Early in 2024, OASPA set out to release recommended practices to increase (financial) equity in open access (OA) publishing. We are grateful for peer review, inputs and anonymous comments from stakeholders across all continents who have responded to our open consultation.
Feedback suggested our draft was detailed, important and helpful, but needed more work. It has taken significant time to review and consider over 500 free-text points of input before releasing these revised recommended practices.
Here we summarise what we have changed, and why. Not all feedback, nor explanation for every edit, is captured, but we report on the general nature of responses, and how we revised our work. Our goal in making revisions has been to be as thorough as possible, and to encourage and enable positive change.
Image by congerdesign from Pixabay
Re-framing
Plenty of independent feedback emphasised that equity is bigger, wider and more complex than the financial layer. OASPA’s recommendations do not, for instance, address multilingualism, plurality of formats, refreshed approaches to governance/representation, tackling prejudice, or addressing power imbalances to improve referencing, recognition and indeed celebration of academic expertise from all world regions.
These recommended practices are focused on financial routes to achieving OA, and some felt this limited scope should be broadened out in our revised work:
“Systemic issues around inclusion of researchers from the Global South, certain disciplines, and certain demographics, extend far beyond open access pricing models.”
However, feedback also told us that our focused approach, and depth on this topic, makes our work helpful and practically applicable.
OA financials are not the only facet that matters. Listening to all inputs, we are recasting this work as course correction – i.e., ways to mitigate exclusion and make an inequitable system less harmful by tackling workflow and financial barriers. It is a re-framing that matters because we know that addressing payment barriers and inclusion via OA models will not solve all issues.
Increasing equity in OA is part of OASPA’s overall strategic focus, and connects back to our mission and focus around advancing open access. These recommended practices are one step on a long road. Forthcoming efforts have been signalled more clearly, and a completely revised goal #5 seeks inputs on how OASPA should develop future phases of this work.
Language, length and structure
Based on feedback from several regions, we have revised our work to be pithier, more precise and less tentative. We have also merged aspects dealing with waivers under one goal, and added a definition for per-publication charges – which can be distinct from author-facing fees. Looping references within the document have been removed, and sentences are more direct throughout. We have also pruned, condensed and sharpened our document, and clarified which recommendations are for which stakeholders. A priority framework of ‘suggested’, ‘more helpful’,‘ better still’ applies to lists of practices. These revisions are in line with consistent feedback that the original draft was too long, difficult to understand, and too complex to operationalise.
Limitations of these revisions are that the work may come across as more demanding or directive in tone, and practices under goal #4 (reducing barriers and burdens in workflows) have limited applicability to OA books.
Examples
The examples in our draft were unanimously appreciated and much loved. The listing is now enriched with publishing activity from Latin America, Africa, India and Oceania, and discussions from our Wayfinders series supplement the examples. We have gathered these revised examples of practice into a dedicated online resource, creating a collection of inclusive OA practices in a wide range of publishing contexts across the global OA network.
We welcome feedback from all regions, and all types and sizes of organisation, so we can add to, edit, update, build on and maintain this online record of examples over time.
Tools and thoughts, not checks and bans
OASPA is suggesting these practices to help increase the chances of a more inclusive journey for scholars in publishing their work OA. We have a role in convening conversation on OA models, and helping publishing organisations surmount problems and respond to challenges – such as the issue of exclusivity in who can participate in OA publishing.
We believe that the way forward is for this work to be released as a practical toolkit and source of suggestions – rather than a checklist of deliverables as a condition for OASPA membership, and we are not mandating specific approaches.
This belief, coupled with our decision not to release a method for monitoring adoption at this stage, clarifies that this effort is realistically a journey – not a destination – for all stakeholders, including OASPA itself. This position also considers several challenges that (we have heard) are faced by smaller OA publishing organisations, including: lack of scale, reach and ability to communicate with purchasers and funders; lack of resources; lack of skilled staff; and lack of relevant infrastructure.
Evaluation and description, not classification and polarisation
We received requests to develop a consistent taxonomy for OA models and heard calls for OASPA to provide standardisation, in particular, around no-author-charge models. Somewhat contrary to this, we have emphasised the importance of describing the way of achieving OA irrespective of labels and model classification.
With practices so varied and divergent (even within any one type of OA model), with many organisations using a combination of approaches to achieve OA, and with the sector in a state of wide experimentation and ongoing evolution, labels and umbrella terms for OA models (e.g., Read & Publish, Transformative Agreement, Gold OA, S2O, Diamond OA) can have both a polarising and a masking effect.
Dogmatic views based on the type of publishing organisation, or the name of an OA model used, can be counterproductive. What matters is the detail of what is actually taking place to enable OA publishing, regardless of labels or jargon; and also that researchers and those who pay for, purchase, fund or invest in OA publishing, are able to understand this detail and evaluate OA publishing options. Our revised work stresses the importance of this over terminology. OA model labels are only useful as a shorthand if everyone means the same thing when using / reading these terms, which is not the case at present.
So, OASPA is recommending that the method (route to OA) and money used to sustain OA publishing (what logic underpins pricing / what funds or revenues are involved) should be clear. Publishing organisations are asked to share as much as they can to support decision making from purchasers/funders.
Co-development and next steps
No OA models can work without partnership. The roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders, and the theme of co-creation, have been emphasised in our revised work because publishing organisations can achieve even more inclusive routes to deliver OA with support from those who fund, pay for and invest in publishing services. This relies on mutual trust, which can be built through transparency, connection and willingness on all sides.
OASPA’s aim is to acknowledge issues of exclusion in OA publishing, convene conversation around that, and suggest practices to alleviate these issues, with examples as inspiration. Please let us know what you think of the revised recommendations and our list of examples. We value feedback and input from any organisation, and would particularly like to hear from OASPA members and supporters. We also seek feedback on building out next steps in our equity in OA efforts.
Finally, we want these resources to be helpful to those ready and willing to act. As one responder put it: “There is a lot of room for talking shops and potential endless chin-stroking when the solutions are listed in your examples: we need more action now.”.
