Berghahn to pilot the move of 13 anthropology journals to Subscribe-to-Open | STM Publishing News

“Berghahn Books, the social sciences publisher based in Brooklyn, NY and Oxford, U.K., has announced a pilot to move 13 of the anthropology journals it publishes to Open Access (OA) from 2020 onwards. In partnership with Libraria, a group of anthropologists and other social scientists committed to open access, and the support of Knowledge Unlatched, Berghahn will be asking libraries current subscribing to these journals to renew for 2020 on a Subscribe-to-Open basis, which will make these journals free to readers and authors everywhere….”

L+H in Anthropology, v2.0 – Google Docs

In its simplest terms and inspired by growing research funder commitment to open access (see Plan S), Libraria is proposing a Library+Funder (L+F) model that first of all harnesses the Gates Foundation’s strategy, in which the research funder pays the publisher directly for the cost of publishing the research it has supported. It then combines Gates’ direct-payment strategy with the success of SCOAP3, Open Library of Humanities, and Knowledge Unlatched in soliciting broadly based library support for sustaining open access journals.

To enable anthropology journals to convert from subscriptions to open access under this proposed L+F model, funding agencies that support the research published in the journals would be asked to cover their share of the publishers’ revenue which was previously derived from subscriptions. In addition, the libraries subscribing to the journals undergoing this conversion would be asked to cover the remainder of the revenue needed to replace the money previously collected through subscriptions. In the case of the 21 anthropology journals that we have examined thus far (data), funders have sponsored the work of roughly a quarter of the items published, which leaves the libraries to cover the other three-quarters. If only the leading funders participate in the initial roll out of the model, which seems like a reasonable starting point, their share would be smaller but the libraries would still pay less than they would for a subscription (with more of the details below).…”

Post-Workshop Libraria Plan – Google Docs

What follows below is Libraria’s proposed role in supporting, in the first instance, the Berghahn open access pilot in anthropology. The plan is set out in generic terms, directed toward all publishers that may be interested in such a move. Our intent is to work with Vivian Berghahn on #1-4 before the summer of 2019, with BOA journals going open access in 2020, if subscribe-to-open targets are reached during the fall of 2019. The results of the pilot will begin to be shared through 2020. During this time, Libraria members will continue to reach out to publishers, editors, societies, and funders about participation in further phases of a piloting and rolling out of the model (while inviting you to reach out to us to continue the conversation).

 

  1. Encourage interested publishers to identify a set of titles, target numbers, and flip-thresholds for a pilot or in scaling up of this model for open access in anthropology and the social sciences.
     

  2. Support publishers’ development of 3-4 options for OA materials (e.g.,different levels of detail), pitch, and pricing models.

    1. Review, prior to release, proposed options with libraries, consortia, subscription agents, and content licensees.

    2. As a result, devise subscribe-to-open marketing campaign, w/ sales strategies & targets.  

    3. Create a slide deck for presentation of pilot by publisher and Libraria members.
       

  1. Work out general principles with publishers for third-party participation (e.g.,  JSTOR, EBSCO, ProQuest, Knowledge Unlatched).

  1. For example, for subscription agents

    1. Publisher’s current agencies offer materials for OA package and individual titles, as per prior agent agreements.

    2. Other agents invited to list and sell package in non-exclusive offering.

    3. Invite feedback on early sales responses and make adjustments to materials.

  2. Options for those who license content from publishers

    1. All-in from the outset: Licensee lets its subscribers know of “subscribe-to-open” pilot, while presenting publisher’s OA package as option, with small price reduction for rest of content from which package (or portion thereof) has been removed.

    2. Wait-out-the-pilot: Licensee lets its subscribers know of pilot, while maintaining status quo with its content access and publisher agreement. If OA package continues beyond pilot, licensee will separate OA content from the rest, adjust price, and possibly offer OA package to clients as well.

 

  1. Establish with publishers a number of measures for assessing the impact of open access (with release of parenthetical measures at the publisher’s discretion).

    1. Proportion (and number) of libraries that “renew” previous subscriptions on OA basis.

    2. Proportion (and number) of current subscribers that opt for OA package.

    3. Proportion (and number) of new “subscribers” to OA titles or package.

    4. Changes in readership numbers and geography and occupation (via pop-up question).

    5. Changes in submission and acceptance numbers for pre/post pilot

    6. Changes in authorship of submissions and publications for pre/post pilot.

 

  1. Recommend technical upgrades for participating publishers.

    1. Implement Crossref Open Funder Registry for tracking this potential source of support.

    2. Promote ORCID registration for tracking author, reviewer, etc. participation impact on a global and local (library community) scale.

    3. Develop library IP tracking to establish community usage to promote growth in library participation.  

 

  1. Track funders supporting research published in participating journals.

    1. Identify leading funders of the published research.

    2. Develop case with individual funders for supporti

At MIT anthropologists plan a model for Open Access

“Publishers, librarians, research funders, and leaders from across the field of anthropology — including journal editors and representatives of the major Anglophone anthropological societies of both Europe and North America — gathered at MIT on April 24, 2019 for an invitational workshop focused on a sea change for everyone who attended: moving the discipline’s journals to an Open-Access (OA) model.

 
Currently, the expense of academic publishing creates significant barriers to the broad dissemination of scholarly findings. The goal of the workshop was to consider a new model for providing open access to journal publications in a way that could transform both anthropology and a full range of academic disciplines….”

At MIT anthropologists plan a model for Open Access

“Publishers, librarians, research funders, and leaders from across the field of anthropology — including journal editors and representatives of the major Anglophone anthropological societies of both Europe and North America — gathered at MIT on April 24, 2019 for an invitational workshop focused on a sea change for everyone who attended: moving the discipline’s journals to an Open-Access (OA) model.

 
Currently, the expense of academic publishing creates significant barriers to the broad dissemination of scholarly findings. The goal of the workshop was to consider a new model for providing open access to journal publications in a way that could transform both anthropology and a full range of academic disciplines….”

Guest Post: An Open Letter from the Former HAU Staff 7 – Footnotes

“We do not want people to think that HAU [Journal of Ethnographic Theory] failed because it was unviable as an Open Access model. HAU failed because of the misconduct of one key individual and because senior staff and colleagues did nothing to stop him, effectively enabling his misconduct and abuse….HAU is now a new kind of project. It is no longer OA and it belongs to the University of Chicago Press….

GDC [Giovanni Da Col] failed to consult the EAB [External Advisory Board] on key decisions affecting HAU and its future direction. Of most concern to us is his decision to ask authors, after their manuscripts have been accepted to HAU, to pay Article Processing Charges (APCs). This was a major policy change that deeply affected the principle of Open Access with which HAU began, and yet the EAB was in no way consulted. GDC took it upon himself to decide that HAU would no longer be Open Access and consulted no one before implementing this new policy direction….”

 

 

Open Folklore

“A partnership of the American Folklore Society and the Indiana University Libraries, Open Folklore is a scholarly resource devoted to increasing the number and variety of open access resources, published and unpublished, that are available for the field of folklore studies and the communities with whom folklore scholars partner….”

Open Access Meets Social Media | Anthropology-News

“The SCA is experimenting with new ways of making our content accessible beyond the echo chamber of our discipline. As a section, we consider the accessibility of our work to be crucial aspects of public engagement and worlding anthropology, especially in contentious political moments. Our strategy centers on our efforts to make Cultural Anthropology a fully open-access journal, promote the ongoing series on our lively website, and generate buzz surrounding our social media that currently reach over 40,000 followers. All of this is made possible by a large team of student and postdoctoral contributing editors who make up the discipline’s next generation. Here, we highlight a sample of these activities in order to invite more scholars and students to the SCA.”

Opening Up the Realm of Anthropology: Visiting Lecture from Becca Peixotto

“The expedition is unusual in the traditionally closed, guarded field of paleoanthropology—it is officially an open access paleoanthropological expedition. This means that expedition members blogged, tweeted, and video chatted to share their work with schools, teachers, and the public all over the world. The open-access ethos of Rising Star represents a radical shift toward a more collaborative and inclusive place….”

Open Access: A Collective Ecology for AAA Publishing in the Digital Age — Cultural Anthropology

“Just over a year ago Cultural Anthropology went Open Access. It has been an exhilarating experience, which has seen the journal engage new publics and conversations, as well as explore new intellectual and editorial possibilities. For those involved in the running of the journal, it has also demanded a steep learning curve. We, the Board of the Society for Cultural Anthropology, thought it would be a good idea to put down in writing some of these lessons whilst responding to a recent memorandum (5/4/15) to Section Presidents, Journal Editors, and Section Treasurers that recapitulates the AAA’s history of scholarly publishing. As we write, Michael Chibnik (AA’s Editor-in-Chief) has published an editorial expressing his hesitation towards an OA solution for American Anthropologist.1 We take this opportunity to reply to Chibnik’s text too.

We offer here three brief reflections on why our experience with Cultural Anthropology has reassured us that Open Access is the future of scholarly publishing. First, we draw attention to the fact that Open Access offers perhaps the most robust model for managing the AAA journals’ portfolio in accordance with its history of collective responsibility. Second, we offer some insights into the changing landscape of scholarly publishing in the digital age. Last, we remind readers that Open Access is, perhaps above all other things, a moral and political decision.

We were prompted to write when we found out that, to our surprise and concern, the memorandum made no mention at all of Open Access in general, nor of Cultural Anthropology’s decision to no longer work with Wiley-Blackwell and to publish independently and Open Access beginning in 2014. These elisions are concerning because they ignore Open Access as a viable option for the future development of AAA’s collective portfolio….”