Analysis and news


The triptych of knowledge liberation It remains a surprising fact to many that most open access publishers do not charge article processing charges (APCs), writes Liz Allen


A quick check of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) shows that 60 per cent of open access (OA) journals have no APC at all. OA and APCs have long since been


conflated – but, make no mistake, they are two separate things. One liberates knowledge and the other is a business model. Perhaps the confusion arises because many of the most prominent OA publications do carry an APC, and they have both proven effective at allowing publishers to broadly disseminate original scientific research articles at scale. That the APC model can work well for the primary literature in certain disciplines doesn’t appear to be in dispute. This content is created from scratch to be open, and a thriving marketplace has developed. However, APCs do not work well to make other types of content – such as review publications that analyse and synthesise the primary literature – more open. There are three main reasons why. The first is equality. By this I refer to building a sustainable publication model with a modest fee attached, so that champions of reviews can support the conversion to open access for the benefit of themselves and others. Take non-profit publisher Annual Reviews, which publishes 47 journals across the life, biomedical, physical and social sciences. APCs, even at the highest-priced range of the market, would not come close to recouping the high costs associated with producing a review article. Annual Reviews invites expert authors to write, many of whom voluntarily spend months on the assignment. It would be hard to imagine a more unwelcome invitation than one that was accompanied by a steep invoice for the honour of being asked to author an article! More equitable and reasonable funding models are necessary to facilitate OA to review services such as Annual Reviews.


Sustainability doesn’t just mean setting


reasonable prices to support a toll to open conversion; it also means not simply taking ever more water from the library well.


26 Research Information June/July 2017


“APCs would not come close to recouping the high costs associated with producing a review article”


At Annual Reviews, we wanted to test


a new way of making the transition to open access and we started by choosing a journal that seeks to further the health and well-being of all, the Annual Review of Public Health, with the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s (RWJF) initiative to increase openness and transparency in research. The grant covers the cost of making the 2017 volume of the Annual Review of Public Health open access for one year and allows us to make all 37 back volumes free to read. This gives us space and time to ask the


library community to consider redirecting their former subscription payment for the journal to a collective fund, so that we can continue, and if successful, expand our


OA programmes. Once we know what the appetite is among the library community to support the subscription-equivalent transition to OA, we will be able to plan our fundraising accordingly. In terms of community, one of the key benefits of this grant is that the RWJF is additionally supporting us to promote the journal and build greater usage of the content to all audiences – public health researchers and policy makers, activist members of the general public, librarians and more. They have asked us to document our experiences on this journey and share them with other publishers. The goal is to see which lessons might apply more broadly, as many publishers are seeking to make a sustainable transition to OA. This is also an opportunity to consider how our experiences with a journal that is frequently in the public eye might translate to publications that focus on more specialised topics, that are not especially popular, but nonetheless need to exist and deserve to be read.


Liz Allen is director of marcom and strategic development at Annual Reviews


@researchinfo | www.researchinformation.info


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