Columbia University joins OLH LPS model

“We are delighted to announce that Columbia University through its network of libraries has just joined the Open Library of Humanities’ Library Partnership Subsidy system….

The Open Library of Humanities is an academic-led, gold open-access publisher with no author-facing charges. With funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the platform covers its costs by payments from an international library consortium, rather than any kind of author fee.


Paula Clemente Vega, Marketing Officer for the Open Library of Humanities, welcomed Columbia University: “We are delighted to have Columbia University as member of our LPS model. Our member libraries are contributing together to the devising of an alternative to the APC model, which is both unsustainable for the majority of humanities scholars and the budgets of most universities in the context of the serial crisis. With the help of Columbia University we will continue to support and extend open access to scholarship in the humanities with neither author-facing, nor reader-facing charges.” …”

Plan S and the History Journal Landscape: Royal Historical Society Guidance Paper

“? What are the new contours of peer-reviewed journal publication for Humanities and Social Science disciplines following the establishment of cOAlition S in September 2018?

? How prepared are History journals and History researchers for the implementation of Plan S-aligned open access mandates in the UK?

? What are the potential implications for UK-based and international History journals of implementing (or choosing not to implement) Plan S-aligned open access policies?

? What is the evidence base that should inform UKRI’s consultations on open access? …”

Open access monographs: from policy to reality (2 October 2019)

“This one-day symposium took place at St Catharine’s College at the University of Cambridge on 2 October 2019 and explored the policies, economics and future directions of open access monograph publishing. Attendees had the opportunity to discuss innovations in the sector, share their enthusiasms and concerns about current developments, and learn more about the opportunities for and realities of publishing an open access book.? Keynote speakers included Professor Martin Eve (Birkbeck, University of London) and Professor Margot Finn (President of the Royal Historical Society) and the panel discussions were comprised by representatives from Research England, The Wellcome Trust, academic experts on the subject as well as various publishing houses. The panel discussions aimed to create a forum for researchers to express the challenges and benefits they foresee if open access monographs becomes a requirement.

Full details of the speakers and panellists can be found in the event programme flyer.

The symposium was supported by the Arcadia Fund, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin.

Open access monographs: from policy to reality (2 October 2019) – Symposium programme
Welcome – Dr Jessica Gardner
The Economics and Political-Economics of Open-Access Monograph Publishing – Prof. Martin Paul Eve
Open research publishing in the humanities – Dr Nicola Kozicharow
Open Access Monographs: From Policy to Reality – Perspectives from the Royal Historical Society – Prof. Margot Finn
Policy and practice: Moving towards Plan S and REF – panel discussion featuring Dr Steven Hill (chair), Prof. Martin Paul Eve, Prof. Margot Finn, Hannah Hope and Prof. Roger Kain
Perspectives from Cambridge University Press – Ben Denne, Matt Day, Helen Barton and Chris Harrison

Definitions of Open? – Matt Day
Open Access monograph publishing: Benefits and Challenges – Helen Barton
Sharing Knowledge is Cool: OA experiments in context – Chris Harrison

Innovations in open monograph publishing – panel discussion featuring Patricia Killiard (chair), Janneke Adema, Ben Denne, Dr Rupert Gatti, Rosalind Pyne and Lara Speicher

Radical Open Access – Janneke Adema

Reflections of the day – Dr Ruper Gatti, Dr Steven Hill, Prof. Roger Kain and Dr Helen Snaith
Closing remarks – Niamh Tumelty….”

Ownership, Control, Access and Possession in OA Publishing

“The issue of whose voices are represented—in print, online or on air—by whom and for whom, is particularly salient for under-represented and historically marginalized communities. Communities of colour and Indigenous peoples have more often found themselves to be objects of scholarly interest and academic scrutiny rather than recognized as co-creators of the research and equal partners in the publishing projects that follow. The phrase ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’—while historically associated with disability inclusion and empowerment—has greater relevance than ever, and offers us an opportunity to rethink how we share information in this digitally connected world.

For Indigenous communities in North America and beyond, the institutional momentum behind open access imperatives risks infringing (and even violating) long-held cultural protocols about who should be privy to certain forms of information and traditional knowledge, and when and how these are to be shared. The First Nations principles of OCAP®—Ownership, Control, Access and Possession—are important standards that all of us working in cultural heritage need to study with care….”

Bringing Scholarship Back to the Heart of Scholarly Communication

“What are our chances of better aligning the paved and unpaved routes, or, in other words, what are our options to reduce the gap between established, ‘paved’ practices of scholarly communication and actual, evolving research practices? My thoughts are situated in the contexts of arts and humanities research, but similar phenomena are surely present in other disciplines as well….”

Bringing Scholarship Back to the Heart of Scholarly Communication

“What are our chances of better aligning the paved and unpaved routes, or, in other words, what are our options to reduce the gap between established, ‘paved’ practices of scholarly communication and actual, evolving research practices? My thoughts are situated in the contexts of arts and humanities research, but similar phenomena are surely present in other disciplines as well….”

Open Access and the Humanities | FifteenEightyFour | Cambridge University Press

“First, in the United Kingdom at least, green open access – where authors deposit their accepted manuscripts or later versions in an institutional repository – has become entirely normalised as a result of funder policies associated with the Research Excellence Framework. An exponentially greater volume of material here, and in other countries around Europe, has become available in repositories. This has not led to the collapse of the subscription ecosystem but has meant that many more people are able to access research work.

Second, powerful international funder mandates, such as ‘Plan S’, have accelerated the schedule for OA. Importantly, for the humanities disciplines, guidance on a mandate for monographs will be forthcoming in 2021, so the timescale for implementation is emerging. We need to use this time to find business models that will allow for sustainable and perhaps scalable OA for books (hint: it’s not book processing charges). To appropriate the words of a prominent figure in other spheres of European politics in recent days: ‘please do not waste this time’.

Third, many humanists have realised the benefits of OA for their work, although they remain stymied from pursuing the ‘gold route’ because of the prevalence of article processing charges, which they cannot afford. New models such as those pioneered by my own Open Library of Humanities, but also Open Book Publishers, punctum books, and others, though, point the way towards business models that could achieve full access to the version of record, without author-facing charges. We now need other publishers to adopt these models themselves. The desire of humanists to publish openly is becoming more and more widespread, when the conditions are right. Fostering this positivity while working to make OA possible – rather than just relying on the coercion of funder mandates – is vitally important if we are to have a world that values humanistic knowledge.

Fourth, there is an increasing dialogue around global inclusivity in scholarly communications in general. While article processing charge models for OA have been criticized for excluding scholars from the Global South (to use a contested term), for instance, this has opened a broader dialogue around who is allowed to read and write within our academic publishing processes. For example, one might ask, what does it mean that English remains the lingua franca of scholarly publishing, derived from colonial legacies?…”

Vacancies, Training & Volunteering – Open Book Publishers

“Open Book Publishers (OBP) is seeking to appoint a European Co-ordinator as part of the OPERAS-P (Open Scholarly Communication in the European Research Area for Social Sciences and Humanities – Preparation) project.

The European Co-ordinator will facilitate exchange between the various library and scholarly publishing communities within the EU, and the international Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM) project.


This is a fixed-term, 18-month position funded by the EU through the OPERAS-P project….”

A Selected Comparison of Music Librarians’ and Musicologists’ Self-Archiving Practices

Abstract:  The importance of open access (OA) advocacy is well-documented in the literature of academic librarianship, but previous research shows that librarians’ OA behaviors are less conclusive. This article compares the self-archiving practices of music librarians and musicologists to see how librarians rank in OA adoption. Availability of articles published from 2013 to 2017 in six green OA journals in music librarianship and musicology indicates a need for continued advocacy and enhanced understanding of OA policies and opportunities.

Revisiting “the 1990s debutante”: Scholar?led publishing and the prehistory of the open access movement – Moore – – Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology – Wiley Online Library

Abstract: The movement for open access publishing (OA) is often said to have its roots in the scientific disciplines, having been popularized by scientific publishers and formalized through a range of top?down policy interventions. But there is an often?neglected prehistory of OA that can be found in the early DIY publishers of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Managed entirely by working academics, these journals published research in the humanities and social sciences and stand out for their unique set of motivations and practices. This article explores this separate lineage in the history of the OA movement through a critical?theoretical analysis of the motivations and practices of the early scholar?led publishers. Alongside showing the involvement of the humanities and social sciences in the formation of OA, the analysis reveals the importance that these journals placed on experimental practices, critique of commercial publishing, and the desire to reach new audiences. Understood in today’s context, this research is significant for adding complexity to the history of OA, which policymakers, advocates, and publishing scholars should keep in mind as OA goes mainstream.