Funding models for open access articles and journals have been evolving for at least two decades, but substantial open access book publishing has come into the fore in the past five years or so. Scholarly books have different audiences, uses, production and distribution workflows, costs and markets than journals. In “The MIT Press Open Monograph Model: Direct to Open” Raym Crow breaks down the elements of financially viable scholarly book publishing; considers the knowns, unknowns, risks and opportunities of open access book publishing; examines MIT Press’ book market; and describes the characteristics of what has become the MIT Press Direct to Open (D2O) model. The study provides general analysis and a case study useful for libraries that constitute 85% of MIT Press’ sales and other scholarly publishers. Crow takes on the “free-rider” problem of open access, public good publishing and how the MIT D2O model is designed to incentivize libraries to participate. Academic libraries are contending with shrinking acquisitions budgets, with allocations for books getting squeezed by the increasing costs of journals, streaming media and ebooks. Scholarly book publishers need new means of funding their operations. The two partners have shared interests in costs (administrative, editorial and production), comparative value and public good principles. This report lays out factors both parties must weigh and offers D2O as a potential solution to the ongoing need for stable, non-profit, open book publishing.
Tag: January 2022
Sustaining open content and infrastructure: views from research libraries
Academic research libraries are among the stakeholders – with scholars, funders, professional societies and public policy experts – with a mission to widely disseminate research and scholarship. Many believe that open content and infrastructure are critical means to unfettered distribution and beneficial impact. The Association of Research Libraries’ recent report, Research Library Issues, no. 302 (2021): Sustaining Open Content and Infrastructure, delves into three aspects of open scholarship ecosystems: open persistent identifiers, digital accessibility planning, and standardized data about open scholarly infrastructure use and funding. If these terms and acronyms sound vaguely familiar, this report will give you context: PIDs, DOI, ORCiD ID, ROR, APIs, DMP, HTML, EPUB, and PDF, WCAG, Accessible EPUB3, PDF U/A, captioning, 2.5% commitment, SCIP, SCOSS, COAR and more! The report gives rationale, history and current standards or initiatives for each of these. It doesn’t break new ground, but it does highlight what the Association of Research Libraries deems in need of urgent attention.
An anti-bias and inclusive language primer for authors
Academic Medicine has published Anti-Bias and Inclusive Language in Scholarly Writing: a primer for authors.
“the pursuit of equity, diversity, and inclusion should be reflected in the language of scholarly discourse. Recognizing the constant evolution of language, authors should aspire for scholarly writing that is free from bias, inclusive, and accurate in its depiction of identity, health, and risk.”
Huang, Grace C. MD1; Truglio, Joseph MD, MPH2; Potter, Jennifer MD3; White, Amina MD4; Hunt, Sara5 Anti-Bias and Inclusive Language in Scholarly Writing, Academic Medicine: December 21, 2021 –
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004571
In graphical form the authors provide explanations and recommended language covering 5 areas:
- Represent race as a sociopolitical construct
- Name true drivers of health risks
- Use gender diverse language
- Use person-first language
- Recognize the full continuum of sexual identity, attraction and behavior
This is a clear, easy to use guide to expand scholarly writing’s reach and inclusion.