Skip to main content

Flipping journals to Open Access: an extensive Harvard University literature review

Harvard University last week released an extensive 224 page literature review on subscription journals flipping to Open Access. The review's principal aim is to "disentangle different options", in order to "help publishers deliberate intelligently about their options". In total the authors find 15 options available to journals wanting to flip to OA, and interestingly 5 of these do not involve levying charges (most commonly referred to as Article Processing Charges).

The inclusion of so many non-APC reliant flipping pathways is very illuminating and certainly will be news to some people.
"Truncating or oversimplifying the range of options causes harm. For example, as noted, many stakeholders believe that there’s only one business model for OA journals, namely, charging APCs. This assumption has never been true and has never even been close. Every measurement for more than a decade has shown that roughly three-quarters of OA journals charge no author-side fees at all, and in fact, that roughly three-quarters of subscription journals charge author-side fees on top of their reader-side fees. The false assumption that all OA journals charge APCs stultifies the debate by limiting discussion to the one best-known option. It also stultifies the deliberations of publishers who believe, perhaps correctly, that the best-known option won’t work for them, and therefore conclude, prematurely, that no model will work for them." (Converting Scholarly Journals to Open Access: A Review of Approaches and Experiences. p. 4)
In the introduction Peter Suber, Director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication and editor of the review, mentions the value of the review in offering a resource for libraries struggling with rising subscription prices. He suggests that the rising cost of subscriptions could be a catalyst to stimulate talks about flipping to OA, given that another possible outcome is losing subscriptions entirely which benefits neither side.
"Academic Librarians are in a good position to make the case that converting to OA is better than cancellation, for everyone, and that new evidence shows that converting to OA can preserve or enhance readership, submissions, quality, and financial sustainability." (Converting Scholarly Journals to Open Access: A Review of Approaches and Experiences. p. 5)
Solomon, David, J. Mikael Laakso, and Bo-Christer Björk (authors). Peter Suber (editor). 2016. Converting Scholarly Journals to Open Access: A Review of Approaches and Experiences. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:27803834. CC-BY

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We've now reached 8000 items in our repository!

Last week the St Andrews Research Repository reached a new milestone: 8000 items!

The last major content milestone we celebrated was when we reached 5000 items, this was back in February 2015. The blog post we wrote in recognition of this mentioned that the upsurge in activity was largely down to research funders and HEFCE (the folks behind the Research Excellence Framework) requiring authors to self-archive their publications. 17 months on and this trend is continuing.

In April 2016 the Research Excellence Framework open access policy came into effect (to find out more read our previous blog post). This means that to ensure compliance with the policy authors must deposit their accepted manuscripts for journal articles and conference proceedings into the University's research information system (Pure). To ensure all St Andrews researchers are aware of the policy we have been working hard to deliver the message: 'Act on acceptance: deposit in Pure'. This slogan, which is em…

Open Access is here! Make sure you are ready

Open Access is now an essential feature of scholarly communications. As well as maximising visibility of the University’s research outputs, Open Access is now a requirement of many funders. It is also critical for ensuring eligibility for submission of journal articles and conference proceedings to the next Research Excellence Framework (REF).

The Policy for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework is in force from April 1 2016, and states "to be eligible for submission to the next REF, authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts must have been deposited in an institutional or subject repository". For St Andrews, this means that all researchers must deposit the accepted version of journal articles and conference proceedings in Pure as soon after acceptance as possible. In common with other institutions, the Library has been promoting the message ‘Act on acceptance: deposit in Pure’. This applies not just for REF and all authors should deposit their manuscripts…

Tickell report positive on the future of Open Access in the UK

Following the Burgess Review of Research Councils UK Open Access Policy and RCUK’s response, this report considers the wider scope of UK Open Access generally and how scholarly publishing markets and the policy landscape are developing including Open Data.

The advice was provided by Professor Adam Tickell, the respected Provost and Vice-Principal, University of Birmingham and Chair of Universities UK (UUK) Open Access Coordination Group.

Its main conclusion was positive on progress to date:
Open Access to research continues to be a public benefit and the UK remains a world leader. Research Councils UK should continue to support Gold Open Access charges. 
However, some changes are suggested in the recommendations.

Some key recommendations:
Universities should be encouraged to sign up to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) UUK Open Access Coordination Group to support the development of agreed service standards around Gold UK Open Access policy should offer gr…