![Established October 2008 by: ,[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Similaire à Different Flavors of Open Access Publishing
Similaire à Different Flavors of Open Access Publishing (20)
Plus de Caroline Sutton
Plus de Caroline Sutton (8)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Different Flavors of Open Access Publishing
- 1. The DifferentFlavorsof Open Access Publishing: Different types ofpublishers, different business models, and differentsubjects Caroline Sutton President, OASPA Co-founder, Co-Action Publishing Open Access Informationstag am 25.3.2010, Vienna, Austria www.oaspa.org
- 6. Journal of Medical Internet Research (Gunther Solomon)
- 7. Medical Education Online (David Solomon)
- 8. Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- 10. SPARC Europe
- 12. Open Access had become an established part of the publishing landscape, it was time to address practical issues
- 13. Need to develop uniform standards and best practices
- 14. Need to bring together the Open Access publishing community
- 15. Need to share information and workcollectively
- 17. Set standards
- 18. Advance models
- 19. Advocate for OA publishing
- 20. Educate
- 22. OASPA definition of OA OPEN ACCESS = Free Access + Re-use
- 23. DifferentFlavors
- 24. Different Types of Publishers
- 25. Large Professional Publishing Organizations
- 26. Small Professional Publishing Organizations
- 27. University Libraries and University Presses
- 29. MixedModel Publishers OA from Traditional Publishers
- 30. 500 + societiespublishing OA journals (Suber & Sutton list at: www.co-action.net/projects/OAsocieties/) Society Publishers
- 31. Summarizing Types of Publishers In manywaystheOpen Access publishing landscape does not varythatmuch from thesubscriptionpublishing landscape. Wefindmanyofthe same types ofactors. Open Access does, however, seem to have offered an opportunity for smallpublishingenterprises and single journal publishing.
- 33. ArticleProcessingCharges Perceivedadvantages (Paul Peters, EconomicsofOpen Access Publishing; at Open business, Online Information 2006 conferenceproceedings). Scaleability Competition The ”Big Deal” Attractingauthors
- 35. The need to disengageability to pay from editorialdecisions
- 36. Will a new ”Big deal” emerge?
- 38. Otherfinancialsources Patronage (grants, sponsorship, etc.) Sale ofsupplementary services and products Submissionfees (insteadof or in addition to APCs) Advertising Subscriptions to printedition Etc.
- 40. BiomedicalFields ClearlydominatetheOpen Access publishing landscape Manyfunders make funds available to cover OA charges Biomedical journals arepublished by all types of OA publishers Professional publishingorganizations have focusedactivitiesonbiomedicine
- 41. Engineering Less commonthan most otherfields Chemistrymay be leadingtheway (BMC’sChemistry Central) Publishedlargely by scholarpublishers, butalsosomeprofessionalpublishingorganizations
- 42. Social Sciences Less commonthanmedicine, but more commonthanEngineering By and large Social Science OA titlesarepublished by scholarpublishers and/or throughuniversitylibraries/presses A fewprofessionalpublishers have begun testing the waters of OA socialsciencepublishing Somefundingbodies (e.g. EU F7) cover OA charges for socialscience
- 43. Humanities Probablytheslowestfield to develop OA titles (withtheexceptionofmathematics?) OA humanities journals tend to be published by scholarpublishers, or through University Libraries/Presses (notable: OpenHumanities Press) Onlyoneprofessionalpublishinghouseengaged in OA Humanities journal publishing (that I know of) Humanitiesare taking stepson OA bookspublishing (e.g. OAPEN in Europe)
- 44. Some final thoughts Perhapsgreateropportunitiestoday for small and medium-sizedpublishingenterprises The types ofpublisherspopulatingthe landscape arelargelysimilar to thoseofearlierperiods, withtheexceptionof hosting groups Business modelsareshifting Publishers, libraries and universityadministrationscan and shouldworktogether to considerappropriatepaymentmechanisms to scalewithgrowth in OA OA developmentsare uneven betweensubjectfields Different types ofpublisherstend to publishdifferentsubject matter in the OA publishing arena
- 45. For more discussions, join: 2nd ConferenceonOpen Access ScholarlyPublishing 22-24 August 2010 in Prague www.oaspa.org
Notes de l'éditeur
- I am one of the co-founders of an Open access publishing house with a base in Scandinavia. Today I am here representing the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, OASPA, where I serve on the current board.Today, I am going to talk to you briefly about Open access trends and opportunities from the publishers perspective. Before I jump into the trends, I do want to give you some background regarding OASPA, as this also says something about how we as OA publishers view the current OA and publishing landscape.
- Note that the organization was started by a mix of scholar publishers, professional publishers, university press and SPARC, as well as subscription publishers
- Very often in the debates that were going on, proponents for OA and opponents refered to ”publishers” and ”what publishers stated”. Inevitably this refered to traditional subscription publishers. It was not always the case, and indeed seldom the case, that true OA publishers agreed with the statements and opinions of publishers. Although PloS and BMC, for example, took part in debate, it was still desirable to be able to speak as a collective.OA was really no longer ’sensational’. Both BMC and PloS had been around for quite a number of years, Hindawi had transitioned its last journal in 2007 and SAGE had entered into an agreement with Hindawi to publish a suite of OA journals together.Among other things we felt it was important to support a similar definition of open access journals publishing (which I will come back to), but also we saw that other standards and best practices would be necessary as OA publishing advanced.Quite simply it was useful for OA publishers to discuss matters with other OA publishers. This would also show that this was a large community.Particularly scholar publishers were looking to join forces to purchase services collectively, for example.