Digitales Publizieren und die Qualitätsfrage – AuROA

From Google’s English:  “The two-day interdisciplinary event deals with digital publishing in the humanities. The thematic priorities are quality criteria in humanities publications in connection with and as a result of open access, digital publishing and scholar-led publishing as well as current problems of scientific publishing such as reputation building mechanisms, peer review and data tracking.

A theoretical part deals with sociological, scientific-theoretical and political issues relating to open access in the humanities. The different disciplinary perspectives of humanities scholars are brought together through common problems and interests. The specification of quality criteria and the current publication practice leads to the controversial topic of peer review.

In the practical part, the goal is the joint development of position papers on problem areas and task-oriented requirements for quality assurance in the humanities (in book format). Current examples of the implementation of academic and library-organized publishing are presented and discussed.

The third part focuses on other current problems of scientific publishing, such as data tracking….”

Publizieren und Open Access in den Geisteswissenschaften: Erkenntnisse aus dem Projekt AuROA zu den Stakeholdern im Publikationsprozess (Publishing and Open Access in the Humanities: Findings from the AuROA Project on Stakeholders in the Publication Process) | AuROA – Autor:innen und Rechtssicherheit für Open Access

Projekt AuROA (2022): „Publizieren und Open Access in den Geisteswissenschaften: Erkenntnisse aus dem Projekt AuROA zu den Stakeholdern im Publikationsprozess“. Essen.

Abstract (English version via deepl.com): In a survey and two workshops, the AuROA project gathered insights into the stakeholders in the humanities and social sciences publishing process and their perspectives. These complement the findings from other events and a large number of personal interviews. The main topics of the workshops were hurdles and possible solutions in OA publication processes for and between the different stakeholder groups. The survey looked in particular at authors’ publishing experiences and their positions on OA, publishing reputation and publishing services. The focus was more on the humanities than on the social sciences.

Humanities scholars and social scientists are primarily experienced in the classic forms of publication such as monographs, collective works and journal articles. The latter do not have the same prominent status as in the STM field. The forms of publication used do not necessarily coincide with those that are considered particularly prestigious. The respondents have a very positive

The respondents are very positive about OA, but in practice they are not yet very familiar with the concrete possibilities of publishing OA.

It is important for the stakeholders to distinguish themselves from the framework conditions in the STM sector, whose broad solutions they do not consider to be effective. Among the reasons are the very small-scale publishing and disciplinary landscapes in the humanities and social sciences. Which publishers are seen as particularly prestigious has little to do with the services they provide. Instead, publishers are judged on the basis of a traditional brand name and a historically
Instead, publishers are judged on the basis of a traditional brand name and a historically grown market position, but also on the basis of subject-relevant publications and well-known editors. Even among renowned publishers, however, there is a high rate of dissatisfaction with the services actually provided.

With regard to financial components and legal advice, the responses of the humanities scholars and social scientists in the survey differ from the responses of the heterogeneous stakeholder groups in the workshops: From their personal perspective as authors, humanities scholars and social scientists do not weight the reputation of a publisher according to the costs of the publication, neither with regard to the financial components nor with regard to legal advice, neither in terms of the fees charged nor the price of the product. From a broader perspective on the field of publishing, however, participants in the workshops name the financing of publications as one of the most pressing current issues. The same applies to legal advice: authors rarely receive legal advice from publishers. However, this topic plays a central role for authors, publishers and libraries – especially for the latter, which in many cases provide legal advice.

Abstract (German original): In einer Umfrage und zwei Workshops hat das Projekt AuROA Erkenntnisse zu den Stakeholdern im geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Publikationsprozess sowie ihren Perspektiven gesammelt. Diese ergänzen die Erkenntnisse aus weiteren Veranstaltungen und einer Vielzahl von persönlichen Gesprächen. Die wichtigsten Themen der Workshops waren Hürden und Lösungsansätze in Open-Access-Publikationsabläufen für und zwischen den verschiedenen Stakeholdergruppen. Die Umfrage beleuchtete insbesondere Publikationserfahrungen von Autor:innen sowie deren Positionen zu Open Access, Verlagsrenommee und Verlagsdienstleistungen. Der Schwerpunkt lag hierbei stärker auf den Geistes- als auf den Sozialwissenschaften.

Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftler:innen sind dabei vor allem in den klassischen Publikationsformen wie Monographien, Sammelwerken und Zeitschriftenartikeln erfahren. Letztere haben dabei nicht den herausragenden Status wie im STM-Bereich. Die genutzten Publikationsformen stimmen dabei nicht unbedingt mit jenen überein, die als besonders renommiert eingeschätzt werden. Open Access stehen
die Befragten sehr positiv gegenüber, sind in der Praxis aber noch nicht sehr vertraut mit den konkreten Möglichkeiten, Open Access zu publizieren.

Wichtig ist den Stakeholdern die Abgrenzung von den Rahmenbedingungen im STM-Bereich, dessen breite Lösungen sie als nicht zielführend ansehen. Zu den Gründen gehören d