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.

News – Professor Martin Paul Eve wins prestigious Philip Leverhulme Prize

“We are extremely pleased to announce that Professor Martin Paul Eve of Birkbeck, University of London, a co-CEO and co-founder with Dr Caroline Edwards of the Open Library of Humanities, has been awarded a 2019 Philip Leverhulme Prize for his research in the field of literary studies.

Philip Leverhulme Prizes have been offered since 2001 in commemoration of the contribution to the work of the Trust made by Philip Leverhulme, the Third Viscount Leverhulme and grandson of William Hesketh Lever, the founder of the Trust. The prestigious prize is for researchers at an early stage of their careers whose work has had international impact and whose future research career is exceptionally promising – to use for any research purpose.

Professor Eve said, of the award: “I am absolutely delighted and honoured to have been awarded this prize by the Leverhulme Trust. I have long advocated for scholar and active-researcher control of academic-publishing practices even while believing that publishing is a professional role that requires specialised labour and that should be properly remunerated. I hope, though, to have shown in my practice that this is possible; I have maintained an internationally recognised research trajectory while working extensively to transform scholarly communications in the humanities disciplines.” …”

Libraries supports faculty member’s open-access publication through TOME | Penn State University

“A collaboration among the Association of American Universities (AAU), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the Association of University Presses (AUP), TOME was designed to advance the wide dissemination of scholarship by humanities and humanistic social sciences faculty members through open access editions of peer-reviewed and professionally edited monographs. Its mission, according to Potter, is “to ensure that university presses can continue to publish high-quality, peer-reviewed monographs while broadly improving access to these works by scholars and the public.”

Penn State was among the first of the 14 universities that have pledged support for TOME. The Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost committed $45,000 per year to be divided among up to three subvention grants annual for five years (2018–23). …”

The OLH Open Consortial Offer

“The Open Library of Humanities welcomes expressions of interest from consortia, societies, networks and scholarly projects interested in joining the OLH as a bloc.

We believe that an open offer is advantageous for three reasons:

It is a collective and affordable expression of support for and commitment to scholarly open access.

It can be deployed as a cost-effective alternative to paying APCs for group publications, redirecting scholarly funds towards the creation of new research at the direct/indirect cost of production.

The mechanism of this offer allows larger partners in a group or consortium to support their peers, with each member paying according to their ability and benefiting according to their needs.

We also believe that it is crucial for collective actors to be aware of their options, and of the benefits of acting together in solidarity. The alternative is the prisoner’s dilemma scenario familiar to universities negotiating with legacy publishers. We know that we are all stronger when discussion is frank and transparent. 

First, how does the offer work? The OLH subsidy is banded based on the nationality of a joining institution. The banding also accounts for the relative size of the institution at a national level: for example, the cost for a large institution in the US is USD $2123 per annum, whereas the fee for a smaller US institution is USD $681 per annum….”