The open access journal as a disruptive innovation

I admit it. As a humanist scholar I have not been much inclined to read books or articles on economics. I mean, what could be more boring, right? And all that math.

Well, my inclination has been slowly changing since I began writing this blog. My level of sophistication is pretty basic, and I still try to avoid the math whenever possible. But the economics of academic publishing, particularly journals, has become strangely compelling to me as I have learned more about open access and the dissemination of scholarly research as a digital product in an online environment.

My first exposure came just a few months after starting the blog. I read an interesting article by Caroline Sutton in College & Research Libraries News (December 2011) entitled “Is free inevitable in scholarly communication? The economics of open access.” Sutton applied the economic theory popularized by Chris Anderson in his 2009 book Free: The Past and Future of a Radical Price to argue that the online journal as a digital product operates on a marginal cost of production basis that will inevitably drive the price of additional copies toward zero. I wrote a review of Sutton’s article here. I was so intrigued by this economic concept applied to scholarly publishing that I also read Anderson’s book. I wrote a review of Free from the context of scholarly publishing here.

The economics of disruptive technologies

In a similar vein, I recently read an article by David W. Lewis in College & Research Libraries (September 2012) entitled “The Inevitability of Open Access.” [Incidentally, online editions of both College & Research Libraries and College & Research Libraries News, publications of the Association of College and Research Libraries, are now open access.] The sense of inevitability regarding open access is still there. But with Lewis “inevitability” shifts from a question to an assertion. How can he be so confident?

Lewis has chosen to view open access, and in particular, “pure Gold” open access (journals), through the lens of another economic (business) theory as described in the work of Harvard professor Clayton Christensen, seminally in his 1997 book The Innovator’s Dilemma (reprinted by Harper Business, 2011).

Christensen deals with “the failure of companies to stay atop their industries when they confront certain types of market and technological change” (p. xi). These companies fail not because they ignored sound management principles, but paradoxically—and hence the dilemma—because they didn’t.

[M]any of what are now widely accepted principles of good management are, in fact, only situationally appropriate. There are times at which it is right not to listen to customers, right to invest in developing lower-performance products that promise lower margins, and right to aggressively pursue small, rather than substantial, markets. This book derives a set of rules … that managers can use to judge when the widely accepted principles of good management should be followed and when alternative principles are appropriate. … I call [these alternative principles] principles of disruptive innovation. (p. xv, emphasis his)

I found Lewis’ appropriation of Clayton Christensen’s economics of disruptive technological innovation applied to open access journals interesting enough to go and read Christensen’s book for myself. Afterward, I came back to Lewis’ article, and re-read it with greater understanding. I find his argument persuasive.

Gold and Green Open Access

Lewis’ thesis is that “open access, especially in its pure Gold form, is a disruptive innovation and that given this we can anticipate that it will become the dominant model for the distribution of scholarly content within the next decade” (p. 493). This is a bold assertion, especially considering other recent research suggesting that as of 2009, Gold open access journal articles accounted for only about 8% of all scholarly articles published.

What does Lewis mean by “pure Gold” open access? Open access comes in two major forms, differentiated by color designations, Gold and Green. Gold open access refers to articles that are published in online journals that are made freely available to readers. Green open access refers to forms of articles (e.g., a preprint version, or a delayed post-publication version) that are published in traditional subscription journals but are made freely accessible through submission to an online archive (e.g., author’s website, or an institutional repository). By “pure Gold,” Lewis means articles that are made freely available immediately upon publication, without any kind of delay, “that [also] does away with the overheads associated with restricting access to content and for collecting money from readers or their libraries” (p. 494). Some subscription-based journals make article content available to be read for free after an embargo period (delayed). This could be seen as a form of Gold open access. But because the journal itself is still sustained by subscription revenue Lewis doesn’t consider it “pure” Gold.

Who are the customers?

Lewis talks about two markets that scholarly journals engage, and from a product perspective this situation proves to be fairly unique. “The first is the market for readers’, or their libraries’, dollars. The second…is for the right to publish the best scholarly works” (p. 494). To me, this translates into an interesting question: Who are the customers in the world of scholarly journals?

One obvious customer is the consumer of research communication, or his/her institutional proxy, the library. With subscription-based journals, the product that is purchased is access to research communication. In the print era, this customer also got a tangible product to put on the shelf. As Lewis notes, this customer is clearly advantaged by open access, since articles would be available to him/her at no cost.

There are two other customers—the producer of research seeking a publishing venue, and the publisher seeking high quality research to put in its journals. Lewis highlights what makes this particular market interesting and unique:

[A]uthors do not exchange their work for money; instead, they trade it for prestige, a much less tangible commodity. Enhancements in prestige then make it possible for authors to earn tenure and promotion or to compete for grants or better jobs. Because it takes time for a journal to establish a reputation, today most high-prestige journals are subscription-based. Authors wishing to enhance their reputations often feel compelled to publish in these established, highly thought-of venues and, especially before tenure, are unwilling to risk exploring other alternatives. Established scholars have generally been successful with subscription journals and often feel no need to change their publishing choices. Currently, inertia favors subscription journals. (p. 494)

This is a unique arrangement indeed, with an odd additional wrinkle. The research producer customer is buying prestige with her articles in hopes of building her academic reputation. But she is also the research consumer customer buying access, via a subscription, to those same articles with real money. Meanwhile, the publisher customer uses the reputation it has built-up over time from past research to buy articles from current research producer customers for the cost of prestige. It then turns around and sells those articles back to research consumer customers for real money. The reputation flows in two directions. But the money flows in only one—to the publisher. The money-paying customers (e.g., libraries) are saying this is no longer sustainable, especially as prices continue to rise at dramatic rates. Exploring publishing alternatives must be risked, otherwise access will become increasingly limited.

For Lewis, “currently” (from the previous quote) is the key word. Although prestige is a powerful currency, open access brings some real advantages to these markets. Pragmatically, “to anyone connected to the Internet, the author’s [open access] work is available to the widest possible audience. The work is not restricted to those whose libraries can afford the prices of high-prestige subscription titles” (p. 494). A principled case for open access observes that “many…for-profit publishers…have used their position as monopoly providers to charge excessive prices…[T]hese pricing policies are at odds with the interests of scholars and their universities” (p. 495). I would add, also on principle, that although “inertia [currently] favors subscription journals,” because reputation flows in two directions, established scholars (at least) would not be risking that much to vet open access journal initiatives with their articles and editorial participation. Isn’t this a better use of reputation than subsidizing the profits of commercial publishers?

The Gold open access journal as a disruptive innovation

After summarizing the history and current status of open access journals as documented in a recent article by Mikael Laakso et. al., Lewis turns to the research of Clayton Christensen to argue that Gold open access journals have the characteristics of a “disruptive innovation.”

Ironically, disruptive innovations rarely begin life as a superior product. In fact, they almost always start out inferior to products sold by established firms in established markets. Even though they start this way, disruptive innovations generally have two distinct characteristics. First, they bring a new value proposition to the market. This new value proposition is almost always the application of a new technology using a new business model. Second, disruptive innovations usually make it possible for customers who had not been able to access a service or product to acquire it. … Over time, the disruptive innovation improves and becomes suitable for some of the less demanding customers of the established product. The new technology and business model embedded in the disruptive innovation provides a cost advantage that draws these customers from the established product to the disruptive one and the established firm loses market share. As time goes on, the disruptive innovation gets better and better and eventually it attracts more and more customers and comes to dominate the market. …

One might expect established firms to be able to react to disruptive innovation. They are, after all, leaders in their industries and they did not achieve this position by accident. But, as Christensen documents, this rarely happens. Established firms have succeeded because they have established successful business models and values that reinforce these models. It turns out that business models and organizational values don’t change easily, and it is thus nearly impossible for established firms to quickly adjust to take advantage of new technologies in disruptive ways. (p. 497)

Following Christensen, Lewis describes Gold open access journals as a disruptive innovation. “It combines a new technology, digital distribution of content using the Internet, with a new business model, free distribution to the reader with cost paid by the author or through other means” (pp. 497-98).

It is interesting now to reflect on the early experiments of scholars in the 1990′s who saw the potential of the Internet as a medium for the broad and free distribution of scholarly research. Early efforts were often rudimentary and primitive. These scholars often encountered skepticism, if not outright scorn, from colleagues who couldn’t conceive of the Internet as a credible venue for “serious scholarly communication.” Resistance also came from academic administrations, who viewed this “Internet thing” with suspicion—just a passing fad (well, except maybe for email). But vast improvements in network technology and browser and document delivery software in a relatively short period of time have brought a remarkable level of refinement and quality to low-cost scholar-driven online journal publishing activity (e.g., the open source Open Journal Systems platform).

It is not surprising that commercial publishers, too, have now almost universally embraced online distribution for their subscription-based journals. But they are using this technology to sustain their existing business models and values, not disrupt them (a practice repeatedly observed by Christensen in his research). Consider, for example, the level of sophistication of digital technology which now enables a commercial publisher to put its content securely behind an electronic paywall, and to monetize their journals, with time-limited pay-per-view shopping carts, down to the article level. “Please have your credit card ready.”

Gold open access brings an entirely different value proposition.

It is hard to compete with free unencumbered access, and easy and free linking and sharing. For authors the value proposition is less clear, but…it is at least as compelling. Having your work a click away from everyone should in the end be better for authors than having that work locked up, even if the lockbox is currently prestigious. …

A final part of the the value proposition that Gold OA brings is to universities and other institutions that support the scholarly enterprise. Subscription journals cost these organizations large amounts of money. … If some of this money could be redirected into more cost-effective ways of distributing scholarship, such as institutional subsidies for open access publishing ventures or author charges to open access journals, this would be a benefit. (p. 498)

Lewis notes that the response of established publishers to Gold open access “is what Christensen would predict.” Because established publishers operate on different business models based on different values—many dating from the world of print (when they were the only game in town)—they are culturally unprepared to adjust to new realities introduced by the disruptive innovation of open access. They are scrambling to keep their value propositions in place while issuing reports of doom and gloom, expressing doubts and skepticism about the sustainability of Gold open access. Lewis sees the use of Hybrid OA (where an author can pay to make their article open access in an otherwise subscription-based journal) and Delayed OA (free access to articles after an embargo period) by commercial publishers, and their tolerance for Green open access, as efforts to appear pro-OA while protecting their author base for high quality research articles without jeopardizing subscription income.

The S-curve of disruptive innovation and its impact

From Christensen, Lewis notes that Gold open access as a disruptive innovation will replace the established subscription-based journal, not through linear substitution, but by following an S-curve pattern (growth charted over time)—a pattern observed over and over in other industries and products (e.g., digital photography). The innovation may languish with slow growth initially, then the pace of adoption accelerates dramatically, until it flattens-out again after acquiring market domination. This behavior is the basis of Lewis’ bold claim regarding the future of Gold open access. Based on historical to present data, Lewis extrapolates a couple of scenarios. A conservative estimate shows 50% of articles will be published Gold OA by 2021, 90% by 2025. A more aggressive estimate shows 50% by 2017, and 90% by 2020. “Even the more conservative estimate suggests a radical shift in the nature of scholarly journal publishing in the next decade” (p. 501).

Lewis spends the remainder of the article discussing the impact of a journal system dominated by Gold open access on a variety of stakeholders (authors, readers, libraries, established subscription publishers, scholarly societies, etc.), and he offers-up some interesting points of change, including one certain and inevitable result (regardless of how long it actually takes)—the disruption and decline of the subscription journal. We can try to fight it and lose (because that’s how disruptive innovations tend to work), or we can embrace it and participate in its results. “[I]n the end [Gold OA] is a disruption whose success will make our world better” (p. 504).

Now that’s not boring.

Hat Tip: “The Future of Publishing” (But I viewed it from the perspective of open access)

I’m surprised I hadn’t seen this earlier. I want to thank a librarian colleague for the link, who posted it this afternoon to a listerv we both frequent. This wonderfully clever video was uploaded to YouTube back in March 2010. According to the description, “This video was prepared by the UK branch of Dorling Kindersley Books and produced by Khaki Films.”

The video was produced for the commercial publisher’s sales conference. Ironically, I viewed it from the perspective of open access and found its message compelling and powerful.

I encourage you to view the 2:30 video in its entirety. I won’t spoil the experience. But I’ll give you a hint. Notice how the message (in this excerpt) completely changes when it’s rewound.

Is this the message?

I know what I want when I see it and
packaging
is more important than
content
I have to tell you
my attention span is too small for big ideas
and it’s just not true that
I read a lot and I like learning …

Or this?

I read a lot and I like learning
and it’s just not true that
my attention span is too small for big ideas
I have to tell you
content
is more important than
packaging
I know what I want when I see it and …

The part about content or packaging proved serendipitous. Unbeknownst to my colleague, he posted the link just as I was preparing to participate in a thread discussing scholarly societies that turn their journals over to commercial publishers, and how this all too commonly results in increased institutional subscription prices. Here is an excerpt:

In addition to being a medium for research communication, I know many societies intend their journal to be a source of revenue to help subsidize other programming. In the print era especially, offering the journal as a benefit of membership is a long-standing tradition that is surely under considerable pressure as this incentive is losing its appeal in the digital age. I imagine that increasing institutional subscriptions is seen as a partial solution, and making a deal with the (commercial publishing) devil who has a lot of experience and brand recognition is seen as the (only?) way to do this credibly.

I appreciate this is simplistic. But it seems to me that the dilemma of a society in this situation is at least exacerbated where there is the perceived need to view their journal as a source of revenue in addition to it being a medium of research communication. If the revenue component could be minimized, or taken out of the equation entirely, then the focus could shift to simple cost recovery of the later. If, further, expectations could shift to the content and its dissemination rather than product packaging, the costs that would need to be recovered would be further reduced. (I’m working on a piece following-up on a recent article that sees open access journals as a “disruptive technology.” Disruptive technologies originate down-market but grow as they are increasingly able to satisfy core customer demands. Meanwhile, commercially published journals may actually be shown to be over-shooting customer demand, and price consciousness becomes a more important consideration. What do consumers of scholarly research really care about? Content or packaging?)

I suspect that leveraging the perception of increased value might bring the entertainment of thoughts that this product should be able to fetch a higher price in the marketplace, especially based on traditional expectations. But I find it difficult to believe that the initiative for these thoughts generally originate with the societies, especially if the reason for going to the commercial publisher in the first place is to provide a rescue from the near-term prospect of insolvency. It’s a pretty big leap from: “What can we do to keep this thing afloat?” to delusions of grandeur: “Ha! Ha! This will turn our journal into a veritable cash cow! We’ll be rich!” (OK. Maybe that’s just a little hyperbolic. But it’s for effect.)

I imagine, rather, the conversation between journal editors and society publication committees when meeting with their commercial publisher partners to be more like: “Yes, we want our journal to be revenue positive. But can you assure us that there is enough value here to justify raising the subscription price that much? Don’t we risk driving away subscribers?” The publisher replies: “No question about value. More people will learn about your great journal on our great platform, which is sure to increase subscriptions. And hey, we’ll throw-in access to a backfile. Librarians love backfiles! Besides, the increased price will offset any short-term loss of subscribers. Don’t worry. We are committed to the long-term viability and success of your journal. We can’t succeed if you don’t succeed. We’re in this together!”

Content or packaging? Selling a product or getting a message out? Which is more important?

Doxology: Open access “magnifying lens” on worship scholarship

In a previous post, I related a conversation I had with Geoffrey Moore, the new editor of the recently converted online and open access journal Doxology: A Journal of Worship (ISSN: 2167-0153) regarding the pros and cons of publishing complete periodic issues or publishing articles as they are submitted and reviewed in open annual volumes. In that post I indicated that I planned a follow-up profile of the journal itself. At last…

The scholarly publication of the Order of Saint Luke

Doxology was founded in 1984 as a scholarly publication of the Order of Saint Luke. The Order of Saint Luke is a “religious order in the United Methodist Church dedicated to sacramental and liturgical scholarship, education, and practice.” It was formed in 1946 “to bring about a recovery of the worship and sacramental practice which has sustained the Church since its formation in Apostolic times,” and “to help the Church rediscover the spiritual disciplines of the Wesleys as a means of perceiving and fulfilling the mission for which the Church was formed” (from the website).

I spoke with former editor, Professor Byron Anderson (Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary), about the history of Doxology.

Anderson: Doxology began in 1984, primarily as a venue for members and friends of the Order of Saint Luke. It served as a venue for publishing the lectures/papers offered at the annual retreat of the Order, along with a few other occasional pieces—either solicited by or offered to the journal. It did not publish substantive reviews, nor were materials reviewed independently prior to publication. In 1998, with Volume 15, Clifton Guthrie and I took over editorial responsibility for Doxology after conversation with the OSL Council about the future and shape of the journal. Among our goals were moving to a juried journal, broadening and deepening the scholarship offered through the journal, providing a venue through which to support younger scholars, giving emphasis to Protestant worship, and offering “more exacting” and more selective reviews (soliciting particular reviewers rather than accepting unsolicited reviews).

Omega Alpha: I understand the print journal was published once per year, and it is continuing as an annual in its online incarnation. When was the issue typically released each year? How many subscribers did you have prior to Doxology going online?

Anderson: Issues came out in December, although several years we had a print/delivery delay, which helped support our push to go online. The primary subscriber base was the membership of the Order of St. Luke, which has somewhere around 800 members. [They also had 39 institutional subscribers.] The subscription price for individuals and institutions was $10.

Omega Alpha: So the subscription price was primarily intended to help defray the cost of printing and mailing. Did you publish Doxology in-house?

Anderson: The journal was and is a publication of OSL Publications, which usually contracted with a printer and mail service for production and delivery. Printing and postage costs were becoming a concern, and we were beginning to have some problems with timely delivery. Yes, the subscription had been part of the annual membership dues to the organization.

Omega Alpha: Your first online annual issue—Volume 28—was published last year (2011) while you were still co-editor. You mentioned printing costs and delays. Did these things factor into your decision to move Doxology online?

Anderson: Yes. I first broached the possibility that we take the journal online after several years of printing/delivery delays and with changes being made in the staffing of OSL Publications. The first conversation took us as far as agreeing to continue to explore the possibility. After learning about Open Journal Systems, seeing it in use at Methodist Review, and conversing with the editor of Methodist Review, I developed a proposal and pressed for this move. Admittedly, the move also came at a time when financial considerations helped press it forward. Of course, because Doxology has always been produced on a shoe string, there wasn’t much to fund. What we have done is make use of the previous budget for printing and postage to cover the modest cost for the online move. The editors receive a modest honorarium; we do this, in part, as a contribution to the OSL.

Omega Alpha: Volunteerism applied to tasks such as editing and peer review is common and frequently necessary. But it is a long-standing, honorable, and collegial tradition in scholarly communication that reaps a lot of direct value in the online open access environment because infrastructure costs (when coupled with the use of open source tools like OJS) are otherwise low. It is now possible for any group of committed scholars or a scholarly organization to contemplate embarking on a fully credible journal publishing venture with readily available tools. Can you say more about your decision to embrace the open access publishing model for Doxology?

Anderson: Pretty much as I just indicated before. Seeing it in use at Methodist Review, having it recommended to me by my institution’s librarian, and then beginning to explore its “ease of use” from an editorial perspective.

Omega Alpha: Do you feel that open access lends itself appropriately to the mission of The Order of St. Luke?

Anderson: I think it does. The purpose of the journal focuses on the OSL’s desire the “seek the sacramental life, promote the corporate worship of the church, and magnify the sacraments,” attempting to do these things from an academic perspective yet trying to maintain a bridge between the church and the academy. Open access potentially expands our audience beyond the membership. Because we are an annual journal, we had not been able to be listed in ATLA’s Religion Database so our materials did not show up in library searches. But by moving Doxology online, we at least can make an appearance through web searches.

I posed this same question to Daniel Benedict, the Abbot of the Order of Saint Luke.

Benedict: As Abbot, I am responsible for overseeing the spiritual and temporal matters of the Order of Saint Luke. In this regard, the publications of the Order are an important part of our work and service to the church and the academy. Doxology is our scholarly periodical. However, publishing it as an annual print volume was both expensive and limited in the audience it could reach. As an annual publication, Doxology was not indexed in ATLA. Without database indexing, few scholars could know of it or its contents. With Dr. Ron Anderson’s encouragement and background work, I concluded that the Order and the academy would be better served by going to the online/open access approach and advocated for that to the Council.

Omega Alpha: What has been the response to this transition within the Order of Saint Luke?

Benedict: Two part response: First, the Council was favorable because the savings are significant. We are now realizing a $2,500 annual reduction in costs of publishing the journal. Second, the promise of wider availability to the intended audience has appeal to the leadership of the Order and to members who are aware of the shift to online/open access publication.

The new approach to publication costs us nothing, beyond the time given by the editor, Br. Geoffrey Moore. That is not to minimize the gift and sacrifice on his part as a scholar, giving himself to this work. We pay a small stipend for his efforts. Beyond that, the savings realized allows the Order to contribute a significant portion of his expenses for attending the North American Academy of Liturgy, where he is able to interface with other scholars with an eye toward generating potential writers for Doxology.

Omega Alpha: So the move to open access has resulted in reduced costs, timely publication, and the prospect of a broader readership and increased discovery by scholars of worship and liturgy. These were the very goals Drs. Anderson and Josselyn-Cranson articulated in the “Note to Readers” in the first online issue of Doxology.

Benedict: We are still living into the transition and our awareness of what the new approach will mean for our end users. The journal’s end users are not, for the most part, members of the Order. Rather, the end users are scholars who engage in academic considerations with each other for the sake of matters of practice in the church’s liturgy and sacramental life. The Order and the Church benefit from this ongoing conversation.

Doxology 4.0

In the “Note to Readers” from the first online issue of Doxology (Volume 28, 2011), Dr. Byron Anderson writes: “In my count, this issue of Doxology represents either its third or fourth ‘incarnation’—Doxology 4.0 perhaps. … What has changed is the means by which it is delivered to you, our readers. … What has not changed, however, is the quality of the material presented here” (emphasis added). This is a very neat and concise way of communicating the intentions of open access. The quality of scholarship, editorial oversight, and peer review is in no way compromised by open access. Open access is about distribution of scholarship not scholarly quality. [I had dinner with a professor colleague just last evening who still didn't "get" this basic fact about open access—an indication that advocates for open access still have some work to do!]

Another point raised by Dr. Anderson in his “Note” was that a search for new editorial leadership was underway, after his 15-year tenure. That search was successfully concluded this year as Geoffrey Moore, a doctoral student at Southern Methodist University, assumed the post as editor.

I followed-up this profile and my earlier conversation with Moore about plans for Doxology moving forward. The 2012 issue (Volume 29) is slated for publication in December along the lines of the first online issue last year. However, he has decided, beginning in 2013, to adopt an open submission and publication format (publishing articles immediately as they pass peer and editorial review), similar to the approach taken by Methodist Review. “This is a logical choice in the interest of getting scholarship ‘out there’ with greater expedience; and given that we’re already an annual, there doesn’t appear to be a downside with respect to the history of our serial.” Moore is also interested in exploring a print on demand option for individuals and institutions. And as time allows, he wants to scan the back issues to create a complete journal archive on the site.

An open access “magnifying lens” on worship scholarship

The Focus and Scope section on the journal’s “About” page includes these words regarding the mission of Doxology: “Doxology is a refereed scholarly journal. Through the academic and pastoral conversations developed in Doxology, the journal seeks to promote the corporate worship of the church,… While, on the one hand, we seek to ‘lift up the sacraments’ we also seek through the same to apply a magnifying lens to them through scholarly conversation and critique” (emphasis added).

What a great metaphor for the scholarly endeavor and its communication. I am pleased that this particular scholarly magnifying lens is now open access. I wish it continued success.

Hat Tip: Open Access Explained!

One of the clearest, concise, and entertaining explanations of open access I have seen. Check-out this animated comic, Open Access Explained! narrated by open access advocates Nick Shockey, Director of Student Advocacy at SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) and Jonathan Eisen, Professor of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology at University of California, Davis on the PHD Comics website.

The piece focuses on open access to publically-funded scientific research. I wished for more of a nod to Humanities scholarship and the unique challenges of our disciplines relating to open access. But the explanation still translates very well. For example, this excerpt—I believe it is Jonathan Eisen speaking—could just as easily be applied to Humanities scholarship:

I think the main impediment [to open access] is the slow movement of scientific cultural practices. Scientists, despite being great explorers in terms of knowledge, are sort-of very conservative in changing their practices. Lots of the [scientific] community says: “O yeah, I support openness…but I want a Nature paper [that is, I only want to publish my research in a high-profile journal].” That reliance on impact-factor and the name of the journal [prestige] does allow some journals to not respond to the community pressure toward openness…

[We need to experiment with other models.] I view it much more as scientists and scientific publishers are slow to change. Some of them are going to be left in the dirt because openness is clearly the future. The creative ones are going to survive.

“Snippet view” in Google Books is not open access

Kevin Smith’s Scholarly Communications @ Duke blog is my go-to site for unpacking the meaning of recent court decisions relating to copyright and fair use and their implications for academic communities, especially libraries. His post on Judge Harold Baer, Jr.’s October 10, 2012 ruling in favor of HathiTrust in The Authors Guild v. HathiTrust copyright infringement lawsuit is an excellent and encouraging read.

Discussion on a listserv I frequent following the HathiTrust ruling included this comment from one participant:

I read this story last night and an argument can be made for either side, but it reminded me of one of my pet peeves in this area. I find this whole thing of putting whole books (minus pieces here and there) at Google Books or other places really problematic. I can readily understand journal articles being open-access but not books. I don’t know what the financial realities are for a big publisher like Macmillan, but the publishers whose books I mostly buy, and which publish projects that I have been involved in, like dictionary articles or book chapters, such as Zondervan, Baker, Eerdmans, InterVarsity Press, etc., are not, based upon what I’ve read, exactly rolling in money from huge revenues. Here’s one example. I can go to Google Books and find John Nolland’s New International Greek Testament Commentary on Matthew. There are bits omitted but there is enough there that if a student asks me where to find a good commentary on Matthew I can point the student to this work. He/she doesn’t need to buy it. A library doesn’t need to buy it. The student can read the lion’s share of the book without it costing him/her anything. This means that groups that put (mostly) full-text books on the web are essentially contributing to the potential bankruptcy of various publishers, and that would serve no one.

More than the HathiTrust case, the commenter may be thinking about the other lawsuit brought by The Authors Guild in 2005 (and still unresolved) against Google over the later’s alleged infringement through its massive book digitization project, which includes scanning of books still in copyright. In any event, the commenter contends that “putting whole books (minus pieces here and there) at Google Books or other places” is harmful to publishers because “there is enough [of the full text provided in the preview]” that a library or student doesn’t really need to buy the book.

The commenter is referring to “limited previews” of books still in copyright in Google Books. According to Goggle’s documentation (PDF), a “limited preview” can show “from 20 percent to 100 percent” of the full text content. However, it is the copyright holder (author or publisher) that grants permission to Google as to the the amount of text that is displayed. This is not something Google is doing of its own accord. The copyright holder may only grant permission for Google to display “snippets”— “two or three sentences surrounding the search term,” or it may not allow any preview at all.

In the example referred to by the commenter, John Nolland’s The Gospel of Matthew from The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005), it is true that a significant percentage of the book’s 1,500 or so pages is included in the preview. However, the preview page also includes these words: “Pages displayed by permission of Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.” In addition, there is a very prominently displayed red button with the words: “Buy Ebook – $68.” Responding to this commenter, Kevin Smith correctly assesses that publisher motivation in allowing this preview is calculated to actually encourage sales:

Publishers make such agreements because they believe that Google Books will drive traffic to purchase the book. The link to buy Nolland’s book is prominent on the page. So the publishers obviously do not believe, or do not universally believe, that allowing access of a substantial number of pages on Google Books will lead to their bankruptcy.

The basis for the commenter’s concern appears to be related to the fact that the Google Books limited preview is providing useful information—and in the case of John Nolland’s book, a significant amount of useful information—for free. “[T]here is enough there that if a student asks me where to find a good commentary on Matthew I can point the student to [Nolland's work on Google Books]. He/she doesn’t need to buy it.”

The commenter is overstating the case, though I confess that I have on more than one occasion gleaned useful information for research from a preview in Google Books instead of buying the book (or working with my library to secure a copy). But this, as we have discussed, is essentially beside the point. The purpose of the preview is to drive sales not provide access to content. It is a marketing decision, and the copyright holder can amend preview terms with Google at any time. The above documentation from Google makes this point explicitly:

Think of [Google Book Search] as a free worldwide sales and marketing program that includes your books in Google search results. Your participation in the program makes it possible for anyone searching for information on Google to discover and buy your books – even when they have no previous information to guide them. …

Prospective customers can browse sample pages as a preview, just as they can page through a book in a bookstore. If they like what they see, they can follow the purchasing links to buy the book – either directly from the publisher site or though popular online retailers.

A free preview is not open access

What I especially wanted to focus on is this statement the commenter made a few sentences earlier: “I can readily understand journal articles being open-access but not books” (emphasis added). I won’t here engage in the commenter’s suggestion that academic books should not be open access. I disagree, though I certainly understand there are many challenges. More important to me here is to push back against the notion that the availability of free content in any form (e.g., from Google Books) makes that content open access.

In attacking this notion I realize that I am attacking the keen and frugal sensibility of librarians in seeing the availability of free content from any credible source as a good thing. I also realize that I am running contrary to a proposal put forward by open access advocate John Willinsky in his book The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship (MIT Press, 2006; available as an open access download here). In the book Willinsky identifies “ten flavors” of open access (he is focusing on academic journal articles). Among the “flavors” is what he calls partial open access, which is based on an economic model where “open access is provided to a small selection of articles in each issue—serving as a marketing tool—whereas access to the rest of the issue requires subscription” (Table A.1, p. 212).

This would appear to be exactly what we are seeing in Google Books: a limited preview—serving as a marketing tool—whereas access to the rest of the book requires that it be purchased. So why am I unwilling to recognize this as a viable form (flavor) of open access?

I do not know what Willinsky’s current view regarding “partial open access” might be. But I read the inclusion of it in his 2006 book as a concession to what he called “opening access” to knowledge—by which he means “increasing access and improving access to the journal literature, largely through the use of the Internet. It is about ways of making a greater part of this literature accessible to more people.” (p. 27, emphasis his). From this perspective, a free preview in Google Books or free access to an article or two on a toll journal’s website does technically increase access—at least as long as it is available. And this is really my overriding point. Because the preview or article is intended as a marketing tool to sell access to content, the commitment to openness is suspect. I would insist this “flavor” doesn’t really improve access because that access might be pulled tomorrow.

Speaking of flavors, the Google Books documentation puts it like this: “[Through the limited preview or snippet view] people get a taste of your book—but only a taste” (emphasis added). The list commenter felt Google Books, or rather, Wm. B. Eerdmans was giving away too much of John Nolland’s commentary. Though it isn’t actually the whole book, even the amount of content currently available in the preview might change if the publisher suddenly concurred with the commenter’s assessment. This is not open access because the access is limited and because the access is unreliable. I cannot imagine any library actually deciding it didn’t need to buy this book (in print or e-book format) because it felt it could just link to the free limited preview on Google Books.

As I write this post, and throughout the month of October, SAGE Publications is providing free access to all its online content. This is more than a taste for sure, and I know some scholars who might be apt to binge on this buffet! (I’m pretty sure, however, that “all” doesn’t mean the wholesale downloading of book essays or journal articles from SAGE’s site.) I do not dispute that this is a generous offer from a commercial publishing business model perspective. However, it is a limited offer specifically designed to sell reliable and continuing access to SAGE’s content. Come November 1 the buffet goes back behind the paywall.

I recognize the legitimacy of other “flavors,” or economic models designed to support open access as an intended goal (e.g, delayed access, subsidized, value-added formats, etc.). Open access is not about giving away too little or too much where behind that snippet, preview, or limited time “all you can eat” is an intention to sell information, useful or otherwise. Associating such activities with open access undermines the concept, which is committed to facilitating the free unimpeded, unlimited, and reliable flow of information for the cause of knowledge.

Hat Tip: “How to Succeed in Publishing Without Really Trying”

This hat tip goes to Bryn Geffert, Librarian of the College at Amherst College, Massachusetts for his creative retelling of C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters on today’s Inside Higher Ed site, entitled “How to Succeed in Publishing Without Really Trying.”

Lewis’ 1942 satirical novel reads as a series of letters written by a senior demon named Screwtape, who is mentoring his inexperienced nephew Wormwood in the finer points of how to secure the soul of an unsuspecting British chap—”the Patient”—into hell.

In Geffert’s retelling, Uncle Screwtape is mentoring Wormwood as an aspiring academic publishing magnate.

My Dear Wormwood,

So you aspire to become an academic publishing magnate. You noble devil.

Supporting the life of the mind. Disseminating research conducted in the public interest. Sharing the output of the academy with those beyond our ivy-encrusted walls. Making information universally accessible. Enlightening the world. Concerned only for the common good, with no thought of profit. Such care for the scholarship, the academy, the developed world, the developing world.

Such altruism. Such nobility of soul.

Your mother raised you right, young man. I am prouder than I can say.

Your Admiring Uncle,

Screwtape

But in true demonic fashion, it turns out Screwtape’s tongue was deeply lodged in his cheek. His second letter begins:

My Dear Wormwood,

For Hades’ sake, you dolt! You wouldn’t recognize sarcasm if it bit you in the nose.

Of course I was joking….

Uncle Screwtape reserves special distain for open access. He encourages his nephew Wormwood to play-off the fears of his scholarly captives, who might deeply suspect their work will not be taken seriously if they publish in an open access venue. Picking up mid-way into this letter, Screwtape writes:

[W]ill any scholar sully her name by allowing a press—no matter how reputable, how long a track record, how committed to quality editing and peer review—to distribute her work for free? Of course not.

Granted, she will receive no compensation for publishing her article with you. But the impressive price tag you put on her book provides an imprimatur of importance, solidity, and worth. A free publication? Your gut and my gut know that gratuitous goods have no value. Free = worthless. Ask any marketing specialist.

Fourth, nobody need remind the professoriate just how many open-access publications are, shall we say, rather sketchy. Consult the Directory of Open Access Journals to peruse a stunning variety of semi-reputable and dodgy titles sprinkled among the worthies that demand rigorous peer review and scrupulous editing.

If we play this right, we can easily tarnish the very notion of open-access by pointing to some embarrassing examples. You know the argument: Toyota once produced a lemon, ergo all Japanese cars are lemons.

Fifth, faculty don’t care whether anybody reads their work. Research indicating that articles in open-access journals enjoy many more readers than articles behind paywalls: couldn’t be more irrelevant. Of absolutely no consequence to academic authors.

And sixth, fear works to our advantage. Gently cultivate the gut-wrenching anxiety of young faculty facing tenure and promotion. Nobody is more uncertain and skittish than an assistant professor planning for D-Day. Milk this for all it’s worth. Remind young faculty how deeply you care about them: your sole concern is their welfare and success, and thus you would be heartbroken if they elected to publish in any journal or with any monograph press that exudes even the faintest odor of novelty. Too great a risk. Anything the least bit unfamiliar is uncertain, and uncertainty is to be avoided like the plague.

Thanks for this great read, Bryn! It nicely captures the spirit of C.S.

Hat Tip: David Weinberger interviews open access advocate Peter Suber

This hat tip goes to the Radio Berkman podcast at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society (Harvard University), Episode 206 for August 16, 2012, entitled “Unlocking Research.” In this episode, David Weinberger interviews open access advocate Peter Suber.

Peter Suber is Director of the Harvard Open Access Project and author of a new book on open access called (simply) Open Access (MIT Press, 2012). In this interview, Suber provides a clear and concise portrayal of what open access is all about, and where it is heading. Here’s a particularly interesting segment, where Suber speaks to the challenge of open access while also exposing a couple of key issues that need to be sorted out in this scholarly communications debate:

Weinberger: There are certainly still, let’s say, social and career reasons why at least some researchers like to publish in closed access journals. Is that changing?

Suber: It is changing. The advantage for researchers is not that the closed accessed journals are closed, it’s that some closed access journals are prestigious. So the advantage comes from the prestige not from the lack of openness. When an open access journal is just as prestigious as a closed journal then all the advantages lie on the open side.

But to gain this kind of prestige a journal needs to have been in existence for a long time. It needs to be venerable. It needs to have been around long enough to have a reputation. Open access journals tend to be new, for obvious reasons. So most of the venerable, high prestige journals are not open. Some of them have converted to open. Some of them are now allowing open without providing open. Some of them are permitting authors to provide open. But by default most of them are not open, and the incentives for researchers, especially university faculty members is to publish in high prestige journals regardless of the terms of access.

Weinberger: One of the qualities that gives a journal prestige, though, is not simply that it’s old and venerable, but that it excludes most of what is submitted—that there is some type of editorial process, peer review processing, and very few items get in.

Suber: Right. But open access journals can have rigorous peer review at the very same levels. Having rigorous peer review and having a high rejection rate is orthogonal to openness in this sense. Because it doesn’t mean that a journal must be sold as opposed to given away, it just means that the editorial process has to be selective. The older journals can be more selective. Journals that have more prestige have a better reputation and can be more selective because they have more submissions. The more submissions you have the more you can afford to reject a larger number.

But the same thing can happen on the open access side. As more open access journals become prestigious—as they become selective they become prestigious; as they become prestigious they become selective—then they have the same advantages that the venerable high prestige, high quality closed journals have had. There has never been an advantage of being closed. There’s only been an advantage in being high quality, high impact, high prestige.

There’s a related problem for open access journals, which is that in order to acquire prestige, they must attract high quality submissions. But in order to attract high quality submissions they need prestige. So, brand new journals that have few submissions and no prestige yet—because they’re brand new—have a hard time acquiring prestige and quality. So this is another reason why the incumbent journals have a built-in advantage. Again, not because they’re closed, but because they’ve been around long enough to have both submissions and prestige.

…

One of the most common and harmful misunderstandings about open access is that the very purpose is to by-pass peer review, and that it’s to make all scholarly literature like Wikipedia, or like blogs. Not at all true. We want open access to the peer reviewed literature. … That’s the focus of most open access policies and most open access advocacy.

The interview is just over 28 minutes long, and is well worth a listen.

Open Access Interview: New Testament Scholar Larry Hurtado

It’s been a number of years since I’ve really immersed myself in direct theological research—ever since my vocational path diverged from the start of a doctoral program and took me, first into pastoral ministry and then to my present career in academic librarianship. I did get a chance to step back into the pool a bit while working on my Information and Library Science degree at the University of Arizona in 2004. I wrote a paper on intertextuality and canon for a graduate independent study elective course in Judaic Studies. And for the research methods course in the library program, I developed a research proposal that intended to look at the adoption of the codex book form by early Christian communities from a sociological perspective, using diffusion of innovations theory developed by Everett Rogers.

I continue to be intrigued by the evolution and historical adoption of codex book technology, especially as a background and possible analogy to the technological developments we are currently witnessing with e-books, e-readers, and tablet computers. As time allows, I try to connect with the literature that offers new insights into this topic. I think it was in 2007 that I read a fascinating book entitled The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (William B. Eerdmans, 2006), which includes a chapter on the early Christian preference for the codex book form. This was my first exposure to the writings and scholarship of the author, Larry W. Hurtado.

Larry Hurtado is Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland (1996-2011). He is an influential scholar who has written extensively on early Christianity, including Jesus Christ as a focus of devotion and worship, and the aforementioned title, which commends the close study of the physical and visual features of early Christian biblical and non-biblical manuscripts (not just their literary content) for insights into the origins of this religious movement.

I subscribe to GOAL: Global Open Access List, an international email forum moderated by Richard Poynder dedicated to discussing open access issues in scholarly communication. Imagine my delighted surprise when reading through a recent daily digest of GOAL I see a post and several subsequent replies by Larry Hurtado.

It has been my contention since beginning this blog that the advancement of open access scholarly communication in Religion and Theology critically depends on the awareness, engagement, and (hopefully) the authorization from established and respected scholars regarding this issue. It is easy to assume that many scholars are either still blissfully unaware of open access; they don’t understand what the fuss is all about (the current system has worked well enough for them); or they are suspicious of the scholarly rigor and quality of research submitted to open access journals. That is why I was so excited to see Professor Hurtado’s posts. I emailed him and asked if he’d be willing to be interviewed for my blog. He graciously consented. What follows resulted from an email interchange and a face-to-face conversation online via Skype.

Early work promoting online academic journals

Omega Alpha: I saw your posts on GOAL, and let me say first-off that I got very excited. I said to myself, “Hey! What?! Larry Hurtado? I know that name!” It was exciting for me to see a well-known and respected biblical scholar engaged in the conversation about open access.

In your posts, you were observing that current open access policy conversations (happening in the UK, Europe, and the US) seemed to be focused on the Sciences. You expressed concern about the apparent lack of attention in these conversations on the Humanities, including the hardships humanist scholars would face—due to significantly lower funding—with author-side OA business models, especially where these models might be mandated (e.g., publicly funded research), or where a one-size-fits-all approach might be adopted by a publisher. I resonated with your comments and I wanted to talk with you further about this. Thank you for agreeing to this interview.

In the introduction I alluded to the focus of your writing career. Can you tell me more about your teaching career?

Hurtado: After my PhD work, I taught for 3 years at Regent College (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), and then moved to University of Manitoba (Winnipeg) in 1978. I was offered the post of Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology at the University of Edinburgh in 1996. I retired from that post in August 2011, but remain active in PhD supervision and in pursuing research in my field (New Testament & Christian Origins).

Omega Alpha: In one of your posts on GOAL you mentioned being involved in promoting online academic journals in the early 1990s. I’d like to hear more about this. What were your intended goals in wanting to move academic journals online? The terminology and even the concept of “open access” was not really in parlance at the time. Would you say you were aiming to make research communication more accessible and more widely distributed? Were you in any way aiming to move away from a subscription-based model to one where research would be freely accessible? In other words, if you had the terminology, were you envisioning open access as it is understood today?

Hurtado: During my years at University of Manitoba I founded the Institute for the Humanities (I was the first director of the Institute from 1990-1992), which involved my giving attention to the needs of researchers in the Humanities. I had been involved in establishing IOUDAIOS Review, an online book review journal patterned after the Bryn Mawr Classical Review. I also began organizing a committee at University of Manitoba to hold an international conference on exploring and promoting refereed electronic journals. This conference (the first such) was held at University of Manitoba in 1993.

My own concerns were two-fold: First, the costs of paper journals, especially in Sciences-Medicine-Technology fields, many of them commercially published (e.g., Elsevier) were consuming a vast portion of university library budgets (at University of Manitoba I was told 70%; at University of Edinburgh I have been told around 50%). This meant a restricted book-buying budget that hit the Humanities particularly hard. Second, traditional paper journals were taking an increasingly long time to get things through the backed-up publication queue. Articles often took two years from submission to publication, largely because of limited number of pages per issue of journal. This meant an unnecessary and unhelpful lag in publication of Humanities scholarship.

In 1997 I was invited to address a conference held at Caltech, attended mainly by university provosts, where these issues were discussed. [See reports on this conference here and here.] At that time, there were two major proposals being debated. Stevan Harnad was promoting “scholarly skywriting.” [See this early article by Stevan Harnad about his proposal.] My proposal was for a consortium of universities and learned societies to promote specifically online, refereed journals that would feature traditional editing, refereeing, etc. This sort of journal could move from periodic regular “issues” (e.g., quarterly) to publishing articles as soon as they were ready. And there need be no arbitrary restriction of length, as there were no paper pages to worry about.

This consortium proposal was intended to by-pass the commercial publishers entirely, with libraries and academics in the driver’s seat of publishing academic research.

The financial models were then varied: There could be a cost-recovery-subscription approach (which would likely reduce the serials budget cost dramatically). There could be an “open access” (no subscription) approach, with the costs of online publication borne jointly by universities and academic societies. These costs would be minimal, or certainly radically cheaper compared to current commercial subscription costs.

Yes, the “open access” emphasis came later, and in principle I am comfortable with it.

Omega Alpha: This was pioneering work, and you and others were seeing the potential of this new medium to advance scholarship in new ways. Most academics and scholars now work online on a daily basis, and it is easy to take this early work for granted. 15-20 years is like an eternity ago in “Internet time.” (Incidentally, in January I interviewed Professor Ehud Ben Zvi, at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, who was also seeing the potential. He started the online open access Journal of Hebrew Scriptures in 1996.)

Since beginning our email correspondence, I was able to secure through interlibrary loan a copy of the Proceedings from the 1993 International Conference on Electronic Refereed Journals. You gave the closing presentation entitled, “A Consortium for Networked Publication.” I found this excerpt from your presentation remarkable:

[I]f commercial [publishing] firms are allowed to dominate the development and use of the network for publication of research, we will be in a situation similar to the present state of paper-journal publishing, with a rich supply of (often expensive) journals in some commercially attractive fields, and other fields neglected as unattractive commercially. I have no desire to restrain commercial firms from their legitimate quest for profits. But I do think that academia in general, and perhaps especially in the sciences and technology, needs to consider whether it is desirable to leave the development of the Internet for research publication so fully in the hands of commercial firms as traditional paper journals are in some fields. In other words, I suggest that academia should take the emergence of the Internet, this new medium of publication, as an opportunity to re-affirm the historic role of scholars as both producers and disseminators of research (pp. 19.2-3)

Your words from 20 years ago sound almost prescient! For it would appear that academia did largely choose to leave the development of the Internet in the hands of commercial publishers rather than take the opportunity to make fuller use of this “new medium of publication” based on a different model. Why do you think it turned out this way? Was the system carried-over from the print world, including mechanisms for management of peer review, just too well developed and entrenched? Do you think academic administrators and decision makers may have thought, in the early 1990s at least, that this “Internet thing” was just a fad?

Hurtado: Scholarly habits are hard to change. Academics like to think of themselves as progressive, but they’re mostly traditionalists. Scholars have grown used to publishing through journals in particular ways. And universities have grown used to simply purchasing journals externally (except perhaps in cases where they have their own university presses).

Ironically, my sense was that in the 90s, commercial publishers of journals and books were amongst the slowest and most reluctant to recognize the possible advantages of the Internet. The Internet did not appear to be immediately advantageous to university administrators because they didn’t know quite what to make of it. That is why I was delighted that as a result of the Winnipeg conference, the special conference was held at Caltech a few years later. It was a conference of about 60-70 university provosts from across the United States. The implicit purpose was to try to get them on-board to understand the advantages of refereed Internet publication in such a way that, hopefully, it would then telegraph downward through the university administrative structures to deans, and heads of departments, tenure committees, etc. so that in principle, refereed publication in electronic form would be treated at par with traditional print publishing. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to push that idea with these administrators.

Quite what’s been done with it thereafter, I don’t know. I think what happened in the succeeding 15 years is that a combination of commercial interests, government, and funding/grant bodies have jumped-in to come up with their own “solution” to the problem. It does not appear, however, to have been driven by research constituents.

Omega Alpha: By the way, in your presentation you mentioned academic fields that commercial publishers would neglect as “commercially unattractive.” You might suppose that Religion and Theology would fall into this category. But theological librarians have begun noticing in the last 8-10 years or so an increasing number of society journals being acquired by commercial publishers. And while still laughably inexpensive compared to the standards of the Sciences and Technology, what frequently accompanies these acquisitions—and what librarians cannot avoid noticing when the bill comes—is a dramatic increase in the price of institutional subscriptions. Their margins are lower, but it would seem all bets are off when it comes to acquiring any property that has the potential of turning a profit.

Hurtado: Yes, I’m on the editorial board of a journal that was taken over by a commercial publisher about seven years ago. We had some discussions with this publisher early-on because initially they said to us, “We think this title is vastly under-priced. We think that the market will bear much more. We plan to quadruple the price over the next 2-3 years.” Those of us on the editorial board said, “No! You are making a mistake here. A sizable percentage of our subscribers are individuals and theological libraries that don’t have a lot of money. You will lose half of the subscribers.” They said, “Oh, that’s OK. We can still lose half the subscribers and the net amount of income will be the same with the increased price.” We said we weren’t just interested in talking about income. We were interested in the journal being read by as many people as possible. In the end, our protestations had some impact. They decided only to double the price.

Of course, in the global sense, it isn’t the price of Humanities journals that is causing the problem. It’s the high priced journals in the Sciences and Technology, which consumes so much of the total university library budget and then puts pressure on everyone. When there are cuts to be made, the approach is typically to call for reductions across the board, purporting to spread the pain around equally to all. They come to us and say, “We need to cut the journals budget by 10%. Which titles do you want us to cancel?” I want to say, “We’re not the problem with your budget! Forcing cuts to low-priced journals in the Humanities isn’t going to solve anything. Go after the people in the Sciences, and leave us alone!”

Author-side open access funding model promoted by commercial publishers will be difficult for the Humanities

Omega Alpha: I gathered that your participation on GOAL was motivated by your interest in the topic of open access. However, I did not gather from your comments what your position (if that’s the right word) on open access is, other than the concerns you expressed regarding the difficulties of the author-side funding model for the Humanities. Would you be willing to say more? How would you characterize your position on open access as a scholarly communication concept generally, and specifically as a scholar, or as a representative of a learned society?

Hurtado: As indicated above, in principle I’m comfortable with open access. But my own emphasis is that online, open access, whatever, should retain as essential the practices of peer review, scholarly editors/editing, etc. I am against the imposition of article processing charges on all disciplines. I am wary in general that the problems created specifically by journal publishing in the STM fields will generate a “solution” that will be imposed on all of us, without regard for the distinguishable concerns of Humanities scholars/disciplines. My main emphasis is that decision-making processes must include Humanities scholars as full partners.

Omega Alpha: What would your list of “distinguishable concerns of Humanities scholars/disciplines” include?

Hurtado: Humanities scholars don’t have access to the amount of research funds that scientists have, so it would be much more difficult, for example, to go to a page-charge model for journal publishing. Second, Humanities publishing doesn’t rely as heavily on journals. Monographs remain the “gold standard,” and so models of scholarly publishing have to reckon with this. Scientific research journals are often expensive and commercially produced, whereas Humanities journals tend to be very cheap by comparison and often published by academic societies at a not-for-profit level. There are other aspects of the “culture” of Humanities research and publication, and these need to be on the agenda and on the table as governments and other large bodies plan for the future.

Omega Alpha: Monographs are the “gold standard” in the Humanities because the format accommodates to the demand for deep and sustained treatment of a scholarly thesis. But academic publishers, particularly university presses, have for a long time complained that publication of scholarly monographs is not economically viable—a situation made worse by strained library book buying budgets. Do you see a way out of this conundrum? Although university presses insist that a good chunk of the cost of publishing a scholarly monograph is tied-up, not in printing, but in such activities as copyediting, electronic layout and typesetting, proofreading, and marketing/promotion, do you see any academic reasons why monographs could not be published in e-book form and made available on open access platforms?

Hurtado: We probably need to distinguish between the traditional “short run” technical monograph, and the scholarly book that is of equal scholarly weight, but because of its subject matter or the way in which it is written, happens to have a wider reading public. The later may still continue to be commercially viable in print. The former, where the entire print-run is maybe 250-350 copies, I think could easily be moved to electronic format, to avoid the so-called “death of the scholarly monograph.”

I don’t see any academic reasons why this couldn’t happen. I believe people are getting more used to reading e-books, and this will only grow as the technology with e-book readers and tablets continues to develop, and the operating software for these devices continues to improve in sophistication. Scholarly monographs as e-books would also save shelf space in libraries and greatly simplify access.

Omega Alpha: Getting back to journals, it is my sense that scholars in th Humanities still value and prefer associating their work with a context that carries/creates/reinforces historical continuity in textual artifacts. They do, however, seem to be increasingly comfortable with online journals, and no longer strictly insist on print.

Speaking of Stevan Harnad above, who is a strong proponent of scholars self-archiving their research in open access repositories (so-called Green OA), do you have any thoughts on the merits of self-archiving pre-/post-publication research reports (articles, essays, etc.) from traditional journals, or would you see greater potential for our disciplines in the conversion of existing or creation of new journals to open access (what is called Gold OA)?

Hurtado: As I said, all scholars are in fact curiously traditional, though we like to think of ourselves as progressive. So it’s not surprising that it will take time to move to any new academic procedure, especially something as central as academic publishing. I rather suspect that, as is already happening, the process will be ragged, not centrally controlled (probably good), and uneven.

While we’re waiting to see what other developments there may be, I agree that scholars should feel entirely free to post (e.g., on their own web sites) at least the pre-publication version of their essays. It is my understanding of copyright law that what a journal/publisher owns is the typeset version. The manuscript version is not copyrighted. I have done this with a number of publications on my blog site under the “Selected Essays” tab.

But I would hope for a larger shift such as I have repeatedly urged, involving the academic “establishment”, especially universities (involving libraries and also university presses) and academic societies. Universities have the libraries as key access-points for scholarly material, and as responsible for maintaining (and so migrating e-publications to new formats as they appear), and university presses have publishing expertise (e.g., editing, etc.), and academic societies are supposed to represent the collective interests of given disciplines.

Omega Alpha: Regarding author archiving of pre-/post-publication articles and essays, I believe re-use rights depend on the copyright agreement signed with the publisher. Pro forma agreements tend to be pretty restrictive, and in the past authors have been all too willing to sign away their copyrights on the promise of getting published. More recently, authors have been starting to push-back and are increasingly negotiating retention of their copyright, while granting publishers specific uses utilizing licensing such as Creative Commons.

Given levels of funding in the Humanities, I totally agree with you that use of author-side charges is not a sustainable business model for open access. Further, I believe the embrace of this approach by (some) commercial publishers may be a cynical attempt to appear “pro-OA” while retaining control over an entrenched scholarly communication system, and protecting their profits. I believe commercial publishers who service the Humanities are starting to see a harder time promoting the author-side model. The money just isn’t there, regardless of mandates. I have spoken with Religion publishers at a couple of large commercial houses that are trying to promote open access using a “mega journal” format and author-side charges, but they haven’t had much uptake yet. I think they will resist converting subscription-based journals if it means a threat to revenues.

Hurtado: I’m not myself terribly concerned about maintaining the income stream of commercial publishers. They can look after themselves. I don’t especially blame them. They exist to gain profits for themselves and their shareholders. I’m primarily concerned with the production and dissemination of scholarly research. Publishers have been terribly slow in taking up publishing technology. We can’t expect them to lead anything.

Getting more folks involved in the conversation

Omega Alpha: Do you have any ideas on how institutions and societies might be encouraged to more strongly embrace open access? I suspect there might be some reluctance by societies to give-up subscription-based revenue streams that support programming (either from their own in-house publishing, or the royalties they receive from partnerships with commercial publishers). Still, you would think the membership of such societies would push for change as they grow in awareness of the access problems created by putting research behind paywalls. Universities and colleges must surely see that the cost of buying back research through library institutional subscriptions would more than support a shift to open access. Too, it would seem that there is still a significant degree of misunderstanding that publishing in open access journals is somehow lower quality research. Clearly, the word needs to get out that respected scholars are sitting on editorial/advisory boards and serving as reviewers of many scholar-published open access journals that are not expensive to operate.

Hurtado: The sort of event like the one held at CalTech back in 1997 might be helpful. We need to get university administration on-board, promoting recognition of e-publications in refereed journals as carrying full weight in career decisions (e.g., tenure). Universities are classically the producers, the consumers, and the repositories (guarantors and archives) for research. They are the institutions with sufficient longevity and commitment to (re-)assume the responsibility for this role. We need to get learned societies on-board as speaking officially for their respective disciplines. I think that if we can persuade the scholarly community—even in individual disciplines—to go this way, it would have a creeping effect. And we need established scholars to invest time and energy in serving on editorial boards, and also in submitting publications to e-venues. They can afford to do so, having tenure, full professorships, etc., and their reputation will draw a readership to some degree. The big problem is establishing refereed e-journals, and getting them known. I’m on the editorial board of the open access journal TC. It has been around for 16 years but is still not well enough known.

Omega Alpha: Yes, TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (ISSN: 1089-7747) is open access. (Incidentally, I created a link to it on my Journal Directory page.) Can you say more about it? Do you believe it is significant that TC is open access? Do you believe it is/can be a model for encouraging other open access efforts in Religious/Biblical Studies?

Hurtado: I’m proud to be a member of the TC editorial board (for a number of years), and I believe that it is a kind of model for where scholarly journal publishing in the Humanities needs to go. TC began as a freely accessible online journal in 1996, and it is now an official online publication of the Society of Biblical Literature. It remains open access. That was a big step forward because it gave the journal a kind of credibility that was very valuable. And it was encouraging because it indicated to us that the Research and Publications Committee of the SBL was at least aware of this issue.

What we need is more robust support from major learned societies and from university administration. Scholars need to know that publishing in a journal such as TC will count fully for matters such as promotion and tenure. And they need to know that such journals will be indexed, so that their work can be noted and cited.

Omega Alpha: Professor Hurtado, it has been a pleasure speaking with you. I want to tell you that in preparing for this interview I discovered your blog, and I’m finding it a delight to read. I also took the opportunity to read your pre-publication essay posted open access (!) on your blog that will be part of a new multi-authored book called The Early Text of the New Testament published by Oxford University Press, and available in the US in a month or so.

Hat Tip: “Starting an Open Access Journal: a step-by-step guide”

“We can change the scholarly publishing world, but it’s up to you.” This is the contention of Martin Paul Eve, doctoral researcher in the department of English at the University of Sussex, Great Britain. My hat tip goes to Martin Eve for posting an excellent five-part guide for starting an open access journal on his blog. He designed the guide “for [humanities] academics who want to establish their own journals that are:

• Peer reviewed, in a traditional pre-review model
• Open Access and free in monetary terms for authors and readers
• Preserved, safe and archived in the event of catastrophe or fold
• Reputable: run by consensus of leaders in a field”

The guide covers, in more or less checklist fashion, the budgetary, technical and social groundwork essential to get an open access journal off on the right foot. Financial costs are fairly modest (e.g., pointing folks to the free open source Open Journal Systems platform from the Open Knowledge Project), though it assumes access to server hosting and a certain level of web-savvy technical support. Martin is encouraging in suggesting that with a little persistence, working through the technical details should not prove too daunting—even for humanities scholars.

Although the technical details are important, Martin places particular stress on the social aspects of building a strong support team (editorial board, peer reviewers, copy editors, proofreaders). He writes:

Academic journals work on a system of academic capital; you need respected individuals who are willing to sit on your board, even if they are only lending their name and you end up doing most of the legwork. It should only be a matter of time before academics realise that journal brand isn’t (or shouldn’t be) affiliated to publishers, but rather to the academics who choose to endow a journal with their support. Get good people who are respected within your discipline(s) and you’re on the right track.

This comment particularly impressed me as a facet of my own belief that scholars can move prestige to open access if they choose because prestige originates and fundamentally resides with scholars.

I caught-up with Martin Eve via email to ask him how he got involved with open access.

I actually first heard of open access several years ago when I setup the tech and structure of the postgraduate journal, Excursions. From there I read more and realised that I fundamentally disagreed with the way in which academic publishing works, particularly when I was seeing colleagues being laid off at universities in order to feed corporate profit machines. After Excursions, I wanted to show what OA could do for my own field and, as the extant journal of my area was slowing its publication rate rapidly, I pitched the idea last year. It had a great response, which is surprising for the humanities. But I had to learn a great deal more about digital preservation, DOIs and typesetting, hence the purpose of this guide.

The new journal Martin referred to is called Orbit: Writing Around Pynchon (ISSN: 2047-2870), which is dedicated to scholarly work pertaining to the writings of contemporary American novelist Thomas Pynchon and adjacent fields. Martin also co-edits another open access journal called Alluvium (ISSN: 2050-1560), and he is a contributor to the British newspaper The Guardian, where he writes on open access and higher education issues.

New Theology Review goes open access with the library as publisher

Melody Layton McMahon is director of the Paul Bechtold Library at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Illinois. She is also Critical Reviews Editor for the open access journal Theological Librarianship—a publication of the American Theological Library Association. Earlier in May, Ms. McMahon posted this announcement (excerpt) to the ATLANTIS email listserv:

The Paul Bechtold Library of Catholic Theological Union is now going to be the publisher of New Theology Review. New Theology Review was published by Liturgical Press as a publication of both Washington Theological Union (WTU) and Catholic Theological Union (CTU), but now the Paul Bechtold Library will be publishing it as an online, open access journal. (Some of you may be subscribers to the past print version; you will be receiving a letter soon that details plans.) I am very happy to be able to act on what I have been preaching for a number of years now, and I have convinced our administration that by being open access we can spread the Word around the world, particularly in the many areas where our students and alums live and work.

I was interested to follow-up with Ms. McMahon, not only to get the story about this former subscription journal moving to open access, but also to hear more about her library assuming the role of journal publisher. McMahon is co-editor (appointed just March 8 of this year) of New Theology Review, and as library director she will also be its publisher.

The conversion to open access

Omega Alpha: Between the time of your announcement on the listserv and my actual preparation for the story Liturgical Press took down all content from the journal’s website. I wasn’t able to get any background information on New Theology Review. A page on Catholic Theological Union’s website, however, does include this blurb regarding the mission, scope, and intended audience of the journal:

New Theology Review is a peer-reviewed and current Catholic journal for ministry. It offers resources that address contemporary trends in theology and pastoral practice. It publishes essays, invited columns, and book reviews designed for clergy, religious, and laity.

The page also mentions that the final print issue was published in November 2011, and that it will begin publishing again in an online only, open access format in September 2012 by the library, under the auspices of Catholic Theological Union. This is an exciting development. What else can you tell me by way of background?

McMahon: New Theology Review has been published for 24 years. It started in 1988 as a joint publication of Catholic Theological Union and Washington Theological Union, published by Michael Glazier (which was later taken over by Liturgical Press). The journal was published quarterly. I cannot confirm the accuracy of this information, but I found something that said in 2010 NTR had 820 subscribers. We also offered it as a perk to members of the alumni organization. I do know subscription fees were only paying for the publication of the journal in print form, however, and not really earning any profits.

In speaking with the previous editor the other day, I learned that Liturgical Press had indicated to Catholic Theological Union already five years ago they wanted to stop publishing NTR. I was not involved when that decision was made, but I know they have also divested from a couple of other journals, including Liturgical Ministry.

It seems like it was a long, protracted period of negotiation and discussion about what to do. WTU was still involved for part of this time. (Regrettably, WTU is now in the processes of closing its doors. I believe that in leading up to this they decided to back away from the relationship with CTU regarding New Theology Review.) There was a discussion with Taylor & Francis. Fortunately, our editors came to the realization that T&F would jack up the price, and they did not want that. The editors suggested a guy who would create the journal on a website, and require subscriptions which he would also manage. All sorts of options were discussed. But very early-on faculty were queried, and as a unit we decided we wanted to continue, transforming into an online, peer-reviewed journal—though at that point not yet open access.

Omega Alpha: So how did the decision to shift away from the subscription model to a library published open access model come about? What was the catalyst?

McMahon: Me! I’m sure my faculty and administration get tired of hearing me talk about open access, but whenever there was a discussion of NTR at faculty meetings I made a point of standing to say we should consider it. At the time, it was thought we would not be able to live without the subscription fees. But I was fairly sure we could. I had also been invited to give a faculty seminar on publishing, and of course, I discussed open access. I think my faculty find my point of view persuasive, though some of them still have other concerns that cause them to choose not to go open access when they publish articles they have written.

Omega Alpha: Concerns such as?

McMahon: Like other faculties, a few are still of the opinion that the jury is out about whether or not online journals are as scholarly or prestigious as print journals. I think my frank discussions with the faculty as a group and individually has turned around this opinion with most. A larger concern is that some still have ties to for-profit publishers or to journals that are published by for-profit publishers. I hope this will change as time goes by. I think they are persuaded by the notion that open access is more consistent with our ‘mission’ to get our word, the Word, out there. 

Omega Alpha: These are commonly expressed concerns. Who was finally involved in the decision to go open access?

McMahon: Old and new editorial teams, and the executive council which includes the president, dean, and VP for finance. We met and talked about the realities of dealing with subscriptions, and I piped up to say that we could just do away with all that hassle!

Omega Alpha: Getting support from both faculty and administration is essential. Was it also at this point that the decision was made to have the library assume the role as publisher?

McMahon: Yes, I had read the article “Library as Journal Publishers” and combined with my experience with Theological Librarianship was convinced that the library could take this on. I piped up again and suggested this, and it proved acceptable to everyone. (Maybe they were just relieved!) This meeting was held in April of this year. We will have a live journal website any day now, and our first issue out in September.

The Library as journal publisher

Omega Alpha: Wow! That’s fast work. So tell me more about the library at Catholic Theological Union and yourself as library director assuming the role of publisher, and co-editor of New Theology Review.

McMahon: My role as a co-editor is as a faculty member and includes the editorial functions of receiving manuscripts, doing a first editorial review, sending to peer-reviewers, moving through the system to publication.

My publisher role includes applying for online ISSNs, setting up the Open Journal Systems (OJS) site (the journal platform we decided to use), making sure all the editorial staff understand how to use OJS, making sure that the server is there for the publication, and preservation of the journal. This is the side that I am figuring out as I go. I feel comfortable because of my prior knowledge of open access publishing with OJS in my editorial role at Theological Librarianship. I am convinced we can handle it.

As I said earlier, I read a recent article about libraries as journal publishers, and that was all the justification I needed. There is a continuum chart in the article ranging from “Barebones” to “Premier” which had a huge impact. It made me realize that one could offer a package that was doable somewhere in the middle of the continuum that would result in a very professional looking journal we could be proud of. It broke down the levels of service into manageable parts. What especially inspired me was the article authors saying “e-publishing activities are now among core services for libraries.” I could see how my library could be among these forward-looking libraries. I try to be a leader for open access, and I need to make my actions speak louder than words. My administration and faculty expect us to be on the cutting edge when it is fruitful.

I think that over the years I have achieved a familiarity with OJS that made me think with help I could do this. I have a great IT and marketing guy, Chris Meyer, who is helping with the technical things I don’t understand. (Let’s just say I understand the front of the platform, not so much the back-end.) I have also been able to call on folks at ATLA because of my work with TL, to answer my questions and assist me in designing our “look.”

As publisher I’ll obviously be putting more time into this than I have as Critical Reviews Editor at TL. Just let me say that I am really trying to discern how my publisher role is different, separate from my co-editor role. I do not want to get them mixed. I’m thinking it could be possible for the library to take on publication of another one or two journals that need help going online. So I want to define the roles I am playing here fairly clearly. Eventually I’ll rotate off as an editor, but continue in the role of publisher.

Omega Alpha: Who else is on your editorial team?

McMahon: My faculty colleagues, Antonio Sison, C.PP.S. and Dawn Nothwehr, O.F.M. Our colleague vanThanh Nguyen, S.V.D. will edit book reviews.

We are also in the process of putting together our advisory board. We already have agreements with 8 of the 10 we have asked. As we expect to have a global audience, we have selected people from all parts of the world. It’s very exciting to hear that these people want to be part of this venture!

Omega Alpha: Can you say anything about how this effort is being funded, and how much you anticipate it costing?

McMahon: CTU is budgeting about $5,000. I anticipate that this will cover ongoing needs. The library purchased a new server for the OJS platform. We are also going to use the server for our digital archives projects. So it is coming out of general library budget and archive budget lines. The NTR budget includes lines for small stipends for the co-editors, to pay a graphic designer to come up with logo and items needed to make the journal look professional, marketing, and for a professional proofreader.

I’m fortunate to have an in-house marketing whiz, Nancy Nickel, who recently joined CTU, and Sara Corkery, formerly at ATLA, who has done a fabulous job working on our graphics.

Looking toward the 25th Anniversary/first online open access issue launch

Omega Alpha: The website blurb indicated that the first online-only open access issue will be coming out in September. Will you be continuing the volume count where it left off, or starting a “new series” with Volume 1, Issue 1?

McMahon: We are just going on with this as the 25th volume.

Omega Alpha: What is the planned format (e.g., editorial content, articles, reviews, etc.)?

McMahon: The journal will have peer-reviewed articles, a couple of book reviews, and four columns (Word and Worship, one on Catechetics, one on current topics of interest in theology or pastoral ministry called Theology of the Cutting Edge, and one on world events and socio-cultural trends with a pastoral ministry slant called Signs of the Times).

When the journal first started it was decided that each volume would have a theme. There was a call for papers on the theme, and also people were invited to write on that theme. Now we will not necessarily have a theme, but we might occasionally. For example, we hope to have a Vatican II theme for our second issue. Our first issue will publish some recent papers given at The Lay Centre in Rome, an organization with whom we have recently formed an alliance. This decision was made prior to the new editorial board being formed, but we are quite happy with the contents.

Omega Alpha: How many issues a year will you be publishing?

McMahon: Two for now.

Omega Alpha: Do you have access to all the back issues of New Theology Review to digitize for inclusion in your OJS web archive?

McMahon: Yes, we have them, and once we get up and running it will be a task to import them into the OJS platform and make them available as well. We are hoping subscribers will consent to donating the remainder of the amount they are owed from subscriptions to help us with the project of making past issues available on the site.

Omega Alpha: I am pleased that you will have access to back issues for a digital archive. How deep are you going with metadata (TOCs, tagged articles, full-text searching)?

McMahon: I have given this no thought yet, other than feeling quite sure we will be able to put each article pdf in OJS, and create the same digital issues that the print issues were. This just has to wait until we have the first issue published.

Incidentally, the journal website is not yet live, so I don’t have a URL to share as yet. I think you will like our new look! I will let you know when it’s ready so you can add a link to NTR on your journal directory page.

Omega Alpha: Thanks. Will New Theology Review continue to be indexed in ATLA’s Catholic Periodical and Literature Index (CPLI), and will you be working to get indexing into Google Scholar and other search engines?

McMahon: I sure hope so! I will do everything I can to optimize searchability and discoverability. The OJS platform offers some help with this.

We will also have a Facebook page. Theological Librarianship has found that a valuable way to get readership.

Omega Alpha: Do you have any events or celebrations planned to mark the 25th Anniversary of New Theology Review?

McMahon: Wow! What a great idea. Thanks!

Omega Alpha: Do you have any final thoughts?

McMahon: I say this quite often, but I feel it is of tremendous import that theological publications think about their mission. Is it to make a profit on subscription fees, or is it to get their word, THE Word, out to the folks who need and want to hear it? I am obviously pro-open access for journals in all disciplines. But it seems to me that Christian journals have an even stronger reason for going open access. The open access community is very willing to help. I would love to see more journals, especially those published by churches and seminaries think through these issues. I know at Theological Librarianship we have been so surprised by our global readership. At CTU, we have students from about 35 countries, and our alums are working in about 65 countries. It is vital to get information to them and their colleagues. Finally, I am quite willing and happy to answer questions if folks are thinking about taking on a project like this! You can contact me at mmcmahon @ ctu.edu.

Omega Alpha: Thank you so much for sharing this story. Blessings and best of luck to you, and to New Theology Review as it begins its new life in open access.