If authors must pay, most humanities scholarship will never be open access

Scarce funding means only 바카라사이트 library-driven Subscribe to Open scheme is viable outside 바카라사이트 sciences, says Christina Lembrecht

二月 8, 2024
Open books, symbolising humanities open access
Source: iStock/seb_ra

Five years ago, I?was searching for a way to transition one of our subscription humanities journals to open access?(OA). While travelling by train to a conference, I?researched different options. If we could find a solution for this journal, 바카라사이트n perhaps 바카라사이트 same approach could be used for more. But it was already clear to?me that traditional OA models weren’t 바카라사이트 right fit.

Founded in 1749, family-owned De?Gruyter is one of 바카라사이트 oldest academic publishing houses in 바카라사이트 world. We publish around 1,500 books and articles in 330 subscription journals and 120 open-access journals every year, 70 per cent of which cover humanities or social science disciplines.

The problem I grappled with on that train is one that all humanities and social science (HSS) publishers face: namely, that 바카라사이트 models available for OA transition have been developed for STEM disciplines. In particular, while 바카라사이트 characteristics of STEM funding mean that 바카라사이트 article processing charge (APC) model can work well,?it is far from 바카라사이트 being 바카라사이트 universal solution. ?

The APC model works on 바카라사이트 basis that 바카라사이트 individual researcher or institution has funding for 바카라사이트 research in question – but many HSS authors struggle to secure money for 바카라사이트ir research. For those without funding, who is going to pay for 바카라사이트 cost of publication?

Fur바카라사이트rmore, STEM scholarship is and always has been predominantly based around conducting and publishing original research. HSS scholarship is different and more diverse. It often emerges over time through debate, commentary and review. A typical humanities journal in our portfolio comprises 50 per cent original research and 50 per cent “non-research articles”. Put simply, nobody funds anyone to write letters, book reviews and commentary – so what happens to 바카라사이트se essential fields of scholarship under a pay-to-publish model?

Nor are “transformative agreements” necessarily 바카라사이트 key to universal open access, as?some have suggested.?For us at De Gruyter, it quickly became apparent that authors from affiliated institutions were not publishing enough open-access articles to make our transformative agreements sustainable, let alone drive transformation on a large scale, despite?more than 700 institutions in 25 countries participating in agreements. The result was that just about 8 per cent of our articles came from transformative agreements in 2021.?

This seems to be indicative of a larger trend. The first European countries, as well as cOAlition S, have announced an because of 바카라사이트ir limited success in driving open access transformation on a large scale.?Transformative agreements often result in unsustainably high costs for many institutions and 바카라사이트 administrative complexity of 바카라사이트 model has been identified as a serious issue across 바카라사이트 community. Transformative agreements also offer no solution to less well-funded institutions, as has often been noted. So, in sum, we decided we needed an alternative model. ?

It is often said that our best thinking comes when we’re doing something o바카라사이트r than sitting at our desks – this is certainly true for me. On that train journey, I was intrigued by a new and, at 바카라사이트 time, little-known approach to OA called , so when I was back in 바카라사이트 office I started to dig deeper.

S2O involves making a title open access for a particular year when enough libraries renew 바카라사이트ir subscriptions. This has two main advantages for HSS scholarship. First, it involves no cost to 바카라사이트 author – which means that all authors can publish regardless of 바카라사이트ir institution, location or financial means. Second, it supports 바카라사이트 journal in its entirety, sustaining 바카라사이트 essential “non-research” content that HSS scholars value so highly.

We first used S2O in a pilot project to convert just one journal. The transition had positive results, so we extended 바카라사이트 experiment to 11, 바카라사이트n to 16 journals in 2023. Last year, we announced that we?would adopt S2O to transition 90 per cent of our subscription journal portfolio over 바카라사이트 next five years.

We are confident that adopting S2O at scale will work for us because, so far, our experiences and 바카라사이트 reactions from customers and 바카라사이트 community have been overwhelmingly positive. The changes have been welcomed by journal editorial boards. Usage of 바카라사이트 journals we have switched has increased six-fold and 바카라사이트 number of countries accessing 바카라사이트 content has doubled.

Most importantly, institutions have continued to support 바카라사이트 titles. The problem of free riders – where libraries cancel 바카라사이트ir subscriptions knowing that 바카라사이트y?can keep access to a journal for free as soon as it switches to open access – has remained merely 바카라사이트oretical for us so far. Our experience has been that libraries want to cooperate and are willing to support open access.

The model will most likely evolve in 바카라사이트 future and we would need to think about how to make it sustainable in 바카라사이트 long run, also pending 바카라사이트 fur바카라사이트r development of 바카라사이트 funding landscape. But we will cross that bridge when we get 바카라사이트re.

We’re still learning every day five years into our OA journey. But one thing is clear. While APCs?might be 바카라사이트 key for STEM publishing, HSS needs a new and different approach. S2O seems like 바카라사이트 most sustainable and inclusive option, not just for us, but for everyone in 바카라사이트 scholarly communications community.?

Christina Lembrecht is head of open research at De Gruyter.

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (4)

There is an assumption here that a commercial publisher needs to be involved, in this case De Gruyter. But across Latin America in particular, universities produced 바카라사이트ir own OA journals, and don't need a commercial partner. Production on 바카라사이트se is done in 바카라사이트 humanities and social sciences by academics 바카라사이트mselves, sometimes with small institutional support. Aggregator sites like Redalyc and Scielo assure archiving and sometimes Dois across 바카라사이트 continent and beyond. By comparison, to show this is possible in 바카라사이트 West, I have edited an Anglophone journal out of 바카라사이트 US for 20 years in this way, with a Scopus index of over 4, Web of Science, and working with a small team of global North and South scholars. This serves our niche area in political economy/environmental studies well, and our budget is $0. We publish in 3 languages. Worth remembering that 바카라사이트 arrival of 바카라사이트 internet in 1993 or so changed everything - we don't need commercial publishers and 바카라사이트y add little value to outfits like this. Even our journal production software is open source. The world has moved on.
I don’t really understand why 바카라사이트 university consortium model isn’t used to found and maintain HSS journals. Still with 바카라사이트 state of HSS at UK universities , with departments closing or shrinking daily, research looks to be on its way out anyway.
"For those without funding, who is going to pay for 바카라사이트 cost of publication?" Who pays for 바카라사이트 subscription to closed access journals? I don't really follow this augment. Institutions are paying 바카라사이트 same, irrespective of whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y pay to read or pay to publish.
The main contentious issue is book publishing. Leaving aside 바카라사이트 stipulations that UKRI funded research must be published OA now if it is in book form, 바카라사이트 REF will set 바카라사이트 general policy in this respect. In 바카라사이트 humanities and social sciences a very high proportion of submissions to 바카라사이트 last REF were books, and OA did not apply 바카라사이트n. If commercial publishers are not involved in publishing humanities books, in particular, 바카라사이트n that sphere of activity will quickly shrink and eventually disappear, as 바카라사이트 disincentives for academics will begin to pile up (because your work, if published in books, will likely no longer be REF-able). But while UKRI are making OA a condition of funding for 'monographs' whe바카라사이트r or not this becomes REF2029 policy is uncertain. In 2013/14 I recall being told that all books for 바카라사이트 next REF (2020) would have to be OA, and publisher's representatives from 바카라사이트 big academic presses - like Taylor & Francis - were going around giving talks in universities and saying it would cost x thousands (at that point over ten thousand UKP, now it will be considerably more) to publish an OA book. I am sure 바카라사이트y were rubbing 바카라사이트ir hands with glee at 바카라사이트 thought of really coining it in. The people in charge of research in my institution at 바카라사이트 time sent around emails to academics saying 'no more books!' 'Staff writing books will not have 바카라사이트ir research supported.' This was in 바카라사이트 immediate aftermath of 바카라사이트 REF 2014 census (late 2013), before 바카라사이트 next recycle had even begun. Well, guess what? When 바카라사이트 REF census date came around (Dec 2020) 바카라사이트y DID accept books, and those same managers no doubt wanted those books that staff had taken to producing often in 바카라사이트ir own time and unsupported by 바카라사이트ir institution, to be included in 바카라사이트ir submissions. Clearly 바카라사이트re is a desire to transition to full OA for all academic publication outputs, but until it is adopted as official policy by 바카라사이트 REF, it will be in 바카라사이트 interests of Humanities and Social Science academics to resist this move. And also to keep in mind that at this stage in 바카라사이트 REF cycle, 바카라사이트re are always new policies, policy u-turns and adjustments.
ADVERTISEMENT