110 likes | 115 Vues
Diamond Open Access Models for Journals A perspective from KU: Pro‘s , con‘s & moving forward. Tom Mosterd & Max Mosterd Bielefeld, February 26th, 2019. Topics. The current space for non-APC publishing models: Diamond Open Access Challenges The role of Knowledge Unlatched (KU)
E N D
Diamond Open Access Models for Journals A perspectivefrom KU: Pro‘s, con‘s & movingforward Tom Mosterd & Max Mosterd Bielefeld, February 26th, 2019
Topics • The current space for non-APC publishing models: Diamond Open Access • Challenges • The role of Knowledge Unlatched (KU) • Learnings so far • A transformative approach
The current space for non-APC publishing models: Diamond Open Access • Diamond Open Access: Supporting by a consortium • Open Library of Humanities, Scoap3 & KU Select Journals *Not all journals are fully covered by SCOAP3 ** KU Journal Supporters Only Supporters: 210+ Journals: 27 journals Supporters**: 120+ Journals: 25+ journals Supporters: 3000+ Journals*: 11+
Diamond Open Access: Pro’s and con’s • Pro’s: • Increasing attention for non-APC models as an alternative for Gold Open Access, especially for the Humanities & Social Sciences • Strong community supported approach to coordinate global funding • Can offer a more viable approach for the HSS where APC-funding is limited to non-existent • Removes financial burden for authors, smooth author-experience • Cons: • Can be applied on a large scale, for subscription journals? • Challenging to implement without dedicated funding (e.g. APCs for Gold) • Mixed-publisher package with single titles difficult to move budget* • For new OA titles, more difficult to find funding* • *For KU Select Journals (may not apply for OLH / SCOAP3)
Feedback from institutions: Learnings So Far • Argument showing ”a better deal” compared to an APC-driven model works for research intensive institutions • Much support for the APC-free component in theory, yet less in practice • More challenging to convince access-focused institutions to act • Often challenging to organize funding internally • For subscription journals, often: • Significant part of the subscribing institutions have limited publication output • Considerable number of institutions with researchers publishing in the journal are not subscribed
The role of Knowledge Unlatched • Coordination between publishers & funders (libraries, consortia & research institutions)
High Readership Based On Experience: Can Identify Four Main Customer Segments Low Publications Low High
Focussing on the read-component • Example model: Subscribe to open deals (diamond) • Readership value: normal distribution of cost per use metrics, signalling high access value to many current subscribers (e.g. readership value) • Journal portfolio: best for a focussed portfolio of journal content with consolidated customer base in terms of regions • Pros: • Institutional option to internally migrate budget is obvious for a portfolio • Adding new funding channels, such as funders can directly imply a subscribe to open discount to existing subscribers • In theory, clear incentives for all to take part • Cons: • Timing challenging to reach, inform, and convince all current subscribers about a proposed flip within, say, a one-year time-frame • Free rider risk and consequential double-dipping negotiations
Focussing on the publish-component • Example model: National / large consortia deals • Publisher value: normal distribution of publication output by institutions, signalling high publisher value to many current subscribers (e.g. publication value) • Journal portfolio: best for a focussed portfolio of journal content with consolidated customer base in terms of regions • Pros: • Potentially transparent and pragmatic model to realise full OA • Allow for large volume deals of journals and comparatively rapid transition • May allow for consortia to reallocate funding amongst consortia members • Cons: • Timing challenging migrate budget from read-driven system to publication-driven system for publication-intensive institutions • Difficult to cater for non-affiliated authors and less well-funded institutions • National consortia negotiations as the “box”, missing out on global perspective and possibly troubling transformation for others
KU Plan-S model • Focus on hybrid/subscription journal portfolios from societies and traditional publishers • Global approach to support true transformation into full OA via a ‘framework’ deal
Thankyou! Questions? Tom Mosterd & Max Mosterd Bielefeld, February 26th, 2019