Open Access Publishing Models – a MeCCSA conference round table review

The Open Access Publishing roundtable at this year’s MeCCSA conference hosted by Glasgow Caledonian University, was a really engaging session, though not one that was well attended. Which was surprising given the way in which OA has the potential to really change the way we do things. It is likely to impact on all of us and there are issues at play that need to be talked about. I thought it worthwhile writing up my notes and sharing some of the insights from the panel with a few ideas of my own.

The abstract for the roundtable posed the possibility of a revolution in academic publishing. It cited the requirement that from 2024, all UKRI-funded research must be disseminated through open access (OA) and suggested that the next REF is set to go the same way. The roundtable asked what are the opportunities and challenges that open access (OA) publishing brings and what does it mean for academics in the (long) run up to the next REF.

Ably chaired by Professor John Cook (Department of Media and Journalism, Glasgow Caledonian University) the panel opened with Professor John Connolly (Chief Editorial Adviser, Routledge Open Research; Professor of Social Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University) who talked about the benefits of being an OA editor and what he has learnt from that experience. He valued being able to welcome more diverse contributions and the transparency that comes with OA publishing. For him, the enigma and mysterious nature of publishing is opened up through OA so that the process is revealed. For ECRS/PGRS it opens up what happens behind scenes and has the potential to demystify the process. With OA, you have the possibility for the reviewers’ reports to also be published online alongside the paper so that there is a dialogue, this promotes quality reviewing, as well as transparency and can be very empowering. We were told that the argument supported by published research is that citation rates increase with OA. You can also publish data sets alongside the publication so that the data sets can be worked with. He suggested that OA can also promote collaboration and interdisciplinarity though he didn’t go into detail here and I would have liked to have more on this. However, he did set out how OA is already a recognised route to improved impact.

The second presentation was from Dominique Walker (Publishing Officer, Scottish Universities Press) and Gillian Daly (Executive Officer, SCURL: Scottish Confederation of University and Research Libraries) who introduced us to the newly founded Scottish University Press, an OA press jointly owned by all the Scottish universities libraries. They aim to publish on any subject, authors retain copyright, the process includes rigorous peer review, utilises print on demand, distribute royalties to authors, includes a full publishing service, is not for profit, which uses a subsidised model to contribute to low-cost publishing, and operates in line with international standards and practices. They explained how this is a clear and cost-effective route to publication, removes pay wall barrier, meets OA requirements of UKRI, and offers an opportunity to explore alternative models of dissemination and impact (Perianes-Rodríguez & Olmeda-Gómez 2019). Some of the challenges for this form of publishing include how you fund a start-up journal, how you address issues around REF’ability and prestige, and the perception that OA offers lower quality. They also drew attention to how the pace of change is pushing institutions to implement solutions even though there is still a lack of clarity on how mandates from UKRI, REF and others will work in practice.

The panel presentation concluded with a summary from Professor Murray Leith (Editorial Board Member, Scottish Universities Press; Professor of Politics, University of West of Scotland) who talked to the notion that the REF says it doesn’t matter where you publish it’s about the quality and asked how we ensure that the quality of the peer review progress is rigorous. There are, we were told, lots of benefits to OA publishing models including a wider ranging visibility for research articles. It enables quick and easy publishing of proceedings which he argued provided conferences with better reach and significance. In contrast he asked us to think about what the impact of the need for funding in order to get published might be for academics.

This last point seemed to be a thread for all of the presenters who agreed that rewiring the funding model is the big opportunity. We are paid to write, to review, to edit, to publish. But currently it costs us nothing to get published. In effect, for authors publishing is already OA. Introducing a fee to publish, is that going to shut down that access? How will it impact of ECR’s and PGRS? Will it promote inclusivity or constrain it? In the case of my own first paper, I doubt anybody would have paid for it to get published, yet it is still being read and cited. It was my personal entry into being a published academic, and a key route to finding my identity as an academic and a researcher. Without that free and open route to publishing how do we develop academic identities, research cultures and CPD for ECRs. Especially if they have to first get funding to enter the community of practice.

So, what were the main challenges that came out of the discussion:

• Inclusivity – the need to pay to publish is a serious barrier and will work in opposition to the OA ethos of democratising access to research. If we want OA then it needs to be open at both ends of the process. It is not enough to make it free to read it needs to be free to write and publish as well.

• Research Culture – how do we induct ERC’s and PGRS into that academic identity, build a culture of academic citizenship, provide CPD for authors, reviewers, editors. If a university had its own OA journal, I could imagine a situation in which senior staff edit, review and mentor, while junior staff get to write and publish. Embedding mentoring within a structured practice that has valued outputs and CPD.

• Impact Factor – in the media subject area I have still to find that mythological ‘high impact factor’ journal. Yet we produce good work that is of high value. It would seem that we need to wean ourselves off of the impact factor addiction and instead educate the REF and others to the value of rigorous, transparent, and dialogic peer review.

• Cost of publishing – this was a topic that was raised by the SUP team, and they explained that they are subsidised to pay for proof reading, layout, design and other finishing services. To be honest, I already outsource my own proof reading to an online service. It is not expensive and a service that would be able to proofread and layout an article would cost a relatively small amount of money. But I get that it is needed and consequently, it is not possible to argue for a completely free service without cost. Nonetheless, the costs are arguably negligible compared to the value OA could bring to researchers and HEI’s.

Personally I would see OA as a really positive development. But we do need to be part of the debate and ensure that access for all academics is equitable and exclusive. We have work to do on shifting the current focus away from high impact factor onto rigour and transparency. It is a revolution that is coming and we should be leading the debate about what this means. Should we be sad about the possible demise of the large-scale academic publishing model? The panel concluded: probably not.

_{Perianes-Rodríguez, A., Olmeda-Gómez, C. Effects of journal choice on the visibility of scientific publications: a comparison between subscription-based and full Open Access models. Scientometrics 121, 1737–1752 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03265-y}