Open Voices: Malavika Legge, OASPA, on the future of Open Access publishing

Today we are talking to Malavika Legge about the future of Open Access publishing. Malavika is Program Manager for OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association).

Hardy: Hi Malavika, nice talking to you! Can you please introduce yourself and tell us about your role at OASPA?

Malavika: Sure, thanks, Hardy. I started my career at a very big publishing organisation. I was working for a division called Informa Health Care, which belongs to Informa, the company that also owns Taylor and Francis. I was working mostly on journals, but also on books, databases and encyclopedias. I then moved to the Biochemical Society, leading on the journals programme for this self-publishing learned society.

Since 2012, first at Informa and then also at the Biochemical Society, my focus has gravitated towards Open Access: How can a meaningful, reasonable, fair transition to Open Access be enabled from the publisher's side? And while I was at the Biochemical Society, I helped to form the Society Publishers' Coalition (SocPC), which is a group of learned society publishers that are mission driven and are looking to transition to Open Access.

With all this focus on Open, last year, I made the move to OASPA, which has been really wonderful! At OASPA I am Program Manager, which means I've got the privilege of having a couple of focused projects to deliver OASPA’s mission to make Open Access better. My role is focused on two interlinked projects. One is called the OA Market where we are looking at money flows that are sustaining Open Access, so, how Open Access is being achieved from a financial/economic perspective. The second project is Equity in Open Access, which is a linked issue, because we have some concerns that the way Open Access is being delivered, as we see when we study the OA Market, is exclusive and has some equity issues.


Hardy: Looking at your recent blog post, it starts with the sentence: “Equity is a word that packs quite a punch”. Why do you think equity is such a current issue in Open Access publishing?

Malavika: Good that you are mentioning that it is being discussed now. Yes, it is a current topic although it should have always been on the agenda. Many others would agree that the inclusion of all researchers, no matter where they are from, no matter what their career stage, no matter what their access to funding is, that they should be enabled to publish Open Access. Humanity will not benefit from the full potential of Open Access unless all of humanity has equitable access to Open Access publishing.

There are two parts to this. One is for us to think about equity in pricing models, regardless of publishing business model. What is an equitable approach to pricing? Because otherwise researchers will continue to face financial barriers to participation. Equity doesn't stop there, it's also about being a stakeholder with influence. We feel that without the development of more equitable engagement models for all forms of publishing, researchers will continue to face barriers to participation. That's why we think it's important to increase equity and include everyone.


Hardy: Let's discuss one of the business models.  We in Ireland are one of the most active countries with regards to transformative agreements, and we are proud of the additional Open Access options for our authors. Why would you say that the APC (Article Processing Charge) model that underlies the transformative agreements is problematic?

Malavika: It's a great question, Hardy! I think anybody that is figuring out and taking steps forward towards Open should be proud. But we're all learning, and we are noticing what's happening with the proliferation of certain pathways to achieving Open Access. The issue with APCs is fundamentally that it presents a financial barrier to participation.

This problem is more known and talked about for scholars in certain world regions, for example, in places where you look at the APC price point, and it is unthinkable as it is such a huge part of an annual salary or a research budget. The APC becomes a financial barrier to participation, and I would say an exclusionary factor, therefore, for scholars in many under- or poorly resourced countries.

But equally I think it's important to note that the APC is also a problem for scholars at a teaching intensive institution in high income countries like the US or New Zealand. The APC is equally a problem for a clinician who is hospital affiliated, perhaps in Ireland, where the university system might be making a lot of moves towards enabling Open Access for affiliated authors but the clinician or other practitioners fall outside of such efforts. The same is certainly true in many places across the UK and Europe. Equally humanities scholars in a country like Canada will not easily find funding for APCs. I’m deliberately picking high income countries in these examples to demonstrate how there are still researchers who are excluded in wealthy and high-income nations. So, the APC is not just a problem for the Global South or middle-income countries or lower income countries. It is a problem for scholars across the world. And the other point I'd make is that this is also a problem for the retired scholar or early career researchers probably just about anywhere, regardless of their country of residence.

If we look at the problem with APCs, the invoice that's facing the researcher is the fundamental issue. Yes, transformative agreements help by providing invoice-free publishing to authors affiliated with certain institutions. But this is unlocking a pathway to Open Access publishing in a very selective way. What OASPA has seen when we have studied this area is that this is compounding the current inequities in the world. Because a well-resourced, research-intensive institution is better placed to negotiate a transformative agreement with a publisher. Transformative agreements involve very complex data-heavy negotiations. In summary, those that have always had the resources continue to have them and those that don’t continue to be left out or left behind. And that's the problem!

When I was at the Biochemical Society, we too started out with a program of Read & Publish deals thinking we could ‘flip the journals by flipping institutions’. I saw that the (very tangible) increase in Open Access proportions in our journals was majorly driven by where we had ‘unlocked’ pathways to OA publishing without invoices – in other words – where we selectively made the transformative deals happen. It did not benefit any scholars outside of those institutions that were our ‘leads’ of ‘publish-heavy’ institutions. I personally learnt a lot from that effort. It is easy to get dazzled and excited by metrics and proportions of Open Access content, but what are the real world and human impacts? As a sector we are all learning about these factors and considering now how best to sustain Open Access. The funding systems, financial systems, and business models that we want to see more of are those that enable Open Access (publishing) in a far more inclusionary way.

OASPA logo

Hardy: You said we are learning. So, have we tried the APC and transformative agreement model and it just doesn't work, or do APCs and transformative agreements have a place in a wider Open Access publishing ecosystem?

Malavika: Another great question. They could have a place, but I would say that we need to negotiate agreements that factor in equity principles, and that have principles of equity and inclusion at the heart of the financial constructs of the deals. I don't know of many examples of transformative agreements that currently do this.

This is an active area of work for OASPA. But we should step away from transformative agreements for a second, and just look at APCs themselves as these form the basis of a lot of transformative deals where per-article outputs and the APC heavily influence the price. OASPA is doing a series of workshops around Equity and Open Access, and the blog from the second one was published a few weeks ago. Our next workshop is going to focus on improving the current systems, APCs and those models based on APCs, in the here and now.

Some of the ideas are looking at better ways to automate workflows, or rather I should say, more specifically automate things like the author eligibility check. If we are able to confirm eligibility at submission, use metadata, and message clearly to the author that they will be able to publish Open Access without a fee, that's already better than the current state. The same improved workflow can help articles under transformative agreements as well as papers under the APC workflow A publisher could say that they will automate APC workflows for all corresponding authors based in certain countries where there is an APC waiver program in place. Publishers do have very established waiver programs but there is this problem of proving neediness on the part of the author. We need to improve the workflows to have early and auto-identification of eligibility where possible. We also need unifying language to make sure that the fees, and the entire journey is very clear for the researcher. None of these are perfect solutions, because we are adapting something that is established and problematic in the first place. But we should try and take steps forward!

There are a couple of examples of publishers experimenting with improvements. About 20 learned societies that are members of the SocPC are striking a flavor of Read & Publish deals that allow unlimited (or uncapped) publishing. See page 2 of this paper (pdf) distinguishing unlimited from capped agreements. Certain university press publishers also approach transformative agreements in this way. This ‘all you can eat’ style Open Access publishing under unlimited deals takes one step away from the per-article, APC-rooted thinking in most transformative agreements.  

Although PLOS is a publisher currently known for operating fully on the APC model but some PLOS journals offer a Global Equity Model and a Community Action Publishing model that shifts away from APCs. Recently, Cambridge University Press announced automation for all waivers for authors in more than 100 low and middle income countries across their hybrid and fully-OA journals.

There are some good examples out there! There are also some libraries like Iowa State University Library who are saying: Hey, publishers, if we do business with you, we want to see that you are taking equity seriously in in your offerings and your Open Access workflows. These are all, I think, steps to improve, not to solve everything, but to make things better.


Hardy: The scenario that you described when you said the author will not have to worry about APCs from the start, that sounds to me similar to the Diamond OA model which is very much being discussed at the moment, also in Ireland. What place has Diamond Open Access in the transition to a fully Open Access world?

Malavika: What we just talked about was early identification in APC and transformative agreement workflows. But moving on to think about how we might solve certain issues more fundamentally, Diamond Open Access, I think, could have a huge role to play! In OASPA’s first Equity in Open Access workshop, we had some interesting feedback that the word “Diamond” is not the best name. It is something only a really rich person can attain! But we were thinking, no, we don't want more names! Having said that, I would prefer to talk about models that make Open Access the default and where there is no scholar facing fee for either reading or publishing.

We just published a report from our Equity in Open Access workshop #2, which shows how stakeholders agreed that equity issues facing researchers are far less of a consideration in models that are not based on article volume, such as ‘Diamond OA’. OASPA is really keen to see these kinds of models play a more significant role in Open Access, because they are that much more inclusive and equitable. Certainly, we are not naive to the fact that there are funding challenges. In fact, this is why a future workshop on Equity in OA from OASPA will look at the funding challenges that perhaps might be blocking the pathway to more scaling or proliferation of these kind of models where there is no fee for reading or publishing. Collective action and Subscribe to Open (S2O) routes are other ways of achieving Open Access that is much more inclusive. It still has to be paid for in some way, that is why the money-flows matter, and that is why OASPA wants to convene a conversation around the funding because we think that's a blocker.

But to answer your original question, we expect that these models have a huge role in delivering the kind of Open Access we should all be working towards. And why is that right? It's because from what we can see making Open Access the default, without intervention or conditions at the article/author level, is the surest way to deliver a transition that is properly and truly equitable. So that governments are not just thinking about citizens in their country, and institutions are not just thinking about scholars affiliated with their institution. There is a whole bundle of nested and vested interests. And publishers, of course, will be coming at it from a business and financial angle; even if they are mission driven they still have to make publishing operations financially sustainable, with, at times, enough surplus to fund other charitable work. So, we have to navigate a complex terrain. But we should work towards a global solution because scholarship is global, and even when some publications have a local context or regional framework, the global availability of these outputs, and the access to open-access publishing options for these authors remains relevant everywhere.

Near the start of our conversation we talked about engagement equity. When we solve the issues of financial barriers to participation in Open Access publishing (achieving Open Access models that are more inclusive) then we are freed up to also focus on the other aspect of the equity issue: making sure that everyone has a voice and feels able to be a stakeholder with influence in the process of scholarly publishing. Being more inclusive about who is editing, who is reviewing and making selection decisions, who has authority around what constitutes quality, who has a voice in sculpting further developments in scholarly publishing...     

Malavika Legge, OASPA

Hardy: You just mentioned that Open Access should not be looked at from just a national angle. However, the reality is that countries do that. In Ireland we have the recent National Action Plan for Open Research that aspires to achieve 100% Open Access by 2030. I wonder if you have any views on such plans? At the moment, we are around 60% Open Access, and that includes recent transformative agreements which improved things a little.

Malavika: Ireland, I think, is making great strides from the perspective of increasing Open Access from researchers in the country. I would encourage pursuit of equity in Open Access.  OASPA isn't at the end of our Equity in OA workshops and so we don't have solid and specific recommendations just yet. But in general, what I have learnt so far in championing Open Access in various places is that it only works where you really, truly want it. That sounds like a stupid answer. Well, of course you want it if you're trying it. But I mean when you have multi stakeholders and they have disparate interests it can be a challenge to truly leverage the uniting force of that mission of openness that you are seeking to deliver. To be actually be guided by values that will shape your principles of operation, that will therefore shape your actual activity, day to day. You have to have all stakeholders signed up to pursuing that mission because of the disparate interests that I was talking about in the previous question.

You need to be honest about what that transition would mean for all the stakeholders even if there are financial implications for some. There are also implications for how career or research evaluation takes place within the institutional system, and what practices you reward amongst your scholars, and why. And certainly, having looked at the NORF Action Plan, I think you are hitting all these notes. The only thing to say is that having a plan on paper is one thing and implementing it is another. Sometimes you also need to step back and look at the wider impacts of what you are doing. OASPA itself has been on a journey. We've had to step back to realise, yes, we are increasing Open Access rapidly, but oh my goodness, what are the impacts of the way in which we are delivering OA? That is what we are most concerned about at the moment.

 

Hardy: I would like to zoom back in on individual institutions. For example, at the University of Galway, a mid-sized research intense university, what can we do locally to support Open Access?

Malavika: Think global, act local. It's not just a saying, it's a principle! I think individual libraries are in a really powerful place. When we look at the Open Access market you fall into that category of being payers. I know budgets are constrained but you still are in that negotiating seat, and it is still a position of power to a certain degree; even in an era of shrinking library budgets, you choose what deals to strike. I would suggest to seek out and support venues and publishing partnerships and that align with your values. Spend time assessing that.

For that to happen, more connection and conversation with your faculty and students is really important. What OASPA has found through the work we've been doing recently is that there is a need to engage the research community more directly about Open Access.  It should help your goals anyway, as you are looking at research or assessment reform as well. I was speaking with an early career researcher, a friend of mine, who, like me, is Indian by origin. He's been a researcher in India and he is based in the UK now. His reported experience from both those countries is that the researcher does not get any formal training about navigating the scholarly publication and Open Access space. His views on journal selection are entirely guided by the individual opinions and experiences of his Principal Investigators and senior faculty members. This is an experience that probably happens a lot.

I think libraries and could play a big role in connecting with your faculty and students because culture change is needed. I've seen that NORF talks about culture, and that is a good thing and needed, and I think some researcher-facing tooling up and training could be needed. It may not be true at the University of Galway, but OASPA is also detecting in many cases a stigma associated with Open Access publishing. There are a lot of misconceptions around Open Access, and also a landscape where, unfortunately, predatory practices are seen. I think the library is very well placed to engage with authors on these issues. This can also feed your ambition of seeking and supporting venues that align with values, because you will be working with your researchers, and learning about where they want to be placing their work.

The other thing I would say is that the library is expert in harnessing metadata and reporting. You could use that role to report on Open practices so that they may be seen and get recognised. It is then much easier for the institution to implement research assessment reform and reward the appropriate practices. You can also require reports and practices from your publishing partners. When negotiating transformative agreements ask for those workflows that will identify eligible authors at submission. Ask for work published under transformative agreements with you to say, in the metadata and on the published PDF, that Open Access was enabled by an agreement supported by the institution. Ask how the publisher is addressing global equity in their agreements, in their workflows and in their Open Access strategies. Consider support for deals that provide default Open Access to all authors such as collective action and Subscribe To Open. In these ways you construct and enable what is, we hope, a healthier form of Open Access, and for your own institution you harness the metadata to report and reward Open Research practices as a way of embedding that Open culture.

Hardy: Well, thank you so much Malavika! Is there anything else that we have maybe missed, that you'd like to add?

Malavika: Just to say that OASPA is here to help, and that we continue to learn ourselves! I think the way we learn the most is by talking to each other and bouncing ideas off each other. We are happy to continue the conversation, receive questions and stay in touch! 

 

About Malavika Legge

Malavika is OASPA's Program Manager, leading a range of activities, initiatives and projects that directly support OASPA’s mission. Much of her experience is in bringing disparate teams together and using data and creativity to find ways of achieving sustainable open access. She previously held leadership roles at the Biochemical Society, serving as Director of Publishing and Executive Director on the Portland Press Board, promoting and supporting an open agenda during this time. Before this she was Publisher, and then Head of Journals, at the Society. An active participant in discussions that led to the founding of the Society Publishers’ Coalition (SocPC), Malavika was elected to the group’s first Council in 2019, and has been Chair of the SocPC since 2020. She started her publishing career at Informa Healthcare where she held a range of editorial, licensing and management roles across nine years. Malavika dreams of a world where scholarly publishing is open access publishing – by default, for everyone.