Understanding the Need for Collective Funding Models in Open Access Book Publishing
As a seasoned construction professional and interior designer, I’ve witnessed the transformative power of open access (OA) publishing in the academic world. Gone are the days when access to cutting-edge research and design ideas was limited to those who could afford hefty subscription fees. The rise of OA models has democratized knowledge, empowering researchers, designers, and the public alike to engage with the latest advancements in our fields.
However, the transition to OA for books has not been without its challenges. The traditional Book Processing Charge (BPC) model, where authors or their institutions bear the cost of publication, has been criticized for its unsustainability and potential to widen inequalities in access to knowledge. This has prompted a growing interest in collective funding models, where libraries and other stakeholders come together to support OA book publishing.
In this article, we’ll explore the critical role of building assessment criteria for collection development policies, a crucial tool for libraries to navigate the evolving landscape of OA book publishing and make informed decisions about their investments.
Evaluating OA Book Publishing Models: Key Criteria to Consider
When it comes to assessing OA book publishing models, libraries should consider a comprehensive set of criteria that go beyond just the financial aspects. Here are some key factors to evaluate:
Savings and Collection Impact
- Cost-Effectiveness: Determine if the OA model offers potential cost savings compared to traditional subscription-based or BPC models. How many OA books will the model support, and is the pricing transparent?
- Collection Alignment: Assess whether the OA resources align with your institution’s research and teaching priorities. Do they feature on or offer strong alternatives to recommended reading lists?
- Acquisition Cost Savings: Estimate the potential savings on access or acquisition costs for closed content, and explore how these savings can be redirected to support OA initiatives.
Local Value and Impact
- Subject/Disciplinary Match: Evaluate the degree of subject or disciplinary overlap between the OA content and your institution’s areas of research and teaching.
- Licensing and Reuse: Examine the licenses associated with the OA content, ensuring they enable adaptation and reuse to support your teaching and research aims.
- Institutional Alignment: Consider how the OA model aligns with your institution’s values, open access policies, and sustainability goals (e.g., support for the UN Sustainable Development Goals).
Transparency and Governance
- Cost Breakdown: Seek clarity from the publisher(s) about the breakdown of costs and the specific components covered by the financial model.
- Model Transparency: Assess the transparency of the OA model, including how the funds are utilized and the level of library involvement in the governance structure.
- Comparative Analysis: Compare the costs and number of OA resources supported by the model against other available options to ensure you’re getting the best value for money.
Impact and Measurability
- Author Engagement: Determine if your authors currently publish with the press(es) involved in the OA model, or if they are likely to do so in the future.
- Usage and Visibility: While institution-specific usage can be challenging to measure for OA resources, explore alternative ways to assess the local value and impact of the OA content.
- Outcome Tracking: Seek evidence of the model’s success, such as the number of OA books published over the period of your support, and consider ways to encourage recognition for academics publishing their work OA.
By carefully considering these criteria, libraries can develop a comprehensive assessment framework that aligns with their institutional priorities and helps them make informed decisions about supporting collective funding models for OA book publishing.
Leveraging Existing Assessment Frameworks
Fortunately, you don’t have to start from scratch when creating your own assessment criteria. Several libraries and organizations have already developed robust frameworks that you can adapt and build upon. Here are a few examples:
- SPARC Open Investment Statements and Principles: SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) has curated a collection of open investment statements and principles to help the community learn from one another’s experiences and practices.
- SPARC Unbundling Resource Series: SPARC’s “unbundling” resource series provides guidance for libraries considering the cancellation of journal packages to free up funds for supporting OA initiatives.
- Open Book Environment (OBE) Dashboard: This comprehensive dashboard from the Open Book Futures project offers a wealth of information and assessment criteria for evaluating OA book publishing models.
- Sherpa for Books: This beta platform from Sherpa provides a valuable resource for libraries to explore and assess different OA book publishing options.
- University of Manchester Strategic Framework: The University of Manchester has developed a strategic framework for the acquisition of OA monographs, which can serve as a helpful reference.
- LYRASIS Open Access Community Investment Program (OACIP): LYRASIS’s OACIP assessment framework is an excellent resource for libraries looking to make informed investment decisions about OA.
- University of California STAR Team Criteria and Vendor Questionnaire: The University of California’s Scholarly Transformation Advice and Review (STAR) Team has created a robust criteria form and evaluation system, as well as a comprehensive vendor questionnaire.
By leveraging these existing resources and assessment frameworks, you can save time, avoid reinventing the wheel, and tailor the criteria to meet the specific needs of your institution.
Sharing and Collaboration: Strengthening the OA Book Ecosystem
As you develop your own assessment criteria for OA book publishing models, consider sharing your work with the wider community. This not only benefits other libraries but also contributes to the ongoing evolution and refinement of OA practices.
Platforms like the Open Access Books Network (OABN), Jisc email discussion lists (UK-CORR and OAGoodPractice), and social media channels (e.g., Blue Sky, LinkedIn, Mastodon) provide excellent avenues for sharing your assessment criteria and engaging with your peers.
By collaborating and learning from one another’s experiences, we can collectively strengthen the OA book ecosystem, ensuring that libraries, researchers, and the public have access to a diverse and sustainable range of high-quality OA content.
Remember, developing a robust assessment framework is not a one-time task. As the OA landscape continues to evolve, it’s essential to regularly review and update your criteria to keep pace with the changing needs of your institution and the wider scholarly community.
Conclusion
In the rapidly transforming world of academic publishing, the development of building assessment criteria for collection development policies is a crucial step in navigating the complexities of OA book publishing. By carefully evaluating OA models based on factors such as cost-effectiveness, local value, transparency, and impact, libraries can make informed decisions that align with their institutional priorities and contribute to the advancement of open access.
Through collaboration and the sharing of best practices, we can collectively strengthen the OA book ecosystem, ensuring that knowledge and research are accessible to all. As a seasoned construction professional and interior designer, I’m excited to see how the adoption of these assessment frameworks can pave the way for a more equitable and sustainable future in our fields and beyond.
