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

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 �C 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 �C 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 �C 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 �C 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 �C where libraries cancel 바카라사이트ir subscriptions knowing that 바카라사이트y?can keep access to a journal for free as soon as it switches to open access �C 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.