All posts by admin

Flipping academic journals to diamond open access: Notes on community governance

Uncategorized

In this blog post, Dr Caroline Edwards, Executive Director, Open Library of Humanities and Senior Lecturer in Contemporary Literature & Culture, Birkbeck, University of London asks: How do we ensure that a flipped diamond open access journal can remain independent? How do we prepare for the long-term financial security of flipped journals and protect against their potential vulnerability to commercial acquisition in the decades to come?

Flipping academic journals to diamond open access (OA) presents a series of challenges to an academic publisher. You need certain niche competencies. Firstly, nothing happens without the complete trust of an editorial team that shares your appetite for risk. Then, you need the backing of an entire academic community, willing to follow the editorial team to a new journal (in cases where editors don’t own the journal IP, which is most cases) and undertake a boycott of the old “zombie” title. Underpinning all of this, you need the financial and technological resources to provide the necessary infrastructure for the flipped journal in perpetuity, to offer it a safe home with a long-term future that doesn’t require any author fees. This involves things like setting up and maintaining a new journal site, running a digital publishing platform for managing submission, review, and production processes, having the capacity to manage metadata integration with university library catalogues and discoverability databases, providing memberships at robust digital preservation organisations, and ongoing research and development to stay abreast of rapid changes within the digital publishing landscape. The list goes on.

The growing list of journals flipping to diamond OA from their commercial publishers is well known. Retraction Watch keeps an up-to-date list of editorial boards that have resigned from for-profit models and moved their titles to not-for-profit, community-governed models. Each has its own story, told across published statements, academic blogs, and in newspaper articles covering high-profile editorial resignations and academic boycotts. But what gets talked about less frequently is the community governance structure that will support the journal moving forwards. How do we ensure that a flipped journal can remain independent? How do we prepare for its long-term financial security and protect against future vulnerability to commercial acquisition in the decades to come?

At the Open Library of Humanities (OLH), I spend much of my time talking to editors about their journals. There is a depressingly common story. It usually goes something like this. Many academic journals were launched between the 1960s and 1980s, in a collaboration between university professors and small or independent publishing houses. Things worked pretty well until their small publisher was bought out in the 1990s or 2000s by a larger company, often overseen by a global parent company. They muddled along with a high turnover of staff on the publisher side. Over time, the publishing managers became harder to get hold of, production was outsourced overseas, and editors became increasingly aware of a decline in production quality. 

With the acceleration to open access in the 2010s, editors came under pressure to double or triple their article acceptance rates – with a drop in subscriptions revenue, commercial publishers had to recoup costs via article processing charges (APCs). The more volume they could pump out, the better their profit margins. Even when journal editors rejected unsuitable or poor-quality articles, publishers found a way to fast-track this academic content by surreptitiously channelling it through their digital platforms to their hundreds of other journals using the same platform. Not all editors were even aware that the transfer of rejected articles had taken place.

If the Editor(s)-in-Chief had the temerity to stand up for their academic principles and refuse to increase their journal’s article acceptance rates, at this point they could face legal challenges or dismissal. In several explosive cases in recent years, Editors-in-Chief have been fired by their commercial publishers after refusing to back down over these issues. Sacking an internationally renowned editor whose reputation has become synonymous with the journal’s own reputation isn’t for the faint-hearted. It says something about the desperation of commercial publishers and their shrinking profits that they would be willing to trash a journal’s reputation so comprehensively – among the very academic communities whose uncompensated labour produced that reputation in the first place.

At this point in my conversations with editors, I ask a difficult question: Who owns the journal? “The publisher” they say, or “we don’t know.” Sometimes they reply: “The founding editor has passed away; we’ve asked their children, but no one can find any paperwork.” Without the rights to the journal title, its name, and logo, editors must set up a new journal. Ensuring the continuity between the old (now trashed) journal title and the new journal title requires coordinating a mass resignation of editors and authors from the old journal, preferably along with a boycott by peer reviewers for the foreseeable future.

At the OLH we’ve spent almost a decade flipping academic journals to diamond OA, supported by a growing number of libraries worldwide who share our vision for a not-for-profit academic publishing future. It wasn’t called “diamond” when we launched in 2015, but the term has come to mean not-for-profit and community-governed OA. Our publishing model is inspired by an explicitly political project – if the OLH and similar university-owned journal publishers are to thrive, they need to divert university library funding away from the big 5 commercial publishers (Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Springer). This happens hand-in-hand with library advocacy. When expensive journals flip to diamond OA, librarians are empowered to cancel individual journal subscriptions. In the age of big bundles and journal packages, journal flipping allows them to renegotiate extortionate deals with commercial publishers in light of the shrinking number of titles in each package.

Since launching as a publisher in 2015, the OLH has flipped 20 journals in this way. It hasn’t always been easy, and we have learned a lot along the way. In cases where journals own their own intellectual property (IP), usually via a scholarly association or legal governing body, the process of migrating decades of back content requires highly complex, skilled technical work. In cases where journals don’t own their IP, editors are unable to take the journal title with them. In these cases, a new journal needs to be established to continue the mission of the original title. This leaves behind zombie journals; the undead husks of formerly respected titles, that commercial publishers refuse to close but cannot run when the entire scholarly community has agreed to boycott it. The case of Wiley’s Journal of Political Philosophy, which relaunched with the OLH as Political Philosophy in February 2024, is a case in point.

Some of the journals that the OLH has flipped to diamond OA have set up a nonprofit organisation to protect themselves. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, a former Wiley journal that dates back to 1966, was able to do this because the original editors had the foresight to protect their IP before their publisher Blackwell was taken over by Wiley in 2007 (the journal had previously been published by two different university presses, the University of Chicago Press (1966–1978) and Wilfrid Laurier University Press (1979–1989)). The Zygon editorial team set up its own not-for-profit scholarly corporation in Chicago in 2019, following a joint venture established in 1965 among founding partners. As a 501(c)(3) organization, the Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science NFP not-for-profit scholarly corporation is a charitable organisation exempt from federal income tax. This route is being taken by other OLH journals including Theory & Social Inquiry (formerly Theory & Society), Political Philosophy (formerly the Journal of Political Philosophy), and Free & Equal: A Journal of Ethics and Public Affairs (formerly Philosophy & Public Affairs).

Several of the OLH’s journals have been owned by scholarly associations since their inception, including Quaker Studies (founded by the Quaker Studies Research Association (QSRA)), Architectural Histories (founded by the European Architectural History Network (EAHN)), Digital Studies / Le champ numérique (founded by the Canadian Society for Digital Humanities/Société canadienne des humanités numériques (CSDH/SCHN), Marvell Studies (founded by the Andrew Marvell Society), Open Screens (founded by the British Association of Film, Television and Screen Studies (BAFTSS)), and The Parish Review (founded by the International Flann O’Brien Society).

In other cases, independent journals joining the OLH have made the decision to affiliate themselves with scholarly societies. This has been the case for [in]Transition: Journal of Videographic Film & Moving Image Studies, which has become the official video essay journal of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies (SCMS), and C21 Literature: Journal of 21st-century Writings, which became the official journal of the British Association for Contemporary Literary Studies (BACLS) when the new association was founded in 2017. This kind of affiliation secures the community governance of journals. Scholarly associations have articles of association that usually include the criteria for appointing journal editors, terms of office, and processes for collectively undertaking decisions about the journal’s functioning and health. 

Another route to long-term protection against commercial acquisition is for journals to join forces. This was the approach taken by 3 of the OLH’s journals who resigned en masse from Elsevier in 2015 – Lingua (which relaunched as Glossa), LabPhon, and the Journal of Portuguese Linguistics. Editors of these titles set up a community organisation, LingOA: Linguistics in Open Access as a Dutch Stichting (literally a “foundation”), a not-for-profit legal entity with limited liability similar to a trust, which is controlled by a board of directors and cannot have any shareholders. 

With support from the Center of Science and Technology Studies at the University of Leiden, Radboud University Library, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the Association of Dutch Universities (VSNU), and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), LingOA was able to provide financial support for the journals beyond their funding agreement with the OLH. One of the OLH’s newest journals, Syntactic Theory and Research (STAR, which left Wiley) has also joined the LingOA Stichting.

Other journals that have joined the OLH in 2023-2024 will need to establish their own legal and ownership entities, and we continue to offer help and advice to editorial teams undertaking this important work. Our goal at the OLH is to liberate university research from commercial control. Flipping journals to diamond OA is the first step; enshrining community governance is the crucial next step. As more funding bodies mandate diamond OA and not-for-profit academic publishing infrastructure (such as this recent announcement by the NWO), the tide is turning against commercial actors. Now is the time for editors and scholarly communities to regain control of their scholarship.

This post does not necessarily reflect the view of Cambridge University Libraries.

Formatting the Future: Why Researchers Should Consider File Formats

Uncategorized

Dr Kim Clugston, Research Data Coordinator, OSC
Dr Leontien Talboom, Technical Analyst, Digital Initiatives

Many funders and publishers now require data to be made openly available for reuse, supporting the open data movement and value for publicly funded research. But are all researchers aware of why they are being asked to share their data and how to do this appropriately? When researchers deposit their research data into Apollo (the University of Cambridge open access repository) they generally understand the benefits of sharing data and want to be a part of this. These researchers provide their data in open file formats accompanied by rich metadata so the data has the best chance of being discovered and reused most effectively. 

There are other researchers who deposit their data in a repository during the publication process; this often takes place within tight deadlines set by the publisher. For this reason, researchers often rush to upload their data, and thoughts about how this data will remain preserved and accessible for long-term use are not considered. The challenges around preserving open research data were highlighted in this article. The authors addressed the concerns that open research data can include a wide variety of different types of data files, some of which may only be accessible with proprietary software or software that is outdated or at risk of being outdated soon. How can we ensure that research data that is open now stays accessible and open for use for many years to come? 

In this blog, we will discuss the importance of making data open, ensuring this is maintained for future use (digital preservation). We will use some examples from datasets in Apollo and suggest recommendations for researchers that go beyond the normal FAIR principles to include considerations for the long term. 

Why is it important for the future?

The move to open data, following the FAIR principles, has the potential to boost knowledge, research, collaboration, transparency and decision making. In Apollo alone, there are now thousands of datasets which are available openly worldwide to be used for reference or reused as secondary data. Apollo, however, is just one of thousands of data repositories. It is easy to see how this vast amount of archived data comes with great responsibility for long term maintenance. A report outlined the pressing matter that FAIR data, whilst addressing metadata aspects well, doesn’t really address data preservation and the challenges that this brings such as the risk of software and/or hardware becoming obsolete, and therefore data reliant on these becoming inaccessible.

Tracking the reuse of datasets could provide essential information on how different file formats are holding up, but there is an ongoing challenge to track dataset reuse. Datasets are not yet routinely cited in the established way that is seen for journal articles or other publication types. This is an area that is actively being developed through initiatives such as Make Data Count and it is hoped that at some point soon, data citation will become part of the routine practice of research to further enhance visibility on how data is being credited and reused. 

In Apollo, we see great interest in the available datasets as they are viewed and downloaded frequently. The most downloaded dataset in Apollo has been downloaded over 300,000 times since it was first deposited in 2015 and, interestingly, consists of open file formats. Other highly downloaded datasets in Apollo, such as the CBR Leximetric dataset, have been used by lawyers and social scientists and successfully cited as a data source to answer new research questions. The Mammographic Image Analysis Society database was deposited in Apollo in 2015 and has been frequently downloaded and reused by researchers working in the field of medical image analysis as discussed in a previous blog. To date, Google Scholar reports it has been cited 78 times. These datasets show the value of sharing and reusing data and all are in file formats that are accessible to everyone which will help to preserve them for as long as possible. 

Digital preservation is a discipline focused on providing and maintaining long-term access to digital materials. Obsolete software is a big problem in maintaining access to files in the future. PRONOM, a file format registry, keeps track of a large amount of known file formats and provides additional information on these formats. Last year, a file format analysis of datasets in Apollo was conducted to highlight what file formats are represented in the repository. The results revealed the diverse array of different file formats which is a testament to the breadth of research conducted and the adoption of open data across many disciplines. Most of the file formats are common and can still be opened, but a large percentage of the material has not been identified or are in formats that are not immediately accessible without migrating to a different format or emulating the current file formats. Table 1 shows a few complex examples of file formats held in Apollo. 

File FormatExample in ApolloFuture Use
.dx (Spectroscopic Data Exchange Format)LinkThis is not an open-source format, meaning that opening the file is dependent on the software being available
.mnova (Mestrelab file format)LinkProprietary file format, licence for the programme is expensive
.pzfx (Prism file format)LinkOlder format for a file software program called Prism. This is now considered legacy software.

The Bit List, a list maintained by the Digital Preservation Coalition that includes contributions from members of the digital preservation community, outlines the “health” of different file formats and content types,  including research data. In fact, unpublished research data (which is another issue outside the scope of this blog!) is classified as critically endangered and uncovers the problem that the majority of researchers generally only make data open at the point of publication. But even research data published in repositories has its difficulties and is classified as vulnerable, mainly due to the dependency on many file formats having the availability of the appropriate software to open and use them. There are potential solutions on the horizon to address this problem, such as the open-source ReproZip which packages research data with the necessary files, libraries and environments so they can be run by anybody. However, this still doesn’t address the issue of obsolete software. The gold standard would be to deposit research data in open formats, so viewing and using the files is not dependent on a particular software; the files will be open and accessible as long as they are held available within a repository.  

What researchers can do

What can researchers do to make sure that when they deposit data into a repository, it will be available for them and others in 10 or even 20 years time? Awareness is the first step. Researchers should consider submitting their data to a repository, one that is suitable for their files. Choose a trusted data repository. A recent blog highlighted the potential problem of disappearing data repositories, with approximately 6% of repositories listed on the repository search registry, re3data being shut down (most reasons are unknown but some were listed as organisation or economic failure, obsolete software/hardware or external attacks). Approximately 47% of the repositories that had shut down did not provide an alternative solution to rescue the data and it is assumed that this data is lost. It may be that your funder or publisher decides the repository for you, but we have some guidance on what to look for in a trusted repository. If you are at Cambridge, you can deposit your data in Apollo which has CoreTrustSeal certification.

The data itself is arguably the most important factor, we need to make sure the data files can be found and used by anyone at any time, forever. Ideally, this means using open file formats where possible as these don’t have any restrictions. The Library of Congress and the UK National Archives both maintain registries of file formats. There is some Cambridge University guidance on choosing file formats as well as some by the UKDS. Have a look at the file formats you have on the PRONOM database, is this seen as a sustainable format? If the data you are generating is from proprietary software, it is good practice to deposit this version as well as an open format that does not require any specialist software to open them. This ensures that both options are available in case of any loss of formatting from converting to open formats. An example are the statistical software packages SPSS and NVivo which are proprietary but have the option to convert to open formats such as a CSV file. 

There may be information on how to convert your file types to open formats within your discipline. In the Chemistry department here at Cambridge, an initiative was started together with the Data Champion programme to provide a platform to allow researchers to add instructions for converting experimental derived files into open formats. Open Babel is an open-source, collaborative project aimed at providing a “chemistry toolbox” with information on how to convert chemical file formats into other formats where needed. There is also some guidance on how to export from R to open formats such as txt and csv.

In some cases, it might not be possible to provide an open file format alternative. The files you use may be subject to discipline-specific standards or you are restricted by the hardware and software you use in your research. For these, it is important to provide good documentation or a detailed README file alongside the file format so researchers know how to access and use your files. In fact good file organisation, documentation and metadata is just as important as the files themselves, as data without any documentation is considered virtually meaningless. The more information you can provide the better and might possibly save you time in the long run from potential questions from other researchers in the future. 

The future use of past research hinges on the thoughtful selection of file formats. By prioritising openness and longevity, we lay the foundation for collaboration and innovation. Choices that researchers make today shape the accessibility and integrity of data for generations to come.

Methods getting their chance to shine – Apollo wants your methods!

Supporting Open Research,

By Dr. Kim Clugston, Research Data Co-ordinator, Office of Scholarly Communication

Underlying all research data is always an effective and working method and this applies across all disciplines from STEMM to the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. Methods are a detailed description of the tools that are used in research and can come in many forms depending on the type of research. Methods are often overlooked rather than being seen as an integral research output in their own right. Traditionally, published journals include a materials and methods section, which is often a summary due to restrictions on word limits making it difficult for other researchers to reproduce the results or replicate the study. There can sometimes be an option to submit the method as “supplementary material”, but this is not always the case. There are specific journals that publish methods and may be peer-reviewed but not all are open access, rendering them hidden behind a paywall. The last decade has seen the creation of “protocol” repositories, some with the ability to comment, adapt and even insert videos. Researchers at the University of Cambridge, from all disciplines – arts, humanities, social sciences and STEMM fields – can now publish their method openly in Apollo, our institutional repository. In this blog, we discuss why it is important to publish methods openly and how the University’s researchers and students can do this in Apollo.

The protocol sharing repository, Protocols.io, was founded in 2012. Protocols can be uploaded to the platform or created within it; they can be shared privately with others or made public. The protocols can be dynamic and interactive (rather than a static document) and can be annotated, which is ideal for highlighting information that could be key to an experiment’s success. Collaboration, adaptation and reuse are possible by creating a fork (an editable clone of a version) that can be compared with any existing versions of the same protocol. Protocols.io currently hosts nearly 16,000 public protocols, showing that there is a support for this type of platform. In July this year it was announced that Protocols.io was acquired by Springer Nature. Their press statement aims to reassure that Protocols.io mission and vision will not change with the acquisition, despite Springer Nature already hosting the world’s largest collection of published protocols in the form of SpringerProtocols along with their own version of a free and open repository, Protocol Exchange. This begs the question of whether a major commercial publisher is monopolising the protocol space, and if they are, is this or will this be a problem? At the moment there do not appear to be any restrictions on exporting/transferring protocols from Protocols.io and hopefully this will continue. This is a problem often faced by researchers using proprietary Electronic Research Notebooks (ERNs), where it can be difficult to disengage from one platform and laborious to transfer notebooks to another, all while ensuring that data integrity is maintained. Because of this, researchers may feel locked into using a particular product. Time will tell how the partnership between Protocols.io and Springer Nature develops and whether the original mission and vision of Protocols.io will remain. Currently, their Open Research plan enables researchers to make an unlimited number of protocols public, with the number of private protocols limited to two (paid plans offer more options and features).

Bio-protocol exchange (under the umbrella of Bio-protocol Journal) is a platform for researchers to find, share and discuss life science protocols with protocol search and webinars. Protocols can be submitted either to Bio-protocol or as a preprint, researchers can ask authors questions, and fork to modify and share the protocol while crediting the original author. They also have an interesting ‘Request a Protocol’ (RaP) service that searches more than 6 million published research papers for protocols or allows you to request one if you are unable to find what you are looking for. A useful feature is that you can ask the community or the original authors of the protocol any question you may have about the protocol. Bio-protocol exchange published all protocols free of charge to their authors since their launch in 2011, with substantial financial backing of their founders. Unfortunately,  it was announced that protocol articles submitted to Bio-protocol after March 1 2023 will be charged an Article Processing Charge (APC) of $1200. Researchers who do not want to pay the APC can still post a protocol for free in the Bio-protocol Preprint Repository where they will receive a DOI but will not have gone through the journal’s peer review process.

As methods are integral to successful research, it is a positive move to see the creation and growth of platforms supporting protocol development and sharing. Currently, these tend to cater for research in the sciences, and serve the important role of supporting research reproducibility. Yet, methods exist across all disciplines – arts, humanities, social sciences as well as STEMM – and we see the term ‘method’ rather than ‘protocol’ as more inclusive of all areas of research.

Apollo (Cambridge University’s repository) has now joined the growing appreciation within the research community of recognising the importance of detailing and sharing methodologies. Researchers at the University can now use their Symplectic Elements account to deposit a method into Apollo. Not only does this value the method as an output in its own right, it provides the researcher with a DOI and a publication that can be automatically updated to their ORCID profile (if ORCID is linked to their Elements account). In May this year, Apollo was awarded CoreTrustSeal certification, reinforcing the University’s commitment to preserving research outputs in the long-term and should give researchers confidence that they are depositing their work in a trustworthy digital repository.

The first method to be deposited into Apollo in this way was authored by Professor John Suckling and colleagues. Professor Suckling is Director of Research in Psychiatric Neuroimaging in the Department of Psychiatry. His published method relates to an interesting project combining art and science to create artwork that aims to represent hallucinatory experiences in individuals with diagnosed psychotic or neurodegenerative disorders. He is no stranger to depositing in Apollo; in fact, he has one of the most downloaded datasets in Apollo after depositing the Mammographic Image Analysis Society database in Apollo in 2015. This record contains the images of 322 digital mammograms from a database complied in 1992. Professor Suckling is an advocate of open research and was a speaker at the Open Research at Cambridge conference in 2021.

An interesting and exciting new platform which aims to change research culture and the way researchers are recognised is Octopus. Founded by University of Cambridge researcher Dr Alexandra Freeman, Octopus is free to use for all and is funded by UKRI and developed by Jisc. Researchers can publish instantly all research outputs without word limit constraints, which can often stifle the details. Research outputs are not restricted to articles but also include, for example, code, methods, data, videos and even ideas or short pieces of work. This serves to incentivise the importance of all research outputs. Octopus aims to level up the current skew toward publishing more sensationalist work and encourages publishing all work, such as negative findings, which are often of equal value to science but often get shelved in what is termed the ‘file drawer’ problem. A collaborative research community is encouraged to work together on pieces of a puzzle, with credit given to individual researchers rather than a long list of authors. The platform supports reproducibility, transparency, accountability and aims to allow research the best chance to advance more quickly. Through Octopus, authors retain copyright and apply a Creative Commons licence to their work; the only requirement is that published work is open access and allows derivatives. It is a breath of fresh air in the current rigid publishing structure.

Clear and transparent methods underpin research and are fundamental to the reliability, integrity and advancement of research. Is the research landscape beginning to change to allow open methods, freely published, to take centre stage and for methods to be duly recognised and rewarded as a standalone research output? We certainly hope so. The University of Cambridge is committed to supporting open research, and past and present members who have conducted research at the University can share these outputs openly in Apollo. If you would like to publish a method in Apollo, please submit it here or if you have any queries email us at info@data.cam.ac.uk.

There will be an Octopus workshop at the Open Research for Inclusion: Spotlighting Different Voices in Open Research at Cambridge on Friday 17th November 2023 at Downing College.

Should the UK make a deal with Springer Nature?

Uncategorized

This is a guest post by Prof. Stephen J. Eglen on the concurrent negotiations between the UK academic sector and the publisher Springer Nature. Prof. Eglen is a Fellow of Magdalene College and Professor of Computational Neuroscience in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. This post does not necessarily reflect the view of Cambridge University Libraries.

The UK academic sector is currently in discussion with Springer Nature around a renewed ‘read and publish’ deal for journal content. I understand that most institutions are likely to reject the current deal, but wish to continue negotiations. My position is that further discussions with Springer Nature are futile; we should stop accepting ‘transformative deals’. The likely effect of this deal would be that more of Springer Nature’s content may be openly available to read, but with the ‘paywall’ shifted to the publish side. Here I list my key objections:

  1. There is still no justification for the high APCs (9500 EUR + taxes) for Nature tier journals. Accepting a deal, regardless of the level of discounts that could be achieved, is implicitly accepting their business model. Springer Nature declined to engage with the Journal Comparison Service run by cOAlition S that aims to help understand how costs are determined.
  2. Springer Nature’s view is that ‘gold OA’ is the only viable way to open access. Other models for open access are available, and show promise, including diamond OA journals and Subscribe to Open. However, Springer Nature assert that “they haven’t found a way of making them financially sustainable”.  If we accept a gold-only view of open access,  how can we objectively assess the sustainability of alternative models?
  3. A move to a ‘gold only’ OA world would shift the barrier from reading to publishing content. Springer Nature recently announced a waiver policy for researchers from about 70 lower income countries. This still excludes many researchers worldwide e.g. from Brazil and South Africa, perpetuating neo-colonial attitudes towards the creation of scholarly content and reinforcing existing institutional inequalities within countries. Any waiver programme for APCs should be “no-questions-asked” regardless of where researchers are based. This would need to be properly costed and part of the justification of the APC (point 1).
  4. As of January 2023, several UK institutions have rights retention policies in place, with more expected to follow in the coming months. Individual researchers can also use rights retention strategy by themselves. Rights retention statements allow researchers to meet UK funder’s requirement by depositing their author-accepted manuscript without embargo. I believe Springer Nature should publicly state that they will allow any author worldwide to maintain their rights on their own author-accepted manuscripts.
  5. Over half of Springer Nature’s hybrid journals failed to meet their 2021 targets for open access articles within hybrid journals.  Those hybrid journals that fail again this year to meet their targets will be removed from cOAlition S’s transformative journal program.  Having some journals ineligible for cOAlition S funding but part of a UK read-and-publish deal would further complicate an already confusing system.  It would also question Springer Nature’s commitment to open access.

A detailed public critique of the deal is not possible because of the confidential nature of the negotiations.  Finances aside, I feel there was one element that was simply unworkable and unethical due to it requiring scholars to keep one aspect confidential if the deal were accepted.

The UK is one of only a few countries with a  heavy reliance on transformative agreements.  Sweden has already decided that transformative agreements are not sustainable and the transition period should finish at the end of 2024. Coalition S has also confirmed it will end its support of hybrid journals by the end of 2024. I would like to see the UK move away from transformative agreements. We could instead work internationally to promote more ethical and sustainable alternatives that put scholars at the heart of scholarly communication. In particular, the APC model has been tried, and introduces as many headaches as it has tried to solve. 

It is time instead to try new approaches.  There are several interesting models being developed by forward-looking organizations that the UK could endorse.  For example, MIT press recently launched shift+OPEN as a way to flip subscription based journals to diamond open access model.  Another interesting approach is Subscribe to Open where journals drop their paywall if a threshold amount of subscriptions are received.  Money saved on dealing with legacy publishers like Springer Nature is better spent investing in our own infrastructure and new approaches.

Springer negotiations: what’s our plan B? 

Policy development, Publishing, ,

The negotiations 

The UK universities sector is negotiating a read & publish deal with publisher Springer Nature. Reaching a transitional agreement is particularly important to make it easier for our authors to publish their work open access, as well as continuing to read all of Springer Nature’s content. The deal needs to be affordable for our sector, which is already under financial strain.  

The Jisc negotiating team and the University of Cambridge are committed to finding a deal that works well for us, that is our plan A. But we are aware that some previous negotiations between universities and publishers could not find enough mutual ground (for example UCLA and German universities). If a contract can’t be signed, what would that mean for our researchers? 

What would we keep access to? 

Our current deal with Springer Nature includes perpetual access to some of their catalogue. We would retain access to 69% of content we currently subscribe to, even if we have to walk away from negotiations without a deal. When clicking on these articles, you will be given automatic access if you are connected to a Cambridge network or VPN, or you would be able to gain access from elsewhere with your Raven credentials.  

Of course, we would only retain access to historic materials, not new publications. This means that the percentage of articles we have access to will slowly decline over time. The areas most impacted by the loss of access would be Physical Sciences, Biological Sciences and Clinical Medicine. But we have other plans to help people get access to the articles they require. 

How would we access other articles? 

If the University does not subscribe to an article you need to access, you would still be able to get hold of it, but the process is a little longer. The best thing to do is to install the Lean Library plugin on your device. Lean Library will look for open access content and allow you to access anything to which we retain post-cancellation access.  

If you can’t get access through Lean Library, Cambridge University Libraries will help you get the article through an inter-library loan or other routes. The exact process will depend on ongoing work, so look out for further communications about the details.  

How would we publish in Springer Nature journals?  

Open access publishing is a great way to ensure that everyone in the world can read and apply your work for free. Many funders now require open access as a condition for their funding. As an additional complication, funders including the UK research councils will not pay for open access in hybrid journals, which charge for both subscriptions and open access (what we sometimes call ‘double-dipping’), unless there are transitional read & publish deals in place, or the journal is a transformative journal.  

A read & publish deal would mean that the cost of open access publishing is covered by the libraries upstream, and researchers can publish at no additional cost. However, if a deal cannot be reached, many Springer Nature journals would remain hybrid journals. This means that many researchers would be required to publish open access, but have no access to central funds for this.  

The solution is the Rights Retention strategy. By signing a pilot agreement with the University and including a rights retention statement in their manuscript, authors will retain their rights to make the manuscript openly available immediately on our repository, Apollo. This way, they will fulfil their funder requirement without having to pay a penny.  

It should also be noted that some journals, such as Nature, have put into place specific provisions for researchers whose funders mandate open access.  

How will we find out more? 

The current contract runs until the end of December 2022 and we are assured of a grace period stretching to February 2023, during which access will continue if negotiations are ongoing.  

We will continue to update our website as more information becomes available. An announcement will be made by email across the University once the outcome of the negotiations is known. Please email info@osc.cam.ac.uk or speak to your librarian if you have any questions.  

Is a Rights Retention Clause needed for OA books?

Uncategorized

Dr. Rupert Gatti is a Fellow and Director of Studies in Economics at Trinity College, Cambridge, and co-founder of the non-profit Open Book Publishers.

In recent discussion about funder-imposed Rights Retention Strategies (RRS) I realised that there is an important consideration for funders of Open Access (OA) books and book chapters that differs significantly to the standard arguments for RRS with journal articles, and that I haven’t seen articulated elsewhere.

The standard motivation for applying RRS to article submissions is that it ensures that the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) can be shared and reused under a CC BY licence even if there are greater restrictions over reuse of the final published article. Consequently it allows the author to comply with a funder’s OA mandate without having to pay the publisher’s Article Processing Charge (APC) or requiring the publisher to apply a CC BY licence to the published version. 

(As an aside, such a licence applied to a submitted book manuscript would present no difficulties for Open Book Publishers (OBP) as we require, no –  we impose!, Rights Retention for authors in any case. OBP’s standard contract is that the author maintains all copyright control of their work and provides OBP only with a non-exclusive licence to publish their work in various printed and digital formats. So a RRS would provide no issues for us, or for any of the many other OA book publishers who adopt similar policies.)

In situations where a book is published under a more restrictive CC licence, rather than CC BY, I believe there is a separate case for funders to require that an author Rights Retention Clause be inserted into the final publishing contract the author signs with the publisher.

Many funders are, or have signalled that they will be, allowing more restrictive licences than CC BY for books and book chapters. I believe there ARE very good academic reasons why NC and/or ND licences are the appropriate ones to use in some situations, which typically revolve around the scholarly integrity of the work (for example when the material published is culturally sensitive). Humanities and Social Science scholars have been raising these concerns for several years now, and I agree with many of them. For me, the critical consideration is when the reasons used to justify restrictions on re-use are SCHOLARLY – and based around the scholarly integrity of the work – rather than commercial or based around the perceived needs or demands of the publisher. 

By design, when a title is published under one of these more restrictive licences (say NC-ND) anybody wanting to reuse components of the book will need to seek permission from the copyright holder, in much the same way as for an ‘all rights reserved’ work. Typically, for books, the publishers require the authors to assign the copyright, or controls over the copyright permissions, to them – which means that for the full extent of the copyright term (typically author’s lifetime + 90 years) it is the PUBLISHER that has control over and decides on any allowed reuse of the work, rather than the author. 

This, of course, breaks the scholarly argument for imposing the restrictive licence in the first place. If the material is culturally sensitive then it is the AUTHOR who needs to be making any reuse decisions – based on the author’s understanding of the sensitivities, and possibly in consultation with a community of people. The publisher often has none of that knowledge or understanding, and may allow reuses in inappropriate situations (especially if financial remuneration is involved) or not allow appropriate reuses (especially if sufficient financial remuneration is not involved). 

An example may be helpful. Let us suppose that a scholarly work on a culturally sensitive topic is published using a CC BY-NC-ND licence. It may matter enormously how and by whom any translation of the work is created, how the work is commercialised, the specific pronunciation used in any audio edition, or the nature of the images used to illustrate a subsequent edition. With control in the hands of the publisher, culturally insensitive derivative works may be approved, and new works that have been carefully created with the approval of the community may be denied.  

If a funding body is allowing the use of more restrictive licences on scholarly rather than solely commercial grounds – then it is surely also important to ensure that control over reuse of the content is maintained by the scholar/author rather than allowing the publisher to usurp those rights.  

To achieve that, the copyright assignment and reuse controls have to be assigned to the author within the publication contract signed by the author, and thus some form of Rights Retention Clause needs to be included. Without an explicit presubmission funder mandate, authors alone are unlikely to have sufficient bargaining power to ensure the inclusion of such a clause in the publishing contract they sign.

Of course this doesn’t fully resolve the situation when the author dies. By default it will be the author’s estate which heredits those rights and controls for the last 90 years of the copyright term, and they may be no more informed than the publisher about cultural sensitivities. So a further question arises: can/should a rights assignment for the period after the author’s death also be included or considered a requirement of the publishing contract in these circumstances? At the very least, this would seem to be something to encourage authors to consider and include in the publishing contract as well.

Finally, it may be worth noting that the standard RRS on the submitted manuscript alone is not sufficient in the situations described above, as without the proposed clause in the final contract the publisher will still have permission to approve inappropriate reuse of the final published work without need to consult the author.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Lucy Barnes, Stephen Eglen, Graham Stone, Alessandra Tosi and Niamh Tumelty for helpful feedback on an earlier draft of this post.

This blog has been cross-posted on the Open Book Publisher Blog: http://blogs.openbookpublishers.com/is-a-rights-retention-clause-needed-for-oa-books

Open Research in the Humanities: Research Evaluation 

Humanities, research assessment, ,

Authors: Emma Gilby, Matthias Ammon, Rachel Leow and Sam Moore

This is the sixth and final of a series of blog posts, presenting the reflections of the Working Group on Open Research in the Humanities.  Read the opening post here. The working group aimed to reframe open research in a way that was more meaningful to humanities disciplines, and their work will inform the University of Cambridge approach to open research.  This post discusses opportunities and challenges for research evaluation in the arts and humanities. The direction of travel in the Open Research discussion is away from any straightforward use of metrics in research evaluation. This is hugely in favour of the arts and humanities.

Opportunities 

The arts and humanities have never used metrics in the same way as their STEM colleagues. This is partly because of the slower speed of publishing and the in-depth editorial process (18-24 months from submission to publication might be considered standard), and partly because ‘citation indices’ are less relevant when one’s contribution is to be part of a broad, ongoing cultural conversation rather than to generate data from scratch (see above, on CORE data). So the diversification of research evaluation enshrined in DORA (https://sfdora.org), and the questioning of the uncritical use of metrics and altmetrics by administrators, grant funders and promotion committees, is a positive development. It allows for a general move away from established academic platforms and formats, as discussed above.  

Support required 

Some pressing questions about research evaluation remain, which might account for some perceived hostility from some quarters towards a move away from established academic platforms. Who is doing the work of reading and assessing these multiple new formats? How do we evaluate success? Is success measured in terms of ‘reach’ – number of Twitter followers or blog readers etc? This would take us down the route of clickbait and skew towards already-popular, English-language material; this is a particular danger with processes designed to evaluate web traffic.  

What guidance is available for established academics looking to credit other colleagues for their social media contributions, in particular? An anxiety often expressed is that ‘there is a lot of rubbish on the internet’. How do we sift through? In general, research evaluation takes time and effort, and there is a sense that this work needs to be properly measured and quantified. For example, if an evaluator spends 20 minutes per CV on 60 CVs, that is 20 hours of work before one even gets into reading and evaluating actual outputs. In the context of a busy teaching term, such additional labour is barely possible and contributes to a general sense of stress within the profession. Looking for a kind of shorthand to facilitate swift and accurate evaluation of a wide range of (possibly unfamiliar) formats is therefore the pragmatic approach.  

The discussion of narrative CVs in the DORA context implies an amalgamation of the traditional CV and the cover letter. In our institution as no doubt in others too, it would be useful to have some HR guidance here on what appointment panels should ask for (e.g. no cover letter, but a paragraph each on a candidate’s three main research achievements?).  

There was a feeling in the working group that Cambridge is perhaps behind other universities who make ‘open research’ a category for assessment in itself, and who guide their employment panels and candidates accordingly. Indeed, Cambridge’s traditional division of the criteria for promotion into the discrete categories of ‘research’, ‘teaching’ and ‘general contribution’ seems actively to work against the whole idea of ‘open research’. It suggests unhelpfully that ‘service to the community’, ‘teaching’ and ‘research’ do not overlap. This division seems to have survived the recent overhaul of the academic promotions exercise.  

Open Research in the Humanities: Research Integrity and Care 

Humanities

Authors: Emma Gilby, Matthias Ammon, Rachel Leow and Sam Moore

This is the fourth in a series of blog posts presenting the reflections of the Working Group on Open Research in the Humanities.  Read the opening post here. The working group aimed to reframe open research in a way that was more meaningful to humanities disciplines, and their work will inform the University of Cambridge approach to open research.   This post considers research integrity in the context of arts & humanities research.

Research integrity applies to A&H disciplines in gathering CORE data, conveying interpretations, maintaining disciplinary standards, and privileging diversity, transparency, respect, and accountability. This is ‘careful’ scholarship in its truest sense. Our conversation here took the idea of careful scholarship in two main directions, considering the labour associated with the work as process, and the labour associated with establishing and maintaining decolonial integrity. This means allowing for and legitimizing diverse voices, methods and ways of thinking.    

Opportunities 

As the Open Research conference held in November 2021 stated in its call for contributions: 

We have moved beyond the myth of the lone genius: research is a collaborative endeavour. We need to approach all stages of research more openly, to facilitate collaboration and the incremental growth of ideas. Breaking down the walls around information will enable more stakeholders, both lay and professional, to become involved and deepen their trust in research.1

In fact, the myth of the lone scholarly genius is a relatively recent phenomenon, and many of the scholarly processes in which the A&H are engaged pre-date it. The open research movement offers authors the opportunity to look beyond their own status as author, to consider the wider scholarly ecosystem, the processes behind scholarship, the networks of people involved, so that these are acknowledged openly rather than lost. As we have already stated, editing is at the heart of scholarly publishing, taking research into a legitimate, citable, creditable publication. This is particularly the case in A&H research that targets smaller scholarly communities: ‘For society publishers, where we see responsiveness to the community of researchers as mission critical, editorial work is mission central.’² 

More fundamentally, a crucial element of research integrity is tackling the need for appropriate and fair representation across a diversity of voices and communities. A major question for arts and humanities research is how to open up and take account of the global wealth of different voices – opening up to ‘fugitive’ voices that have not traditionally been archived or recognised or able to embody the ‘status’ of author in the first place. 

Support required 

As far as the existing scholarly community is concerned, editing can brought into the open: divided into the work of General Editors, who evaluate overall content and the general direction of intellectual contributions, and who make decisions about what work to accept on the basis of peer review; the work of Managing Editors, who are the chief manuscript editors and engage with the business of day-to-day communication with authors; the work of Copy Editors, who make script clear and consistent; and the work of Type Setters, who even in the digital age arrange documents for publication. All these people share care and responsibility for disciplinary standards. They also require a salary, which brings us back to the future of scholarly communications and the question of funding. Making this labour visible and public is an important way to avoid the exploitation (and self-exploitation) that is endemic in academia.  

Careful consideration here needs to be given to the issue of appropriate and fair representation across a diversity of voices and communities. Open research does not necessarily or without effort tackle the omission of voices from the public sphere, typically those of the non-white, non-male, non-cis, non-anglophone world.3 Indeed, without explicit reflection on decolonial integrity, the move towards open research paradoxically risks a homogenizing effect: allowing researchers to disseminate their research on the condition that they imitate or ventriloquize a certain subset of languages or conventions.

[1] Open Research at Cambridge 2021, call for contributions (no longer accessible online)

[2] Angela Cochran and Karin Wulf ‘Editing is at the Heart of Scholarly Publishing’, 24th April 2019, https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/04/24/editing-is-at-the-heart-of-scholarly-publishing/

[3] Lorena Gautherau, ‘Decolonizing the Digital Humanities’,  20th November 2017, https://recoveryprojectappblog.wordpress.com/2017/11/20/incubator-decolonizing-the-digital-humanities/; see also the article by Coker and Ozment cited above.

‘We found that Open Science policies, mostly stemming from Europe, frame “openness” as a vehicle to promote technological change as part of an inevitable and necessary cultural shift to modernity in scientific production. The global reach of these narratives, and the technologies, standards and models these narratives sustain, are dictating modes of working and collaborating among those who can access them, and creating new categories of exclusion that invalidate knowledge that cannot meet this criteria, putting historically marginalized researchers and publics at further disadvantage.’ D. Albornoz et al., ‘Framing Power: Tracing Key Discourses in Open Science Policies’, ELPUB 2018, https://dx.doi.org/10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.23

See also: Rebekka Kiesewetter, Undoing scholarship: Towards an activist genealogy of the OA movement, Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies, Volume 23, Issue 2, Jun 2020, p. 113 – 130

https://www.aup-online.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVGN2020.2.001.KIES The authors of ‘Labour of Love: An Open Access Manifesto for Freedom, Integrity and Creativity in the Humanities and Interpretive Social Sciences’ refer to ‘the increasingly imperiled principles of academic freedom, integrity, and creativity’.  Andrea E. Pia et al., ’Labour of Love: An Open Access Manifesto for Freedom, Integrity, and Creativity in the Humanities and Interpretive Social Sciences’, 16th July 2020, https://commonplace.knowledgefutures.org/pub/y0xy565k/release/2

Open Research in the Humanities: CORE Data

Data Champions, Humanities, Open Research at Cambridge Conference, ,

Authors: Emma Gilby, Matthias Ammon, Rachel Leow and Sam Moore

This is the third of a series of blog posts, presenting the reflections of the Working Group on Open Research in the Humanities. Read the opening post at this link. The working group aimed to reframe open research in a way that was more meaningful to humanities disciplines, and their work will inform the University of Cambridge approach to open research. This post reflects on the concept of FAIR data and proposes an alternative way of thinking about data in the humanities.

As a rule, data in the arts and humanities is collected, organised, recontextualised and explained. We are therefore putting forward this acronym as an alternative to LERU’s FAIR data (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable). Our data is collected rather than generated; organised and recontextualised in order to further a cultural conversation about discoveries, methods and debates; and explained as part of the analytical process. Any view of scholarly comms as uniquely about the distribution of and access to FAIR data (‘from my bench to yours’) will seem less relevant to A&H academics. Similarly, the goal of reproducibility of data – in the sense in which this often appears in the sciences and social sciences, where it refers to the results of a study being perfectly replicable when the study is repeated – is, if anything, contrary to the aim of CORE data: i.e. the aim that this data should be built upon and thereby modified through the process of further recontextualization. Our CORE data, then, understood as information used for reference and analysis, is made up of texts, music, pictures, fabrics, objects, installations, performances, etc. Sometimes, this information does not belong to us, but is owned by another person or institution or community, in which case it is not ours to make public.

Opportunities

The A&H tend to bring information together in new ways to further discussion about socio-cultural developments across the globe. Available digital data is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the material that is worked with.[1] Arts and humanities scholars, who spend their lives thinking about the arrangement and communication of information, are acutely aware that archives (digital and otherwise) are not neutral spaces, but man-made and the product of human choices. This means that information available online, to a broadband-enabled public, is asymmetrical and distorted.

One of the main benefits of open research is that it is thought to make data globally accessible, especially to ‘the global south’ and to institutions with fewer available funds to ‘buy data in’. As we explore below (‘research integrity’), this unidirectional view of open access is problematic. In general, digital material tends to reproduce English-speaking structures and epistemologies. As FAIR data is redefined as CORE data, an attention to context will hopefully promote the diverse positions occupied by all those who make up the world and who produce research about it.

Support required

In order usefully to employ CORE data in the A&H, we need to bring to the surface and examine underlying assumptions about knowledge creation as well as knowledge dissemination.

The work of the digital humanities – rooted explicitly in digital technologies and the forms of communication that they enable – is obviously a vital part of these discussions about opening up the CORE data of the humanities. Digital work, in the same way as any other successful A&H research, needs to consider its own materiality and conditions of production, evaluate its own history, draw attention to its own limits, and navigate its trans-temporal relationships with data in other forms (the manuscript, the printed text, the painting, the piece of music). This is a developing field and one that still has an uneasy relationship with the existing tenure/promotions system.[2] Colleagues noted that training needs are evolving constantly. It is often hard to know where to turn for specific guidance in e.g. how to manage one’s own ‘born digital’ archives, how to deconstruct a twitter archive, and so on.

This issue also overlaps with the need, as part of the ‘rewards and incentives’ process outlined below, to evaluate the success of colleagues as they undertake this training and negotiate with these processes. DH is one of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of research and needs to be widely resourced. But it would also be harmful to collapse all A&H research into ‘the digital humanities’. The work of colleagues whose CORE data is resistant, for whatever reason, to wide online dissemination in English also needs to be allocated the value it deserves: some publics are simply smaller than others.

Postscript: the group subsequently became aware of the CARE Principles of Indigenous Data Governance. These principles will also be considered when developing our services in support of data management and ethical sharing.

[1] Erzsébet Tóth-Czifra, ‘The Risk of Losing the Thick Description: Data Management Challenges Faced by the Arts and Humanities in the Evolving FAIR Data Ecosystem’, in Digital Technologies and the Practices of Humanities Research, edited by Jennifer Edmond (Open Book Publishers, 2014), https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0192.10

[2]See the excellent article by Cait Coker and Kate Ozment ‘Building the Women in Book History Bibliography, or Digital Enumerative Bibliography as Preservation of Feminist Labor’, Digital Humanities Quarterly 13 (3), 2019, http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/13/3/000428/000428.html – where the authors of the ‘Women in Book History’ digital bibliography still see the tenure system as ‘monograph-driven’, and had to fund their research through selling merchandise.