IN DEPTH
Opinion Open Access
Carl Robinson
Despite gaining wider acceptance in the trade, some of the guiding principles of Open Access are yet to be fully integrated into the publishing ecosystem
Closed to Open Access? M
tions. Even Google Scholar now indexes thousands of OA monographs and books. So why have OA monographs lacked success? As late as 2015, book processing charges (BPCs) were not considered a viable business option even while Article Processing Charges (APCs) had become common. For many reasons, APCs and BPCs are not comparable. Aside from the wide range of BPC charges that can be double or triple that of an APC, the specific challenges of book publishing must be accounted for. “Authors still hold in high regard the reputational value of being published in a list that has published other work of value,” explained publishing analyst David Worlock. “Specialised tpeset- ting; the use of complex diagrams and images; a need for technical editing, all represent complicated publishing expectations. Authors also respect professional, technical editing, along with the connectivit and discoverabilit publishers provide with marketing and promotions.”
Te numbers game
High origination costs, combined with high r.r.p.s, further stretch already strained library budgets, and sales numbers make for dismal reading. Worlock added: “A vicious cycle of decline in monographs has resulted.” Book Industry Study Group’s (BISG) executive
director Brian O’Leary is familiar with these frustrations: “Traditional channels, particularly libraries, have seen budgets capped or reduced, hurting their abilit to acquire broadly. There are more books published now than at any
36 11th October 2018
Carl Robinson is head of consulting at the Copyright Clearance Center
time in history. Even a static market would see fewer copies bought of any given title, but the market isn’t static.” While monographs have stumbled, OA scholarly articles have enjoyed a renaissance. Stakeholders, from research- ers to publishing executives, value the breadth of metrics available in analysing the lifecycle of an article. A robust peer review process and post-publication “altmetrics” (a variet of alternatives to traditional “impact factor”) now drive OA research far beyond the vicious cycle of “publish or perish”.
Going it alone
Meanwhile, many scholars have chosen to self-publish. While origination remains expensive, production and distribution can be quick, easy and cheap. For some, this alternative method of production has changed the course of their careers. Admitedly, the most constraining difference for academic self-publishing as a route to market is the need for peer review. Complications can also arise in cases of multi-authored works, or cross- disciplinary collaborations.
ore than any other factor, Open Access (OA) is transform- ing scholarly publishing. The industry is adapting to this new realit and, despite challenges in the past decade, OA has established a firm footing on the spectrum of business models for journal format publications. Surprisingly, then, OA books have struggled for shelf
space. According to a 2017 Springer Nature study, OA books outperform OA articles by an order of magnitude in terms of downloads and cita-
Publications that improve our understanding of emergent issues—disease, climate change, public health— seem like the ones for which OA provides a compelling benefit
Institution-centric publishing models have found some success, by contrast. “Universities can step into roles that feel closer to what publishers have traditionally done, in creating frontlists and backlists of projects that have been funded and published,” suggested O’Leary. “This starts to squeeze traditional publishers, who might then become more akin to distributors of others’ work.” Science and medical publications that have significant research interest are perhaps the best fit for OA. Taking an unconventional view, O’Leary told me: “It might not be the right way to look at it, but publications that improve our understanding of emergent issues—disease, climate change, public health—seem like the ones for which OA provides a compelling benefit. This isn’t to slight other fields, but I think they may be slower to adopt because there is less immediate demand.”
What next? For traditional monograph publishers, disruption from OA may prove to be the key to a new golden age. Publishers could take a cue from their scholarly authors: experiment, assess, adapt. BISG’s O’Leary said she would advise publishers
to “identify and aggregate relevant information from different platforms; analyse what has been gathered in a way that respects user privacy; communicate relevant information about usage to stakeholders; and examine engagement indicators, such as altmetrics”, adding: “The publishers who are offering OA models at this point are working to keep a seat at the table as the business evolves.” Merging the existing framework of scholarly monograph publishing with OA funding in a post-print world is undoubtedly complex, yet worthwhile. Although a sustain- able, industry-wide model has yet to emerge, individual programmes have begun to enjoy success. “Publishers need a beter understanding to be able to receive support for their OA programmes. Larger publish- ers, such as Springer Nature and Palgrave Macmillan, offer business models that include BPCs,” observed O’Leary. “Libraries have also started to offer some support.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44