10 reasons for societies not to fear open access!

Societies have been skeptical about open access, but should they be?

For many societies the revenue generated from journal programmes can be a welcome shot in the arm. This can then be used to fund other services such as grants and bursaries, events and outreach. Traditionally, this revenue has been realised through subscriptions, with societies outsourcing their publishing functions to larger publishers who, in turn, sell content to libraries through their ‘big deals.’ However, publishing is changing and traditional subscriptions are being eroded. Although publishers’ ‘big deals’ are (just about) hanging on for now, open access and the spectre of Sci-Hub means that subscriptions may not be the golden goose they once were.

Despite this, many societies are still reluctant to start open access journals, worrying that flipping existing journals will leave them with a big hole in their finances. But is this fear warranted? Below I argue that there has never been a better time for societies to embrace open access publication.

1. Open access increases a journal’s audience and citations

The primary reason societies launch journals is to serve the community. To be successful, journals need readership and citations. Open access, by its very nature, helps removes any barriers to readership, but also increases citations when compared to subscription journals. This is a fact shown by a study on the journal Nature Communications. Nature Communications used to publish both open access and subscription access content, so citation rates for both types of paper could be fairly compared. The study found that open access trumped subscription access. Read the paper: ‘The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention.’

2. Open access is good for the community

Open access goes beyond the increased readership and citations which members of a society’s community deserve. Open access papers can be remixed and mined for use in new tools and applications. This can open up research beyond its core community to new audiences, helping expand visibility and encouraging more interdisciplinary research. New unthought-of connections may be formed between communities. This helps to take research forward more quickly and in new ways, expanding the prevalence and voice of the community and society.

In addition, reports such as Untangling Academic Publishing (Fyfe et al.) explain why and how commercial publishers became so dominant and whether the current situation could be ripe for change. The report (summarised here) goes on to say that it could be time for societies to consider the balance between income generation and the long term consequences of the current publishing model. Societies could use their authority to develop and legitimise alternative publishing models (such as diamond open access) and examine if current co-publishing is really a good fit for their mission. Launching their own cost-effective open access journals, independently of a large publisher could maintain income, but also open up research to all.

3. Open access reduces reliance on big publishers and the ‘big deal’

To generate any reasonable amount of revenue, subscriptions rely on being part of a ‘big deal.’ Selling to global clients and consortias is complicated and budgets are such that any journals not part of a ‘big deal’ will struggle. This means societies generally have to share journal revenue with a large publisher to gain a foothold — but is this the best deal for them? As open access journals do not rely on library subscriptions, new journals using this model have barrierless readership and stand a better chance of succeeding independently from large publishers, providing they are indexed. Sci-Hub is also causing havoc with subscriptions and, although it is illegal, it is beginning to bite. Open access has no such problems and is growing in popularity.

4. Open access can generate revenue for societies

Commercial publishers are making money out of open access journals and PLOS has proved the concept is sustainable. Funders are increasingly accepting and mandating for the gold open access model. Provided that societies can keep Article Processing Charges (APCs) reasonable, their credibility in the community can make their journal a viable place to publish. Of course, to keep charges reasonable, costs need to be kept low and this can be done with a partner such as Veruscript that charges just £300 per article. As societies are mission-, not profit-driven, they can beat commercial publishers on price and take back their rightful place as curators of content.

5. Open access comes in more than one flavour

Gold, green and diamond options are available for open access. Societies can choose the flavour that suits them or mix things up and use gold open access to generate revenue, which could then be reinvested to support journals in emerging fields though a diamond model, where authors don’t pay. Open access, therefore, gives societies options to build fields and support members, but can also generate revenue.

6. Other societies are already running open access journals

Some societies took the plunge with open access many years ago. EMBO has been successfully publishing Molecular Systems Biology since 2005 and most larger societies have open access lists. Others have hybrid journals, recognising that authors are increasingly demanding open access (although this model is not popular with librarians). Nature transitioned Nature Communications from a hybrid to a fully open access journal, again demonstrating that the appetite for open access is there and suggesting that it is the way the market is moving. Shouldn’t all societies join them, so not to get left behind?

7. Open access can be a benefit to society members

Members are looking for trustworthy venues to publish and are worried about predatory journals. Societies add credibility to the journals they launch, giving members strong, trustworthy, visible, community journals in which to publish. Their strength in niches helps highlight the community’s research and strengthens the community as a whole. If they go down the gold open access route, they can offer members subsidised APCs as a benefit to being part of the society. This could replace the traditional offer of member access to their journal. If members still want a print copy, there is no reason this can’t also be offered — it won’t affect the open access programme and copies can be printed on demand.

8. Open access fulfils a society’s mission

The publishing activities of a society serves its mission by enabling the dissemination of information about its subject area.

Open access journals allow for increased dissemination as there are no barriers to access and content can be reused and remixed. They are not locked behind a paywall and are accessible to the many, rather than the few. Open access fulfils a society’s objectives better than subscription access, period!

9. New open access journals can keep good content from going elsewhere

Now that the tools are in place to launch risk free, cost-effective open access journals (talk to us here at Veruscript!), launching a spinoff open access journal from a flagship title is a possibility. If the spinoff is associated with the core brand, the scope kept tight and a manuscript transfer service set up for manuscripts that don’t quite meet the flagship’s criteria (but are still very good), then successful journals can be created that keep papers within a society's own publishing ecosystem. This stops good papers ending up in competitors’ journals. If an APC is charged, extra revenue can be generated to supplement that of the flagship title.

Of course, we at Veruscript think that flagship journals should also be flipped to open access — if the brand and reputation are strong, the benefits can outweigh the risk — but if a society is not ready, spinoff titles can help to test the water and offer a great service to the community too.

10. Launching open access journals is not as expensive as you think

There are many ways to launch an open access journal. Veruscript offers one of those ways, with charges to journal owners of just £300 per article. APCs can be kept low and risk can be offset, as we won’t charge a penny until articles are published and authors have paid. We offer the systems and processes for societies to efficiently run journals, letting them fully concentrate on the editorial process and soliciting papers.

Conclusion

Societies shouldn’t fear open access, instead they should embrace it! Reliance on tried and tested business models may mean societies struggle in the long term. The market is moving towards open research and learned societies need to be part of it to remain relevant.