During the past 2,5 years Open Knowledge has been a partner in PASTEUR4OA, a project focused on aligning open access policies for European Union research. As part of the work, a series of advocacy resources was produced that can be used by stakeholders to promote the development and reinforcement of such open access policies. The final two briefing papers, written by Open Knowledge, have been published this week and deal with two pressing issues around open access today: the financial opacity of open access publishing and its potential harmful effects for the research community, and the expansion of open and free scholarly communication platforms in the academic world – explaining the new dependencies that may arise from those platforms and why this matters for the open access movement.
Revealing the true cost of gold OA
“Reducing the costs of readership while increasing access to research outputs” has been a rallying cry for open access publishing, or Gold OA. Yet, the Gold OA market is largely opaque and makes it hard for us to evaluate how the costs of readership actually develop. Data on both the costs of subscriptions (for hybrid OA journals) and of APCs are hard to gather. If they can be obtained, they only offer partial but very different insights into the market. This is a problem for efficient open access publishing. Funders, institutions, and individual researchers are therefore increasingly concerned that a transition to Gold OA could leave research community open for exploitative financial practices and prevent effective market coordination.
Which factors contribute to the current opacity in the market? Which approaches are taken to foster financial transparency of Gold OA? And what are recommendations to funders, institutions, researchers and publishers to increase transparency?
The paper Revealing the true costs of Gold OA – Towards a public data infrastructure of scholarly publishing costs, written by researchers of Open Knowledge International, King’s College London and the University of London, presents the current state of financial opacity in scholarly journal publishing. It describes what information is needed in order to obtain a bigger, more systemic picture of financial flows, and to understand how much money is going into the system, where this money comes from, and how these financial flows might be adjusted to support alternative kinds of publishing models.
Why do scholarly communication platforms matter for open access?
How should researchers and policymakers respond to the rise of these platforms? Do commercial platforms necessarily work the interests of the scholarly community? How and to what extent do these proprietary platforms pose a threat to open scholarly communication? What might public alternatives look like?
Danny Lämmerhirt works on the politics of data, sociology of quantification, metrics and policy, data ethnography, collaborative data, data governance, as well as data activism. You can follow his work on Twitter at @danlammerhirt. He was research coordinator at Open Knowledge Foundation.