Agora Scholarly Open Access Research in European Philosophy Project reference 270904 Report on Future Strategy of Open Access Deliverable number D7.5 Dissemination level PU Delivery date February 2014 Status Final Authors Yrsa Neuman, Hugo Strandberg, Martin Gustafsson, Åbo Akademi University Alois Pichler, University of Bergen This report was written for the research project Agora: Scholarly Open Access Research in European Philosophy http://www.project-agora.org. This CIP-project is co-funded by the European Commission under the Information and Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP), which aims at stimulating a wider uptake of innovative ICT-based services and the exploitation of digital content across Europe by citizens, governments and businesses. 1 Table of Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 3 1. Open Access: Different Shades of Gold.............................................................................................. 4 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Open Access business models ....................................................................................................... 5 2 Agora OA book experiment ................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Business models for Open Access monograph publishing............................................................ 7 2.2 Agora Delayed model experiment setup ....................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Access model.......................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Author pays model: the Ontos Open model ................................................................................ 12 2.4 The Views of the Authors: Ontos Author Survey ....................................................................... 13 2.4.1 Author Survey Results.......................................................................................................... 13 2.5 Results of the OA monograph study ........................................................................................... 14 2.5.1 Advantages of OA for book publishers ................................................................................ 14 2.5.2 Disadvantages for commercial publishers............................................................................ 15 2.6 Recommendations for Future Strategy of Open Access.............................................................. 15 3 Open Access Journal Experiment....................................................................................................... 17 3.1 OA business models for journal publication ............................................................................... 17 3.2 OA journal experiment setup ...................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Sales and income streams............................................................................................................ 18 3.3.1 Projected break-even ............................................................................................................ 20 3.4 NWR Access Data....................................................................................................................... 20 3.5 The Current OA Situation in Philosophy around NWR.............................................................. 23 3.5.1 Open Access Journals in Philosophy.................................................................................... 23 3.5.2 Overview Results ................................................................................................................. 25 3.6 NWR Competitor OA situation overview ................................................................................... 26 3.7 Agora Journal Survey.................................................................................................................. 27 3.8 Results of the journal experiment................................................................................................ 29 3.9 The journal after the experiment ................................................................................................. 30 3.10 The Hybrid Trap........................................................................................................................ 30 4 Services in the business models experiment ...................................................................................... 31 5 Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................................... 32 5.1 OA business model sustainability ............................................................................................... 33 5.2 Summary of main recommendations........................................................................................... 34 Appendix I: Agora Author Survey invitation letter............................................................................... 35 Appendix II: NWR competitor OA overview ....................................................................................... 36 Appendix III: Access NWR .................................................................................................................. 38 Appendix IV: Ontos Agora Model Sales Data Table ............................................................................ 40 2 Executive summary The main recommendations are as follows:  For book publishers o Publishers should observe the consequences for OA due to differences between publication cultures between scholarly disciplines. o Small conventional publishers should not hesitate to offer an OA option to their authors, either at the very least OA for a fee, or preferably according to a moving wall principle with a delay of 12 months. o OA publication brings with it a strong marketing and dissemination advantage which should be utilised. o Publishers should spread information on OA and publication funding opportunities to their authors and customers. o Small publishers without a developed webshop should use aggregators such as OAPEN Library to increase visibility and interoperability. o Publishers should distinguish between customer segments for OA and non-OA publication (individuals and institutions, for example).  For journal publishers o The hybrid trap is the exclusion mechanism which the restrictive conditions on OA formulated by BOAI generate. It prevents new hybrids from prospering and potentially sustainable models from being developed. Publishers should strive to avoid it. o Publishers should investigate the attitudes towards APC-based models in the journal discipline before introducing such a model. o Measures should be taken to ensure reputation for new OA journals. o Authors and readers need to be informed about OA. o Subscription-based OA journals in HSS should offer both print and electronic subscription. o Different customer segments should be identified for OA and subscription. o Open Review of accepted articles or post-publication discussions are recommended as marketing support.  For policy-makers o A hybrid and delayed OA index similar to DOAJ should be founded and financed, or DOAJ should be persuaded to broaden its criteria for inclusion, allowing delayed OA. o Different publication cultures should be considered in all OA policy decisions. o Non-BOAI OA visibility issues should be further investigated and solutions to the Hybrid Trap promoted. 3 1. Open Access: Different Shades of Gold Delayed Open Access business models in philosophy publishing 1.1 Background An Open Access (OA) journal is an academic journal, which readers can access and/or download without payment over the Internet. OA journals are free by definition, and they are electronic. As defined in this report, an Open Access book is an academic book which is free for download or reading online.1 For journals there are also hybrid versions, in which only part of the articles are available online for free and these are sometimes also called Open Access programs. Traditionally, academic journals and books have been printed matter, sold predominantly to universities via their libraries. The sellers have been either commercial publishers or non-commercial ones like university presses, or when it comes to journals, learned societies. The situation has changed considerably during the last two decades. The possibility of disseminating material and making it available has become considerably easier. According to Open Access, conceived as a vision for research result dissemination, the results of research should be openly available online for everyone, free of charge. In this way, researchers and even the general public in different parts of the world will be equally situated with regard to access to research material. There is a shift away from traditional publishing going on, which concerns both accessibility and availability of research resources. The entire publication and dissemination business is already in the midst of a radical change. Publishers can provide Open Access either as a central part of their business models or as an additional, optional service to authors. A conventional publisher can introduce Open Access into his business in several ways, with different degrees of openness.2 Publisher-provided Open Access is called "the golden road" to OA. The alternative has been "green OA", where the authors themselves have deposited their publications (especially articles) in open repositories online, or on their own websites.3 1 In 2003, the characteristics of genuine OA publications was set for humanities and social sciences in the Berlin Convention, which was signed by many research institutions and funding agencies. http://oa.mpg.de/lang/enuk/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/ accessed Feb. 6, 2013. This project applies a wider definition of OA than the commonly used and stricter BOAI (Budapest Open Access Initiative) definition which aims to eliminate all barriers to access and includes as criteria immediate access, generous rights to redistribute and –use, "By "open access" to [peer-reviewed research literature], we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited." http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10-recommendations (accessed February 2, 2014). 2 "How Open Is It?" is a valuable guide to the degrees of openness in Open Access: http://sparc.arl.org/resource/howopenisit (accessed Dec. 12, 2013). 3 A recent large-scale research project into the consequences of Green OA in repositories is PEER ((Publishing and the Ecology of European Research, 2008-12): http://www.peerproject.eu/. In the final report, the results of the research study are summarized, and one of them is that downloads on publisher sites are increasing more 4 One common worry about OA is that publishers will lose their income if the material is made available for free online. Another worry is that the quality of publications will drop, since publishers would have no role to play in the publication process if research would be disseminated in decentralized ways. These worries are one reason for why "gold OA" should be further developed.4 The question for many publishers today is how the market can shift to OA while keeping up both the possibility of publication revenues and publication and access equality. It is in this context that there is a need for new Open Access business models. This report is aimed at small scholarly publishers with an interest in going into Open Access. It is based on a research project on Open Access business models in Philosophy (or Humanities/Social Sciences) with the feature that the articles and books were made available as Delayed Open Access, i.e. not immediately upon publication but after an embargo period. 1.2 Open Access business models What are "Open Access business models"? OA business models are the different ways in which the funding and production of OA publications are organized. The models capture the way the material is produced, prepared and distributed to readers and the principles of the economic features of this system.5 One example of an OA business model is when a journal is produced by a publisher in cooperation with scholars, and then made available online for free. This model may entail difficulties: an academic publisher needs to get its costs covered and a commercial publisher needs to make a profit. If the product is given away online it may be difficult to charge a subscription fee for it. The costs may arise from configuration and maintenance of an Internet platform in which the articles are published and kept, from layout of the material, the working hours required to coordinate the peer review process, the dissemination activities, marketing material etc. In the traditional journal publication model a publisher (commercial or non-profit) sells the print copies of the journal on subscription basis, foremost to libraries. Electronically, the closed-access content can be sold as pay-per-view or to libraries on a subscription access basis. The move away from subscriptions requires the entire economy to shift. An important issue here is that there is a community economy involved, i.e. volunteer labor, or labor indirectly provided by universities. A point of critique raised towards traditional publishing is that profits and copyrights are handed over to publishers, who can only be creditable for a minimal added value to the value added in the publication process through the tasks performed by academics (research, academic authorship of articles and books, editorial work and peer review) and paid for by universities and funders through the researchers' salaries and other research costs. than those of green road repositories. Also, the studies show that academics would not like the publication system to change (pp. 10-11). http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/20120618_PEER_Final_public_report_D9-13.pdf (accessed July 7 2013). 4 Green OA as opposed to Gold OA is a distinction used since the early days of OA. It is about the deliverer, not the degree of availability. Green – author "self-archiving" and gold – published as OA. 5 "The defining characteristic of an open access business model for scholarly publishing is that it should not depend on restricting access to the published research in order to recoup the inherent costs associated with publication", according to Matthew Cockerill, in Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, ed. Neil Jacobs, Chandos publishing: Oxford, 2006. http://hdl.handle.net/2384/2367 (accessed Feb. 2 2013). This definition excludes delayed OA from OA business models. There is an inherent conflict of ideology here: some reserve the label "Open Access" for publications that are "Full Open Access" (i.e. accessible online for free immediately upon publication), and others (including the Agora project) count "delayed OA" as an OA model as well. 5 Some new revenue-focused models – in different shades of gold – are already in use. One is that the author (or rather his/her funding agency) pays a fee to the publisher for making a printed or otherwise closed access available for free online (Author Pays/hybrid model). Another is that some of the publishers' services are subject to fees, like the editorial processing of accepted articles (alternatively submission fees for all submitted articles), and others charge a fee for editorial processing of the article (Article Processing Charges model, APC).6 A third idea is that instead of subscriptions paid through the library budget, the university pays licenses to groups of journals, and then the scholars at a licensed university can submit and have articles published OA without having to pay (Collaborative Purchase or License model, introduced for Physics in SCOAP37). A version of the APC model is a model where the journal or a society behind a journal takes care of the APC's on behalf of the authors ("Journal Pays"8). Which model will work varies with the research area and the type of publication; their specific publication cultures and funding models. In the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS), it is often the case that hardly any funding is available at the departments. Moreover, the APC model as introduced by many large scale publishers (with large journal portfolios) suffers from a low uptake. The situation in Natural Sciences is quite different: the APC-model is actively in use in many fields and the uptake is good.9 In these fields, journals are mostly electronic only. An APC model may work well in some, but not all academic disciplines. 10 There are also crucial differences between journal and book publication. In this project, two different experiments with OA business models were carried out. One concerned book publishing in philosophy, the other journal publishing. In this report, the experiences of these two experiments are shared for the benefit of small or medium sized publishing houses considering going into Open Access. 6 In the literature, the APC and Author Pays model are often classified as one. Both names are obscure, since it is seldom the case that the author his/herself pays the fee, rather the fees are paid by their institutions or by grants. Within "processing charges", the Open Access fee would be only one of many services subject to author side payment. 7Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics. http://openaccess.net/de/oa_informationen_der/max_planck_gesellschaft/praktische_umsetzung/weitere_schritte/scoap3/#c 1630. Also, Springer offers a licensing system for universities, a way to avoid individual article Open Access fees, called "Membership" http://www.springeropen.com/libraries (accessed Sept. 29, 2013). 8 For example offered by Versita www.versita.com (accessed Dec. 12, 2013). 9 Solomon, D. J. and Björk, B.-C. (2012), "A study of open access journals using article processing charges". J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 63: 1485–1495. doi: 10.1002/asi.22673 10 One of the conclusions of OAPEN is that for HSS this model is not likely to work in the current situation, also see Eger, Thomas and Scheufen, Marc and Meierrieks, Daniel, "The Determinants of Open Access Publishing: Survey Evidence from Germany" (March 13, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2232675 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2232675 / (accessed Sept. 29, 2013). 6 2 Agora OA book experiment An earlier EU-funded project, OAPEN (2009-2011) investigated Open Access monograph publishing. As a result of the project, a number of recommendations were issued. The Agora Business Models experiment is carried out with the OAPEN results as a starting point.11 According to the OAPEN project report, more experiments are needed to investigate and develop new sustainable models for Open Access. The present study aimed to do that and hence to complete the picture drawn by OAPEN in 2011 as a case in philosophy, providing the next step in developing and promoting Open Access academic publishing. 2.1 Business models for Open Access monograph publishing The business models for OA monograph publishing are all economic strategies which combine input from many different sources. The author's working hours are funded by research funding agencies, the revenue is generated from sales of printed books or services to authors or access licenses, solely or in combination with support from funding agencies such as research grants which contain an OA publication budget. The OAPEN Best Practices report lists three different revenue-focused models. The hybrid model is a model with conventional printed books which generate revenue, in combination with OA versions of the books published online with no fees for the author. The hybrid model may be supplemented with services – for example with a basic document online and a better, premium, one at a fee – often called Freemium models. According to the OAPEN results, this is not a sustainable model as such, but it may "serve as the basis for mixed funding and revenue models, as funding from research budgets has always been part of academic monograph publishing".12 A combination of hybrid model with delayed Open Access was the main object of investigation in our study. The author pays model is a model in which the author pays for editing, or a fee for Open Access publication. The authors receive some sort of institutional backing or subsidy for the publication of the monograph after it has been accepted for publication. Part of the publishing budget is made up from these funds today already.13 A common worry here is that if this money is available the financial incitement becomes more pronounced. The consequence might be that quality control becomes less stringent, especially if the publication decisions move to administrators or selection committees and away from scholars who can take responsibility for decisions concerning quality. This problem could be dispensed with if the funding would come from a few different sources and would be collected by the publisher as the professional link in the publishing chain.14 Shift of library budgets is a variation of the author pays model, in which funding is allocated directly to the publisher. This is the most radical approach, as it requires old habits and views of the landscape to change. The idea is that funding should be relocated from libraries or library consortia to publishers, and hence replaces the present library-driven market in which libraries buy the output of publishers 11 OAPEN: http://www.oapen.org (accessed Feb. 2, 2013). 12 Kempf, J., Adema, J., Rutten, OAPEN Report on Best Practices and Recommendations, 2010, p. 28. http://openreflections.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/d316_oapen_best_practice_public_report.pdf (accessed Feb. 7, 2013.) 13 OAPEN Report on Best Practices, p. 28. 14 OAPEN Report on Best Practices p. 28. 7 with public or community funding. This model has not been investigated here because it is a task for conglomerates or large publishers, rather than for small publishers.15 2.2 Agora Delayed model experiment setup Within the Agora project, 27 books which had been published in print earlier were made Open Access online in Ontos' online service on June 1, 2011. Sales figures were recorded 3, 12 and 24 months after print publication, as well as the day before OA publication. After that, sales figures and download figures were recorded 7 and 19 months after OA publication (31.12.2011, 31.12.2012). This longitudinal follow-up is a way of tracking the consequences of Open Access publication. The book set included books in German (7) and English (20), and books from four of Ontos' series: (a) Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, New Series, (b) Philosophical Analysis, (c) Philosophical Research, and (d) Epistemic Studies (mostly dissertations). Of these, five were doctoral dissertations, 18 anthologies and four monographs. This model is a delayed open access model, in which texts already printed are made available OA free of charge later. The delay for these texts varied. The oldest one was published in print in May 2003 (delay 9 years) and the newest one in January 2011, i.e. less than half a year before the time of OA publication. The books were grouped according to type – dissertation, anthology, monograph (excluding dissertations), and as old/new (new: published in print 12 months or less before OA publication, 3/27 items). Also, the sales figures at the time of OA publication were classified as good or not good (good = at or above the publisher's average sales number for all books). These monographs were made OA within the Agora project, and there were no author fees. Copyright was retained by the authors. 2.2.1 Access model The access model was a sort of Freemium model. In a Freemium model, the easily accessible OA version is less attractive than a premium, often paid version. In this case, the Freemium version was a limited Google Preview of the OA book, and the premium electronic pdf version was also free of charge.16 The premium version (downloadable pdf) required registration, and was made available via a link in an e-mail which the customer received after registration. The process was identical to an online book purchase apart from the absence of payment. The downloads recorded were high-threshold due to the registration requirement. In other words, the download numbers measure interest to a higher degree than easily available pdf-versions. During the access follow up (1.6.2011-31.12.2012), a total of 1789 pdf downloads were recorded. The vast majority of users downloaded only one book each (see Figure 1). During 2012, 244 customers registered and out of these, 32 downloaded 5 or more books each (Figure 1). One customer downloaded 41 books, but most of the other 31 only 5 or 6. (Data collected March-August 2011, Jan.Dec. 2012.) 15 An initiative along these lines is Knowledge Unlatched http://www.knowledgeunlatched.org/ (accessed Nov. 4, 2013). 16 A more elaborate Freemium model with diverse electronic products is one by Open Book Publishers, http://www.openbookpublishers.com/ (accessed Dec. 12, 2013). 8 Figure 1 IN SHORT The Agora Delayed Open Access Monograph Model DELAY – NO AUTHOR FEE – PDF DOWNLOAD in webshop • 27 books from Ontos Verlag were made OA delayed June 1, 2011. • Downloads were "sold for free" in the publisher webshop (registration required) • OA delay: 6 months – 9 years • Sales were monitored and recorded 3, 12, 24 months after print; upon OA publication; 7 and 19 months after OA publication • Downloads were monitored and recorded 6 and 18 months after OA publication • Book groupings: old/new (new: print <12 months before OA; 3 new, 24 old), language (German 7, English 20), type, content (book series), sales figures before OA (April 19, 2011). Sales 90% of print sales take place during the first 12 months. Quality is crucial for both sales and downloads. Sales and download volumes are highly proportional: good sales > many downloads OA consequences Clear dissemination advantage of OA: interest in the material rises significantly after OA publication: download number average 40% on top of sales. Good sales: (top third) download number minimum 29% of sales number, maximum 62% Bad sales (bottom third): minimum 19%, maximum 82%. Do print sales rise? Possibly. On average 4% of total sales for a single title took place after OA. Open Access sales consequences for older books We projected the expected level of yearly sales after 24 months for the older books by dividing the total print sales after 24 months until OA publication with the number of years passed in this period. After 24 months on the market, almost all print sales are expected to have stopped, and a small latent interest may still exist. The above calculation is an estimation of this latent interest. If this latent interest changes after OA, this could be a good indicator for OA consequences. For all books taken 9 together, the expected level of sales after OA was 65 copies, whereas 171 were actually sold. For the top five sellers (total top sellers) which had been on the market a few years longer than 24 months, these books sold some 3-4 copies per year after 24 months, and one outlier was at more than 8 copies a year. The rest of the books sold none or 1-2 copies. After OA publication, sales rose remarkably for two books, which sold 17 (4 expected) and 38 (0 expected) respectively (see Figure 2). For another group of 7 books, the expected sales declined, but not significantly (expected sales of 4 were 2 for one book, for the others, 2 books expected, only 1 sold). For a middle group of 7 books, sales doubled or multiplied: in most cases (5 cases) when sales expected were 0 books, but on average 5,6 copies were sold. The conclusion one can draw here is that at least for some books, OA publication may improve sales significantly. Also, the risk of decreases in sales due to OA publication seems very small. OAPEN-UK conducted a survey in 2012, in which Humanities and Social Sciences researchers were (among other things) asked about their reading habits. The majority of the respondents indeed preferred to read print books (in humanities 67%) and the last book they read, 40% had bought for themselves. Ontos is focused on selling books to libraries mostly but there is also a private market. The Open Access online versions in the OAPEN survey were used to browse and see if the book was interesting. OAPEN survey responses similarly indicated that browsing on the Internet is how many books are found. Dissemination advantage for older books According to our projection of sales after 24 months, altogether 65 copies would have been sold between June 1, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2012, had there been no OA publication (during the 18 months following our recording of sales numbers on May 31, 2011 (in addition to the until then total sold 4870 copies)). In fact, however, 171 books were sold and 1789 files were downloaded. This means that in total, 1895 more copies (electronic and printed) were disseminated, i.e. for all books together, 1895 more potential readers were reached. Open Access consequences for newer books The three books which were published in print 12 months or less before Open Access did not sell less because of Open Access publication. Looking at the sales trajectory based on the other books at 3 months (when around 1/3 of total sales for the first 12 months have taken place), the sales follow the expectation curve. For the 1/3 of all books which sold poorly in the first 3 months, 7/9 books were still part of the bottom third at 12 months after print publication. 6/9 books which sold well at 3 months were also in the top third sellers after 12 months. With regard to the 3 new books, two of them had good sales after 3 months, and stayed good thereafter (on the same level as the older books with a similar sales curve). Hence, Open Access publication seems to have a neutral impact. One of the new books was a dissertation and its sales stayed as low as expected. Again, Open Access seems to have no particular impact. The download numbers for these new books followed the pattern of the older books: good sales (=above Ontos sales average for all books) gave more downloads. Our numbers are small and of limited statistical significance and this result needs further large scale confirmation, however the same result was reached in 2013 by OAPEN-NL with their 50 titles combined with a comparison book set.17 General consequences Compared to the total number of printed books sold over the years (for these 27 altogether 5,041 books until 31.12.2012), the number of OA downloads appears substantial: in total, 1,789 OA downloads were recorded from June 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012. For 18 of 27 titles, groupings into the upper, middle, and lower third of sales results correspond to groupings into the upper, middle, and lower third of downloads18; 8 titles displaced by one level and only 1 title by two levels. This points to a correlation between the sales figures and the OA download figures. 17 OAPEN-NL news October 23, 2013 http://project.oapen.org/index.php/news (accessed Feb. 24, 2014). 18 The reference level for "Good sales" was the average sales for all Ontos books. 10 Demand fluctuated considerably between the titles. There was more interest in titles in English than in German. The sales figures show that most books were sold within the first 12 months after print (up to 90% of total circulation). After 12 months, sales fell drastically. A similar development took place for downloads: 78,7% of downloads took place during the first 7 months. The "quality" of books plays an important role for OA as well as for sales. For example, titles from the "D-Book Series: Epistemic Studies", which are mostly dissertations, a book type which is not expected to render a lot of sales, nor to be as mature as books by mature authors, experience little demand with OA (with the exception of the title Tomasz F. Bigaj Non-locality and Possible Worlds ISBN: 978-3-938793-29-9 286 pp). Figure 2 Sales diagram (CA= Closed Access, OA=Open Access, m=months) 11 Conclusions  OA carries a very low risk of diminishing sales for print books.  OA increases sales for old books.  The dissemination advantage for older books is highly significant. 2.3 Author pays model: the Ontos Open model Another business model for dual-mode (i.e. print and online) monograph OA publication is one where the delay is optional, but where the authors pay a fee for the Open Access service. This model was also offered by Ontos during the time of the experiment and we call it OntosOpen. Authors whose books have been accepted for publication pay 1500€ for OA upon print or 750€ for the OA option 12 months after print. The electronic book was then made available for free among the other electronic books for sale. The two-step fee concept was designed on the basis of the fact that 90% of the circulation takes place during the first 12 months after print, and on a calculated risk of losing 50% of the net profit. This calculation will turn out differently for different publishers depending on their expenses and expected profit. Since few books are sold after 12 months, the risk of losing profit is significantly lower than the estimate which this calculation was based on, and hence the fee can be reduced considerably. Another important consideration made by Ontos was the price level at other publishers – the Ontos Open is considerably cheaper for the author competing systems at other publishers at the time the fee was set. Ontos published 4 books in this system during 2011-13, and it was offered for 86 titles accepted for publication during this time, which means that uptake was low.19 108 authors or editors were offered the Ontos Open model for the altogether 86 titles (most authors or editors published one title only). This is quite a low uptake, 4,6%, but after the initial investment in an online system, the costs are low and the uptake could be expected to rise if the attitude towards and knowledge about Open Access changed. Two of four authors/editors chose to have their books published OA immediately upon print publication, not later. IN SHORT The Ontos Open Model 2-stage AUTHOR FEE – DELAY optional – PDF DOWNLOAD in webshop • Author fee: OA within 12 months of print: 1500€; 12 + months after print: 750€. • 4 OA books in 2011-12 out of 86 titles offered Uptake 4,6% OAPEN's report on User needs concluded that this type of model may not succeed within HSS (Humanities/Social Sciences) since there is not free floating funding at the disposal of the researchers, i.e. authors, in the way in which there is in STM (Science, Technology, Medicine), where lab equipment etc. needs to be funded from day to day. Ontos' offer may nevertheless be promising. The publisher sees this as a model with a low risk for the publisher, which also serves the academics well, and would recommend it to other publishers. Also, since the infrastructure existed, the model was 19 Ontos had published two books in a similar system before the project time (published in print 2008). 12 commercially viable even if the uptake was low. However, in terms of the dissemination advantage expected from OA publishing, the uptake is indeed a problem. 2.4 The Views of the Authors: Ontos Author Survey According to Rafael Hüntelmann (the CEO of Ontos), the quality of the published books is central for both sales and downloads. For a small publisher, it is crucial to attract book manuscripts from renowned authors who are able to author quality books. Also, the authors are central stakeholders for Open Access, since it is often at their end that OA decisions are made. The authors are the receivers of the services offered by the publisher and when it comes to the Ontos Open model, they mediate the fee and in this sense become key customers. Therefore, a questionnaire, the Ontos Author Survey, was sent to all authors who had had books accepted for publication at Ontos verlag 2011-13, and who had hence received the Ontos Open offer and/or participated in the Agora Model (116 reachable out of 131). The survey was designed to measure OA awareness and experience, OA values, views of the two tested models, publication values, and publisher choice. The survey was in part based on the OAPENUK HSS Researcher Survey 2012.20 A presentation with comprehensive details of the survey and its results is available as a separate file. For the survey, 131 author names were retrieved from Ontos' author register. All authors who received the OA offer were contacted on August 6, 2013. 12 replies were received. A second reminder was sent September 2, 2013 and at that point, 15 potential participants had been excluded as either deceased or unreachable. By November 30, 20 responses had been received; response rate 17%. The number of responses is small and must be read as the views of these particular participants and not be widely generalized. However, some trends are apparent. More than half of the participants were academics with a long experience in the business, i.e. over half were professors/readers or emeritus professors. The rest were younger researchers (assistant lecturers, postdoctoral researchers) and one was a philosophical author. Most of the participants were born in the 50s, however many also in the mid-70s. Most of the authors were active in Europe (14). The authors/editors had published 153 books altogether, most commonly 5-10 books per person. Only one had published over 25 and the rest less than 15. 2.4.1 Author Survey Results The authors were all either "familiar with" or "aware of" Open Access, and 4 of them had had their books made OA by Ontos. 7 did not know whether their Ontos books were Open Access or not. The survey revealed that the limited Ontos Open uptake may have to do with the fact that not only do authors resist paying for Open Access, but also that many did not realize that it was possible, i.e. they received the offer but did not understand it. One author had taken the Ontos Open offer and was quite pleased. Most of the authors and editors found both the Agora model and the Ontos Open model viable, but many mentioned the fee as a disadvantage of the Ontos Open model (7/14 comments). The advantages were outreach and preservation, i.e. a few mentioned the online availability of the book as an advantage after the print books are out of stock. The Agora model with no author fee was not surprisingly deemed sustainable to a higher extent than the Ontos Open model: 5 ticked "very viable" and 10 "viable". The positive sides were no fee, but the 20 TheOAPEN-UK Researcher Survey 2012 http://oapen-uk.jiscebooks.org/research-findings/researchersurvey/ (accessed Feb. 2, 2014). 13 commercial drawback was also mentioned by two, and the delay was in one's view a risk of losing readers. When asked about the pros and cons of Open Access publishing of books, the authors and editors were well aware of dissemination advantages, and costs for the authors were mentioned as disadvantages. Some worried about potential decrease in sales, and loss of prestige. For the authors, the most important motives for publishing were "communication with peers" and "releasing information for social progress and knowledge in society" as well as career advancement, and the least important was financial compensation. The views were most divided on claiming research findings and career advancement as motives. The authors were in general positive towards publishing books only in electronic form: 20% were negative to the idea but the rest positive or vaguely so. Most authors and editors were interested in possibly enriched electronic versions. For a publisher, attracting quality authors is crucial. It turned out that the reason that these authors choose Ontos as publisher was mostly that they trusted the quality assurance processes. However, targeting the correct audience was a big concern, along with earlier contact or experience from the same publisher. Ontos has not been known as an Open Access publisher and it is therefore no surprise that none of the authors ticked that option when asked which factors influenced their choice of Ontos as the publisher of the book in question. The research behind the book was funded mostly by core university funds (4) and to some extent by grants from other funders (4) or research councils (3). Publishing funding was not widely available at these above institutions – 9 said that they were not aware of such funding and 5 had applied. 4 ticked "yes, but I did not apply for such funding", i.e. some funds were available at least for application for 9/20. Simultaneously, 4/20 said that their book was not published OA because they didn't have funding for it. The most striking result concerning Open Access was that so many authors did not know whether their book had been published OA (7/20). Moreover, those whose Ontos book had not been published OA, said that they didn't know that it was possible, even if they had received the Ontos Open offer in the Publication Policy (according to the Ontos CEO Hüntelmann). At the same time, the authors all took themselves to be either "aware of" of "familiar with" OA (to a higher extent than in the OAPENUK Researcher Survey, in which 7,2% respond "Never heard" as opposed to 0 in our survey). Although the responses are too few to generalize, this discrepancy points to a possible information gap, which publishers should work to overcome. The respondents in our survey were less aware of whether their books had been published OA than the HSS researchers who participated in the OAPEN-UK HSS Researcher Survey 2012. 2.5 Results of the OA monograph study 2.5.1 Advantages of OA for book publishers Sales advantage The consequences for sales were either neutral or positive. Marketing advantage The registration requirement gave Ontos altogether 244 customer registrations during 2012 which is an advantage for knowing the customer segments and possibly for marketing purposes. (The 14 registration rules excluded any use of the information apart from regarding that particular "purchase", but this could be changed.) For Ontos, the advantages of OA may also include an increase in Ontos' name recognition among (potential) buyers and the attraction of new authors who would otherwise not submit their material to this publisher. The authors' estimation of the value of the ONTOS company name may rise as a result.21 Dissemination advantage The advantage of wider dissemination may be a key to attracting quality authors. Also, there may be a mix of political consumption opportunity, i.e. choosing one publisher instead of another for ideological OA reasons, and hopes for wider dissemination involved for authors. No reputation risk For this dual-mode model, the worry expressed in OAPEN's report, that e-books may provide its authors with less scholarly reputation than traditional paid printed books, does not apply since the product consists of both of these versions. The two-tier model then retains the advantage of esteem while it also allows for the wider dissemination which could gain authors. 2.5.2 Disadvantages for commercial publishers For large publishers whose main product is not single print books but access to a database of material, bundles or packages of which libraries subscribe to, delayed Open Access may affect sales negatively since it would diminish the perceived value of a package, and the conclusions drawn above may not be valid. 2.6 Recommendations for Future Strategy of Open Access  Delayed OA publication seems to improve sales after the drop in sales 12 months after print. One preliminary conclusion to be drawn is that for small traditional publishers, a delayed OA model for closed access books may be a good idea. Hence, a "moving wall model", with a set embargo period of 12 months for all books is recommended as a minimum measure.22 It is worth noting that this study does not provide any evidence that no-delay OA would imply a business risk for small publishers.  In new publishing models, according to the OAPEN recommendations, additional funding should be seen as "a natural necessity"23. The question is where this funding should come from. The difference over context, discipline etc. allows no general conclusions on this point, other than that this is something that a publisher interested in OA should consider in an OA business plan.  A publisher wishing to introduce an Author Fee model should keep informed about funding availability and make sure that potential authors are also aware of the possibility.  Given the starting point that the printed monograph is in danger of extinction due to the new digital world, despite the friction which the Author Fee model encounters in HSS at this early 21 Name recognition was not investigated within this project but expected by the publisher. 22 This coincides with the HSS recommendations of the EC for FP7 http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=1300&lang=1, (accessed February 2, 2014). 23 OAPEN Recommendations p. 31. 15 stage in the changing landscape of monograph publishing, publishers should prepare to offer at least an option like Ontos Open to authors.  The online interface will require some input from the publisher. It is recommended to use an aggregator which also takes care of proper indexing, such as the publication platform OAPEN Library http://www.oapen.org/home. Investing in a separate platform and system may become much more cumbersome and expensive for a small publisher. Download barriers should be avoided to support the dissemination advantage.  The OA content should be easily interoperable with other repositories. A single publisher's web service, if not interoperable enough, may restrict downloads and hence inhibit some of the positive potential advantages for OA publishers.  Proper indexing is a way for a publisher to take care of the extra publicity or visibility that OA brings with it. Also, it is a way to ensure that the authors get the dissemination advantage that they expect.  Small publishers like Ontos sell mostly to libraries (according to Ontos' CEO Hüntelmann 90% of sales at Ontos). Downloaders are often individuals and they make up a different customer segment. Publishers should note that the needs of these two segments differ and design products differently for them.  There is an OA information deficit on behalf of the authors at least in philosophy. Publishers should inform their authors properly about Open Access and its benefits.  Publication cultures vary between scientific disciplines, and for future policies, these differences should be further investigated and taken into consideration. 16 3 Open Access Journal Experiment Within the Agora project, two academic journals were founded: Lexicon Philosophicum and Nordic Wittgenstein Review. The NWR was part of the Open Access Business Models experiment. 3.1 OA business models for journal publication For journals, the currently used business models are to some extent different from those for OA monographs. Openoasis.org, a site promoting OA publication, lists the following five models24: Community publishing – cost reduction, volunteer work. Advertising or sponsorship supported journals – for example BMJ, journals edited by societies with membership fees. Institutional subsidy – university press or library edited publication, where the academic community is in charge. Hard copy sales – print sales cover costs, and OA publication works to boost interest. Article-processing charges (APC's) – the authors or their institutions pay for processing the articles. The model used in our experiment was the hard copy sales, i.e. a print subscription model combined with delayed Open Access (3 months) and community input and some (institutional) sponsorship. The EC-funded project SOAP (2009-11) reports that large publishers (50-100 journals) involved in OA-publishing tend to have income sources for their journals as APC's, membership fees and advertisements, whereas the smaller publishers had subscription to the print version of the journal, sponsorship and to a lesser degree APC's.25 The classification of income sources by SOAP included (a) article processing charge; (b) membership fee; (c) advertisement; (d) sponsorship; (f) subscription; (g) hard copy and (x) other.26 3.2 OA journal experiment setup The Journal The journal is a specialized international journal, publishing texts in English. It is peer-reviewed (double-blind), and published by the Nordic Wittgenstein Society. During the two-year experiment period the journal was annual, from 2014 it will be bi-annual. The journal has a Nordic editorial board appointed by the Nordic Wittgenstein Society board and an international advisory board. Its sections include an Invited Paper, Submitted Articles, From the Archives, Interview, and Book Reviews. The theme of the journal is philosophy and other Ludwig Wittgenstein-related research. 24 Openoasis.org: "Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook: Practical steps for implementing Open Access": http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=347&Itemid=377 (accessed July 7, 2013). 25 Polydoratou, Panayiota; Schimmer, Ralf, "Income sources as underlying business models' attributes for scholarly journals: preliminary findings from analysing open access journals' data" http://edoc.mpg.de/493384, (accessed Dec. 10, 2013). 26 SOAP report OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING MODELS AND ATTRIBUTES July 8, 2010, http://edoc.mpg.de/get.epl?fid=71514&did=478647&ver=0 (accessed Dec. 10, 2013). 17 For copyright, the online versions use a Creative Commons license, CC-BY-NC-SA, Non-Commercial, ShareAlike, which allows the users online to share and adapt but not sell the content forward, and if adapted, it needs to be distributed under the same license as the original.27 Print publication The journal was published in print and circulated via Ontos verlag (small publisher, Issue 1/August 5, 2012) and De Gruyter (large publisher, Issue 2/August 28, 2013), following the purchase of Ontos by De Gruyter in May 2013. It was sold as individual hard copies and print subscriptions to institutions and individuals by Ontos, later by DeGruyter, and Issue 2 also as electronic subscriptions in a bundle. Online OA publication NWR1: The article pdf's of the first issue were published 3 months after print (Nov. 5, 2012) on the journal site (using the publishing platform OJS) www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com. Later, full text html's were added. NWR2: The second issue was published in print Aug. 28, 2013 and for electronic subscription Aug. 20, 2013. Half of the article pdf's were made OA immediately upon print in the journal platform, and the rest three months later, Nov. 28, 2013. (The articles were also available OA on De Gruyter's site due to a mistake from October 2013.) Full text html-versions were added to the journal platform Dec. 18, 2013. The journal access and sales data were monitored during this time. The journal also took part in an Open Review experiment, in which double-blind peer review was supplemented with a session of Open Review or Preview online of the submitted articles accepted for publication during one month (NWR #1 during April-May 2012, NWR#2 May 2013). During this time, many downloads of the preprints were recorded (after one month during the first preview the pdf's then had been downloaded on average 98 times each, ranging from 38 to 167, during the second preview half of the articles were on Open Review, and they were downloaded on average 153 times). The journal charged no publication fees or other author processing charges. The printed journal was offered on a subscription basis. 3.3 Sales and income streams The print version of the journal experienced some demand. Print subscriptions by institutions were very few. 15 individuals (all members of the NWS) have subscribed at a reduced membership subscription fee (institutional subscription 2 issues 129€ print or electronic, individual 79€, member subscription 49€). These subscriptions had already been ordered by Dec. 1, 2012 (1 month after OA release, 4 months after print). The individual subscriptions were collected via the Nordic Wittgenstein Society (no membership fee) before print. By the time of the publication of NWR1, two libraries made contact 27 The copyright licensing was not further investigated within the Agora project, but it is worth noting that many OA activists recommend the least restrictive license CC-BY, which researchers in HSS dislike, according to the Taylor Francis Open Access Survey (March 2013), Supplement 1, pp 7-8. They prefer much more restrictive licenses. http://www.tandfonline.com/action/clickThrough?id=3523&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandf.co.uk%2Fjournal s%2Fexplore%2Fopen-access-survey-supp1.pdf&loc=%2Fpage%2Fopenaccess%2Fopensurvey (accessed Dec. 12, 2013). 18 19 with the journal and wished to subscribe to the journal electronically.28 However, one reader had asked his library to subscribe and his wish had been declined due to the OA version, so no conclusive information was obtained on this point.29 The technical solution which libraries wished for when asked by Ontos Verlag was not to download the journal; rather, they prefer a license-based subscription, in which they buy access to the electronic version of the journal from the time of print.30 The price level of the journal is low compared to many other academic journals even within philosophy, although the comparison is difficult to make due to the fact that many journals are sold in bundles and the difference in rebate groups.31 The business model used for the journal is a mixed model: there is revenue from subscriptions, both individual and institutional, both printed and electronic (with De Gruyter, and only institutional). At the same time, the costs are minimized with the main part of the editorial and processing work done as community service. Also, there are institutional subsidies (for the start-up phase Agora project funding from the EU (CIP Pilot Actions FP7) and also some from research institutions through NS-HOS (Joint Committee for Nordic Research Councils for the Humanities and the Social Sciences). The community service was extensive, and one measure of it is the peer review tasks carried out. For the first issue, 56 double blind peer reviewers submitted a review (another 11 were contacted but declined to review), and for the second issue, 44 did so (another 18 were contacted but declined). These tasks, which play a crucial role in ensuring the quality of a publication, and which scholars are supposed to carry out without payment, is important for a publisher to acknowledge since lack of interest in a journal or support for it in a community will affect the possibility of good quality processes. Such processes are one of the features which authors see as crucial for their choice of journal to submit to.32 Also, the Nordic Wittgenstein Society and the editors took care of informing the community about the journal (marketing), calls for papers, etc. 28 Later, we tried to approach these libraries to ask whether they had realized the delayed OA to verify that the demand was not a misunderstanding, but we did not receive a reply. 29 This type of enterprise does exist in Revues.org, which offers a Freemium model also for journals. 30 One explanation may be that they do not wish to invest in keeping up their own storage servers and that as the tasks and functions of the libraries are changing in the light of electronic publication and OA, this may change. 31 Journal of Philosophy (10 issues/year, Columbia University) has a similar price level (although also offer electronic subscriptions) $200 (print only $150) institutions, individuals $50. http://www.journalofphilosophy.org/ (accessed Feb. 2, 2014), Philosophical Investigations (Wiley, quarterly) institutions around 500€, individual 113€, http://ordering.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/subs.asp?ref=14679205&doi=10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-9205 (accessed Feb. 2, 2014). 32 Taylor Francis Open Access survey 2013 Income streams NWR 1 -print subscriptions Individuals (NWR members) Institutions -single print copy sales -sponsorship NS-HOS -Agora project funding Costs NWR 1 print -postage Hidden costs NWR1 Community service -peer reviews 56 -editorial work (Agora financed) Income streams NWR 2 -print subscriptions NWR members – no addition after NWR 1 Institutions – 1 addition after NWR 1 -electronic subscriptions (in bundle) -no single copy sales no additional sponsorship -Agora project funding Costs NWR2 -print -postage Hidden costs NWR2 Community service -peer reviews 44 -editorial work (some Agora financed) Table 3 Journal income streams 3.3.1 Projected break-even For NWR1, the print costs were covered by the subscriptions, however, the subscriptions covered two issues, NWR1 and NWR2 and hence, unless more subscriptions would be sold for the following issues, the journal did not break even for the publisher. The projected break-even for NWR at Ontos was 5 institutional subscriptions (654€). 3 were achieved along with the 15 member subscriptions (387€ + 735€ = 1122€). In other words, the subscriber structure did not correspond to the expectations but rather another customer segment appeared: the individual society members. The projected break-even at a larger publisher could be expected to be higher, but no number has been received from De Gruyter. One guess is around 20 institutional subscriptions, but there, the electronic subscriptions to libraries would be the main product. 3.4 NWR Access Data Access counts were collected for visits and downloads for each article during 2012-13 with the OJS platform tool at www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com and also with the help of Google Analytics. Sales and access data are not completely comparable since the printed journal consists of an issue whereas access online is different in granularity when the target object is often an article, not an issue. Downloaded pdf's may be more likely to be read than html versions and it is difficult to say which corresponding articles have been read in print by those who have received free copies or subscribed. The abstract views measure shows that the journal has reached out. Total galley views are pdf downloads + html downloads. Pdf downloads indicate readership to some degree. (Html's for the articles in issue 2 were not available at the time of this statistics report.) 20 Figure 3 NWR access issues 1 and 2 (May 22, 2012-Dec. 16, 2013) Article pdf downloads during the Open Review period (during 1 month, before paper and OA publication) varied between 38 and 167 depending on the article. After OA publication for those also available during Open Review the span was between 61 and 104 (html full text), and between 89 and 196 (pdf). For the other articles variations were 33-1099 (html full text) and 31-137 (pdf). The Open Review downloads are not included in Figure 3. The Open Review was a preprint Open Review for articles already accepted for publication. For the first issue, all submitted accepted articles (noncommissioned) were made available for Open Review, and for the second, only half of the submitted accepted articles. The Open Review generated comments to the authors, although not in the NWR platform, but mostly by e-mail, and increased the visibility of the journal as a publication venue and an online node, and its content in terms of the articles as the results of research by the authors. Open Review turned out to have a marketing function apart from the quality improvement function hoped for. Access for Issue 2 to the parallel electronic publication at De Gruyter was monitored and the pdf download numbers for articles on that site were altogether 137 between August and December 2013. Google Analytics shows that www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com had altogether 60.395 visits (page views) from the time of Open Review for the first issue April 1, 2012-Dec. 31, 2013. Of these, 37,96% were referral traffic, i.e. visitors coming in via other sites, and 60.7% of all visits were new visitors. Most of the visitors entered the site direct or via google, and quite a few visitors found their way in via Brian Leiter's philosophy blog Leiter Reports, to which the news of the new journal was sent by the research group. (Date range April 1, 2012-Dec. 31, 2013.) Another blog which has been a central referral point by posting the link to Nuno Venturinha's article in NWR1, is on Marginal Revolution, an online teaching site. 21 22 Table 2 Referral traffic Landing Page Source Segment Visits % New Visits New Visits Bounce Rate Pages/Visit Avg.Visit Duration www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com/ (direct) All Visits 1459 54,28 % 792 49,97 % 4,44 215,29 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com / (direct) Referral Traffic 0 0,00 % 0 0,00 % 0,00 0,00 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com / Google All Visits 1377 40,23 % 554 27,89 % 5,91 267,55 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com / Google Referral Traffic 0 0,00 % 0 0,00 % 0,00 0,00 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /issue/current leiterreports.typepad.com All Visits 1300 91,77 % 1193 53,92 % 2,43 93,10 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /issue/current leiterreports.typepad.com Referral Traffic 1300 91,77 % 1193 53,92 % 2,43 93,10 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /article/view/NWR-1_2012-Venturinha/html marginalrevolution.com All Visits 777 92,15 % 716 94,85 % 1,10 14,31 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /article/view/NWR-1_2012-Venturinha/html marginalrevolution.com Referral Traffic 777 92,15 % 716 94,85 % 1,10 14,31 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com / wab.uib.no All Visits 756 53,57 % 405 43,52 % 8,16 327,43 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com / wab.uib.no Referral Traffic 756 53,57 % 405 43,52 % 8,16 327,43 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /article/view/NWR-1_2012-McNallyMcNally google All Visits 602 89,70 % 540 80,40 % 1,44 68,93 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /article/view/NWR-1_2012-McNallyMcNally google Referral Traffic 0 0,00 % 0 0,00 % 0,00 0,00 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /article/view/NWR-1_2012-Venturinha google All Visits 387 65,12 % 252 71,32 % 1,85 84,72 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /article/view/NWR-1_2012-Venturinha google Referral Traffic 0 0,00 % 0 0,00 % 0,00 0,00 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /issue/current (direct) All Visits 351 60,40 % 212 52,14 % 3,20 136,06 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /issue/current (direct) Referral Traffic 0 0,00 % 0 0,00 % 0,00 0,00 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /about/editorialPolicies (direct) All Visits 287 3,14 % 9 94,08 % 1,07 36,60 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /about/editorialPolicies (direct) Referral Traffic 0 0,00 % 0 0,00 % 0,00 0,00 www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com /article/view/NWR-1_2012-Venturinha/html (direct) All Visits 271 89,67 % 243 93,73 % 1,10 23,17 Inquiry (Norway) is a philosophical journal founded in 1952 by Arne Naess. It is edited by the Taylor Francis Group as a subscription journal with a hybrid OA offer to authors.33 Inquiry's electronic version access data is available online and the total galley views (pdf+html) for 2012 are shown here in comparison with the NWR access data. More than half of NWR's articles from the first issue have been viewed at least 1000 times, whereas only one of the Inquiry articles has had more than 400 total galley views. This provides some suggestion as to the visibility advantage of Open Access. Figure 4 Comparison NWR and Inquiry 3.5 The Current OA Situation in Philosophy around NWR 3.5.1 Open Access Journals in Philosophy The current Open Access situation in journal publishing in philosophy was surveyed. Data was collected on a number of variables, on most existing philosophy OA journals, with a special focus on business model aspects. 34 The information was collected online from DOAJ (DOAJ.org) and Ulrichsweb. The DOAJ OA list was downloaded in December 2012 along with a DOAJ "OA and Hybrid Journal" list in December 2012. We supplemented these lists with Open Access journals from Ulrichsweb in January 2013 and in May 2013 with new entries from DOAJ. In August 2013, we compiled all of this to one list and filled it out with more data, added from Ulrichsweb. Where there were details missing from the two databases, we checked them on the Journal websites during August – December 2013. 33 Inquiry website http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/sinq20/current#.UvS5SnchO3o (accessed Nov. 5, 2013). 34 For example when it comes to article processing charges (APC:s), of the 1,825 journals listed in DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals), a little over 26% by self-report charge APC:s. The expectation for HSS and hence philosophy is that the percentage is significantly lower. Cf. Solomon, D. J. and Björk, B.-C. (2012), "A study of open access journals using article processing charges". J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 63: 1485–1495. doi: 10.1002/asi.22673 23 Table 3 Variables current OA journal situation philosophy Open Access Journal name website Only electronic=1 Print and electronic=2 Publisher name (Publisher is society=1 (or other non-profit organization), combination society+commercial publisher =2)) European=1, Non-european=O Country DOAJ=1 Frequency (issues/year) Number of articles published 2012 Number of issues published Founded (year) Born OA=1, OA later=2 In DOAJ, Directory of Open Access Journals, including hybrids, 216 journals with the subject term 'philosophy' were included in December 2012. There was a temporary DOAJ-directory online for a while which included hybrid journals, but it was taken down, presumably between March and May 2013. Ulrichsweb is a periodicals database, which contains information on journals on an extensive number of variables. The number of journals fulfilling the following criteria: active, academic/scholarly journal, subject keyword 'philosophy' indexed in Ulrichsweb (Jan. 2013) was 2037 (subject_keyword:(philosophy)) Status:("Active") Serial Type:("Journal") Content Type:("Academic / Scholarly"). Of these journals, 1168 were indicated as peer reviewed, 868 available online, and out of these, again, 308 were indicated to be Open Access. 144 out of these 308 OA journals were both Open Access and peer reviewed ('scholarly' and 'peer reviewed' do not completely overlap in the index). 511 journals are Open Access, when 'peer reviewed' is omitted from the search criteria. The material suggests that 7 and 25% (144 and 511/2037) of scholarly philosophy journals are OA journals. Out of the 1168 peer reviewed journals, 1026 are indicated as available in print and 868 electronic (some are both, for some, information is probably missing). 195 (16%) are indicated to be electronic only, i.e. lack print version. Open Access above means titles which do not charge their readers or institutions for access and which have no other restrictions either (the BOAI definition of OA).35 Hence, UW does not include delayed OA journals. UW reports using DOAJ as a source, but differences in the two indices suggests that the inclusion is not consistent. The information in the two directories differed to some extent. UW contained the foundation year of the journals, and in some cases the subscription prices. Information on whether a journal was born OA or not was sometimes difficult to find and it was assumed that that was the case for journals older than 1989 (www invented – before that not possible) which has print versions. Some of the DOAJ journals were included in Ulrichsweb but not all. 35 "Titles in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) are included in Ulrich's, as are other publications that support a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. Publications with limited free access such as those that may be available free only for a select period of time or have other restrictions on free use are included in Ulrichsweb.com but are not found using the "Open Access" limiter. To find all free publications, a user can select the Price Range "Free" option in Advanced Search." http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/faqs.asp (accessed Aug. 16, 2013). However, there was only one "Free" journal in philosophy, so it seems that the indexing in Ulrichsweb is not working on this detail. 24 Overview reliability Some of the publications included as journals in the databases are not comparable to NWR, for example Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is a collection of encyclopedic articles rather than an academic journal which is open for submissions for researchers and which libraries and others may subscribe to. Hence it also differs commercially. Journals comparable to NWR are also hardly cost-cut journals since our interest here is potentially commercially viable business models. The databases claim that they apply the BOAI definition for OA but APC hybrid journals, i.e. journals which are not wholly open are also included. This goes for both UW and DOAJ. We chose to focus on European journals since the commercial situation outside of Europe may differ in relevant ways. Also, inclusion of journals in the databases depends on editor OA awareness. Some journals do not think of their free online versions in these terms and therefore they are not indexed. The delimitation of OA is also an issue – a journal with only a few articles freely available is not an OA journal, so hybrids should be excluded from these indexes. The OA label criteria are unevenly followed and will create some deviations, and in general the results of this overview are not as exact as they should be for research purposes. However, our interest here is to gain a general background view of the situation and for this, the overview will do. 3.5.2 Overview Results The list comprised 249 journals. 1924-69 13 1970-79 12 1980-89 17 1990-99 36 2000-2009 128 2010-13 38 Table 4 Journal foundation year distribution Most journals have been founded since the Web became more interactive. Of the journals analysed for the born OA variable (199/249 checked – many websites lack information), the first born OA is 1995. Of journals analysed founded in 2010, 26 were born OA included on the list, but the low total number 2010-13 (38) is explained by indexing delay. Converting from closed to OA in the BOAI version seems not very common. Out of a total of 153 journals for which this information was available, 80, or around half of the journals were born OA (supposing that the 42 journals founded before 1989 were not born OA). In other words, around half of the BOAI-OA journals available to readers and authors today are quite new. Print journals are still quite common in philosophy: 54,6% of the journals (136) were only electronic and the rest were also published in print. In our list, too few journals had clearly stated whether they charge APC's, but following the DOAJ hybrid list of 216 journals, 25, or 11,6%, charged publication fees. Of these 25 philosophy journals, 7 were related to the biosciences or business ethics, which suggests that interdisciplinarity may be a factor in pushing OA in certain directions. Some of the journals included in the list (such as Synthese) are merely hybrids, in which only part of the articles are OA (on an OA fee model). The OA situation in philosophy is dominated by dual-mode journals (print and electronic). Less than 12% charge APC's, and those which do relate to fields where APC's are more common. 25 3.6 NWR Competitor OA situation overview The competitors of NWR were named in a focus group discussion, and the OA and hybrid situation with these journals was surveyed. Seven journals were mentioned The three most well-known journals which in the views of the focus group members also publish Wittgenstein-related content are not OA, but some have a hybrid offering. 3 out of 7 journals are closed access. One of these has an easy to find green mandate. 4 are hybrid journals with APC's. The APC level standard was 2150€/article (also formulated as US$3000/article). The Open Access article uptake for 2011-13 for these journals by articles published are 0%, 0%, 1,9% and 16,9% respectively. (OA articles in Special best-of issues not counted, nor book review supplements, since it is reasonable to suppose that no APC's were paid for them.) The general situation is that the OA-uptake is very low, and that there is no known Open Access competitor. • Philosophical Investigations (Wiley): HYBRID APC: "OnlineOpen" author-side fee per article US$3000 No individual OA articles 2011-13, however one OA issue and a best-of collection "Virtual Issue" . Quarterly • Wittgenstein Studien (de Gruyter): CLOSED ACCESS Yearbook/annual • Sats, Northern European Journal of Philosophy (De Gruyter): CLOSED ACCESS Biannual • Philosophy (Cambridge UP): Quarterly CLOSED ACCESS – Green mandate Cambridge has a range of 150 hybrid journals, but Philosophy is not one of them, nor does it belong to the 5 wholly OA journals at this publisher. CUP allows for green OA, also for the last version of the articles (Version of Record) upon electronic publication, and provided correct linking. • Inquiry (Tayor & Francis): HYBRID APC: Included in "T&F Open Select"hybrid OA programme at T&F, 2,150€/article 6 issues/year No OA articles 2011-13 • Philosophical Quarterly (Wiley) HYBRID APC: "OnlineOpen" author-side fee per article US$3000 One OA issue (Issue 250 /2013) OA best-of collection "Virtual Issue" disregarded. Quarterly 2013 0 OA of 35 original articles 2012: 2 OA of a total of 34 articles OA (only original articles counted, not editorial or book reviews – however no book reviews were OA 2011-13) 2011: 33 original articles, no OA Uptake total 2/102 = 1,9% 26 • European Journal of Philosophy (Wiley) HYBRID APC: "OnlineOpen" author-side fee per article US$3000 Quarterly 2011: 3/24 2012: 8/28 (all articles in one entirely OA issue, not special best-of collection backlist articles) 2013: 1/19 Uptake total: 12/71 = 16,9% 3.7 Agora Journal Survey The current situation overview was supplemented with a questionnaire survey to the community around NWR, altogether some 500 stakeholders (i.e. 165 NWS members (posting to the society's email list nws@abo.fi 15.10.2013, reminder 16.11.2013) NWR authors, readers, and reviewers (293 persons, posting 18.10.2013, 7 failed e-mail deliveries, contact made through the OJS platform) and posting on the NWR Facebook page (16.11.2013, 175 likers)). Altogether 47 responses were received, of which one was excluded as irrelevant. The journal survey measured in particular OA awareness, OA funding awareness and availability, OA experience and values, publication values, their perception of the NWR models' sustainability. A presentation with comprehensive details of the survey and its results is available as a separate file. Eger & Scheufen (Hamburg University) and Meierrieks (Freiburg), conducted a survey in Germany in 2012, with 2,151 participants. In their report "The Determinants of Open Access Publishing" they point out that OA awareness and attitudes differ very much between disciplines, and show that the perceived relevance and reputation of OA within the discipline may explain why researchers from some areas do and do not publish in OA journals. The conclusion of their report is that for policies, a one-size-fits-all solution will not do for effective promotion of OA publishing.36 In this survey, 63 respondents from universities or research institutes were from "Philosophy & Religion". Of the 62 university researchers, almost 25% had experience with publishing in an OA journal. However, only around 15% had self-archived in a repository or online platform. OA awareness and the perceived relevance of OA journals were a little lower than for most other disciplines. By the respondents in general, the closed access journals were taken to have a reputation advantage over the OA journals, and this was the critical issue for researchers not choosing OA. The report concludes that in order for the reputation to increase for the OA journals, which are often new, reputable scholars need to publish in them. Building reputation takes some time, but is possible. In order to assure the quality of publications, the authors support measures to transfer from subscription models to APC-models as business models which enable the publishers as providers of services to cover their costs instead of transferring the functions to universities. Different disciplines require different measures. Eger & Scheufen have, in 2013, extended the survey work internationally and their survey running in 2013 is the basis for some of the questions in the Agora Journal Survey, in a version called "Open Access Awareness and Attitudes in Different Scientific Disciplines". In the Agora Journal Survey, 100% of the respondents are "familiar with" or "aware of but not familiar with OA". However, when asked to name three relevant OA journals in their field, only 9/46 could mention 3, 9 could mention 1 or 2 and 50% of the respondents could not mention a single one. On article basis, the experience of OA publishing was such that a little more than 20% of the articles (108/494) published by the respondents had been made OA either via either the green or gold road. Since self-reported OA awareness was high, it is a surprise that the most common reason for not publishing OA was "I haven't realized it was possible", i.e. unawareness. Among the factors which are important to the authors for choice of journal to submit to "They are the best in my academic field" 36 Eger & Scheufen 2012 27 was by far the most important (supported by 80% of the respondents), and in second place commissioning by editors, then trust in the quality-assurance processes, dissemination to the right audience, earlier experience from publishing with the specific journal and also, with over 40% support "They are Open Access publishers". Other reasons specified by the respondents themselves were publication process time, general outlook of a journal and its visibility in the profession, journals with interesting articles which are relevant to research and teaching. These results follow Eger & Scheufen & Meierrieks 2012 on reputation, but not on awareness. The near future visualized based on the survey does not include Open Access-fees: only one respondent had once paid an OA fee of 500€, i.e. experience is low and the attitudes are very negative to OA fees:37 28 respondents checked "I would never pay nor have my institution pay Open Access fees", and less than 15 were ready to pay a fee, although all less than 700€, most respondents 300€ or less. According to Solomon & Björk (2012)38, in their study of OA journals using APC's, indeed many society publishers keep their APC's low, and there is a clear difference in levels for different disciplines already. The experience of fees by the respondents in our survey was much lower than in surveys recounted by Solomon & Björk, for example the in SOAP survey, half of the researchers (all areas) who had published in an OA journal had paid fees (although only 10% above 1000€). Also, the low fees found acceptable by our respondents may not allow many journals to convert away from the subscription model as suggested by Eger & Scheufen & Meierrieks, if other income streams are not available. Also, specific OA funding is not available – only 6/46 indicate that such is available to them, and they respond (free text) that that funding is from the "University OA pool", "research project funding", "university funding" or "research council". "Publication funding" (non-specified) is available – 10/46 have applied for such, 10/46 are aware of such funding but have not applied for it, however 18/46 do not know of such funding at all. 8 don't know or can't remember. Björk and Laakso (2013) conducted an empirical study of the prevalence of delayed OA journals in all disciplines in 2011. They stress the difficulty in overviewing delayed OA journals and hybrids due to the lack of index of delayed OA journals. In their study, they found 492 journals, publishing altogether 111,312 articles in 2011. Of those articles, 77,8% had been made OA within 12 months from publication. The 12 month delay is also recommended for green OA by the European Commission for HSS publications. In our survey, the respondents were generally not negative towards delays although 8 were "against embargo periods", 11 marked 12 months as the longest embargo period they could find acceptable, 12 marked 6 months, and 8 3 months. This renders the 6 month embargo support from 23 respondents, i.e. 50%. Of the respondents, 8 ticked "I don't know". The role of the community in the success of a journal is evident from our survey due to the information by our respondents that almost half have asked their library to subscribe to a journal. That some 35% of the respondents say that they subscribe to at least one scholarly journal as an individual, suggests that there is a market for individual subscriptions to take into consideration. There is some tendency to choose to focus community service towards OA journals: 40% prefer to act as peer reviewers for OA journals, and 36% prefer to submit articles to OA journals, and 30% of the respondents say that they have prioritized a journal because of OA. 37 This negative attitude is found expressed also other places, for example see A. Pichler's http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2013/oktober/368750 (accessed Feb. 13, 2014). 38 David. J. Solomon & Bo-Christer Björk (2012), "A Study of Open Access Journals Using Article Processing Charges", Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8): 1485-1495. DOI: 10.1002/asi 28 3.8 Results of the journal experiment Dissemination advantage of OA Access numbers were high compared to an established closed access philosophy journal. This may be an indication of advantages of OA, but also of a difference in level of entrenchment in a research community. APC-based models are not successful in the near future Hybrid APC-based uptake was low; for the main competitor, it was 0%, and for others up to 16,9%, but without the one special OA issue, it would have been 9%. The uptake is expected to rise as OA funding pools are becoming more common. Within philosophy, however, the development is expected to be slow, the authors are in a key position as mediators of the fees, and the survey shows that their attitudes are very negative towards the whole idea of fees. Delayed OA is less visible in indices The situation in philosophy in general is that BOAI-OA is expanding rapidly, but the development of conversion from closed access to delayed OA is difficult to overview. The OA journals are in general new (of the full-OA around 50% were founded in the last ten years). Unawareness is an issue The survey displayed unawareness as an issue for not publishing OA. There is a tension between the researcher's OA ideals and their own publication and community service (review) practices: although the researchers wish for more OA, but they are not alert to their own possibilities of publishing OA either green or gold. Reputation is an issue Around half of the BOAI-OA journals surveyed are only a few years old, and reputation is an issue for OA journals. Financial sustainability undetermined Print subscription sales were low. The change of publisher makes it difficult to draw any conclusions on the financial sustainability of this model. A study by Waltham (2005) reports figures of the consequences on sales for 8 Oxford University Press journals which introduced delayed OA. There, compared with the situation before OA, print circulation dropped by 6% for journals with an embargo period of 6 months and 2% for an embargo period of 12 months.39 OA is not strong a factor in choosing publication venue That OA is not a strong factor in choosing where to publish was underlined by our survey results. Different customer segments should be identified for OA In this case, individuals and institutions (libraries) should be addressed separately in the business models. Non-BOAI Open Access visibility needs to be investigated further The OA situation in philosophy on wider definitions of OA than that of BOAI needs to be investigated further and by other means than in the present project. The application of the BOAI definition skews OA research but also pushes publishers towards APC-based models, and these mechanisms and the present situation on the OA market in philosophy should be surveyed. 39 Waltham, M., (2005) Learned Society Open Access Business Models, Report, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/topics/opentechnologies/openaccess/reports/learnedsociety.aspx, accessed Feb. 7, 2014. 29 3.9 The journal after the experiment After the end of the experiment, the editorial board of the journal entered negotiations on a future with De Gruyter. Following our survey on Open Access in philosophy, which shows that the community around NWR dislikes APC-based models, the hybrid model offered by De Gruyter was not an option for the journal in the future. De Gruyter as a large publisher did not want to introduce other models such as a delayed gold model next to closed access subscription models with APC-driven hybrid options. Another offer was from a smaller Open Access publisher (an independent part of a larger publishing house), on a society/journal pays model. In this model, the society (i.e. the editorial board) would find funding for the publishing costs, and the journal would be available OA immediately, with print-ondemand on the side (of which sales the society would receive a set share). This model was very attractive to the editors and the editorial board also because of the cc-license. However, for the editorial board, it was important that the community labor would be kept at a minimum, i.e. a journal pays model would mean that the editors would have to apply for funding to keep the journal running. Putting the task of funding journals on researchers is not in general a sustainable or efficient division of labor. Even though the editorial board did not think it would be impossible to find the funding, it turned the offer down. When the offer was turned down, it turned out that the Open Access publisher found NWR so attractive that it offered two years completely free for the journal. The third offer NWR received and which the editorial board opted for was a subscription model with a large publisher, with free access for society members and there is a 12 month embargo on the green mandate, i.e. the right for the authors to publish OA preprints (submitted versions) of the articles in repositories or on their own websites. One possibility is to eastablish a repository related to the society, and hence make the green mandate approach gold. In this model, the publisher would also pay a sum for the editorial work every year, and relieve the editors from application tasks. The Nordic Wittgenstein Society has no membership fee and this would go on. The drawback in this model was that the copyright would not stay with the authors (as in cc-licenses) but be turned over to the publisher. Nevertheless, the editorial board thought that this model nevertheless was the one that would be the most sustainable for the society and the editors. In conclusion, less Open Access but good service to the closest stakeholders, the members of the society combined with a 12 month embargo for the green mandate was chosen as the future for NWR. Open Access lost to perceived sustainability. 3.10 The Hybrid Trap In many contexts, the BOAI definition of OA is applied. OA, in the BOAI definition, requires immediate OA. This application of this definition excludes NWR from the Directory of Open Access Journals. Upon application, the publishing society Nordic Wittgenstein Society could not become a member of the OASPA (Open Access Publisher Association), due to the delay, but also to the CClicense used (OASPA requires CC-BY). Not only is there a visibility problem for a new delayed hybrid OA journal here. Moreover, the definitions used will hinder a certain development in OA, namely the development of models with an embargo period, models which do not rely on OA fees. DOAJ includes journals which are actually hybrid journals, since not all articles are OA. For NWR, this visibility problem was compensated by strong community entrenchment. The hybrid trap is a problem also for libraries, which are trying to avoid double-dipping, i.e. paying both subscription fees and author fees. The libraries are missing a quality database of hybrids in which to check whether they follow fair standards, and as has been suggested by Björk and Laakso (2013), 30 initiatives should be taken to eastablish a database for OA hybrids as well. The experience of NWR recommends the endorsement of their suggestion. The hybrid trap is the exclusion mechanism which the restrictive conditions on OA formulated by BOAI generate. It prevents new hybrids from prospering and potentially sustainable models from being developed. Larger publishers we have been in contact with know that exclusion from these collaborations is fatal and they avoid delays except for in the green mandates. 4 Services in the business models experiment The possible 'services' in the economic models as defined by OAPEN are features of the research or prepublication phase or as additions to the text, and which often distinguish digital matter from printed.40 For an OA business model, these enriched texts can be electronic premium versions, access to which can be an income source.41 The metadata enhancements to the Agora ebooks is an idea which is has not been included in these experiments. The monograph metadata will be fed into the Europeana open library structure, which will improve visibility substantially. The metadata enhancement is carried out in collaboration with the Wittgenstein Archives in Bergen, Norway (WAB). WAB offers the counterpart material for interlinking (i.e. the Wittgenstein Source, 5000 pages of Nachlass material online 42 ). Metadata enhancement may give a publication more prestige, and the risks and gains of doing it should be analysed. One issue here is how and to what extent the metadata enhancement is an improvement of the electronic OA publications which the authors, as a mix of content providers and customers (as they are paying for OA) can appreciate. Where applicable, WAB has interlinked all the content it contributes to the Agora project – so also the first two issues of NWR – with the underlying dataset Wittgenstein Source. This means that each place in the content where a reference is made to one of the items published on Wittgenstein Source, is tagged in such a way that a hyperlink is created between the reference in the content and the target resource on Wittgenstein Source. Examples include the references to TSS 212 and 213 in Todor Polimenov's review of the Biesenbach book (at the quote "Ich komme hier auf jene Methode der Zeichenerklärung über die sich Frege so lustig gemacht hat ..."), or to TS 213 (the so-called Big Typescript) in Stern's report about the Moore project ( at "While the Philosophical Remarks, Big Typescript, and Philosophical Grammar are carefully composed ..."). These hyperlinks lead directly to their targets on Wittgenstein Source if the reference is on the granularity level of the single remark, they lead to the remark; if the reference is on the granularity level of the entire item, they lead to the beginning of the item. It should be noted that Wittgenstein Source currently does not run in Internet Explorer, so for example Mozilla, Google Chrome or Safari should be used for checking out the links. Additionally, where appropriate, the single contributions are also linked to other sites, like for example the site of the Nordic Wittgenstein Society where it is mentioned see for example. As of February 2014, the NWR resource contains a total of 46 such hyperlinks. 40 OAPEN Best Practice Report p. 30. 41 One such model is offered by Revues (part of the portal Open Editions) http://www.revues.org/6438 (accessed Dec. 12, 2013). 42 Wittgenstein Source http://www.wittgensteinsource.org/, accessed Feb. 6. 2013. 31 Moreover, in the NWR XML-TEI files, from which the HTML outputs are prepared, additionally each reference to literature is tagged with a <bibl> element. To illustrate with one example, the reference to Hans-Johann Glock's Wittgenstein Dictionary will be embedded in the tag <bibl n="GlockHans-Johann_1996"> . </bibl> Bibliographic tagging of this sort, first of all identifies all references to literature in the contribution; and secondly, allows all such references to be extracted into an ontology (as it is built at WAB); and, thirdly, helps prepare future interlinking between the NWR resource and the literature referred to. As of February 2013, the NWR resource contains a total of 465 such <bibl> elements. It is assumed that such enrichment of the resource that provides for its interlinking with complementary resources on the web will increase the positive user experience and attract more users to the resource. 5 Conclusions and recommendations For monographs, a 12 month delayed model is recommended. If within philosophy, a model with no OA fee is recommended. Open Access for monographs seems to have a neutral or positive, but not negative impact on sales. OAPEN-UK's HSS Researcher Survey showed that researchers read scholarly monographs in the library, and that they ask the library to subscribe after they have browsed the electronic version. In that sense, the Open Access version works as a marketing tool. On the other hand, this study has not investigated whether it also prevents purchases. That is a question which requires a discussion of the purchasing procedures at libraries, which is beyond the scope of this study. Other experiences, however, such as that of the US National Academies Press, with direct OA since 1994 suggest that that is not the case.43 The need for OA journals to avoid the hybrid trap pushes the business in the direction of APC-based models, contrary to the wishes of researchers in some areas. A part solution would be for a similar index as DOAJ for hybrid journals and delayed OA journals. It would be a key for libraries trying to avoid double-dipping. Hybrid OA journals of all flavors need to become more visible and delayed OA needs to be branded or marketed as a viable option. 43 Peter Suber (2012), Open Access, p. 109., The MIT Press, http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/all/modules/pubdlcnt/pubdlcnt.php?file=/sites/default/files/titles/content/978026251 7638_Open_Access_PDF_Version.pdf&nid=181732 (accessed Feb. 24, 2014). 32 5.1 OA business model sustainability What makes an OA business model sustainable? The OAPEN project result and recommendation is that different models might be sustainable or not so depending on context and on the goals of a specific publisher. One thing is clear, however: Open Access experiments currently rely on subsidy structures. It may even be that academic publishing is on the verge of a revolution with Open Access, realizing that Open Access publishing is considered as a necessary function which cannot be solved by a traditional customer market. This is already the case in scholarly monograph publishing which heavily relies on subsidies and operates in a market which is hardly a free or open one. In other words, the "sustainability" of the Open Access model should rather be seen in its efficiency and effectivity, for instance in attaining reliability or in its capacity to be innovative and flexible instead of bureaucratic. (OAPEN Report on Best Practices p. 31) The business models tested by Agora are small scale. From the Agora books, the top seller was less than 300 copies worldwide. Now philosophy and specialized philosophy is already a small branch, and as an independent commercial book seller, Ontos cannot, despite good contacts, compete with multinational university presses or take risks on the same scale. From the data so far it is not possible to determine whether the models tested are "sustainable". It depends on which sustainability measure is applied and that choice in turn is connected to the goals of the publisher and the community it serves. However, applying OAPEN's User Needs report, it is possible to pick out certain key issues for publishers to consider. One such issue is the fact that scholars play many roles in academic publishing, as content providers (peer reviewers, authors, editors) and readers, citers and customers. Sustainable OA business models need to do justice to the views and preferences of the community. Ontos might have been able to reach efficiency and be flexible, thanks to it being well entrenched in a research environment. (This is the case for Ontos within Wittgenstein research, already publishing the ALWS proceedings for the well-known yearly Wittgenstein Conference in Kirchberg, Austria.) For both OA journals and monographs in a mixed economy setting, quality is a crucial feature for sustainability. Quality includes a proper peer review system, reputation (possibly including a measure of branding) and reward for the participants in the value chain. Also, one measure of quality is stability in a trusted setting (for example plans for long-term preservation).44 The service in a premium model, such as the Agora model for books may contribute to financial sustainability, however, digital version enhancements such as interlinking and metadata preparations may be very labor intensive and if those tasks become part of the community service, financial sustainability and quality may become adversaries. 44 OAPEN Recommendations report pp. 16-19. 33 34 5.2 Summary of main recommendations For book publishers  Publishers should observe the consequences for OA due to differences between publication cultures between scholarly disciplines.  Small conventional publishers should not hesitate to offer an OA option to their authors, either at the very least OA for a fee, or preferably according to a moving wall principle with a delay of 12 months.  OA publication brings with it a strong marketing and dissemination advantage which should be utilised.  Publishers should spread information on OA and publication funding opportunities to their authors and customers.  Small publishers without a developed webshop should use aggregators such as OAPEN Library to increase visibility and interoperability.  Publishers should distinguish between customer segments for OA and non-OA publication (individuals and institutions, for example). For journal publishers  Publishers should be aware of the Hybrid Trap and strive to avoid it.  Publishers should investigate the attitudes towards APC-based models in the journal discipline before introducing such a model.  Measures should be taken to ensure reputation for new OA journals.  Authors and readers need to be informed about OA.  Subscription-based OA journals in HSS should offer both print and electronic subscription.  Different customer segments should be identified for OA and subscriptions  Open Review of accepted articles or post-publication discussions are recommended as marketing support. For policy-makers  A hybrid and delayed OA index similar to DOAJ should be founded and financed, or DOAJ should be persuaded to broaden its criteria for inclusion, allowing delayed OA.  Different publication cultures should be considered in all OA policy decisions.  Non-BOAI OA visibility issues should be further investigated and solutions to the Hybrid Trap promoted. Appendix I: Agora Author Survey invitation letter Author survey invitation letter Dear Ontos author or editor, We are calling on you for assistance in our research on Open Access publishing in philosophy and related fields by asking you to reply to this survey, which goes out to all authors and editors of books published with Ontos 2011-13. The questionnaire should take about 10 minutes to fill in online. Open Access is when research publications are made available for free over the Internet. Open Access is changing the world of scholarly publication, and it is in the interest of researchers and publishers alike to investigate the views of the authors in planning new business models which include an Open Access feature. Please click on the link to participate >>> https://survey.abo.fi/lomakkeet/3966/lomake.html This research is carried out within the EU-funded research project Agora – Scholarly Open Access Research in European Philosophy (2011-13) http://www.project-agora.org , and the current survey is carried through by Åbo Akademi University (Turku, Finland) in collaboration with the project OAPEN-UK, http://oapen-uk.jiscebooks.org/ and Rafael Hüntelmann/ontos Verlag. ontos Verlag has participated in research experiments with Open Access business models 2011-13. May 1, 2013, Ontos was sold and integrated into De Gruyter and those authors who had their books published also online will find them there. The collected data will be anonymised to ensure integrity protection and business secrecy and then added to an open data repository. Should you have any questions, we are more than happy to answer them (in German as well!). Best wishes, Yrsa Neuman yneuman@abo.fi Open Access business models research project leader, Humanities faculty, Philosophy dept, Åbo Akademi University, Arken, Fabriksgatan 2, FIN-20500 Turku Telephone +358 44 5968967 http://www.project-agora.org Rafael Hüntelmann, info@ontosverlag.com owner and CEO, ontos Verlag 35 Appendix II: NWR competitor OA overview • Philosophical Investigations (Wiley): HYBRID APC: "OnlineOpen" author-side fee per article US$3000 No individual OA articles 2011-13, however one OA issue and a best-of collection "Virtual Issue" . Quarterly • Wittgenstein Studien (de Gruyter): CLOSED ACCESS Yearbook/annual • Sats, Northern European Journal of Philosophy (De Gruyter): CLOSED ACCESS Biannual • Philosophy (Cambridge UP): Quarterly CLOSED ACCESS – Green mandate Cambridge has a range of 150 hybrid journals, but Philosophy is not one of them, nor does it belong to the 5 wholly OA journals at this publisher. CUP allows for green OA, also for the last version of the articles (Version of Record) upon electronic publication, and provided correct linking. • Inquiry (Tayor & Francis): HYBRID APC: Included in "T&F Open Select"hybrid OA programme at T&F, 2,150€/article 6 issues/year No OA articles 2011-13 • Philosophical Quarterly (Wiley) HYBRID APC: "OnlineOpen" author-side fee per article US$3000 One OA issue (Issue 250 /2013) OA best-of collection "Virtual Issue" disregarded. Quarterly 2013 0 OA of 35 original articles 2012: 2 OA of a total of 34 articles OA (only original articles counted, not editorial or book reviews – no book reviews OA 2011-13) 2011: 33 original articles, no OA Uptake total 2/102 = 1,9% 2012 tot 2/34 1 of 8 original articles in Issue 246 Associative Responsibilities and Political Obligation (pages 106–127) Massimo Renzo DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2011.00002.x 247 8 no OA 248 1 of 7 original articles On an Alleged Truth/Falsity Asymmetry in Context Shifting Experiments (pages 530–545) Nat Hansen Article first published online: 10 APR 2012 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2012.00059.x 249: 0/11 2013: tot 8/35 Issue 250 8 all OA, 251 8 no OA, 252 11 no OA, 253 8 no OA 2011: tot 0/33 242 9 no OA, 243 7 no OA, 244 9 no OA, 245 8 no OA http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phiq.2012.63.issue-250/issuetoc • European Journal of Philosophy (Wiley) HYBRID APC: "OnlineOpen" author-side fee per article US$3000 Quarterly 2011: 3/24 36 2012: 8/28 2013: 1/19 Uptake total: 12/71 = 16,9% 2011 tot 3 OA of 24 Issue 1, 1 of 7 OA "free" Kant's Argument for the Apperception Principle (pages 59–84) Melissa McBay Merritt 2: 2 of 5 (whereof one special lecture) Why Are You Betraying Your Class? (pages 171–183) Avishai Margalit Nietzsche and Amor Fati (pages 224–261) Béatrice Han-Pile 3: 0 of 6 4: 0 of 6 2012 tot 8 of 28 1: 7 of 7 free: special lecture and 6 more (Special Issue Spinoza) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejop.2012.20.issue-1/issuetoc Supplement vol 20: 0 of 6 original articles 0 of 5 3 0 of 5 4: 1 of 5 Kant on Spatial Orientation (pages 519–533) Sven Bernecker 2013 (1 issue short) tot 1 of 19 plus review supplement VOl 21 Supplement S1 5 of 5 all issue BUT ONLY REVIEWS, Supplement S2 0 of 5 reviews OA 1 0 of 5 2: 1 of 7 Is Kant a Moral Constructivist or a Moral Realist? (pages 170–196) Paul Formosa Reviews supplement S2 no OA 3: 0 of 7 TOTAL 12/71 37 Appendix III: Access NWR Total Downloads Nordic Wittgenstein Review April 3, 2012 – Dec. 16, 2013 Total Dec 16, 2013 Abstract view Total galley views 84 Newly Discovered Wittgenstein Autograph in the Austrian National Library Archive 1 (1) 1244 970 159 Sraffa's Notes on Wittgenstein's "Blue Book" Archive 2 (1) 2086 3455 67 Nonsense and the Ineffable: Re-reading the Ethical Standpoint in Wittgensteinâ€TMs Tractatus Article 1 (1) 2013 1344 99 Chomsky and Wittgenstein on Linguistic Competence Article 2 (1) 2512 1549 102 How to Use (Ordinary) Language Offensively Article 3 (1) 2404 1173 103 How to Be an Expressivist about Avowals Today Article 4 (1) 7867 2116 174 Contemplating Evil Article 5 (1) 1662 961 614 Wittgenstein in Conversation with His Sources â€" H. Biesenbach: Anspielungen und Zitate im Werk Ludwig Wittgensteins (2011) Book Review 1 (1) 1022 579 615 Studies Beyond Silence â€" A. Janik: Assembling Reminders (2009) Book Review 2 (1) 1077 687 732 At the Crossroads of the Wittgenstein and Autobiography Highways â€" N. Immler: Das FamiliengedÃ¤chtnis der Wittgensteins (2011) Book Review 3 (1) 939 514 172 Analytical Philosophy and Its Forgetfulness of the Continent. Gottfried Gabriel in conversation with Todor Polimenov Interview 1 (1) 1751 1433 69 Realism, Modernism and the Realistic Spirit: Diamond's Inheritance of Wittgenstein, Early and Late Invited Paper 1 (1) 2265 1490 179 Note by the Editors Note by the Editors (1) 997 421 1903 Mooreâ€TMs Notes on Wittgensteinâ€TMs Lectures, Cambridge 1930-1933: Text, Archive 3 (2) 1233 227 38 39 Context, and Content 993 Wittgenstein's True Thoughts Article 6 (2) 1768 176 1004 The Joint Philosophical Program of Russell and Wittgenstein and Its Demise Article 7 (2) 856 36 1012 Wittgensteinâ€TMs â€oeInner and Outerâ€ : Overcoming Epistemic Asymmetry Article 8 (2) 1082 173 173 Language and Logic in Wittgenstein's Tractatus Article 9 (2) 1036 47 1907 Wittgenstein and the Complexities of SemioTranslation â€" Wittgenstein in Translation (2012) by Dinda L. GorlÃ©e Book Review 4 (2) 755 29 1912 Opportunities for Reflection â€" The Oxford Handbook of Wittgenstein (2011) by O. Kuusela and M. McGinn (eds.) Book Review 5 (2) 764 177 1911 Niklas Forsberg: Interview with James Conant Interview 2 (2) 927 79 1909 Did Wittgenstein Write on Shakespeare? Invited Paper 2 (2) 1004 55 1910 Note by the Editors Note by the Editors (2) 1121 120 Data obtained using OJS counter in www.nordicwittgensteinreview.com Appendix IV: Ontos Agora Model Sales Data Table