he problem of how we should transition to open access is now urgent. The current situation is one of exorbitant subscription journals and expensive open-access ones, and to address it requires organised action from academics. The Fair Open Access Alliance, set up to facilitate the conversion of existing subscription journals to open access, is an example of such organisation. Alex Holcombe and Mark C. Wilson outline the group’s five Fair Open Access Principles and encourage all librarians, researchers, and administrators to work together to secure agreement to cancel subscriptions and to pool funds to pay for open access infrastructure

Holcombe, Alex

Wilson, Mark C.

LSE Research Online

Fair	Open	Access:	returning	control	of	scholarlyjournals	to	their	communitiesThe	problem	of	how	we	should	transition	to	open	access	is	now	urgent.	The	currentsituation	is	one	of	exorbitant	subscription	journals	and	expensive	open-access	ones,and	to	address	it	requires	organised	action	from	academics.	The	Fair	Open	AccessAlliance,	set	up	to	facilitate	the	conversion	of	existing	subscription	journals	to	openaccess,	is	an	example	of	such	organisation.	Alex	Holcombe	and	Mark	C.	Wilsonoutline	the	group’s	five	Fair	Open	Access	Principles	and	encourage	all	librarians,researchers,	and	administrators	to	work	together	to	secure	agreement	to	cancel	subscriptions	and	to	pool	fundsto	pay	for	open	access	infrastructure.The	problem	of	how	the	world	should	transition	to	open	access	is	now	urgent.	Growth	in	subscription	feescharged	to	libraries	has	continued	rising	even	as	open	access	has	grown,	and	open	access	has	its	own	costs.The	business	model	for	recorded	music	was	disrupted	by	the	rise	of	illegal	file-sharing.	In	academia	however,until	recently	file	sharing	of	scholarly	papers	did	not	occur	enough	for	researchers	to	forego	subscription	accessto	journals.	But	that	may	have	changed,	via	a	process	of	paywall-thwarting	that	reminds	us,	a	bit,	of	GeorgeLopez’s	reaction	to	Donald	Trump’s	planned	border	wall.	When	Lopez,	the	Mexican-American	comedian,	wasasked	what	he	thought	about	Trump’s	wall,	he	replied:	“well,	I	got	news	for	everybody…	we’ve	got	tunnels!”.	Forthe	concerns	about	Trump’s	wall,	the	idea	that	illegal	tunnels	are	a	solution	is	a	joke,	but	in	the	case	of	digitalgoods,	cyber-tunnels	can	move	the	vast	majority	of	paywalled	articles	out	from	behind	the	digital	barrier.Using	passwords	donated	by	PhD	students	and	other	university	community	members,	Sci-Hub	bots	have“liberated”	the	scholarly	literature,	downloading	millions	of	articles	and	posting	them	on	a	Russia-based	websiteanyone	can	access.	Sci-Hub	now	“provides	access	to	nearly	all	scholarly	literature”,	according	to	oneindependent	study.Sci-Hub	is	not	a	long-term	solution.	First,	and	aside	from	the	ethical	questions	involved,	Sci-Hub	is	illegal	and	thelegal	establishment	has	considerable	resources	for	striking	back,	as	Napster,	the	similarly	centralised	music	file-sharing	site,	found	out.	Even	if	Sci-Hub	remains	viable,	for	the	publication	of	new	knowledge	to	continuesomeone	has	to	pay	the	costs	associated	with	managing	article	manuscripts	and	maintaining	the	databases	andwebsites	that	host	them.	There	is	a	substantial	technology	infrastructure	involved.Impact of Social Sciences Blog: Fair Open Access: returning control of scholarly journals to their communities Page 1 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-10-23Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/10/23/fair-open-access-returning-control-of-scholarly-journals-to-their-communities/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/Fortunately,	the	real	cost	of	this	infrastructure	is	much	less	than	universities,	businesses,	and	governments	havegrown	accustomed	to	paying.	Thanks	to	their	near-monopoly	on	prestigious	journal	titles	in	the	sciences,commercial	publishers	have	so	far	been	able	to	charge	exorbitant	sums	for	subscriptions	while	spending	verylittle	on	providing	real	service	and	usability,	granting	themselves	profit	margins	in	excess	of	practically	every	otherindustry.The	alternative	to	subscription-based	journals,	open-access	publishing,	is	now	familiar	to	most	researchers.	Itinvolves	no	subscription	fees;	anyone	can	read	and	redistribute	the	article,	and	under	some	licences	it	alsomeans	free	reuse	with	acknowledgement	(e.g.	using	other	researchers’	figures	for	education,	business,	and	newknowledge	creation).	Most	major	publishers	now	offer	it	to	authors	but	many	do	so	only	at	high	prices,	especiallyin	the	sciences,	so	as	to	maintain	their	high	profits.	To	publish	in	the	associated	journals,	one	must	pay	an	articleprocessing	charge,	a	fee	typically	charged	directly	to	the	author	but	often	paid	for	by	the	author’s	university	orfunder.	The	large	commercial	publishers	offer	open-access	journals	with	fairly	reasonable	APCs	starting	atseveral	hundred	dollars	(close	to	basic	costings	with	today’s	technology)	to	around	$2,000,	but	the	APC	in“hybrid”	journals	(whereby	individual	articles	in	a	subscription	journal	are	made	open	access)	can	be	quite	high.Elsevier,	for	example,	publishes	hundreds	of	journals	for	which	the	APC	is	USD$3000	or	more.Funders	in	the	UK	and	elsewhere	have	agreed	to	pay	these	APCs,	but	due	to	publishers’	power	over	prestigiousjournal	titles,	the	market	is	not	competitive	so	downward	pressure	on	prices	is	very	weak,	and	many	authorswithout	direct	grant	support	are	shut	out.	Also,	many	authors	are	opposed	on	principle	to	paying	to	publish,	beingworried	about	the	lack	of	incentives	for	journals	to	exert	quality	control	(see,	for	example,	the	results	of	our	surveyof	mathematicians).Changing	this	unsatisfactory	arrangement	of	exorbitant	subscription	journals	and	expensive	open-access	onesrequires	organised	action,	and	academics	are	better	known	for	lecturing	and	debating	than	for	acting.	Still,	manyacademics	have	created	scholar-run	open-access	journals,	with	many	being	free	to	publish	in.	The	Directory	ofOpen	Access	Journals	lists	over	9,500	journals,	over	6,500	of	which	have	no	APC.	Many	of	these	journals	rely	onthe	open-source	Open	Journal	Systems	publishing	software.	OJS	has	its	limitations,	but	additional	open	journalmanagement	systems	are	emerging	that	make	publishing	even	easier.Impact of Social Sciences Blog: Fair Open Access: returning control of scholarly journals to their communities Page 2 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-10-23Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/10/23/fair-open-access-returning-control-of-scholarly-journals-to-their-communities/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/Independent	open-access	journals	are	often	of	high	scholarly	quality,	albeit	run	on	a	shoestring	budget	andsometimes	lacking	features	of	expensive	journals.	Unfortunately,	these	journals	can	find	it	difficult	to	develop	thepositive	reputation	and	“brand”	that	subscription	journals	with	a	longer	history	sometimes	enjoy.	Taking	anexisting	subscription	journal	with	an	established	brand	and	setting	it	free	is	therefore	an	attractive	proposition.	Butwhen	a	for-profit	corporation	holds	all	the	legal	rights,	including	the	name	of	the	original	journal,	as	is	often	thecase,	wresting	control	can	be	difficult.This	“flipping”	of	a	publisher-owned	subscription	journal	to	open	access	can	be	done,	and	indeed	there	areseveral	precedents,	including	linguistics	journal	Glossa.	Its	founders	were	formerly	editors	of	the	prestigious	andexpensive	Elsevier	subscription	journal,	Lingua.	Led	by	chief	editor	Johan	Rooryck,	the	editors	resigned	fromLingua	and	started	the	new,	open-access	Glossa.	The	scholarly	community	of	authors	and	reviewers	followed,and	Glossa	is	flourishing,	while	the	old	journal	languishes.However,	most	journal	editors	and	editorial	board	members	are	understandably	reluctant	to	take	the	leap	ofconverting	to	open	access.	Problems	include	ignorance	of	the	options,	a	desire	for	editorial	board	consensus,uncertainty	regarding	the	viability	of	finances,	and	distaste	for	the	prevailing	model	of	charging	a	fee	to	publish.These	concerns	should	not	be	limited	to	open	access	journals:	Sci-Hub	and	the	movement	of	funders	towardopen	access	have	also	brought	the	financial	viability	of	subscription	journals	into	question.To	feel	comfortable	with	abandoning	their	publisher	for	a	new	initiative,	there	is	a	lot	that	editors	need.	A	strongunderstanding	of	both	the	motivating	principles	and	the	practicalities	is	required.	To	address	these	issues,	and	tofacilitate	improvements	in	the	way	that	open-access	journals	are	set	up	and	run,	our	group	has	formulated	a	setof	principles	that	we	call	Fair	Open	Access.	At	the	FairOA	website,	we	lay	out	the	five	Fair	Open	Accessprinciples.	Briefly,	a	FairOA	journal	has	the	following	qualities:1.	 The	journal	is	controlled	by	the	scholarly	community	and	has	a	transparent	governance	structure.2.	 Authors	retain	copyright	of	their	articles.3.	 All	articles	are	fully	open	access.4.	 No	fees	are	required	from	authors.5.	 Any	payments	made	to	a	publisher	are	transparent	and	in	proportion	to	the	service	provided.We	also	provide	practical	information	to	assist	scholars	in	getting	their	journals	out	from	under	publisherownership	and	converting	to	a	FairOA	model.The	needs	of	the	various	disciplines	differ,	so	we	have	created	discipline-specific	organisations	under	ourumbrella	FairOA	site:	LingOA,	for	linguistics;	PsyOA,	for	psychology;	and	MathOA,	for	mathematics.	(We	intendto	add	more	disciplines	as	resources	permit).	We	have	begun	systematically	asking	editorial	boards	about	theperceived	barriers	to	“flipping”	their	journals	to	open	access.	MathOA	recently	facilitated	the	breaking	away	of	theeditors	of	the	Journal	of	Algebraic	Combinatorics	from	Springer	to	found	an	open-access	replacement,	AlgebraicCombinatorics.	MathOA	has	also	surveyed	community	opinion	and	found	a	strong	mandate	for	editors	to	breakaway	from	commercial	publishers	if	the	publishers	will	not	agree	to	basic	demands	to	improve	service	and	cedecontrol.Impact of Social Sciences Blog: Fair Open Access: returning control of scholarly journals to their communities Page 3 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-10-23Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/10/23/fair-open-access-returning-control-of-scholarly-journals-to-their-communities/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/Fair	Open	Access	principle	number	four	is	that	fees	should	not	be	paid	by	authors.	How	can	this	be	avoided?Many	scholarly	communities	do	most	of	the	publishing	work	themselves	using	a	platform	such	as	OJS,	therebyavoiding	fees,	sometimes	in	conjunction	with	society	or	institutional	support.	But	in	many	fields,	researchers	arenot	accustomed	to	shouldering	as	much	of	the	publishing	burden	and	feel,	with	some	justification,	that	it	is	nottheir	job.The	Open	Library	of	Humanities	has	shown	one	way	to	proceed.	Instead	of	a	publisher	owning	the	articles,	or	thetitle	of	the	journal,	publishing	services	are	instead	hired	by	the	scholars	and	universities	themselves,	organised	asOLH.	This	arrangement	prevents	lock-in,	incentivising	improvements	in	the	service	provided.	When	the	needs	ofscholars	change,	or	if	the	service-provider	hikes	their	prices	too	high,	OLH	can	switch	to	a	new	provider.Who	pays	the	bills	for	OLH?	University	libraries	contribute	a	membership	fee,	which	covers	costs	and	also	givesthe	universities	a	say	in	the	future	evolution	of	the	system.	OLH	started	with	several	dozen	university	libraries.	Itnow	manages	14	open-access	journals	and	has	grown	its	membership	to	over	200	libraries,	including	more	than50	universities	in	the	UK.	To	be	financially	viable	at	a	larger	scale,	new	open-access	journals	(some	of	them“flipped”	from	legacy	journals)	should	take	over	the	roles	of	old	subscription	journals,	so	that	subscriptions	can	becancelled.Previous	efforts	to	extricate	journals	from	publisher	ownership	have	typically	happened	in	isolation	and	inignorance	of	what	has	worked	in	the	past.	Only	by	sharing	information	will	researchers	know	what	it	takes	to	keepcorporations	from	locking	up	the	fruits	of	their	labour.	But	sharing	tips	won’t	be	sufficient.	It	takes	large-scalecooperation	to	get	agreement	to	cancel	subscriptions,	and	to	pool	funds	to	pay	for	open	access	infrastructure.	Weencourage	all	librarians,	researchers	and	administrators	to	work	together	on	this	critical	issue.	Our	FairOA	groupis	itself	a	product	of	such	cooperation,	including	scientists,	humanities	scholars,	librarians,	and	publishing	experts.We	at	FairOA	are	ready	to	help;	please	contact	us	at	psyoa@psyoa.org	or	info@mathoa.orgThis	article	benefited	from	discussions	with	Bjoern	Brembs	and	Roger	Levy.Note:	This	article	gives	the	views	of	the	authors,	and	not	the	position	of	the	LSE	Impact	Blog,	nor	of	the	LondonSchool	of	Economics.	Please	review	our	comments	policy	if	you	have	any	concerns	on	posting	a	comment	below.About	the	authorsAlex	Holcombe	is	an	academic	in	the	School	of	Psychology	at	the	University	of	Sydney	and	chairs	the	board	ofPsyOA.Mark	C.	Wilson	is	an	academic	in	the	Department	of	Computer	Science	at	the	University	of	Auckland	and	is	afounder	and	board	member	of	MathOA.	MathOA	and	PsyOA	can	be	found	on	Twitter	at	@oa_math	and@PsyOpenAccess,	and	LingOA	on	Facebook	at	lingoa.eu.Impact of Social Sciences Blog: Fair Open Access: returning control of scholarly journals to their communities Page 4 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-10-23Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/10/23/fair-open-access-returning-control-of-scholarly-journals-to-their-communities/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/

Fair open access: returning control of scholarly journals to their communities

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online