1 / 11

Diamond Open Access Models for Journals

Diamond Open Access Models for Journals A perspective from KU: Pro‘s , con‘s & moving forward. Tom Mosterd & Max Mosterd Bielefeld, February 26th, 2019. Topics. The current space for non-APC publishing models: Diamond Open Access Challenges The role of Knowledge Unlatched (KU)

frivera
Download Presentation

Diamond Open Access Models for Journals

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Diamond Open Access Models for Journals A perspectivefrom KU: Pro‘s, con‘s & movingforward Tom Mosterd & Max Mosterd Bielefeld, February 26th, 2019

  2. Topics • The current space for non-APC publishing models: Diamond Open Access • Challenges • The role of Knowledge Unlatched (KU) • Learnings so far • A transformative approach

  3. The current space for non-APC publishing models: Diamond Open Access • Diamond Open Access: Supporting by a consortium • Open Library of Humanities, Scoap3 & KU Select Journals *Not all journals are fully covered by SCOAP3 ** KU Journal Supporters Only Supporters: 210+ Journals: 27 journals Supporters**: 120+ Journals: 25+ journals Supporters: 3000+ Journals*: 11+

  4. Diamond Open Access: Pro’s and con’s • Pro’s: • Increasing attention for non-APC models as an alternative for Gold Open Access, especially for the Humanities & Social Sciences • Strong community supported approach to coordinate global funding • Can offer a more viable approach for the HSS where APC-funding is limited to non-existent • Removes financial burden for authors, smooth author-experience • Cons: • Can be applied on a large scale, for subscription journals? • Challenging to implement without dedicated funding (e.g. APCs for Gold) • Mixed-publisher package with single titles difficult to move budget* • For new OA titles, more difficult to find funding* • *For KU Select Journals (may not apply for OLH / SCOAP3)

  5. Feedback from institutions: Learnings So Far • Argument showing ”a better deal” compared to an APC-driven model works for research intensive institutions • Much support for the APC-free component in theory, yet less in practice • More challenging to convince access-focused institutions to act • Often challenging to organize funding internally • For subscription journals, often: • Significant part of the subscribing institutions have limited publication output • Considerable number of institutions with researchers publishing in the journal are not subscribed

  6. The role of Knowledge Unlatched • Coordination between publishers & funders (libraries, consortia & research institutions)

  7. High Readership Based On Experience: Can Identify Four Main Customer Segments Low Publications Low High

  8. Focussing on the read-component • Example model: Subscribe to open deals (diamond) • Readership value: normal distribution of cost per use metrics, signalling high access value to many current subscribers (e.g. readership value) • Journal portfolio: best for a focussed portfolio of journal content with consolidated customer base in terms of regions • Pros: • Institutional option to internally migrate budget is obvious for a portfolio • Adding new funding channels, such as funders can directly imply a subscribe to open discount to existing subscribers • In theory, clear incentives for all to take part • Cons: • Timing challenging to reach, inform, and convince all current subscribers about a proposed flip within, say, a one-year time-frame • Free rider risk and consequential double-dipping negotiations

  9. Focussing on the publish-component • Example model: National / large consortia deals • Publisher value: normal distribution of publication output by institutions, signalling high publisher value to many current subscribers (e.g. publication value) • Journal portfolio: best for a focussed portfolio of journal content with consolidated customer base in terms of regions • Pros: • Potentially transparent and pragmatic model to realise full OA • Allow for large volume deals of journals and comparatively rapid transition • May allow for consortia to reallocate funding amongst consortia members • Cons: • Timing challenging migrate budget from read-driven system to publication-driven system for publication-intensive institutions • Difficult to cater for non-affiliated authors and less well-funded institutions • National consortia negotiations as the “box”, missing out on global perspective and possibly troubling transformation for others

  10. KU Plan-S model • Focus on hybrid/subscription journal portfolios from societies and traditional publishers • Global approach to support true transformation into full OA via a ‘framework’ deal

  11. Thankyou! Questions? Tom Mosterd & Max Mosterd Bielefeld, February 26th, 2019

More Related