it’s the workflows, stupid! what is required to make ‘offsetting’ work for the open access transition

Clicks: 100
ID: 259403
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality Improving Quality
0.0 /100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
This paper makes the case for stronger engagement of libraries and consortia when it comes to negotiating and drafting offsetting agreements. Two workshops organized by the Efficiencies and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC) initiative in 2016 and 2017 have shown a clear need for an improvement of the current workflows and processes between academic institutions (and libraries) and the publishers they use in terms of author identification, metadata exchange and invoicing. Publishers need to invest in their editorial systems, while institutions need to get a clearer understanding of the strategic goal of offsetting. To this purpose, strategic and practical elements, which should be included in the agreements, will be introduced. Firstly, the 'Joint Understanding of Offsetting', launched in 2016, will be discussed. This introduces the ‘pay-as-you-publish’ model as a transitional pathway for the agreements. Secondly, this paper proposes a set of recommendations for article workflows and services between institutions and publishers, based on a draft document which was produced as part of the 2nd ESAC Offsetting Workshop in March 2017. These recommendations should be seen as a minimum set of practical and formal requirements for offsetting agreements and are necessary to make any publication-based open access business model work.
Reference Key
geschuhn2017insights:its Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Kai Geschuhn;Graham Stone
Journal glossa
Year 2017
DOI 10.1629/uksg.391
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.