The task of building an “open access culture”

Kevin L. Smith is Scholarly Communications Officer at Duke University (North Carolina). He writes an informative blog for the Duke community relating to intellectual property, copyright, and other scholarly communication issues. In 2009, Smith contributed a peer-reviewed article to the journal Theological Librarianship (Volume 2, Number 1, June 2009), entitled “Open Access and Authors’ Rights Management: A Possibility for Theology?” Theological Librarianship is an open access online journal published by the American Theological Library Association.

“What makes theological studies different?”

Smith briefly reviews the open access scene across disciplines, noting that the level of acceptance of this communication/publication model tends to vary with the established research and communication traditions within each discipline. As a generalization, Smith observes that while researchers in the hard sciences have been accepting of open access, “the humanities disciplines have lagged far behind.” Smith is particularly interested in looking at theology as a discipline within the humanities, and he asks, “What can the prevailing conditions for scholarship in theological studies tell us about the obstacles and opportunities for open access to the output of that discipline?”

First, Smith notes that theological studies “has not felt the impact of the pricing crisis in journal literature as acutely as have many scientific fields. … Nevertheless, theological libraries have felt some significant ‘sticker shocks,’ usually when a journal that had been published by a scholarly society has been sold to a large commercial publisher.” Incidentally, it was the consternation expressed by several theological librarians on the ATLA listserv over SAGE’s recent acquisition of the respected journal Interpretation and its impact on institutional subscription pricing that served as a catalyst for the founding of this site. Though our colleagues over in STM would laugh that the 2012 renewal price for Interpretation is now a mere $200, it is important to appreciate that our cost in 2011 was less than $50—a 400% 302% increase (from $48 to $193) in a single year! If scholars in religion and theology were made aware of the negative impact this kind of commercialization can have on research communication access might they be open to considering alternatives?

Next, publishing journal articles may not be as heavily emphasized as a faculty expectation. ”Many theological institutions place a greater weight on teaching and service as criteria for promotion and tenure than is the norm in other fields, although those values are universally acknowledged in the academy.” If faculty are not expected to publish they may not sense any necessity to engage a conversation advocating for change in the direction of open access. But then again, might they start to engage when they realize their library is forced to cancel subscriptions to cherished journals? Even faculty members who don’t routinely publish should see that they have a stake in the accessibility of research when it starts to negatively impact their teaching.

Smith also points to the fact that “monographic publications are still more highly prized in the humanities in general then they are in the sciences, where the time delay in publishing a book seems unacceptably long to many researchers.” The pace of communicating research in the humanities tends to be slower as it takes more time to develop ideas and treat topics with appropriate expansiveness or depth. The monograph as a scholarly communications format lends itself better to this research behavior than the journal article. This does not in itself preclude consideration of open access, however, as e-books gain wider acceptance and platforms for monographic publishing online are developed (see for example, an interesting initiative called Open Monographs Press at the Public Knowledge Project). Besides, humanities scholarship faces its own version of a ‘pricing crisis’ in the high costs associated with bringing low volume/low demand monographic titles to press. Open access could provide an answer here. What may be harder to overcome is the still common perception that the culmination of one’s scholarship is made more legitimately ‘real’ when it is printed on leaves of acid-free paper between hard bindings, resting comfortably with proper weightiness in the hands of an appreciative reader.

Smith also points to a couple of attitudinal obstacles. First, “the concern that an important idea, once distributed widely, may ceased to be the ‘property’ of the original author,” and second, the idea “that scholarship is directed at only a small number of expert researchers within a given specialty, and that all the people ‘who matter’ are going to see the works that will interest them.” He disputes the first assumption by noting that open access combined with Creative Commons attribution licensing may actually alleviate the “fear of misappropriation, or outright plagiarism” by associating “an author’s name with her work in a far more public way than traditional publication can.” He disputes the second assumption by pointing back to the growing pricing crisis in theological journals mentioned above. “The need to cancel library journal subscriptions makes it unlikely that, even in relatively inexpensive fields like theological studies, access for all interested parties can be assured.”

This last point—the assurance of access for all—leads Smith to suggest that the context for theological studies, unlike other scholarly disciplines, may offer a uniquely compelling reason to advocate for open access:

[T]he study of theology, carried on as it is from within a religious tradition and with the aim of supporting and fostering that tradition, includes a missionary impulse that no other academic discipline feels in quite the same way. To be sure, scientists and lawyers want their work to be seen by as many people as possible, which is why they adopt open access. But theological scholars write for a public that is broader than a particular academic discipline; they write for a “church universal.” Pastors are trained and sermons are preached throughout the world, so the works of biblical scholars and theologians have an audience well beyond the subscription list of any journal. Whereas a researcher studying a particular genetic abnormality may really know the names of everyone else capable of understanding her work, a theological scholar cannot possibly know about all of the people whose teaching, preaching, and faith journey could be impacted by her article, except in the most abstract sense. Yet all of those people are the true and legitimate audience for theological scholarship.

…

[T]he field of theological studies has not neglected the opportunities that the Internet offers for dissemination of scholarship. Nevertheless, it is still true that the majority of what is arguably the most important scholarship in this field, the scholarship, to be frank, upon which professors rely to build their reputations and gain tenure, is published exclusively in journals that are available, in print and online, only behind toll barriers. Although these barriers are lower than those found in many other disciplines, the broad audience for this scholarship in the developing world suggests that even a very low barrier may be insurmountable for many. (emphasis added)

I take Smith to be saying, in effect, that the most compelling reason to turn to open access for scholarly communication within the discipline of theological studies is that it is consistent with the best evangelical and justice values and commitments of the religious traditions that motivated (or at least, informs) the scholarship in the first place. If a scientist can be committed to getting the ‘good word’ about her research out to everyone without access barriers, how much more a scholar of theology? (Smith is advocating from within a Christian religious tradition. But I believe this would be true for other religious traditions as well.)

Building an “open access culture”

Smith contends that the “call for open access to theological scholarship must begin with the libraries, the library associations, and the other professional organizations that support the discipline.”

It is not enough for librarians just to complain about rising journal subscription costs. Theological faculty need to be made aware of the true costs of providing information resources such as journals, and the implications such costs have on access. This might be a way to begin the conversation about open access. But librarians, as information resource professionals, also need to engage more with scholars on the content-creation side of the scholarly communication process (though many may need to update their skills to respond to the dynamic and complex world of digital publishing). As Smith notes, there are many things librarians can do here. Librarians can make theological scholars aware of their copyrights; assist them when working with traditional publishers in negotiating publication contracts to protect those rights while enhancing access (there are many “flavors” of open access, and not all involve self-publishing); and provide direction to assure future access, preservation (archiving), discoverability, and ongoing usefulness of published research.

Smith also sees the need for moving this conversation beyond the local institution level.

[M]ost theological scholarship is carried out in small communities, yet the task of building an open access culture, much less an infrastructure to support open access, is a big job indeed. How, then, is the necessary scale for open access to theological scholarship to be achieved? The answer must be that leadership will be the responsibility of consortial organizations and professional associations. (emphasis added)

When I first read that phrase “open access culture,” I was instantly captivated by its significance. I want to thank Kevin Smith for giving me something powerful to hang the mission (the “task”) of this site upon. Embracing or promoting open access isn’t just a matter of pragmatics, techniques, or technologies. Open access is a way of approaching the creation and dissemination of information that involves certain attitudes and behavioral characteristics. As such, it truly is a culture, and one that takes further unique shape within the scholarly discipline where it manifests itself. Open access culture within the study of religion or theology may share certain applications and outcomes with chemistry, physics, or economics, but (as alluded to above) it also integrates each discipline’s unique research traditions and values/commitments. (This very point surfaced in my recent profile of the journal Religion and Gender.)

Smith suggests that the mission statements of theological associations such as the Association of Theological Schools and the American Theological Library Association already contain wording that could be leveraged to support enhancement of information access in the direction of open access. Might professional scholarly associations like the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, although non-sectarian, also be engaged to adopt resolutions favoring open access scholarship? (I was unable to determine a date of adoption, but SBL now has an open access policy relating to author’s use of pre- and post-publication articles, book essays, and book reviews. And although I could not find a comparable policy on AAR’s website, I suspect that faculty in many university religion departments are signing-on to open access policies being adopted in increasing number across the country.) Finally, might an organization such as ATLA collaborate with (at least) their member libraries to develop and host a repository for scholarly research in theology and religion?

Most of Smith’s ideas are yet to be significantly realized now two and a half years since his article was published. But true and enduring cultural change takes time, even in the digital age. The accretions of print culture weigh especially heavy on the sensibilities of scholarship in the humanities and theology. It is a big job to build an alternative infrastructure to support a cultural shift like open access. But I’m optimistic, and through Omega Alpha, I’m here to help with the task.

New OA journal in religion: Religion and Gender

As a regular feature of the site I would like to present profiles of new and existing open access journals in religion and theology. Coupled with these profiles I would like, whenever possible, to include interviews of or comments from the journal editor (or a member of the editorial team), a contributing author/scholar, and a scholar or librarian who knows of or has used the journal (through an article citation, link on a library website, etc.).

My interest here is to keep open access meaningfully rooted in the real world of active and on-going scholarship, and lend encouragement to scholarly content creators and users toward–as a colleague of mine has wonderfully phrased it–”the task of building an open access culture” in religion and theology. Hearing from folk who are already actively engaged in open access will enable/empower others to consider and better navigate the waters of open access, whether the issue is funding and sustainability, publishing platforms, attracting authors, the submission process, peer review, copyright and licensing, journal/article discoverability, or supporting libraries that are trying to serve the information resource needs of students and faculty.

Introducing Religion and Gender

I take it as serendipitous that I learned almost coincident to the launch of my site that a new open access journal in religion was being launched. The new journal called Religion and Gender (ISSN: 1878-5417) has released its first issue, thematically focusing on Critical Issues in the Study of Religion and Gender. It seems fitting that I begin my profile feature with this journal.

The journal is based in the Department of Religious Studies and Theology at University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. It is published by Igitur Publications, an open access journal publishing service of Utrecht University Library utilizing Open Journal Systems, an open source journal management platform developed by the Public Knowledge Project at Simon Fraser University, Canada.

The governance structure of Religion and Gender consists of three Executive Editors, three Assistant Editors, an International Editorial Board consisting of twenty four members, and an Academic Advisory Board of fourteen.

The journal’s website includes clear Online Submissions and Author Guidelines. Articles, concise papers and literature surveys submitted to Religion and Gender go through a “double blind” peer-review process involving “at least two scholars with relevant expertise.” The journal will be published twice a year. “Each year a first issue will appear in March and a second in October. All articles of one issue will be published simultaneously.” Articles in Religion and Gender are published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (3.0).

Focus and Scope (from the website):

Religion and Gender is the first refereed online international journal for the systematic study of gender and religion in an interdisciplinary perspective. The journal explores the relation, confrontation and intersection of gender and religion, taking into account the multiple and changing manifestations of religion in diverse social and cultural contexts. It analyses and reflects critically on gender in its interpretative and imaginative dimensions and as a fundamental principle of social ordering. It seeks to investigate gender at the intersection of feminist, sexuality, queer, masculinity and diversity studies.

Open Access fits the scholarly mission of Religion and Gender

The introductory editorial in the inaugural issue by Anne-Marie Korte, “Openings: A Genealogical Introduction to Religion and Gender” (PDF) addressed many of the questions I had regarding both the birth of the journal, and the decision of the journal founders to publish open access.

[A]t the very beginning we embraced the idea of ‘direct publishing’ and ‘free entrance’ that online and open access publishing brings about. ‘Open access’ – the magic word of this whole project, a real ‘Open, Sesame’! – represents and materializes our stance on the accessibility and the social relevance of this journal, its visibility, its intermediary role in current and emerging debates, and its function in warranting the author’s ownership of intellectual work as much as possible.

In addition to common benefits of open access for scholars, including closing the distance and reducing the time that often stands between authors and the publishing process (and readers on the other side of that process), promoting a progressive intellectual property perspective, removing the artificial notion of knowledge scarcity, and opening opportunities (especially) for new/young scholars to get in and engage the scholarly conversation/debate, Korte contends that open access fits well for other reasons.

Open access publication, in our opinion, does not only refer to the scope, pace, and amount of exchange it brings forth, but also to the transparency and the quality of conversation that it can enable. Research into religion and gender is always ‘entangled work’, as it means engaging in conversations, both scholarly and otherwise, that are often already formed by deeply ingrained and lived notions (words, gestures, images) of what ‘religion’ is and is not, of what it does and can(not) do, and of what it should be or not be. We do not only speak about religion but religion also speaks by, for and against us. And, intriguing as it is complicating, the same could be said about gender. For this reason, contemporary and interdisciplinary research into religion and gender conducted by scholars who are often simultaneously witnesses to and participants in the subject they study, demands vigorous, well-informed, critical and self-critical debate. Open access publication can deliver important contributions to this debate by staging these conversations and opening them up for both insiders and outsiders.

And secondly, open access publication also addresses other and related epistemological and moral aspects of scholarship in both religion and gender studies, in particular the dynamics of distance and personal engagement that binds researchers to the topics, persons and communities they investigate. Open access publication, moreover, with its technologically organized promise of direct publishing and free entrance, intensifies the questions about locality and loyalty, privilege and marginalization, and objectivity and embodiment that gender studies has raised and put on the academic agenda. Open access publication has the paradoxical quality of recalling ‘old’ ideals of activist, engaged and grassroots scholarship, epitomized by the idea of immediate exchange between the researchers and the persons or groups they commit themselves to in their research. And at the same time it has the quality of meeting ‘new’ academic requirements of presenting our research results and demonstrating its relevance, not only to academic peers and funding instances but also as ‘open’ to wider audiences as contemporary media make feasible. (emphases added)

Although it might be possible to study religion and gender from an objectivist/’scientific’, or at least, a disinterested perspective (research as an ‘academic exercise’), I take from Professor Korte’s comments that Religion and Gender doesn’t intend and would not be satisfied with this approach. The Editorial Team (and supporting Editorial Board and Advisors) is seeking submissions from scholars who are engaged as both witnesses of and participants in the relationships and communities that inform their research. But more, they want this research to echo relevance back into those relationships and communities. In order to successfully fulfill this mission, the communication platform for such a research agenda needs to be open and accessible to all. Open access would seem able to support this mission most effectively.

Funding and Sustainability

Religion and Gender’s commitment to open access is informed by its mission of engaged and “socially relevant” scholarship. But how is this commitment funded and sustained? I thought Professor Korte was about to answer this question when at the end of the paragraph above she raised the issue of the economics of access:

As an upcoming ordering principle of academic publicity and communication, however, open access publication also raises firm questions about its organization and economic costs: who can be held responsible for granting – and paying – ‘free entrance’ and reaching ‘the widest possible audience’? What if the authors whose work actually gets published are saddled with all the costs?

Korte never returned to answer these questions in the editorial. In the Acknowledgements at the end of the editorial, however, I was able to glean that in addition to significant volunteerism in terms of time and expertise from a variety of sources, a major source of funding for Religion and Gender has come through an Incentive Fund Open Access Journals in the Humanities grant from The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). Additional financial support is coming from the Christine de Pisan Foundation and the Interuniversity Theology Network of Women.

Happily, Adriaan van Klinken, a member of the Editorial Team at Religion and Gender responded to my inquiry for additional information. Dr. van Klinken notes that although there is still much hesitancy and resistance, there has been “a noticeable turn towards open access publishing” in The Netherlands. The NWO (the national funding body for academic research) and the major universities (including Utrecht University where Religion and Gender is based, and Igitur, the open access publisher at the Library of Utrecht University that publishes Religion and Gender) has significantly enhanced support for open access in the country. Religion and Gender received three years of support from the NWO through a special grant for open access journals in the Humanities. NWO also offers the opportunity for authors to apply for funding to publish their work open access. (Recently, Professor Korte successfully applied for a research and networking grant, which included funding for three special issues of Religion and Gender.)

So, it appears that grant funding combined with a strong network of editorial and technical expertise, and dedicated volunteers will help Religion and Gender get off to a good start. That being said, Dr. van Klinken acknowledges much work remains to be done. “Our task is to develop a long-term business plan to run the journal. Clearly, this is a major challenge and sometimes we are concerned about it, because we do not have an example of an established OA-journal with a successful business model running over a longer period of time.” They are looking at two avenues to create sustainable funding: the introduction of a system of author fees, and the establishment of an international scholarly association, whose membership fees could help support the on-going publication of Religion and Gender.

“We are fully aware that launching an OA journal is a challenging adventure. The world of OA-publishing is very dynamic and unpredictable. However, we are convinced that OA is the future. Therefore we trust that we will find ways to develop a solid financial model to publish our journal. Our top priority right now is to establish Religion and Gender as a high quality academic journal, because in the end the quality and relevance of the scholarship published in the journal will build its reputation.”

It’s Open Access in Religion, not Open Access as Religion

I just read a thoughtful piece on John Wilbanks’ blog del-fi entitled Open Access Is Infrastructure, Not Religion. Given my propensity for plays on words, I was attracted to engage with his post to clarify that what I am aiming to accomplish with Omega Alpha | Open Access is something very practical. I am an open access advocate, not an open access zealot. This site is about promoting open access in Religion, not open access as religion.

Much like the patterns of development observed in the Internet and the World Wide Web over the last 18+ years, Wilbanks tracks a “transformative shift to Open Access from something that was political to something which is functional – from religion to strategic infrastructure” (emphasis added).

Though it’s easy to forget now, the internet used to be something of a religion, that zealots said would change the world, increase democracy, and create entire new industries. The world yawned, or at best, mocked. …

But a funny thing happened…. There was a move from religion to trend, and from trend to infrastructure. And those who sat around attacking the religion angle tended to miss the transitions the worst, whereas those who got in early on the infrastructure got the best of the situation: they got to be part of changing the system entirely, and many of them became extremely wealthy.

It’s the “changing the system” part that I am focusing on. Though presumably if there is money to be made (if not enough to become extremely wealthy) there is also money to be saved for the likes of scholars, libraries, and their supporting institutions.

That’s the transition that’s happening now in open access. It was a movement. Then it became a trend…. But it’s already undergoing the shift to infrastructure. Funders are starting to get that paying for permanent access is smarter than paying, over and over, for subscriptions. Universities are starting to get that asserting distribution rights increases impact. And businesses built on open models are popping up, inside big companies like Springer and Nature Publishing Group as well as in small companies like Mendeley.

If this kind of communications infrastructure can be built in other disciplines of scholarly research, why not also in Religion and Theology? The infrastructure is the focus of the advocacy I envision on this site. Actually, the transition is underway, if still largely piecemeal. I just checked over on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) site. There are now 82 journals in the Religion listing.

Wilbanks correctly reminds us that the there is much accumulated knowledge in traditional publishing, the likes of which only the most rabid iconoclast would foolishly ignore. But we also need to apply new thinking and new creativity to the situation, because much has also changed.

It’s not about religion on the OA side, or stodginess on the traditional publisher side. It’s about totally missing the transition from movement to trend, and from trend to infrastructure. … There is tremendous knowledge inside the traditional publishing industry that we don’t want to lose. And we don’t win by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What’s wrong with the old model isn’t wrong because of bad people, or people who don’t know things. What’s wrong with the old model is simply that it’s analog, and we live in a digital world (emphasis added).