Community over Commercialization
About the author: Professor Morris Altman is Dean of the University of Dundee School of Business and Chair of the SUP Editorial Board.
The theme of this year’s International Open Access Week, Community over Commercialization, poses some important questions for academic publishing:
What is lost when a shrinking number of corporations control knowledge production rather than researchers themselves?
What is the cost of business models that entrench extreme levels of profit?
Can commercialization ever work in support of the public interest?
What options for using community-controlled infrastructure already exist that might better serve the interests of the research community and the public?
How can we shift the default toward using these community-minded options?
As Chair of the Scottish Universities Press (SUP) Editorial Board, these questions have influenced our work to establish an institution-led and not-for-profit publishing platform for the research community in Scotland.
One of the core philosophical points underlying open access publishing, which is embodied in SUP, is that peer reviewed published outputs are available to the broader community. This includes the general public as well as academics whose universities don’t have access to certain digital journals and research monographs. Currently, by definition, there are restrictions on who has access to what, based on the subscriptions paid for by the organization they’re affiliated to. Non-affiliation often means no access. This translates into limiting access to peer reviewed knowledge based on the ability to pay. This, in turn, affects the quality of democratic discourse.
This happens because most academic publishing is controlled by a relatively small number of profit-oriented publishing houses which, as with most such organizations, are concerned with covering their costs and maximizing profits. Even university presses have a similar orientation unless costs are subsidized.
Is there a not-for-profit or more community-oriented alternative to the commercially oriented publishing houses that hold a quasi-monopoly position on the market? Community-oriented publishing remains small. But now, with an increased focus on open-access publishing by universities and funders of research, there has been a call for different types of publishers with more of an emphasis on universal access to published research and more focus on outputs that are not always consistent with the principles of profit or share value maximization.
Although research policy has moved in favour of open access, with UKRI and other major European funders of research mandating open access to funded research, it remains to be seen how researcher practice will respond to these changes. As it stands, academics have a free reign to submit for publication and get published at little or no costs to themselves. And serious publishers generate an output that is of high quality. Editorial policy and refereeing remain in the hands of the academics. Where restrictions are in place, it is often through academics imposing artificial barriers to entry. But this is another story and challenge worthy of further discussion at another time.
Clearly, not-for-profit publishing houses that focus on open access find themselves in a very competitive market. But there is much room for dynamic and innovative not-for-profit open access publishers, such as SUP, to make an impressive mark on the publishing world. This will pressure the for-profits to re-orient their behaviour and would also provide alternatives to scholars seeking quality publishing outlets with a significant reader reach.
But it must be noted that the market is a dynamic place and the large commercial publishing houses are already orienting themselves to open access publishing in their negotiations with universities. To succeed, the not-for-profits must recognize the obstacles and challenges before them. We must produce books, for example, that meet the highest production standards and build a reputation for quality. We have an opportunity to publish path-breaking research that might very well be overlooked by for-profit publishers as not being profitable enough.
SUP policy and processes have been aligned to respond directly to the opportunities and challenges of the current academic publishing landscape. Using the skills and expertise that exist within Scottish institutions, we have formed collaborative editorial and management structures to govern the Press. These in-kind internal contributions will be supported by ethical commercial partnerships to bring in specialist expertise. This allows us to offer a fully featured publishing service that meets the quality standards of the academic community, and at a fair price. As such, the SUP infrastructure is a case study in community over commercialization.
The success of SUP and other community-led initiatives lies with the very academic communities they have been established to serve. These not-for-profit and community-oriented models will only thrive if researchers choose to publish their work through such channels, supported by institutions that recognize the long-term societal and financial benefits they offer. During International Open Access Week, I encourage colleagues – working in research and administrative capacities – to consider the possible futures for academic publishing in an open access landscape and to think about how you can contribute to creating a fairer and more sustainable future.
