Publishing – DigitalKoans

"What Have We Learned from Subscribe to Open?"

As we enter the 2025 renewal season, which marks the sixth year since the first S2O journals were launched, we come together here as two early S2O publishers to share our different applications of and experiences with the model: In 2020, Berghahn, of which Vivian is managing director, followed in Annual Reviews’ footsteps to become the second publisher to implement the Subscribe to Open model with their Berghahn Open Anthro initiative. EDP Sciences, of which Charlotte is director of marketing and communications, was another early adopter of the model in 2021 for several of their journals across astronomy, mathematics, and radioprotection. . . .

As of 2024, thanks to the Subscribe to Open model, over 180 journals have been able to publish entire volumes in open access, which would never have been possible otherwise because of the shortcomings of the APC models for these journals and their respective disciplines. The S2O model continues to grow, with more publishers set to launch their S2O offerings in 2025. The model is supported by a thriving cross-stakeholder S2O Community of Practice (CoP) that was formed in August 2020 by Annual Reviews and some of the earliest S2O publishers (including Berghahn and EDP Sciences), supporting libraries, funders, subscription agents, and other interested stakeholders. The CoP now has nearly 100 members (individuals and organizations alike) and meets on a monthly basis to discuss experiences, achievements, and concerns, share advice, and pool feedback.

https://tinyurl.com/mvavvvw3

"Harvard Is Releasing a Massive Free AI Training Dataset Funded by OpenAI and Microsoft"

Harvard University announced Thursday it’s releasing a high-quality dataset of nearly 1 million public-domain books that could be used by anyone to train large language models and other AI tools. The dataset was created by Harvard’s newly formed Institutional Data Initiative with funding from both Microsoft and OpenAI. It contains books scanned as part of the Google Books project that are no longer protected by copyright.

https://tinyurl.com/ymen65js

"The Open Monograph Distribution and Acquisitions Gap: A Look at TOME (Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem) Titles"

The Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem (TOME) network of universities, and the open access (OA) monographs that have been funded and published through this program, provide a unique opportunity to study the work done by university presses and academic libraries to distribute and acquire this content. TOME is a program that supports university presses’ publication of OA monographs through locally funded subventions. Though the works have been published by universities, and the subvention programs that make them OA have largely involved the funding institution libraries in the process, the resulting OA works are not easily discoverable or accessible through library systems. Because it is so highly distributed across many academic institutions, the TOME collection of OA monograph titles offers the opportunity for libraries and publishers to more closely examine the process of creating OA content and provides the chance to study how we collectively make these works discoverable and accessible to our communities and more broadly in the world as well. The analysis presented in this paper offers insights into developing and refining procedures and management strategies at libraries participating in TOME. These recommendations provide insights into discovery of and access to OA monographs in general.

https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.15492

"From Black Open Access to Open Access of Color: Accepting the Diversity of Approaches towards Free Science"

The aim of this article is to shed some light on ‘black open access’ model, that still remains poorly understood and largely neglected in the literature, despite being widely adopted in practice. I give an overview of the historical development of black OA and its most important projects: Sci-Hub and Library Genesis. Arguments are provided for why the term ‘black OA’ is misleading and the term ‘RGB OA’ (red, green and blue) would better describe a diverse landscape of open access projects that emerged after 2001. While practical approaches towards OA evolved dramatically in the past 20 years, theoretical discussion is still operating the same two-color scheme of ‘green’ and ‘gold’ open access from BOAI declaration of 2001: novel approaches are either not recognized as OA at all or are neglected as ‘black’. A new and more inclusive OA declaration might be needed to account for greater diversity of approaches.

https://tinyurl.com/nha7tsxd

"Intelligent Summaries: Will Artificial Intelligence Mark the Finale for Biomedical Literature Reviews?"

Manuscripts that only flatly summarize knowledge in a field could become superfluous, as AI-powered systems will become better and better at generating more comprehensive and updated summaries automatically. Furthermore, the use of A.I. technologies in data analysis and synthesis will greatly reduce human tasks, enabling more efficient and timely production of preliminary findings. What kind of reviews will still find room in an academic journal? It is reasonable to believe that reviews that provide critical analysis, unique interpretations of existing literature, which connect different areas, shed novel light on available data, that are aware of their human partiality, will continue to be valuable in academic journals.

https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1648

"How ChatGPT Search (Mis)represents Publisher Content"

In total, we pulled two hundred quotes from twenty publications and asked ChatGPT to identify the sources of each quote. We observed a spectrum of accuracy in the responses: some answers were entirely correct (i.e., accurately returned the publisher, date, and URL of the block quote we shared), many were entirely wrong, and some fell somewhere in between. . . .

In total, ChatGPT returned partially or entirely incorrect responses on a hundred and fifty-three occasions, though it only acknowledged an inability to accurately respond to a query seven times. . . .

Our tests found that no publisher—regardless of degree of affiliation with OpenAI—was spared inaccurate representations of its content in ChatGPT.

https://tinyurl.com/3z9dxttv

"PLOS Receives $3.3M Grant to Support Open Access Publishing & Business Model Transformation"

PLOS has been awarded a $3.3million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, underscoring its commitment to pioneer a shift away from traditional publishing models. The 3-year funding package from the Gates Foundation will support PLOS’ transition towards APC-free publishing by enabling authors, funded by the foundation, to publish with PLOS without facing APC barriers, and to contribute to open access publishing options for authors who do not have access to funding. This 3-year grant offers support while PLOS is actively working on new publishing models grounded in open science starting with an ongoing research & design project.

The grant will also support improvements to enhance the capture and dissemination of funding metadata and to experiment with the posting of peer reviews alongside preprints during the evaluation process, promoting greater transparency in scholarly communication.

https://tinyurl.com/3a79595s

"Publishers are Selling Papers to Train AIs — and Making Millions of Dollars"

[Roger] Schonfeld [VP of Ithaka S+R] and his colleagues launched the Generative AI Licensing Agreement Tracker in October. It includes information about licensing deals — confirmed and forthcoming — between technology companies and six major academic publishers, including Wiley, Sage and Taylor & Francis. Schonfeld says that the list documents only public agreements, and that there are probably several others that remain undisclosed. . . .

Some scholars have been apprehensive about deals being made without their knowledge on content they produced. To address this issue, a few publishers have taken steps to involve authors in the process.

https://tinyurl.com/56zwe54p

India: "One Nation One Subscription: Boon and Bane?"

A single-window purchasing entity, INFLIBNET, has been tasked with negotiating with the top 30 publishers out of a pool of 70+ originally identified publishers. The balance 40+ are expected to be closed in due course. . .

In Phase1, approximately 6,300 institutions and 18 million students will gain access to all the resources of the 30 publishers, at no cost. . . .

There is a budgetary allocation of around US$ 750 million for three years.

https://tinyurl.com/376k2dsa

See also: “Can ONOS Transform Indian Research?“

"Cancelling the ‘Big Deal’ at a Public University: A Discussion of STEM Faculty Perceptions of Cancellation and Post-Cancellation Usage Data "

This article discusses how faculty, staff, and students at the University at Buffalo (UB), a public Carnegie R1 university, were impacted by the cancellation of the Elsevier ScienceDirect Big Deal package. After the cancellation, UB participated in a multi-site study which included interviewing faculty about the effect of the cancellation on their research and teaching. In general, the faculty were supportive of the cancellation. There was frustration expressed with the current structure of the publishing industry, particularly with the exorbitant pricing of journal subscriptions. Later analysis of usage data at UB post-cancellation was conducted; unsurprisingly, the data showed a decrease in usage on the ScienceDirect platform and increase in requests for unavailable articles. Although the cancellation of the ScienceDirect Big Deal package had a direct impact on UB, the initial outcome was not exceedingly harmful and could be addressed through mitigating measures such as the quick fulfilment of requests for unavailable articles.

https://tinyurl.com/4duy8k8f

"Early Electronic Journals: A Preservation Survey"

In 1994, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) published a print directory containing information on every electronic journal that could be identified, anywhere in the world. Thirty years later, this study surveys the current availability and preservation status of those 443 journals. While a significant number of these journals are no longer available, the results indicate that independent preservation efforts by individuals and small groups were a major factor in preserving many of the remaining publications.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102989

"Internet Archive Copyright Case Ends without Supreme Court Review "

After more than four years of litigation, a closely watched copyright case over the Internet Archive’s scanning and lending of library books is finally over after Internet Archive officials decided against exercising their last option, an appeal to the Supreme Court. The deadline to file an appeal was December 3.

https://tinyurl.com/6j4ukfmp

Search Journal Open Access Policies: "Sherpa Services Combined Into New User-Friendly Platform: Open Policy Finder"

The new platform will allow users to:

Check if compliance with funder open access policies can be achieved with a particular journal

Get a summary of publishers’ open access archiving conditions for individual journals and books

To see funders’ conditions for open access publication

https://tinyurl.com/tzjpnu46

Search Polices

The Cost and Price of Public Access to Scholarly Publications: A Synthesis

As part of our project to investigate “reasonable costs” for public access to United States federally funded research and scientific data, we have developed a synthesis report focused on the multi-model scholarly publication ecosystem that facilitates public access as required by the Nelson Memo. This paper outlines the historical developments that have shaped the current landscape, the key financial (cost and payment) stakeholders in the system, and the models and approaches that have developed in the continued shift to public and open access.

This paper is a companion to the February 2024 report, The Cost and Price of Public Access to Research Data: A Synthesis.

https://tinyurl.com/232vaw49

Report

Ithaka S+R: A Third Transformation? Generative AI and Scholarly Publishing

What is not yet clear is how disruptive this [AI] growth will be. To this end, we interviewed 12 leaders in stakeholder communities ranging from large publishers and technology disruptors to academic librarians and scholars. The consensus among the individuals with whom we spoke is that generative AI will enable efficiency gains across the publication process. Writing, reviewing, editing, and discovery will all become easier and faster. Both scholarly publishing and scientific discovery in turn will likely accelerate as a result of AI-enhanced research methods. From that shared premise, two distinct categories of change emerged from our interviews. In the first and most commonly described future, the efficiency gains made publishing function better but did not fundamentally alter its dynamics or purpose. In the second, much hazier scenario, generative AI created a transformative wave that could dwarf the impacts of either the first or second digital transformations [URL added].

https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.321519

Paywall: "Detecting New Hijacked Journals by Using a List of Known Hijacked Journals and the Diagnosis of Web Domain Data"

This paper presents a new method for hijacked journals detection that uses the web domain data and list of known hijacked journals to identify new ones. By implementing this method, nine new hijacked journals were identified. This method can be used for detecting new hijacked journals and preventing additional victims – authors who submit papers to the hijacked instead of the legitimate journal.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2024.2411664

Paywall: "A ‘Delve’ into the Evidence of AI in Production of Academic Business Literature"

The author performed a t-test using the average growth rates of articles published in the database ProQuest ABI/INFORM Global containing keywords or phrases purported to be commonly used in content generated by AI during the years before and after common generative AI availability. Results show evidence that publication rates after generative AI availability experienced an improbably high deviation from the norm.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2024.2420300

"Public Launch of the European Diamond Capacity Hub and the ALMASI Project"

The European Diamond Capacity Hub (EDCH) will hold its public launch on the 15 January 2025 in Madrid, Spain. . . .

The EDCH aims to strengthen the Diamond OA community in Europe by supporting European institutional, national and disciplinary capacity centres and Diamond publishers and service providers in their mission of Diamond OA scholarly publishing. The EDCH will provide these Diamond stakeholders with coordination, sustainability, training modules, technical tools, and services at scale. The EDCH thus answers the need for capacity building in the Diamond OA community that was expressed in the Action Plan for Diamond Open Access. . . .

The EDCH will be launched in conjunction with a public event on 14 January 2025 announcing the EU-funded ALMASI project. This three-year project with 15 partners from three continents will seek a better understanding of the situation of non-profit OA publishing in three world regions – Africa, Latin America, and Europe – co-designing and aligning measures for quality alignment, training materials, and institutional and national policy development.

https://tinyurl.com/2s45urbm

"Web of Science Index Puts eLife ‘On Hold’Because of Its Radical Publishing Model"

The Web of Science, a leading bibliometric indexing service, yesterday suspended the journal eLife from its listings because its novel publishing model adopted last year—which includes public peer review but no final decision on whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected—conflicts with the Web of Science’s standards for assuring quality.

https://tinyurl.com/2s4cad42

"Market Sizing Update 2024: Has OA Hit a Peak?"

The data suggest that OA’s share of output has likely peaked in 2023.

Our earlier sneak peek at the market suggested it peaked at 49% of output in 2022, falling to 48% in 2023. Our latest data here suggests OA just peaked at 50% share in 2022-2023 and may fall a few percentage points in the coming years.

Results from our survey and anecdotal feedback suggest more of the same for 2024: large OA-only publishers are likely to see continued declines, while established publishers will see continued growth.

The market will consolidate further. Long-term OA growth is likely to be less that it has been – perhaps mid-to-high single digits – but with increasing shares going to the larger publishers.

https://deltathink.com/news-views-market-sizing-update-2024-has-oa-hit-a-peak/

"Publishers Join with Worldwide Coalition to Condemn the Theft of Creative and Intellectual Authorship by Tech Companies for Generative AI Training"

Today, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) joined forces with more than 10,000 creators and coalition partners, including authors, musicians, actors, artists, and photographers, to condemn the theft of creative and intellectual authorship by big tech companies for use in their Generative AI models. In fact, these consumer-facing models and tools would not exist without the books, newspapers, songs, performances, and other invaluable human expressions that were—and continue to be—copied, ingested, and regenerated in blatant disregard of the law.

https://tinyurl.com/4e37e3ff

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |

"Leveraging Transformative Agreements for Research Integrity "

Specifically, publishers could incorporate clauses that require the institution to identify a designated contact to handle research integrity investigations, just as they would for access-related matters like login issues or security breaches. Likewise, institutions may wish to negotiate for parallel requirements from publishers.

For example, in cases of suspected misconduct or ethical concerns related to publications, publishers could rely on designated university personnel to respond and engage with these issues directly. Additional contractual clauses could include agreed-upon investigatory procedures, such as a mutual commitment to follow COPE’s guideline on “Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity and publication misconduct cases,” and penalties for failure to respond.

https://tinyurl.com/4twzs2w

"When Researchers Pay to Publish: Results from a Survey on APCs in Four Countries"

This paper provides an empirical overview of the impact and practices of paying Article Processing Charges (APCs) by four nationally categorized groups of researchers in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa. The data was collected from 13,577 researchers through an online questionnaire. The analysis compares the practice of publishing in journals that charge APCs across different dimensions, including country, discipline, gender, and age of the researchers. The paper also focuses on the maximum amount APC paid and the methods and strategies researchers use to cover APC payments, such as waivers, research project funds, payment by coauthors, and the option to publish in closed access, where possible. Different tendencies were identified among the different disciplines and the national systems examined. Findings show that Argentine researchers apply for waivers most frequently and often use personal funds or international coauthors for APCs, with younger researchers less involved in APC payments. In contrast, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico have more older researchers, yet younger researchers still publish more in APC journals. South African researchers lead in APC publications, likely due to better funding access and read and publish agreements. This study lays the groundwork for further analysis of gender asymmetries, funding access, and views on the commercial Open Access model of scientific dissemination.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12144

"You Don’t Know What You’ve Got till It’s Gone: The Changing Landscape of UK Learned Society Publishing"

This study draws on a longitudinal dataset of 277 UK learned societies covering the period 2015–2023 to provide evidence-based insights into the changing landscape of society publishing. It identifies a rapid decline in the number of self-published societies and an increasingly complex outsourcing landscape. New publishing partnerships are emerging with university presses and other not-for-profit entities rather than commercial publishers, while all but the largest UK societies have seen their publishing revenues decline in real terms since 2015. In general, UK learned society publishers are seeing their influence wane as market conditions favour publishing models focussed on quantity rather than quality. The decline of independent society publishers represents an unintended consequence of the transition to open access, but the trend towards increased outsourcing may be based on flawed assumptions. Analysis of financial data for a subset of 21 societies indicates that self-published societies have achieved sustained growth in their revenues from publishing while societies with publishing partners have seen a significant decline. For those societies with the means and the will to publish journals in their own right, this study bolsters the case for retaining, or even reclaiming, their independence.

https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.664

Forthcoming: Publishing Beyond the Market: Open Access, Care, and the Commons

Publishing Beyond the Market argues that the move to open access should focus less on the free accessibility of research outputs and more on who controls the publications and infrastructures for scholarly communication. . . . Through critical engagement with the open access landscape, the book reveals the shortcomings of market-centric and policy-based approaches to open access book and journal publishing, particularly their tendency to reinforce conservatism, commercialism, and private control of publishing. . . .

It suggests that developing a commons-based, scholar-led publishing landscape through a series of presses that are each managed by working academics could offer a productive counterpoint to marketised systems of open access and subscription publishing. . . . By illustrating how these projects build towards a commons-based publishing future, and how they may complement other approaches to publishing within university presses and libraries, the book culminates in an argument for the infrastructures, policies, and forms of governance needed to nurture such a collective vision.

Samuel A. Moore [the author] is the Scholarly Communication Specialist at Cambridge University Libraries and a College Research Associate at King’s College Cambridge.

https://tinyurl.com/3wp4z5s5