS community: Vanessa Proudman and Mark Huskisson.

You can find more information about the meeting, the vision and the representatives below.

Participants of the Assembly of the Commons (May 11, 2022)

Pierre Mounier, OPERAS’ coordinator, opened the Assembly of the Commons by giving a short overview of the meaning of the AoC and its place in the governance of OPERAS.

As a multi-stakeholder organization, OPERAS is governed through several assemblies that represent the diversity of stakeholders engaged in their development. The Executive Assembly (EA) gathers the core members of OPERAS. These are the organizations that are more committed than others to the development of the infrastructure, and they are responsible for (1) organizing their national communities, (2) leading the Special Interest Groups, and (3) taking the decisions related to OPERAS on a monthly basis. The General Assembly (GA) gathers the national authorities such as the ministries and research communities and the supporting members. It convenes once a year and approves the budget and global strategy of the infrastructure. The Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) advises us on scientific matters. The Coordination Team (OCT) manages the infrastructure on a daily basis.

The Assembly of the Commons (AoC) represents the community in its entirety and gathers all Ordinary Members. At the same time, the AoC is the addition of all the Special Interest Groups and their participants. We named the AoC as such in reference to the theory of Elinor Oström. According to her, goods are better governed collectively by a community than individually as private property. Those goods that are better governed as commons are some material goods such as forests, fisheries, and grazing lands, but also immaterial goods such as knowledge and its infrastructure. Therefore, we see the AoC as the assembly of all those people who take care of the tools, services, and platforms, and have the know-how that enables product sharing and knowledge dissemination.

After this highlight on the importance of the Commons for the infrastructure, the participants of the meeting had the opportunity to choose their delegates. The two candidates, Vanessa Proudman and Mark Huskisson, introduced themselves and engaged in a debate with the participants.

Vanessa Proudman is Director of SPARC Europe with 20 years of program management experience in facilitating access to knowledge in Europe and advocating for change to increase more equitable access to knowledge. 

Over the years her focus has been on Open Access, Open Science, Open Culture, and Open Education working with many leading universities and libraries worldwide. Research and knowledge exchange are her vehicles to inform, connect and advocate for change in these areas. Her focus has been to increase Open international, national and regional policy-making and practice in Higher Education in Europe. She has extensive experience in setting policy with a view to put this into action whilst connecting the specificities of policymaking with OS practitioners and vice versa to ensure effective OS implementation. Creating a more level-playing field in Europe to enable more equal opportunities to engage in Open Science and Open Education is also key to her work. By gaining an understanding of the needs of the research and OS support community through research activities and knowledge exchange, Vanessa Proudman will seek to ensure that an evidence-based approach is used to support the SSH community on its road to making open the default. 

Mark Huskisson is responsible for Business Development at the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), the developer and stewards of OJS, OMP, and OPS. PKP develops open-source software systems that manage the complete scholarly publishing workflow for journals, monographs, and preprints, and conducting scholarly communication research on questions of open access and open science.

Having worked in academic and scholarly publishing for thirty years, Mark Huskisson has developed and nurtured a collaborative and supportive network in commercial publishing houses, libraries, learned societies, and the rapidly growing scholarly communication technology ecosystem. Working at the nexus of the huge PKP community gives insight into the challenges and huge opportunities available to the open community if successful collaboration and sustainable pathways can be identified and secured. This new post offers a strategic benefit for learning and knowledge exchange between the OPERAS network and global OJS community.

During the debate, the candidates answered some questions from the community:

How do you see OPERAS in the open access landscape? (Pierre Mounier, OPERAS)

What is really unique about OPERAS is that it is a comprehensive and interconnected infrastructure community for the SSH, which does not exist in such a form for other subject domains. This is a great strength. OPERAS can and needs to inform the broader OA community and its decision-makers about the importance of the SSH domain so that we don’t dance to the tune of STEM and larger commercial publishers. There’s a lot of diversity and innovation in scholarly communications going on in this domain. And OPERAS can concretely demonstrate this to the whole community by presenting the work done by its various Special Interest Groups.

Vanessa Proudman

How do you see the European landscape? (Pierre Mounier, OPERAS)

There are a number of challenges across the continent and one is that there is not a single Europe in terms of access and ability to participate in academic publishing due to a number of barriers that the OPERAS Interest Groups are tackling. With large publishers dictating the narrative toward profit and focusing primarily on the wealthier, more powerful economies, the commercial STM sector has often defined models and development within the community despite the needs and demands – and often to the detriment – of SSH researchers and longform research outputs. So, to identify sustainable pathways in SSH across Europe, we need a more coordinated response to the OA challenge that is specific and tailored to research and publishing in the humanities and social sciences. And whilst there has been a huge development of open access and open science initiatives across the continent, they are often undertaken in national, regional, or commercial contexts. OPERAS offers a way to connect and coalesce the energy and drive of these initiatives, continually informed by the working groups (SIGs) to potential enormous effect.

Mark Huskisson

Regarding the multilingual dimensions of SSH, how might we defend and promote this dimension in OPERAS? (Olivier Bouin, RFIEA)

I have an international background and personally do not value any language over another. I believe that it is important to ensure that we share our knowledge in different languages particularly to embrace and respect the wide cultural and multilingual offering in Europe . In SPARC Europe, we created a tool that was translated into 16 languages by the community. Within OPERAS, perhaps we could create such multilingual resources, too.

Vanessa Proudman

What’s your vision about OA books in the global landscape? (Agata Morka, Sparc Europe)

I spent many years working with monographs in publishing and with leading libraries around the world and – as we transitioned from print to electronic media – the expereinces learned with Journals transitioning more easily and rapidly to digital influenced and determined the conversation around books. Even though the cases and contexts were not entirely analogous. And this has slowed the ability to foster and nurture a succesful and flourishing OA book ecosystem. One core challenge, which OPERAS members are solving and improving, is discovery and it is important for SSH in Europe and beyond that we share learning and solutions for the community and society as a whole. To bring a cohesive solution for different organizations that deal with OA books.

Mark Huskisson

The election counted with the participation of 23 organizations-member. Each organization voted once and anonymously. They could vote for both candidates, for one of them or for neither. With 83.33% and 54.17% of votes, respectively, Vanessa Proudman and Mark Huskisson became co-chairs of OPERAS’ Assembly of the Commons. Besides chairing the AoC during their 2-year mandate, the representatives shall also participate in the General Assembly once a year to represent the voice of the community. Otherwise, the General Assembly is composed of representatives of national councils and ministries of the European Countries and supporting members.

During the second part of the AoC, the leaders of the different Special Interest Groups presented the work done and some perspectives for the future.

  • Advocacy

Sona Arasteh (MWS), leader of this SIG, explained the meaning of advocacy, focusing on how it is a broader concept than lobbying. This SIG works as a kind of mediator, advocating for other SIGs. Currently, the group is advocating for the Tools and Platforms SIG.

  • Best Practices

The Best Practices SIG, led by Jadranka Stojanovski Zadar University), is currently working on a White Paper that will focus on the following topics: diamond journals, repositories altering scholarly publishing (preprints), research data in SSH, editorial and publishing policies, peer review, metadata quality, rights and licensing, research assessment, accessibility, and usability.

  • Common Standards and FAIR Principles

Iraklis Katsaloulisfocus (EKT), leader of this SIG along with Haris Georgiadis (EKT), explained that focusing on Common Standards & FAIR Principles is important as it offers a framework for collaboration, convergence, and integration towards enabling interoperability in SSH. Regarding future perspectives, this SIG intends to act as a bridge between the technical and procedural aspects of open science.

  • Multilingualism  

Delfim Leão (University of Coimbra), leader of the Multilingualism SIG, focused on some challenges regarding this topic: perceive multilingualism as a strong manifestation of bibliodiversity in SSH; avoid the risk of turning English, broadly used as a lingua franca, into lingua unica in terms of scientific and scholarly communication; enhance balanced multilingualism in innovative solutions. On the horizon, this SIG plans to achieve a full design and feasibility study to support the development of a translation service for OPERAS.

  • Open Access books Network

OABN is a new OPERAS SIG coordinated by Agata Morka (Sparc Europe), Lucy Barnes (Open Book Publishers), and Tom Mosterd (OAPEN/DOAB). The SIG advocates for open access book publishing, collates news, views, and developments specifically relevant to OA books, and connects a global community in the form of blogs, events, workshops, and other activities.

  • Open Access Business Models

 Graham Stones (Jisc) and Frank Manista (Jsic) lead this SIG that is currently working on focusing on collaborative models in OA book publishing. The previous White Paper (2021) presented an initial analysis and early observations of the study. The next step is to produce an in-depth analysis (a new version of the White Paper). Future questions to be explored include a better understanding of the publishers who do not take part in collaborative funding models and identifying the recommendations for OPERAS and other stakeholders.

  • Tools and Platforms

Formerly called Tools Research and Development, this SIG is coordinated by Céline Bartonat (CNRS) and Arnauld Gingold (CNRS). The SIG has focused on defining tools according to their functions, users, and nature. It deals with challenging issues such as a variety of functions and usage, the diversity of contexts and users, and its dynamic and chaotic environment.

Following this presentation, the participants joined breakout sessions for each of the Special Interest Groups.


You want to become and ordinary member as well? Find more information here.

You want to follow the OPERAS activities? Subscribe for our newsletter.

Research Fellow (COPIM) 0.5 FTE, Fixed Term 01-08-2022 until 31-04-2023 | jobs.ac.uk

Coventry University is seeking to appoint a Research Fellow within the Centre for Postdigital Cultures, Faculty of Arts and Humanities to support the Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM) project.

The Centre for Postdigital Cultures (CPC), builds on the strong and distinctive track-record of scholars at Coventry University encompassing a range of disciplines in the arts and humanities. Led by Professor Gary Hall, the CPC explores how innovations in postdigital cultures can enable 21st century society to respond to the challenges it faces in relation to the digital at a global, national and local level.

COPIM is a strategic international partnership led by the Centre for Postdigital Cultures consisting of world-class universities, presses, libraries and infrastructure providers. The project addresses the key technological, structural, and organisational hurdles—around funding, production, dissemination, discovery, reuse, and archiving—that are standing in the way of the wider adoption and impact of open access (OA) books. COPIM will realign OA book publishing away from competing commercial service providers to a more horizontal and cooperative knowledge-sharing approach.

A Research Fellow is required to support the project’s PIs in conducting research on (best practices for) the governance of academic presses and collectively managed infrastructures. We are looking for an Open Access specialist with expert knowledge of academic book publishing processes and current developments in digital publishing. The Research Fellow will conduct research on best practices for governing collaborative community-based book publishing projects of various scales. They will also assist in the creation of a model for the long-term management of consortial library funding programs, including official policies and procedures for self-governance and administrative management of the infrastructure. In addition to that they will assist in the organisation of workshops and events to promote the project’s research and outputs.

Job: Research Fellow – COPIM | Centre for Postdigital Cultures, Coventry University

Research Fellow (COPIM), 0.5 FTE (Fixed Term 01-08-2022 until 31-04-2023)

Coventry University is seeking to appoint a Research Fellow within the Centre for Postdigital Cultures, Faculty of Arts and Humanities to support the Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM) project.

The Centre for Postdigital Cultures (CPC), builds on the strong and distinctive track-record of scholars at Coventry University encompassing a range of disciplines in the arts and humanities. Led by Professor Gary Hall, the CPC explores how innovations in postdigital cultures can enable 21st century society to respond to the challenges it faces in relation to the digital at a global, national and local level.

COPIM is a strategic international partnership led by the Centre for Postdigital Cultures consisting of world-class universities, presses, libraries and infrastructure providers. The project addresses the key technological, structural, and organisational hurdles—around funding, production, dissemination, discovery, reuse, and archiving—that are standing in the way of the wider adoption and impact of open access (OA) books. COPIM will realign OA book publishing away from competing commercial service providers to a more horizontal and cooperative knowledge-sharing approach.

A Research Fellow is required to support the project’s PIs in conducting research on (best practices for) the governance of academic presses and collectively managed infrastructures. We are looking for an Open Access specialist with expert knowledge of academic book publishing processes and current developments in digital publishing. The Research Fellow will conduct research on best practices for governing collaborative community-based book publishing projects of various scales. They will also assist in the creation of a model for the long-term management of consortial library funding programs, including official policies and procedures for self-governance and administrative management of the infrastructure. In addition to that they will assist in the organisation of workshops and events to promote the project’s research and outputs.

Evolving our Governance: Motivations, journey and lessons learnt

“The structures and processes governing an organization are critical for ensuring the organization acts by its values and puts its beliefs into practice. We [IOI] outline our recent governance changes and learnings to be more transparent and share our experiences with others on a similar path….”