“When The British Blockchain Association decided to launch JBBA and began looking for the best means to publish the journal, Naqvi said he and his team were more concerned with soliciting quality articles and reaching the widest audience possible than with working with a known publisher. “Reputable publishers may impress some people but the majority of people are more interested in the quality of contents within the journal than who the publisher is,” explained Naqvi….”
“Barbara Kline Pope (BKP): This project was in development when I arrived at JHUP in late 2017. Greg Britton, our editorial director, took the lead in creating the OA proposal for consideration by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The project is certainly In line with our mission as a university press to disseminate scholarship far and wide. And, we have been interested in experimenting with new business models and new ways of delivering important scholarship, especially in the humanities. It’s also appealing to move important content from an out-of-print status to one that is free and open to the world.
As you noted, Mellon and NEH provided generous funding to bring 200 books back to life through this program. The first 100 were launched today on Project MUSE with an accompanying robust promotional campaign. We’re proud of the effort and eager to see the response. Our aim, as with all of our publishing, is to extend the reach of our authors’ work and to amplify its impact. What author doesn’t want engagement and impact? We conducted an experiment recently at JHUP comparing the reach of our open and gated content on Project MUSE, and we confirmed that we can dramatically increase engagement with our content through open publishing.
That aligns with my long experience at the now completely open National Academies Press….”
“A key part of equality in open access is enabling as many authors as possible to publish on an open-access basis. There is also a wider ambition to be more inclusive and remove barriers to wider participation in science. At IOP Publishing, we have established a diversity and inclusion committee to make sure that anyone can become an author, reviewer or editorial board member across all our journals. We have also introduced a double-blind peer-review option on several of our journals. This is where the identities of the authors, their organization and other details that could identify the authors, such as where the study was conducted, are masked from the reviewers. This assures authors that their submission will be evaluated solely on the quality of the science.”
“[Q] Finally, let us come back to the 21st International Conference on Grey Literature, which is being held in Hannover. On the subject of open access, demands for free access to scientific information are increasing. The topics of open access and grey literature will both be addressed at the conference. How do you assess the importance of open access in grey literature, and what needs to be done to increase the proportion of open access grey literature?
[A] In light of the Pisa Declaration, I believe the best way to establish open access more firmly is to introduce compulsory fees and to provide research funding. Moreover, open access enables academics to make their results known to other experts in a quick, barrier-free way. So it would be particularly helpful if more right holders were to publish their findings under CC licences….”
“As Executive Director of LIBER – the Association of European Research Libraries – I implement our strategy and manage our network of 450 libraries across 42 countries, as well as the office of seven staff in The Hague. Our strategy is about progressing the open science cause and powering sustainable knowledge in the digital age. We envision a world in 2022 in which open access will be the dominant form of publishing. A world in which research data is findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR). We believe that by developing digital and participatory skills for research, the cultural heritage of tomorrow can be built on today’s digital information. …”
“I hope our scholars realize that this is something that has to be done. This is the tipping point for us. The money is not there to support the status quo. I’ve heard from many faculty who agree that that we need to change this system that we have.
The current model is unsustainable for universities and is inconsistent with the values of a public university. We’re “of the public, for the public,” designed to serve the state and the citizens of the state. So, I feel as though we have no choice but to transform this system to critique what we’ve done. That critique is going to have some consequences, which I think are good….
We’re negotiating with Elsevier to find out what kind of license we can sign that will be affordable, sustainable, promotes open access and is transparent. Those are the four values that we have set. We’re at a tipping point where it’s just not possible to keep doing business as usual….”
“And then, the two afternoon sessions on Wednesday afternoon–”Projekt DEAL and the Anatomy of a Transformative Agreement for Open Access Publishing” and “The Future of Transformative Agreements: Subscriptions, Rights & Open Access”–are designed to work as a pair, Healy says, “because many people who attend one will want to attend the other.
“We all know the central position that open access has had in seminars and discussions for years, a dominant theme, often with different expressions and issues to highlight every year. But it does look like in 2019, at Frankfurt, a lot of people will be thinking about transformative agreements, will be asking how effective they’re likely to be, and–just as important–how you measure their effectiveness.
“What data can be applied to judge the effectiveness of a transformative agreement?
“I’d expect the topic most central to open-access this year will be the transformative agreement because in the run-up to the fair we’ve had so many inquiries about it, and to have both the funding agency and the publisher together in this” to talk about the Wiley transformative agreement “is going to be really interesting. They’re talking about what it means not only for the two partners but also for the wider industry.” …”
“Open access policies and initiatives introduced in recent years, Plan S among the latest, have put increasing emphasis in academia on discussions about what the future of scholarly publishing should look like. There are mounting debates around whether universal OA is an achievable goal, and how publishers should transition journals to OA models. Many scholarly societies, in particular, have expressed concerns that widening OA mandates could compromise their operations because they rely on subscription journal revenues to cover costs.
It seems that the only real consensus among scholarly societies and other stakeholders in the great OA debate is that the way forward isn’t obvious, and traversing the developing OA landscape remains a daunting endeavor for many societies. However, despite the absence of a clear path ahead, there is some direction to be gained by retracing the steps taken to get to this point. Most have heard some form of the adage, you can’t know where you’re going until you know where you’ve been. For scholarly societies, in particular, looking to the history of society and association journal publishing, which far pre-dates the current predominantly subscription-based and corporate-controlled publishing system, could yield greater perspective in debates around the future of journals and research access.
Aileen Fyfe, professor of modern history at the University of St. Andrews, knows the history of scholarly publishing and its many implications for the present-day inside and out. She has focused her research on the publishing and popularization of the sciences from a historical lense. Recent projects that Fyfe has worked on include a briefing titled “Untangling Academic Publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research,” and a collaborative project, “The Secret History of the Scientific Journal.” In the below interview, Fyfe shares an abridged history of journal publishing at scholarly societies and her thoughts on how scholarly publishing’s past can influence its present….”
“In late August, Springer Nature and Germany’s Projekt DEAL announced that they had signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) laying out the fundamentals of a national-level transformative open access agreement, whereby “more than 13,000 articles by German scholars and scientists are expected to be published open access (OA) per year, making them freely and immediately available to the world and increasing visibility and usage of German research published by Springer Nature.” I contacted Dagmar Laging, Springer Nature’s VP for Institutional Sales-Europe, who graciously agreed to answer some questions about this emerging deal….”
“The overall objective of this study was to explore the place of preprints in the research lifecycle from the points of view of researchers, research performing organisations, research funding organisations and preprint servers/ service providers. Our investigation covered:
` Core benefits and usage in the case of researchers, including incentives and disincentives
` Attitudes of research performing organisations (RPOs) and research funders
` Values, strategies and aims of service providers….”