Analysis and news

Uncertainty, meet modularity Publishing organisations should look to adopt modular infrastructure and modular business models so they can experiment, writes Brian Cody

Uncertainty is something we’re all living with now. Before this pandemic, we already had substantial uncertainty in our industry, specifically about what business models would be viable for academic journal publishers given the ongoing push towards open access (OA). It’s been unclear for years what the transition to OA will ultimately look like, with many experiments and new initiatives emerging all the time. Recently, it has felt like new journal publishing business models are being introduced by the week: read-and-publish, publish-and-read, pure publish, subscribe to open, consortium agreements, membership models – and the list goes on. Which of these OA business models will be keeping publishers afloat in 5 or 10 years, and which will have proved to be unsustainable or short-sighted? What OA business models that we haven’t even thought of yet will be important in 10 years? Spoiler alert: this article does NOT include a functioning crystal ball to answer these questions. My apologies. Instead, this article looks at how publishing

organisations can position themselves to efficiently experiment with, abandon, and adopt emerging business models over the next 5 to 10 years through a modular approach to infrastructure and building an agile organisation culture.

Modular business models Modular design ‘subdivides a system into smaller parts called modules, which can be independently created, modified, replaced or exchanged between different systems’. This is a common approach in the manufacturing of products like cars, computers, and even entire office buildings. Being able to upgrade a part (e.g., a more powerful car motor) or add additional components (e.g., more computing processors) without all the other components also needing to change is an efficient and flexible design pattern, and has proven to be a competitive advantage for companies such as Volkswagen. Outside of physical manufacturing, the idea of modularity as a competitive advantage has been explored academically since at least Herbert Simon, who introduced | @researchinfo

the idea of ‘near decomposability’ to demonstrate that complex systems that have stable sub-systems (or modules) allow the system to evolve and operate more efficiently than systems that do not have these sorts of sub-units (aside: I’d recommend reading Simon’s 1962 article just for the charming thought experiment featuring two watchmakers named Hora and Tempus). The idea that new business units could be added or altered without incurring coordination costs across the rest of the organisation has been highlighted as part of the competitive advantage of companies such as Amazon.

In the publishing industry, many are already

familiar with the experience of modularity, or the lack thereof. For example, if a publishing organisation wanted to launch a new journal with a different workflow (e.g., open peer

“Which of these OA business models will be keeping publishers afloat in 5 or 10 years?”

review, or publishing individual articles as they’re available rather than issue- based publishing), would doing so require coordination across the organisation? Would the new project need to utilise the same software, people, and processes, or could it be implemented with different software or a different workflow without sowing confusion and adding complexity to the existing processes?

Modular infrastructure For many academic journal publishers, the extent to which they can accommodate modularity is often seen as enabled (or hindered) by their software infrastructure. Does your publishing solution support open peer review?

If just one journal wants to send/receive data from a new machine learning service, does that impact all the journals that will NOT use that service? There is a classic (and relevant) tension in software design and software purchasing

decisions about whether the software should do everything the organisation needs in one place (‘software suite’) even if each piece is not ideal, or whether to utilise multiple separate software applications that each excel in their domain, with the downside that you have to learn multiple systems and keep them talking to each other. There are pros-and-cons to both

approaches – but when faced with lots of uncertainty and a rapidly changing business environment, taking the ‘best-in- class’ approach offers many competitive advantages that outweigh the coordination and management costs of using multiple pieces of software: 1. Upgrade frequently; 2. Adopt a culture of integration: and 3. Low-cost experiments: As new publishing models, software, and services emerge, organisations with more modular infrastructure can ramp up journal or pilot projects without high up-front costs.

Conclusion I started writing this article just before the Covid-19 pandemic response really took off in the United States, and I had to shift my attention (as many of us have) to adjust to the new normal of working from home within a pandemic with no clear end in sight. When I came back to the unfinished article, I felt it was more timely than ever: that how well-equipped a publisher is to respond to uncertainty will be a major factor in their growth and survival seems all the more believable given the massive uncertainty we’re all living in right now. Modularity is one approach publishing

organisations can take to increase their agility and their ability to pivot. As uncertainty continues to be a major feature of our industry’s landscape, publishing organisations should look to adopt modular infrastructure and modular business models so they can experiment – and quickly abandon business models that prove unsustainable.

A fully-referenced version of this article is available at

Brian Cody is CEO and Co-founder of Scholastica

June/July 2020 Research Information


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