Video tutorials for using Open Journal Systems available on Public Knowledge Project’s website

Open Journal Systems (OJS), is an open source online journal publishing and management platform developed by the Public Knowledge Project. With OJS, scholars with very little publishing expertise and minimal budgets can produce high-quality academic journals for world-wide distribution of scholarly research on the web. While not all of the nearly 15,000 installations of OJS are open access (the software can be used to manage restricted and subscription-based access), the majority are. It is difficulty to over-estimate the contribution PKP and OJS has made to the open access movement.

OJS has been designed to be relatively to easy to use. Public Knowledge Project provides excellent written support documentation on the site. What I hadn’t noticed before, however, is a growing list of informative video tutorials covering all aspects of OJS installation, setup, and use. From preparing the server and installing the software; to setting up your journal and creating issues; to defining and assigning editorial roles and reviewers; to managing article submissions and peer-review; to tracking journal traffic using Google Analytics. The tutorials are produced by PKP and members of the OJS user community. The several that I viewed provided clear, concise, step-by-step instructions that nicely complement the written documentation.

What is the better online journal format: periodical issues or open annual volumes?

The other day I received an email from Geoffrey Moore, the new editor of the journal Doxology: A Journal of Worship. Last year, this long-running journal (founded in 1984 by The Order of Saint Luke) converted from print to online, and from subscription-based access to open access. I’m always very interested in reporting on stories like this because it speaks encouragingly to increased awareness and momentum in favor of open access, even among established journals. I am preparing a profile of Doxology for an upcoming post.

In this post I thought it would be of interest to share my response to a question posed by Geoffrey. He was wondering about the best format for Doxology as it continues to move forward as an online open access journal. They could stay with the “traditional” mode of publishing discrete issues on a periodic basis (quarterly, bi-annually, annual, etc.), with each issue containing roughly the same amount of editorial, article, and review content (the print Doxology was published as an annual); or they could adopt an open annual volume format, with no fixed published quantity and new content continually added throughout the year as it becomes available (and passes the review process).

The first thing I said: There is no right or wrong answer to this question. I have interacted with open access journals that have utilized each approach to good effect. For example, Theological Librarianship (which I profiled here) publishes two issues a volume/year, though they don’t adhere slavishly to a set number of articles or pages per issue. In my most recent post, the Journal of Southern Religion uses an annual volume approach, with new content added as it is reviewed. The following thoughts and observations reflect a variety of philosophical and practical considerations.

* With print, you must commit to a fixed artifact in space and time. Additions, changes, corrections, etc. cannot be made to an existing artifact. You can only do these things after the fact. Further, print presents certain practical limitations of size and space. It is not coincidental that the typical print journal issue is a comfortable handheld size under 200 pages in length. Too much more and it becomes unwieldy.

* But these practical limitations from the print world have inadvertently created the impression that knowledge can only be disseminated in such a controlled fashion. This has long given strength to the notion that knowledge is a scarce commodity. Knowledge is believed to be more valuable when it is scarce. Scarce knowledge can fetch a higher price. The entire commercial journal publishing industry grew up around the practicalities of constrained dissemination of knowledge. Tellingly, while most commercially published journals have now moved online, they continue to promote this notion of knowledge scarcity.

* In the typical print journal issue you can publish, what, maybe 5-6 articles and 10 or so book reviews? If the journal is a quarterly, that’s 20-24 articles and 40 book reviews a year, which might be only a fraction of research production in any given discipline each year. This creates a backlog of research awaiting publication, and potentially reduces the timeliness of that research for the discipline. (There are, of course, often many journals dedicated to a given discipline to absorb more research production. Even so, backlogs remain.) It has been argued that timeliness is somewhat less of an issue in the humanities. Yes, it is true that humanities research generally has a longer “shelf life” than the sciences. But the progress of a scholar’s research career, or the advancement of a scholarly topic can be significantly impeded by a two year publication schedule.

* Incidentally, constrained by these practical limits in the print world (or artificially promoted limits in the online world), peer review is compelled not only to vet the quality of research methodology (arguably its primary purpose), but also to winnow the publication of research reporting to more manageable levels. As a consequence, this reinforces the notion that the articles deemed publishable in this limited format are of significantly higher quality than the rest. Hence, more valuable—more prestigious. Careers can be made on the basis of such prestige. It is a topic for another post to ask whether this approach to peer review appropriately serves the discipline.

* With online journal publishing—whether issue-based or open annual volumes—none of these practical obstacles need exist. Space isn’t a factor in the online environment. An “issue” of a journal can be published without page limits, or allowed to grow as needed to accommodate research production. There is no reason why many more articles cannot be published. Peer review can concentrate on vetting the soundness of research methodology, not winnowing against the practical limitations of space. Errors can be corrected on the spot.

* Journals that publish issues online are generally aware that practical space limits no longer apply, but they choose to constrain themselves with a periodic publication schedule. Those that take the open annual volume approach have decided not to impose in advance any limitations. “If we get 20 great articles that have passed peer review between January 1 and December 31, we will publish 20. If we get 50, we will publish 50.” It doesn’t appreciably cost more to publish 20, or 50, or 100 articles. It certainly doesn’t incur the costs that would be necessary to publish an additional issue in the print world. Continuous acceptance of articles also tends to reduce publication time. The time between submission and publication can now be measured in months (or even weeks) instead of years.

* That being said, a newly opened annual volume would seem to require some front-loading of content to make accessing the journal compelling for readers, though this might be truer for new journals just getting started. New journals may have trouble attracting and accepting what they consider an adequate amount of content. Then again, rather than being deterred or discouraged, in the first few years of its existence the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (profiled here) simply extended numbered volumes over two years because it didn’t have a surplus of content at the start. They don’t have this problem anymore.

* Too, an open annual volume requires that readers remain engaged with the journal site so that they will know when new content has been added. This is a good thing in any event. You want engaged readers, and it is easy enough to set up an RSS feed, or communicate updates through social media, etc. On the other hand, a proliferation of content within a single volume can potentially become overwhelming. Visually scanning a volume with too many items might be hard to take in.

* Conversely, while constrained by the practicalities mentioned, a typical print journal issue contains fixed content that can be comfortably “digested” in its conventional format. The articles provide diversity of content (unless it is a special topic issue), and the “periodicity” of publication creates a sense of predictability. Adopting an issue approach can bring these advantages into the online environment. An issue approach may be a good way to pace dissemination of your content. It is also a more self-contained format for presenting special topics, or publishing conference proceedings.

* I admit, as a librarian, there is also something organizationally attractive about maintaining a volume/issue approach, and to know that the content in each issue is fixed at the point of publication. In the near-term, at least, continuing the analogy to print in this respect can still be meaningful. Retaining an existing periodical schedule can also provide continuity for journals making the transition from print to online.

* At the same time, as a librarian, I have observed dramatic changes over the last 5-10 years in the way scholars and students search for and consume journal content. The article has become the principal currency of scholarship. The ability to search for relevant content in an online index, database, or search engine makes the issue almost superfluous. In this context, at least, the issue has all but lost its essential coherence as a container of distribution.

* Some might go so far as to suggest that journals themselves are on a similar trajectory, as users increasingly disassociate article access from its source. I frequently encounter students who are now mystified by the logic of citation. “I understand the article title, but what is the source title? Is that the database where I found the article?” That being said, I still believe creating a community around a journal remains important to provide a place to anchor articles to a stated mission and a definable scope within a scholarly discipline, a context for peer review, and an archive for ongoing, reliable access.

These thoughts and observations underscore what I said at the top—there is no right or wrong answer to this question. In the end, your choice of format will be determined by the philosophy, mission, and goals of your journal. Regardless of the format you choose, it is wonderful that you have chosen to make your journal open access.

Open access Journal of Southern Religion adopts Creative Commons Attribution license

Earlier this month, the long-time online open access Journal of Southern Religion (ISSN: 1094-5253) began releasing its content under a Creative Commons Attribution license. The announcement can be found on the JSR blog here.

If JSR was already an open access journal, what is the significance of this development?

Gratis and libre open access

The JSR announcement gives me an opportunity to distinguish between two general concepts of open or “free” access to online academic literature. The distinguishing terms usually applied in this discussion are gratis and libre.

Gratis is related to the word “grace,” often connoting the idea of something given as a gift, and meaning a good or service that is provided without price or requirement of compensation. From the recipient’s point of view, the good or service is provided without charge. It’s free! Gratis open access allows reader access to online scholarly content without a subscription or article paywall barrier. (Access to a browser-equipped computer with an Internet connection, which may not be free, is assumed.)

It is important to keep in mind that just because a good or service is provided without charge, it doesn’t mean that no costs were involved in its production. Additionally, it is particularly important here not to confuse the price of a good or service with its value. Scholarly research is not free to produce (although open access publishing aims to reduce the costs of production by utilizing low marginal costs of network distribution). Scholarly research and its proper peer review should be the focus of any value assessment, not whether the research stands behind a paywall. “You get what you pay for” is neither an accurate nor necessary shorthand for assessing value of academic scholarship. Thinking about open access as a gift can be a helpful corrective here.

As a generalization, all open access is gratis, but not all open access is libre. Libre is related to the word “liberty,” and denotes freedom or a state of being free. I’m free! As applied to the free (gratis) good or service above, libre also indicates what the recipient may do with it once it is received—use, reuse, copy, share, or modify—without the permission of the creator or provider. Creative Commons license provisions differ depending on the license applied. The JSR license is the most open, allowing even commercial reuse of content. The only requirement is that the reuse clearly credits the original creator and source. (Granting use or reuse provisions through licensing does not mean the content creator or original source has surrendered copyright.)

Giving attribution and properly citing sources is a firmly established scholarly practice. The greatest benefit to the scholarly conversation would seem to be satisfied through gratis open access—the removal of reading access barriers to research. Is there anything substantially added by also providing libre open access? The answer may be philosophical or practical. Some would say the movement of information and knowledge should not be restricted in any way as a matter of principle. Or, we should not impose restrictions because we cannot anticipate all possible and potentially beneficial reuse scenarios in advance. Too, granting reuse freedom is a way to assist in the greatest dissemination and prolonged life of a scholar’s research. Imagine, for example, a seminal published monograph or essay that will never go “out of print” because of a libre license.

The JSR “Editorial Policies and Submission Guidelines” page explains the benefit of their license thusly: “This license grants you permission to use the material published in the journal as you see fit, for example, in course packs, on course websites, and in quotations in other scholarly works” (emphasis added). In an email correspondence, the journal editors responded passionately about this: “It’s not enough just to make your content free; you also have to liberate it using an open access license” (emphasis added).

Interestingly, the journal has even released the source code for its open access platform. It is available here on GitHub. “We want other people to be able to run open access journals too, and we hope someone might be able to borrow the JSR‘s model.”

About the Journal of Southern Religion

The Journal of Southern Religion is the first scholarly journal devoted to the study of religion in the American South. The journal is fully peer-reviewed, reflecting the best traditions of critical scholarship. It is an open-access publication, published free of cost in its entirety on the Internet. The JSR publishes articles and book reviews, as well as new media. (from the journal website)

It didn’t seem right to report on this access change without also spending some time learning a bit more about the journal. As indicated at the top, JSR began its existence as an online journal. The first issue was released in 1998, putting it in the company of those relatively early initiatives exploiting the potential of the World Wide Web as a medium for academic research distribution. In his editorial in the inaugural issue, then editor Rodger M. Payne of Louisiana State University wrote:

Cyberpublishing is still in its infancy, but it has already begun to present both challenges and opportunities for scholarship. Perhaps the most significant challenge, as James Adair noted in a recent article, involves the “skepticism from established scholars” who either disparage “the ephemeral nature of much of the material on the Web,” or argue “that the quality of scholarship [in electronic journals] is not as high as in traditional print journals.” As Adair goes on to explain, however, such apprehension is clearly misguided. By employing the same standards of peer review that scholars have come to expect in print journals, there is no reason why electronic publication should not carry the same academic imprimatur as publication in print journals, nor any reason why publication in such “e-journals” should not have the full endorsement of promotion and tenure committees.

Payne went on to identify some of the key advantages of Web published journals over print, including the greatly reduced time between article submission and publication, the “democracy” of the Web that facilitates “public scholarship,” reduced costs of publishing and distribution, and the ability to integrate new media into the context of the journal.

JSR‘s format takes full advantage of reduced publication time by structuring each “issue” as a single annual volume, with new content posted as it clears the review process (see current issue and issue archive). The economics of online publishing puts scholarly disciplines of relatively narrow focus on equal footing with broader treatments in a way that print never could, as Payne himself noted: “[T]he probability of our introducing a journal devoted to the study of Southern religion would be quite small if not for the opportunities made available by electronic publication on the World Wide Web.” Regarding new media, JSR this year launched a podcast featuring interviews and discussion relevant to the study of religion in the American South. JSR is also leveraging major social media channels. As the editors put it: “Scholarship has always been a social activity, and we want to give our readers a little help in finding the JSR that way. We still have a lot of work that we can do in this regard.”

The scope of the study of religion in the American South is listed in the Overview of JSR‘s “Editorial Policies and Submission Guidelines” encompassing:

• Regionalism in southern religion, e.g., Appalachia, the Gulf Coast, south Florida and the Caribbean
• religious aspects of southern culture, e.g., religion and cuisine, music, and southern literature
• southern civil religion
• local and folk religions, including ethnographic studies of congregations and parishes
• ethnicity including immigration and slave religions
• religion and race, class, disability, and gender issues in the South

JSR is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, Google Scholar, and is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). It is sponsored by the Association for the Study of Southern Religion and receives collaborative support from Florida State University, Louisiana State University, and Saint Francis University.

I asked the editors about their funding model. But it turns out their costs are very modest. “We have no funding model currently, or since the journal’s inception. Our web space is institutionally hosted and supported by Florida State University, and all the staff are volunteer.”

I asked if the editors had any thoughts about how to raise the profile or credibility of open access scholarly communication in Religious Studies disciplines. This response continues the tone already evident at the journal’s founding 15 years ago:

I think that the question of how scholars will publish their work is one of the most pressing questions in the academy. Thankfully, there are a lot of great scholars who are thinking through this problem, both as professors, archivists, and librarians, and as leaders at scholarly societies. If I had to hazard one guess about what would help open access the most, it would be changing the default mindset of the academy about publication. The default has to change from locking our content down to opening up.

I have placed a link to the Journal of Southern Religion in my Journal Directory.

Directory of Open Access Books launched—including monographs in Religion and Philosophy

Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB), a complementary site to the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is now live!

Launching in beta on April 12, 2012 (see the press release) with 756 monographs from 22 publishers from around the world, the DOAB is a service of the OAPEN (Open Access Publishing in European Networks) Foundation in cooperation with the software development company SemperTool. Its purpose is to provide a conduit of discoverability for peer reviewed, open access monographs usable by scholars, libraries, and commercial aggregators.

The primary aim of DOAB is to increase discoverability of Open Access books. Academic publishers are invited to provide metadata of their Open Access books to DOAB. Metadata will be harvestable in order to maximize dissemination, visibility and impact. Aggregators can integrate the records in their commercial services and libraries can integrate the directory into their online catalogues, helping scholars and students to discover the books. The directory will be open to all publishers who publish academic, peer reviewed books in Open Access and should contain as many books as possible, provided that these publications are in Open Access and meet academic standards. (from the DOAB website)

Requirements for inclusion in the Directory include academic books that are “available under an Open Access license (such as a Creative Commons license),” and “subjected to independent and external peer review prior to publication.”

The Directory can be searched or browsed by broad subject categories. Of special interest to scholars in religious studies is coverage in Religion and Philosophy. (Keyword searching will bring up relevant titles organized in other categories. For example, a title on Greco-Roman religion published by Brill, is categorized under History.)

The Directory of Open Access Books is an exciting development. It is sure to become an important tool to encourage further open access monograph publishing even as it will help individual scholars—especially scholars in the Humanities—gain greater exposure for their research in book form.

Open access as a public good: “He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

This “hat tip” goes to the Spring 2012 issue of JISC Inform for covering the January 17, 2012 JISC/SCONUL Lecture in London presented by Professor Robert Darnton, Director of the Harvard University Library. Professor Darnton’s lecture was entitled, “The Digital Public Library of America: Current Plans and Future Prospects.”

Darnton spoke on the Digital Public Library of America, an ambitious project that will seek to create a national digital library, bringing together the world’s cultural and scientific record and making it freely accessible to all. In the lecture, Darnton speaks passionately about open access, and coming to view knowledge as a public good.

To set the stage, Darnton references a well-known letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to an Isaac McPherson on August 13, 1813. “Jefferson developed a metaphor,” says Darnton, “which is a description of the way intellectual communication takes place—it’s a process of spreading light from one taper, or candle, to another.” He quotes the following excerpt:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

“Well,” continues Darnton, “Jefferson wasn’t exactly thinking of the Internet. But I think that is the message, and I would add to it open access—free access for humanity to the collective good of humanity.”

A bit later, Darnton again comes back to Jefferson’s metaphor to speak about how the Internet facilitates information access—exactly what I thought of as I was listening to him reading Jefferson’s words. “To get back to the idea of Jefferson’s candle-light power, enlightenment, it may seem archaic today of course, but I believe it can acquire a twenty-first century luster if you associate it with the Internet. The Internet which multiplies messages at virtually no cost.”

I have embedded Darnton’s lecture (just over an hour in length) here. It is well worth a viewing.

Springer interested in developing open access journals in Religious Studies

In early February I received an email from the Senior Publishing Editor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Springer Science+Business Media. In the email, Sasha Goldstein-Sabbah indicated that Springer had recently decided to try to develop open access journals in Religious Studies and Philosophy. I replied to introduce myself and request more information.

Springer is a large international commercial publisher based in The Netherlands. It is perhaps known more for publishing in the sciences and medicine than in the humanities, much less religious studies. I was curious about both Springer’s entry into publishing in this discipline generally, and about the open access initiative in particular. Although it continues to publish a majority of its journals using a traditional subscription-based model, Springer has distinguished itself as a commercial publisher willing to be innovative in exploring alternatives to the traditional business model, including open access.

I spent some time browsing on Springer’s website and found 7 journal titles listed under “Religious Studies.” There are also 28 book titles currently listed, all published since 2009, with several additional titles forthcoming. Currently, there are no religious studies titles on the SpringerOpen open access journal platform.

This last observation suggested that the open access initiative must be very new. I didn’t realize how new until Ms. Goldstein-Sabbah emailed me back to say she had just been hired at the beginning of January (after seven and a half years at Brill) primarily to develop the field of religious studies at Springer. Ms. Goldstein-Sabbah confirmed that Springer’s involvement in religious studies publishing generally is fairly recent (within the last 10 years or so).

Springer started developing in religious studies as both an outgrowth of their very strong philosophy program (namely from philosophy of religion) and the acquisition of several small publishing houses which had various series and/or journals in religious studies. The journals were primarily acquired over the past ten years, although a few have been with Springer longer. Of course we are still interested in acquiring existing subscription model journals but we realize the market is changing and we want to provide what the market is asking for, namely open access, especially for new start up journals. As for the push to acquire books this is more recent, in the past five years more or less, however we now have several book series in religious studies and are publishing about 15-20 religious studies volumes a year with the hope of more to come in the future.

It appears that rather than converting their existing journals to open access, Springer’s open access initiative in religious studies is to get new journals started with this publishing model. I found Ms. Goldstein-Sabbah’s comment about the changing market interesting. My experience is that scholars in religion and theology have been fairly slow to embrace new mediums of scholarly communication. Although we may be finally moving past the print vs. electronic format debate, one reason I started this blog because knowledge of open access and its viability is not yet common among my scholar and library colleagues in religion and theology. Indeed, this effort has afforded me the opportunity to learn more about open access.

Ms. Goldstein-Sabbah is taking her reading from the broader world of scholarly communication, where the shift is definitely in evidence. Although developments are less clear in religious studies, it might help drive change in our discipline if more publishers like Springer took the initiative toward open access. To get things going, Ms. Goldstein-Sabbah’s approach is to concentrate on organizations rather than individual scholar authors.

Currently Springer does not have any OA journals in Religious Studies and Philosophy. However, given the success Springer has had with OA journals in the traditional STM [science, technology and medicine] market we are very keen to adopt similar initiatives. For the time being my model is to focus on agreements with societies, associations, and institutions which have funding and wish to develop an OA journal with a professional publisher. I am currently working with one society but we are at the preliminary discussion stage so I cannot give any details.

Coupled with the ease of online distribution, one of the primary benefits of open access journal publishing is that it eliminates the costs of publication (and burden for the profits) from the reader side.* Removing the cost barrier to access enhances exposure of a scholar’s research, which is the intent of scholarly communication. But those costs of publication (and profits that must accrue for a commercial enterprise) have to be recouped/generated somewhere. Some of this is accomplished through the efficiencies inherent in online distribution. Beyond this, Springer’s approach is to shift costs to the producer side.

Instead of charging users a fee to read the content, an article-processing charge (APC) is levied at the beginning of the process. This flat charge, which varies from journal to journal, covers the entire cost of the publication process. This includes peer-reviewing, editing, publishing, maintaining and archiving, and allows immediate access to the full text versions of the research articles. (from the SpringerOpen website)

This seems to working well in disciplines where funding for article publication can be built into research grants, especially where the potential economic spin-offs of research make such funding easier to justify. But what about an academic discipline like religious studies that does not typically enjoy this kind of funding? Can Springer’s approach scale downward? Ms. Goldstein-Sabbah is optimistic.

As we both know there is much less funding in Philosophy and Religious Studies. However, costs for developing an OA journal are much less than most people think, although it does vary based on the project size and scope. Most institutions wishing to develop OA journals will find it is actually less expensive to develop a proper OA journal in partnership with a publisher than on their own. In the long-term I believe that funding will swap from a subscription model to an OA model where institutions provide funding for OA fees, however this is many years off. In the meantime Springer wishes to be at the forefront of OA development and we are very keen to partner with institutions who have similar thinking. For the time being we see more growth and interest in the partnership model for OA. However, I do believe that in the future we could move towards the author pay model.

The SpringerOpen FAQ gives an idea of what an author or supporting organization would pay in article processing charges and what those charges pay for. The range is from $665 and $1,996 per published article, depending on the journal (there is a waiver for “low-income countries”).

As you probably guessed I can’t give you an exact figure for the APC range but I would suspect religious studies journals would be at on the low end of the spectrum. If the journal is done in conjunction with an organization’s then the APC would be discussed with the organization. Of course what would be interesting is if Springer sat down with organizations such as ATLA or AAR to discuss APC fees and how that would work in research or library budgets.

Without more information and a specific situation to draw upon it is hard to determine whether this is a manageable and sustainable figure. Ms. Goldstein-Sabbah’s last statement suggests that part of the move to open access involves a change in the way organizations conceptualize funding for the publication of their journal. For example, instead of association membership dues including the purchase of a journal subscription, access to the journal for both members and anyone else in the world who might be interested would be free, and dues would go to help build an article publication fund. Instead of libraries sustaining institutional subscriptions from their budgets, monies already in the system would be shifted to help their faculty get their articles published. And so on.

I get the sense from Ms. Goldstein-Sabbah’s responses that it may be too early to know how this commercial open access model will work for religious studies. Still, Springer should be commended for its innovative thinking and leadership. I will be interested to see how this develops.
__________
* Another primary benefit of open access journal publishing, especially when the journal is self-published, is that authors retain greater control over their copyrights. As a commercial publisher, Springer is demonstrating leadership by allowing authors to retain their copyright though use of a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 2.0) License.

Into the Open: Transitions in Journal Publishing (moderated discussion at Duke University)

On February 24, 2012, coincident with meetings of the editorial board of the open access journal Theological Librarianship, a moderated discussion on open access journal publishing was held at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. The discussion focused on core questions about open access and journal publishing: Who is doing open access? What does it take to start a new open access journal? When is open access appropriate for an existing journal? Where can a journal find infrastructural support? Why open access?

The discussion was moderated by Andrew J. Keck, Associate Library Director at the Duke Divinity School Library, and Columns Editor at Theological Librarianship. Joining in the discussion were editors from the Duke University Press, Duke Law Journals, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, PLoS Genetics, Faith & Leadership, and others, indicating a vibrant and growing open access presence at Duke.

I was unable to join the live stream of the discussion due to technical difficulties. My report is drawn from a recording that was made available following (start playback at around the 7:20 mark). The discussion sought to address both the philosophical (why?) and “nuts and bolts” (how?) of open access journal publishing. I have summarized/collated the responses under question headings.

What is an open access journal?

An open access journal is one with all access barriers (e.g., subscription fees) removed so there is no cost to the reader, anywhere in world. But more, open access means that restrictions to reuse and adaptation (often complicated through application of copyright in traditionally published journals) are removed through, for example, the use of Creative Commons licensing, where attribution is given to the original author but the content can be re-used in various ways.

One person commented that a commitment to open access also implies assurance of sustained access through appropriate archival measures.

How do you see open access in relation to your own discipline?

Different academic disciplines have different traditions, missions and mechanisms of scholarly communication. For example, in theology, open access supports in the most consistent way a mission of “getting the word out” without barriers—economic or otherwise.

This can work in two directions, of course. As the editor of a new open access journal in Eighteenth Century Russian Studies mentioned, a lot of research is being done by scholars in other parts of the world who frequently don’t have the opportunity to publish. So, it’s not only about making research produced in the United States or Europe available to scholars in less developed countries, it’s also about providing a medium for locally produced research to get larger world-wide exposure.

There was an interesting comment offered by Duke’s Scholarly Communications Officer, Kevin Smith regarding the way the media reports on new scientific discoveries or advancements: “If the [research] article is available to them they tend to get it right. They tend to report it better than if they can’t get to the article. There is a lot of ‘junk science’ out there on the Web. It’s really unfortunate when the ‘good science’ is locked up behind toll barriers.” In other words, open access provides the opportunity for the general public to be better informed through thoughtful and credible research.

Following-up, an editor of one of the PLoS journals made the point that publicly (tax) supported scientific research should be accessible to everyone. The people who have already paid for this research through their taxes should be able to access it to be an informed citizenry and improve their decision-making abilities.

A representative from the Duke Law School noted that law journals are frequently produced by students. The law school has been a long-time publisher of open access journals, but the library is also a signatory of the 2008 Durham Statement, committing to the suspension of publishing in print and moving to open electronic formats.

A representative for Project Euclid a collaborative publishing portal for mathematics research (not all open access) noted that mathematicians typically post to archives, and feel their research should be available immediately. Of course, she also lamented difficulties often faced by younger scholars who need to get published in order to kickstart their academic careers. So whereas the use of pre-print archives accelerates scholarly communication, the current peer-review process still creates obstacles in other ways.

Kevin Smith responded that this pre-print approach would be less successful in the humanities where scholarly vetting is an ingrained tradition. He reasoned, however, that post-print archiving or Gold (journal) open access should certainly be viable alternatives to traditional subscription-based journals.

For those considering starting a new open access journal, or moving from print to open access electronic format: How do you know when it’s time to start? What about a sustainable business model?

One editor who works with a commercially published journal is considering moving to open access but noted the hurdles are huge. Publishing houses stand to lose a lot of money. In the example given, the title currently brings in $2 million primarily through bundle subscriptions sold to libraries. To move this title online and then just charge for print would bring in an estimated revenue of only $160,000. Of course, that accustomed subscription revenue is drying-up as libraries are finding increasingly difficult to maintain “Big Deal” bundles. It might make more sense to start a new journal from scratch as open access.

A number of possible business models were suggested. The most common is charging article fees. Also mentioned were print on demand (hybrid); seeking association subsidies; university and college departments providing comp-time for faculty involved in journal work; cost-sharing among library consortia; libraries supporting open access by redirecting subscription budgets; and donations/sponsorships along the lines of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy model.

One person mentioned that multiple revenue streams could be created by differentiating between a product (the content itself) that can be free, and a service that adds value in ways that someone might be willing to pay (e.g., searchable content, licensing for commercial re-use, etc.).

Those who are actively editing an open access journal, what are the pros and challenges?

David Stewart, co-editor of Theological Librarianship mentioned coming to better understand his journal’s community, including discovering how many folks appreciated having an opportunity to write.

There is a learning curve at the start to understand the platform software, and grapple through editorial questions. Editors affirmed the importance of getting a good editorial management system to streamline the process, and developing consistent policies for peer-review. Initially, there will be more back and forth with an author to get their manuscript into peer review form. But this gets easier with time and experience. Indeed, one author noted that his experience with peer review was efficient and very pleasant. He continued by saying [contrary to the claim often raised by traditional commercial publishers], “Really good peer review, which I got from the reviewer, is not incompatible with publishing in an open access journal at all.”

Initially, you may be spending time just trying to get content and then get that content discovered. In a way, you’re dealing with a “supply-side” model and you’re trying to create demand for your product. The recommendation here was get indexed as soon as possible, and in as many places as possible. Indexing puts your content on equal footing with established and prestigious journals, enabling you to attract readers and gain reputation.

How do you promote your journal, manage feedback, assess impact?

Several persons mentioned use of analytics tools, and shifting assessment of impact from the journal level to the author/article level.

The use of social media is big, with journals promoting themselves through Facebook, Twitter, blogs and newsletters, and encouraging readers to push content into their own social networks. ”It’s not just a citation and a paper anymore.” Commenting and conversation around articles is a growing and vibrant trend. As one participant put it:

One of the things about open access that I think is really significant is the way in which it restores and even increases the use of journals as means of communication. It’s not just about people wanting to publish so they can have another line on their resume. When journals started out [in the late 17th century]—like The Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions, or the French Journal des sçavans—most of the content was correspondence between scientists and scholars. They were actually communicating with one another, instead of just producing an article and then moving on. In an ironic sort of way we are using this [online] technology to restore the original purpose of journals.

Budapest Open Access Initiative: Happy 10th Anniversary!

On February 14, 2002, the Budapest Open Access Initiative was publicly released online with 16 original signatories, formally giving birth to the Open Access movement.

An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment, for the sake of inquiry and knowledge. The new technology is the internet. The public good they make possible is the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds. Removing access barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge.

For various reasons, this kind of free and unrestricted online availability, which we will call open access…

Read the rest of the Initiative here. Happy 10th Anniversary BOAI!