The study provides a good overview of the scholarly journal publishing market and the evolution of open access funding models. The methodology covers how publications where identified along with their OA status and how APCs were determined. The data analysis shows variations in funding models (gold or hybrid) between publishers, growth of OA outputs, average APCs charged and revenue generated by publisher and by top journals. The authors note that APCs are market driven rather than based on publication cost. The Fair Open Access Alliance determined that a cost of $50 per page was enough to sustain an open access journal, and they recommend a total APC of no more than $1,000 per article. These 5 for-profit publishers are charging considerably more than that and making a greater portion of their revenue from open access publishing based on their market dominance.

This study illustrates how the dominant scholarly journal publishers are using open access article publication to increase their profits to the detriment of equitable access to publication for researchers. It also underscores how critical it is to diversify publication platforms and promote ethical practices to sustain the research enterprise.

PLOS Mental Health is described as “an inclusive, peer-reviewed, journal that aims to address challenges and gaps in the field of mental health research, treatment, and care in ways that put the lived experience of individuals and communities first.” PLOS Complex Systems brings together “impactful research that facilitates understanding of complex systems in all disciplines.” These and all PLOS journals provide extensive documentation on their submission guidelines, policies and manuscript review and publication processes.

• all sectors can take steps to diversify their workforces;
• publishers can adopt practices to attract and support a wide pool of participants;
• libraries can incorporate anti-racist practices into instruction, outreach and research services;
• peer reviewers can learn about unconscious bias; and
• authors can advocate for themselves and others.

Suggested actions are referenced with tools for guidance. The authors address the need for demographic data and encourage authors, reviewers and editors to declare their gender, race and ethnicity, and publishers to collect the data. They recognize that people are in different positions of power to affect change. They offer each of us a resource that is well documented and well organized. Each of us needs to determine the focus of our commitment to making scholarly communication more diverse, equitable and inclusive.

Funders do not require researchers to pay a fee to make their works immediately and openly available. Coalition S, a group of European funding organizations, made it clear in this Plan S blog post that ACS’ new charge is a violation of author rights and contrary to the principles of open science. The Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) has also issued a statement emphasizing the fundamental freedom and equity of researchers’ rights to deposit their works in repositories at no cost.

“COAR strongly encourages others in the scholarly community to raise their objections to this fee, and in particular, urges ACS authors and all researchers to refuse to sign over the rights to their Article Accepted Manuscripts, or pay any charges to share a work that they already own.

COAR’s response to the American Chemical Society’s new fee for repository deposit

Our challenge is to recognize the value of open science that is evaluated not on the basis of who publishes it but on the merits and reproducibility of the work. Only then will publishers like the American Chemical Society be forced to justify their contributions to their disciplines and society.

In the third week of September we celebrate the labor, role and practice of peer review to indicate some degree of research and scholarship integrity. Does a peer review label truly indicate a work’s validity, accuracy, quality and originality? Is peer review conducted as a gatekeeping tool (or signal) to benefit a publisher or to improve the quality of the work? Research integrity and trustworthiness are of critical concern in a marketplace where profits and careers are made upon the publication of scholarship. When these interests undermine works that have real and direct impact on life, the stakes are high.

Peer review has different meaning in different contexts and to different stakeholders. The new NISO Standard of Peer Review Terminology goes a long way to provide structure for the many ways peer review is conducted. The Libraries have published a new Peer Review guide to provide information on standards, best practices and training generally and within specific contexts. The guide aspires to:

• demystify peer review,
• encourage more scholars to conduct peer review and to receive recognition for their labor, and
• explore ways to increase equity and inclusion in research and scholarship through its practice.

The challenges to peer review are many, from insufficient numbers of qualified reviewers for the proliferation of works to uncompensated/unrecognized labor, the evolving role of AI, inequities in participation, cost, etc. Several writers contribute their views of the single most pressing issue for the future of scholarly publishing. The topic is worthy of discussion and innovation as we all grapple with truth, integrity and inclusive participation in scholarship.

For full details on eligibility requirements, award determination criteria, and the application form, visit the SOAR Fund guide. Applications will be considered after October 6th, 2023 and April 19th, 2024 review deadlines, and awards will be granted equitably to authors from STEM and Humanities/Social Science fields. Over the 2023 academic year, 16 awards were granted to authors representing 14 departments. A bibliography provides links to funded works since SOAR’s inception in 2016.

Over the years, the DORA coalition grew, formalized and became more action-oriented. Publisher funding enabled the organization to create a website and hire a program director. It sponsored forums where publishers, research institutes and funders could develop alternative, more holistic evaluation guides and tools, such as Balanced, broad, responsible: A practical guide for research evaluators, a case study repository “Reimagining academic assessment: stories of innovation and change,” and the forthcoming  Tools to Advance Research Assessment (TARA), a resource to develop policies and practices for academic career assessment.

DORA has made explicit the inextricable connections between research assessment, open scholarship, and equity & inclusion. It has altered its own governance structure to be more inclusive of organizations and practices in the Global South. It recognizes the work of other organizations and initiatives working to change research assessment across systems and regions across the globe. Power dynamics that maintain old, embedded practices are strong. As it looks forward, DORA remains focused on increasing awareness of the negative consequences of restrictive research assessment, developing alternatives to reform it, supporting advocates for ethical and equitable assessment, and securing funding to achieve its mission. DORA has partnered to transform research assessment so that it is more open, inclusive, holistic and fair. When this becomes the new norm, everyone will benefit from improved research integrity, breadth and impact.

Note: The Libraries provide a Research Impact Indicators & Metrics guide which includes an “Apply Metrics Responsibly” page.

“…a decentralized (i.e. federated), resilient, evolvable network, based on open standards that allow seamlessly moving from one provider to another, under the governance of the scholarly community.”

They describe a federated scholarly information network comprised of a repository infrastructure provided by academic libraries which hold outputs (data, software, methods/protocols) and narratives (research articles, multimedia, policy advice). This information network relies on open standards and the active involvement of those producing the research. Solutions are in place and the technical advantages are many. The challenges lie in the nuances of exceptions to what should be openly available, procurement processes, market failures and reward structures. However, antidotes to these challenges currently exist.

The authors conclude that the time is ripe for journal replacement. Redirecting funding to community-owned networks and content is pivotal, as is enabling research that rewards quality of the work over prestige of the journal. Their arguments are not new, but they bring the evidence and rationale together in a strong call for change, now.

The Open Access Journals Toolkit is a new resource developed collaboratively by the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to guide existing and new open access journal publishers in a volatile global scholarly communication landscape. Articles (with references) cover issues of funding, setup, peer review and quality assurance, running a journal in a local or regional language, software and technical infrastructure, persistent identifiers, licensing, recruiting staff and building an editorial board, and much more. The Toolkit is organized into 6 searchable sections:

• Getting started
• Running a journal
• Indexing
• Staffing
• Policies
• Infrastructure.

Checklists, a definition of open access with a grid of different funding models, a glossary, an FAQ and an “About” section round out the Toolkit. It is openly licensed with Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 and can be downloaded and printed as a whole or as individual articles. Versions in English and French are currently available, with other languages forthcoming. The Toolkit is intentionally designed for accessibility and use by scholarly publishers working in different contexts and regions across the world. Because of its comprehensiveness, it serves those thinking about starting an OA journal, those considering how to better establish their journals, those who are concerned with their journal’s financial sustainability and those with challenges in specific areas. The Toolkit fills a much needed gap in the nuts and bolts of open access journal publishing.

“Library publishing is values-based” is the fundamental ethic from which the three other frames grow. Statements and guidance under this frame offer library publishers prompts to examine the contexts within which they operate and to explicitly define their values. “Library publishing is both librarianship and publishing” is the second frame; the statements and guidance here encourage library publishers to interrogate their roles, power and practices as they emanate from both traditions. “Library publishing is community-oriented,” the third frame with its statements and guidance, challenges library publishers to grapple with their agency as it relates to communities and individuals within them. The fourth frame, “Library publishing is dynamic,” calls out the unique attributes of library publishers and their opportunities to create positive change. The frames, statements and guidance sit in relationship to each other, each unique and together a blueprint.

Note below: In 2014 UMass Amherst was one of 27 founding institutions, with Educopia, of the Library Publishing Coalition. The 2023 Library Publishing Directory includes 159 libraries across the globe, up from 125 in 2018. At this time of building momentum for open science (see UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science and U.S. Federal Agencies’ 2023 Year of Open Science), library publishers have a singular opportunity to become significant open, transparent, accessible actors in scholarly discourse for public good.

Note below – 2: I served on the task force that authored this Framework.