Last year we published a two-part blog post, in which we laid out the problems with BPCs (Book Processing Charges) to achieve open access (OA) for books and highlighted various alternatives (Part One); then we suggested some practical steps to convince budget holders to invest in collective models instead (Part Two). In this Part Three, we outline another tool that libraries can use in assessing OA book publishing models: assessment criteria. We hope this is a useful community resource of criteria for libraries to consider adapting and re-using in creating their own rubric to evaluate which OA programmes they should invest their money in.

Where the criteria suggestions come from

At a 2023 webinar co-organised by Jisc and the Open Access Books Network (OABN), there was particular interest in an evaluation template used by the University of St. Andrews (USTAN) to assess and manage their read-and-publish deals. Adapted from a template created by the University of Salford, USTAN also considered new OA publishing models such as Subscribe2Open, open infrastructures, and collective action and community frameworks. Jacqueline Proven, Head of Open Research at USTAN, further expanded on this in a blog post for Jisc. 

Fast-forward to 2024 when Jisc and the OABN held a follow-up workshop to surface practical tips for libraries to consider when evaluating collective funding models for open access books and developing their own institutional policies. The themes that emerged from these discussions form the basis of the ‘model text’ and suggestions below. We hope that libraries will take what they need from this community resource and use it to create their own assessment rubrics.

Evaluation criteria for consideration when assessing open access book models

Before you begin

Asking detailed questions in an evaluation template will make the benefits, risks and costs involved clear and identifiable. The thoughts below were prompted by our asking the webinar attendees “What would you/your institution look for when considering whether to support a collective/diamond model to fund Open Access books?” We have subsequently drawn the responses into themes. They are necessarily somewhat generalised: the questions your own institution is interested in will be more specific, but these may be a good basis from which to begin.

Financial benefits

Are there savings to be made with open content? 

• Do the OA resources feature on/offer strong alternatives to recommended reading or reading lists? Do they relate to areas of research activity within your institution?

• Do these OA alternatives therefore offer savings on access or acquisition costs for closed content, and if so, can you estimate how much? 

• Do they improve student/researcher experience with greater ease of access?

• Can some of the savings created as a result be used to support OA initiatives?

• Consider, does this replace the need to subscribe to some closed content?

  • Where the backlist is included (for example Opening the Future programmes, or Direct2Open and Fund to Mission), you could use the content/acquisition budget instead of an OA fund.

• Does this model offer value for money?

  • How many OA books will this model support?

  • Is the press transparent about how the financial model meets their costs? (there is more detail on this in the section further down titled ‘Transparency of model, costs and process’)

  • How does this model compare with others in terms of cost and the number of books it supports?

  • Is there a backlist component that adds value to the local collection? 

  • Does the publisher have clear goals for the use of the funding? 

Value to the institution

• What does local use/value look like at your institution? 

  • Is there a subject/disciplinary match with areas of research?

  • Is there a subject/disciplinary match with areas of teaching and learning? 

  • Is the material published on a CC-licence to facilitate reuse eg. Do the licences enable adaptation to further your teaching aims? Where applicable, does backlist content included in the model allow innumerable reuses and adaptation to support your teaching aims? 

  • Does supporting this model or press align with the values of your institution?

  • Do your authors publish with the press(es) involved, or might they do so in future? This may be particularly relevant if the model eliminates the need for the press to charge Book Processing Charges (BPCs) 

  • Does the model support the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with values around social responsibility and widening participation? Does this matter to your institution?

  • Does the model align with your institutional OA policy? 

• Would supporting this model or publisher help your authors to fulfil an OA book policy mandate?

  • Do the authors retain the rights to their work published via this model?

Value to the scholarly community

• Consider the potential for transformative influence: do you believe this model can have a genuine impact on OA book publishing? Does that matter to your institution, and how might you assess it?

  • Note the long tail of monograph publishing and the longer ‘half life’ of a book than an OA journal article; it takes longer for books to show their impact and get citations. 

Transparency of model, costs and process

• Consider also transparency: is there clarity from the publisher(s) about where the money goes and how much support the model needs/is currently receiving? Is the press transparent about how the costs are calculated?

  • When there is publicly available information on BPCs, ask further what does that actually cover? 

• How does this model compare with others in terms of a) costs, b) number of resources made OA as a result? 

• Is the content guaranteed to be OA? If not, what are the restrictions or uncertainties involved?

• Consider also the governance structure of the publisher(s)/model: can libraries have a say? 

  • This is particularly worth considering if the model claims to be ‘community-led’ or ‘community-driven’ in some way. Do those claims have some practical consequences, or are they simply window-dressing?

  • This might not be a deciding factor for your library but it may be a consideration further down the line if you are asked to find cost savings from OA spend.

Measuring (and maximising) impact 

We also asked the webinar attendees “How might you measure the impact of supporting a collective/diamond model for OA books?” Some suggestions included thinking about the following:

• Have authors published with the press(es) involved?

• Institution-specific usage can be difficult to measure for OA resources: are there other ways you could assess local use/value?

• How do you find out if the model is successful? Has the model been able to demonstrate specific outcomes e.g. number of OA books published over the period of your support?

  • Is there work you can do in your institution to encourage recognition for academics publishing work OA?

  • Well-respected academic colleagues can be powerful advocates. Are there any OA champions in your institution who could help you raise awareness and speak for the value of OA publishing more generally and the models you support in particular? Combining librarian and academic discussion of OA can be very valuable in awareness-raising.

Some notes on general OA advocacy

The webinar attendees also suggested ideas that were more general points about OA, but not necessarily practical points to use in assessment criteria. We have recorded them here for completeness and because many of these ideas are relevant and might be useful in conversation with academics, library liaison, library administrators, research offices, etc.

• What are you telling your researchers to do when they publish? Does this model support that strategy?

  • Consider promoting smaller open access presses to authors (do some research for the researcher and make it public).

  • Think about how you can encourage your academics to align with this desired direction of travel. 

  • Make the ethical and value-driven arguments to authors.

  • Emphasise to academics that the library cannot pay limitless BPCs – consider how to make academics aware of publishing venues that are more financially viable/sustainable.

  • Remember that BPCs are not the same thing as costs; they are what the publisher wants to charge (i.e., price, not cost). 

• Look at whether the OA programmes you support match with the curricula at your institution and encourage teaching staff to use open resources as part of their work and reading lists. (Note that some subjects have professional requirements for the use of certain textbooks, and arguments for OA alternatives may be more difficult to make in these cases.)

• OA publishing improves citation rates, increases visibility of research etc. This may improve the institution’s standing in HEI rankings. Does this matter at your institution?

Useful practical links

In Part Two of our blog posts ‘How can I persuade my institution to support collective funding for open access books?’ we listed several examples of assessment criteria already in use at several libraries. We re-list those below for your convenience and, in addition to those resources, include some new links that might help you to create a rubric of your own (some of these have gone online since our original post in 2023):

• SPARC open investment statements, rubrics, and principles to help the community learn from one another’s experiences and practices:  https://sparcopen.org/our-work/negotiation-resources/strategic-priorities-working-group/open-investment-statements-and-principles/ 

• SPARC ‘unbundling’ resource series seeks to support libraries that may consider unbundling from a journal package (or cancelling altogether) in order to free up funds to support OA: https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-knowledge-base/unbundling-profiles/ 

• Open Book Environment (OBE) Dashboard: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15TtYZtYNamjo-SZ6_7hI3pY64LeAwC2ElBSDFLxbmN4/edit#gid=59142032 

• Sherpa for Books (beta): https://beta.sherpa.ac.uk/oa-books

• University of Manchester Strategic framework for the acquisition of open access monographs: https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=72627

• LYRASIS’ Open Access Community Investment Program (OACIP) provides an excellent assessment framework for libraries.

• The University of California Scholarly Transformation Advice and Review (STAR) Team has developed a criteria form and evaluation system to help them make informed investment decisions about OA: https://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sclg/star/criteria_summary

• The team at California also have an excellent questionnaire for vendors that really brings to the surface all the relevant values: https://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Vendor-Questionnaire-2021-final.pdf

• Temple University developed a plan for how they might more strategically use their collections budget to support the global transition to open, and distilled their initial review in a useful blog post.

Conclusion

Please take what is helpful from this post and use it as you see fit. If you create your own assessment criteria, please consider sharing it with the community so others can use your ideas as a springboard to creating their own. The Open Access Books Network (OABN) is a good forum for sharing, as are the Jisc email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities, for example, UK-CORR and OAGoodPractice. Also, social media platforms like Blue Sky, LinkedIn and Mastodon. Don’t forget to tag us on socials!