Open4DE Spotlight on Sweden: How a Bottom-up Open Access Strategy Works without a National Policy

Authors: Malte Dreyer, Martina Benz and Maike Neufend

Open Access (OA) is developing in an area of tension between institutional and funder policies, the economics of publishing and last but not least the communication practices of research disciplines. In a comparison across European countries, very dynamic and diverse approaches and developments can be observed. Furthermore, this international and comparative perspective helps us to assess the state of open access and open science (OA and OS) in Germany. In this series of Open4DE project blog posts, we will summarize what we have learned in our in-depth conversations with experts on developing and implementing nationwide Open Access strategies. We continue our series with a report on Sweden’s Open Access landscape.

The Nordic and Baltic countries of Europe are renown for having developed Open Access and Open Science (OA and OS) particularly well. Our spotlight on Lithuania at the beginning of this series made clear that committed policy-making is an important precondition for the successful implementation of OA and OS. Finland, too, has created a sophisticated system of various national policy papers on opening up research and teaching. The policy process in which they were developed is itself a tool to promote openness in science. We will report on Finland’s strategy in this series in the coming weeks.

Sweden differs from its Baltic neighbors as it has not established a nation-wide binding OA strategy through a policy paper or law. Nevertheless, Sweden has always been on a very good path towards the goal of opening up science. Sweden was one of the early adopters of transformative agreements and today can build on a broad acceptance of OA in the scientific community – despite the lack of a national policy. How can this be?

We wanted to explore what strategies Sweden is applying to make OA and OS a breakthrough and met Wilhelm Widmark to talk to him about the Swedish research ecosystem. Wilhelm Widmark is the director of the Stockholm University Library and has played an important role developing OA and OS at his own institution. He has also been involved for years in various national committees for the implementation of OA and OS: He is Vice-Chairman of the Swedish Bibsam Consortium and member of the Swedish Rectors Conference’s Open Science working group. Internationally, he was a member of the LIBER  Steering Board and a member of EUA’s Expert Group on Open Science. Since December 2021, he has also been a director of the EOSC Association.

The history of OA in Sweden

The history of OA in Sweden is characterized by very committed people, Wilhelm Widmark points out at the beginning of our conversation. Main drivers have always been enthusiasts who cared about the idea. One could therefore conclude that OA in Sweden has traditionally come from bottom-up. According to Wilhelm Widmark, it was indeed library directors who started it all, not the government. In their exchange forum, the SUHF Rectors Conference, they developed a recommendation in 2003 to deal more intensively with OA in the future, because they saw this topic coming. The already ongoing journal crisis gave a necessary impetus and lent the whole development an additional ideological dimension. In view of the constantly rising prices, it also became clear to the scientists that OA and OS has a value in itself. With the help of the libraries, they first tried to go the green way and started using repositories. However, it quickly became apparent that the workload on researchers was too high to achieve success this way. Only between 10% and 15% OA could be achieved with repository-based OA. Around 2015, therefore, the discussion about Gold OA also began to rise up in Sweden.

The plan to enable OA through negotiations with publishers led to discussions in the rectors conference. It quickly became clear that this form of negotiation could only take place with the involvement of university management. The network that emerged soon spanned the entire country. Today, there is a steering committee in which university rectors and people from the university administrations are represented in addition to the library directors. The National Library of Sweden, where the steering committee is located, plays a significant role in the transformation process, unlike in Germany, for example. The success of this model speaks for itself: Sweden is already one of the countries with the most transformation agreements. By 2026, more than 80% of publications are expected to appear in Gold OA through transformative deals.

The future of OA and OS in Sweden

The OA transformation is an ongoing process with changing goals. Wilhelm Widmark seems to get thoughtful at this point: “The question is when one can claim that a transformation is complete”, he remarks and points to upcoming challenges. These include the common search for alternatives to commercial publication service providers. An alternative to commercial OA could lie in the design of a publication platform. The times seem right for such projects: “Publishers really want to keep the transformative agreements as their business model. But the researchers are really annoyed of the high level of the publication fees” is how Wilhelm Widmark describes the current mood in his country. And in his view, the tested interaction between infrastructure providers and scientists will also be decisive for the next stage of the development: “The university management has the question on their table and the EU is our political driver. But it shouldn’t be organized top-down, it must be driven by researchers. The transformation is done for the researchers and thus the process must be created based on the needs of the researchers.” Under these conditions, the coordinating side needs to address the task of creating structures that promote and enable this cultural change.

Wilhelm Widmark believes that the involvement of all stakeholders is also necessary in those areas where he believes Sweden still has potential for development. Here he mentions, among other things, the topic of open data and especially the monitoring of opening processes in this area, investments in digital infrastructures, the promotion of citizen science or the topic of open educational resources. Furthermore, investments should not only be made in material resources, but also in skills. Universities in particular are called upon to provide competent support for researchers through data stewards and their own training programs. But the training of trainers must also be further professionalised and accredited: “We need a curriculum for data stewards and career paths for this staff. Not only the infrastructure is important, the skills are almost as important as the infrastructure,” Wilhelm Widmark is convinced.

Sweden and the National Policy Plan

The deep conviction that policy processes must be thought of from the implementation point of view and should be shaped by the players who are at the beginning of the scientific value chain corresponds to a critical attitude towards national policies. In contrast, a national OA and OS policy developed with all stakeholders, as is currently being discussed in Sweden, runs the risk of becoming self-serving and binding important capacities: “In the beginning the government wanted an OA and OS policy. The research council and the national library suggested a common OS policy together with the universities and the directors. But I am not sure if it is the right thing to do because it will take a long time and the work to be done is actually more important than the policy itself.”

What we can learn from Sweden

In our conversation, it becomes clear to us what maxims this openness-strategy follows: Prescriptions from above are avoided. Instead, common ground is identified through discussions with all participants and differences are not emphasized. In order to achieve goals that everyone considers desirable, the tools for their implementation are decided at each individual institution or organisation. In this way, specific needs can be addressed and researchers and educators have the opportunity to participate directly in these policy processes. On the last point, the Swedish strategy seems similar to the approach taken in Germany.

The price of this autonomy and particularism at the institutional level is a great heterogeneity of measures. Wilhelm Widmark sees this himself: “The national library compared all the different OA policies, and they are not aligned at all”. But he continues straight away: “Everything important happens at the universities. And of course the research field provides norms, but the researchers are not really interested in these norms but care about what is going on at their universities.” The benefit of such a strategy is that the discussion about OA and OS is kept alive. Perhaps this effect has also contributed to the fact that OA and OS have been met with such broad acceptance in Sweden.

Further Reading

Political Commitment toward Open Science: Open4DE Spotlight on the Open Access Landscape in France

Authors: Maike Neufend, Martina Benz, Malte Dreyer

Open access is developing in an area of tension between institutional and funder policies, the economics of publishing and last but not least the communication practices of research disciplines. In a comparison across European countries, very dynamic and diverse approaches and developments can be observed. Furthermore, this international and comparative perspective helps us to assess the state of open access (OA) in Germany. In this series of Open4DE project blog posts, we will summarize what we have learned in our in-depth conversations with experts on developing and implementing nationwide open access strategies.

The open access movement in France plays a vital role since the beginning in the European region. Already around the 2000s French research institutions launched the Revues.org platform (1999) – now OpenEdition – for open access journals primarily in Humanities and Social Sciences. In 2001 the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) started running HAL open archive (2001), a repository open to all disciplinary fields. In 2003 the CNRS signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. During many years open access was a matter of personal involvement from individuals within institutions, says Pierre Mounier, deputy director of OpenEdition and coordinator of OPERAS:

The personal commitment based on political values works locally, but at one point you reach a glass ceiling. You don’t get that general movement because it is only a matter of individuals. It really changed in France…

In 2021 France has already published the Second National Plan for Open Science. Generalising Open Science in France 2021-2024. And during the recently held Open Science European Conference (OSEC) the French Committee for Open Science presented the Paris Call on Research Assessment, calling for „an assessment system where research proposals, researchers, research units and research institutions are evaluated on the basis of their intrinsic merits and impact […]“. In line with the general development across Europe, according to the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science and other policy papers, Open Science is no longer a question of few committed librarians, information scientists and researchers, but part of the national strategy on scholarly communication.

What can be achieved by a national strategy?

In Germany multiple stakeholders publish their own policies and strategies, committing to open access practices and values. Marin Dacos, national open science coordinator at the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, emphasizes that a national strategy is a strong signal no matter what, because multiple stakeholders receive concrete directions by such strategies. In addition, it might be more efficient to speak as a country regarding these issues, in particular at the international level, f.e. within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Commission and The Council for National Open Science Coordination (CoNOSC), a network of national coordinators in the UN-European region supported by SPARC Europe.

Looking at France, for certain topics national negotiations seem more convenient: Considering investment in green open access or diamond open access, it is more realistic to achieve progress on the national level instead of federal, local or institutional levels only. Setting open access on the national agenda allows for strategic planning. This argument is not only supported by the content of the two national plans for open science in France from 2018 and 2021, but also on the recently published Action Plan for Diamond Open Access „to further develop and expand a sustainable, community-driven Diamond OA scholarly communication ecosystem“. Prepared by OPERAS, PLAN S, Science Europe and French National Research Agency (ANR) the plan was commented by experts of a workshop sponsored by the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation in preparation for the OSEC conference. A summary of this conference and links to recordings are available online.

The National Plan and its infrastructure

But how did the first national plan actually come about in 2018? After the election in 2017, Frédérique Vidal became Minister for Higher Education, Research and Innovation. Since 2017 Marin Dacos is open science advisor to the director-general for research and innovation at the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation. He has been highly involved in the writing process of the French Open Science Plan. The open science committee was founded in 2019, consisting of a steering committee of open science, a permanent secretariat for open science (SPSO), colleges and expert groups as well as the forum for open science.

The steering committee meets 3–4 times a year to make strategic decisions related to the national strategy, acts as the Council of Partners of the National Fund for Open Science (GIS FNSO) and decides which initiatives to fund. The permanent secretariat headed by the national coordinator for open science gathers monthly to prepare the work of the steering committee, and to ensure the implementation of its conclusions. It coordinates the work of the colleges of the open science committee, oversees the editorial board of the ouvrirlascience.fr website, and monitors the progress of ongoing projects for the operational implementation of the national open science policy. The colleges and expert groups are standing bodies composed of experts on various aspects of the national open science policy. They review issues, propose guidelines, issue opinions, and initiate and lead projects. The forum for open science supports the committee by bringing in the experience of professionals from academia and research institutions. It provides a space for dialogue, exchange and development of shared expertise. As Morka and Gatti point out, the open science committee is one of the „main platforms where librarians engage in discussions on open access“.

Moreover, in the French case, a national fund (Fonds National pour la Science Ouverte, FNSO) is in place since the first National Plan on Open Science (2018) funded by „ministerial allocations and voluntary contributions from institutions of higher education, research and innovation, as well as contributions from foundations and patrons“. Through this fund the steering committee for open science can incentivize concrete projects to foster implementation of measures articulated in the national plan, „it helps to target specific actions, an important transformation effect to help move forward“, says Mounier. 48 projects have been selected by the steering committee, 22 projects in 2019 mainly on research infrastructures, digital platforms and editorial initiatives and 26 projects in 2021 focusing on editorial platforms and structures as well as editorial content. Beside the fact that the fund is limited in its financial power, it is an important addition for a successful implementation of a national strategy.

What is there to consider for the German landscape?

One important lesson to learn from France refers to the administration of open access within the ministry. Open science and open access is highly coordinated inside the ministry and thus funds are not administered differently for these closely linked topics. However, the level of diversity included in the French national strategy is something to look up to. This is also visible in how the implementation of the national strategy is monitored in France. One aim of the French national open science strategy is the objective of a 100% open access rate in 2030 and progress is monitored on the national level. But different from the German Open Access Monitor the French version relies only on „using reliable and controlled open data“ like data from Unpaywall, DOAJ or OpenAPC – source databases like Web of Science or Scopus are not included. In addition, the French Open Science Monitor aims at including all scientific output and thus shows not only open access articles published in peer-reviewed journals but proceedings, book chapters, books and preprints as well. Sorting according to disciplines and their open access output is presented and the language of publication is shown as well. It is positive to see that both, the German and the French monitor, include diamond open access and thus differentiate it from full APC gold open access already.

But what works well in France is not necessarily the right path for Germany. University presses are well-developed in France, while the national publishing platform OpenEdition provides an infrastructure to publish open access books as well as journals. In Germany a decentralized library system operates quite autonomous on institutional levels, with different library consortia across federal states. A national publishing platform like OpenEdition may look like a desirable model, but as Pierre Mounier points out, does it really make sense for Germany? An important impulse from our interviews with French open science experts has been the question, how we can use the federated infrastructure in Germany as an advantage and not an obstacle for a national open access agenda.

References

(2017). „Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity.“ Accessed April 6, 2022. https://jussieucall.org/jussieu-call/.

Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche  et de l’Innovation (2018). „National Plan for Open Science.“ Accessed April 6, 2022. https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/National-Plan-for-Open-Science_A4_20180704.pdf.

Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche  et de l’Innovation (2021). „Second National Plan for Open Science Generalising Open Science in France 2021-2024.“ Accessed April 6, 2022. https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/second-national-plan-for-open-science/,

Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation (2022). „Paris Call on Research Assessment.“ Accessed April 6, 2022. https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/paris-call-on-research-assessment.

Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation (2022). „Action Plan for Diamond open access.“ Accessed April 6, 2022. https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/action-plan-for-diamond-open-access-2.

Mounier, Pierre (2019). „From Open Access as a Movement to Open Science as a Policy.“ Presented at the 2019 2nd AEUP Conference: (Re-)Shaping University Presses and Institutional Publishing. Profiles – Challenges – Benefits, Brno, Czech Republic, October 3. Accessed April 6, 2022. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3471026.

Morka, Agata, and Rupert Gatti (2021). „France.“ In Academic Libraries and Open Access Books in Europe: A Landscape Study. PubPub. Accessed April 6, 2022. https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.6df6495e.

Open4DE Spotlight on the Open Access Landscape in Lithuania

Authors: Malte Dreyer, Maike Neufend and Martina Benz

Open Access is developing in an area of tension between institutional and funder policies, the economics of publishing and last but not least the communication practices of research disciplines. In a comparison across European countries, very dynamic and diverse approaches and developments can be observed. Furthermore, this international and comparative perspective helps us to assess the state of Open Access (OA) in Germany. In this series of Open4DE project blog posts, we will summarize what we have learned in our in-depth conversations with experts on developing and implementing nationwide Open Access strategies.

We start our series with a report on Lithuania’s Open Access landscape.

Probably the most important document for the development of Open Access in Lithuania is the Resolution Regarding the Approval of the Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Data, published in 2016. Because of its remarkable concreteness, the resolution is, together with the French National Plan on Open Science, described as „the most high level [policy document] of all“ in the 2019 SPARC Europe Report (Sveinsdottir, T. et al. 2020, S. 30). For example, the openness of data is made a standard (§23), concrete responsibilities for the implementation and monitoring of measures are named (§20, §29) and reporting obligations are regulated (§26).

Additionally, the Law on Higher Education and Research of the Republic of Lithuania states that „in order to ensure the quality of research conducted with funds from the state budget, to ensure transparency in the use of funds from the state budget and to promote scientific progress, the results of all research conducted in state higher education and research institutions must be disclosed publicly […]” (Article 51).

In an interview with Ieva Ceseviciute, we asked her about the state of an Open Access policy in Lithuania and whether she could confirm our optimistic view of things from a domestic perspective. Ieva Ceseviciute is Head of Research Information Services at the Library at Kaunas University of Technology and has been instrumental in OpenAIRE since 2015. In addition, she is involved in the Research Data Alliance and is thus an expert on Open Science in Lithuania.

Ieva Ceseviciute sees a general problem in the fact that so far no mechanisms have yet been developed to enforce the Resolution Regarding the Approval of the Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Data which has been released by the Research Council of Lithuania in 2016. It should also be noted that this resolution is the guideline of the most important research funding body and not an overarching national policy. However, there is agreement in Lithuania that this policy needs to be revised and adapted to the more recent developments in the publication system. Moreover, it is broadly recognised in Lithuania that a national policy is important and desirable. This situation was a good opportunity for putting a national policy process on the agenda.

Hence the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports has established a task force whose purpose is to develop a national Open Access policy. The group was formed in 2019, and started its work in 2020 with a series of meetings, but was then interrupted by the pandemic and the recent change of government in Lithuania. Currently, The Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Data are being revised by the Research Council of Lithuania. In support of this discussion, a survey of the present state is seen as a mandatory precondition for future strategy proposals. In particular, surveys have been carried out among various stakeholders and the research offices of relevant institutions in order to determine the development statuses and needs.

What can we learn from Lithuania?

In Ieva Ceseviciute’s view, the biggest obstacle on the way to a culture of openness is the fact that OA has not been integrated into incentive systems, which makes it unattractive to comply with Open Acess policies. Researchers are not yet expected to publish OA in the national context; changing this requires profound cultural change and new publishing practices. So far, few researchers have understood that the standards of Open Science and OA offer advantages to them. Although numerous information events are organised, raising awareness on Open Access has proven to be a challenge. A national policy can be an important instrument here. “Change takes time – cultural change takes time, it is not possible without the instrument of policies” says Ieva Ceseviciute.

At the same time, it is important that OA is based on a strong mandate in the ongoing national policy process. This requires a good balance between incentives and sanctions. Among the drivers of OA in Lithuania, Ieva Ceseviciute lists the support measures and legal frameworks of the European Union. In Lithuania, researchers are often involved in European research contexts that are particularly committed to the idea of openness. This is one of the ways how an intrinsic interest in Open Science is generated.

Further strong guidelines would certainly be helpful here. Top-down guidelines can accelerate cultural change in the national community. In this context, it is very important, says Ieva Ceseviciute, to identify stakeholders and name responsibilities – for every single step and measure in the policy process: „If this is not part of your policy, your policy won’t work“.

References

Dovidonyte, Rasa (2019). Implementation of Open Science in Lithuania. Nordic Perspectives on Open Science, August. https://doi.org/10.7557/11.4828

Sveinsdottir, Thordis, Proudman, Vanessa, & Davidson, Joy (2020). An Analysis of Open Science Policies in Europe, v6. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4005612

Open4DE: Emfpehlungen für eine Open-Access-Strategie für Deutschland entwickeln

Open Access ist inzwischen ein selbstverständlicher Bestandteil der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikations- und Publikationskultur in Deutschland. Etwa jeder zweite Forschungsartikel ist bereits frei zugänglich. Zwischen Anspruch und Realität besteht jedoch weiterhin eine erhebliche Lücke: Forschungsförderorganisationen und wissenschaftliche Institutionen proklamieren das Ziel einer vollständigen Transformation hin zu Open Access, während die praktische Umsetzung in unterschiedlichen Geschwindigkeiten voranschreitet.   

Das zum 1. Februar 2021 gestartete BMBF-geförderte Projekt “Open4DE – Stand und Perspektiven von Open Access am Standort Deutschland” zielt daher auf eine Erhebung des Status Quo der Verankerung von Open Access auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen ab:

  • Universitäten und Hochschulen
  • Forschungsorganisationen
  • Bundesländerebene
  • nationale Ebene
  • fachwissenschaftliche Perspektive

Vor dem Hintergrund der Öffnung der Wissenschaft, einschließlich ihrer Prozesse (Open Science), lässt sich zudem das Themenfeld Open Access kontextualisieren und neu positionieren – als ein Schritt im Zyklus des verantwortungsvollen und transparenten wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens und Kommunizierens. Zentraler Gegenstand des Projekts ist dabei die Analyse der gegenwärtig angewandten internationalen Strategien und Leitlinien mit dem Ziel, sowohl Zusammenhänge explizit zu machen als auch Perspektiven für die Weiterentwicklung aufzuzeigen. Unter Einbeziehung internationaler Entwicklungen sollen zudem in enger Zusammenarbeit mit den sich bereits engagierenden Institutionen und Interessengruppen eine nationale Open-Access-Strategie und -Roadmap für Deutschland entworfen werden.   

Das Projekt Open4DE leistet somit einen Beitrag zur Weiterentwicklung des Open-Access-Ökosystems und beleuchtet gleichzeitig Schnittstellen und Überschneidungen mit Prozessen der Öffnung der Wissenschaft (Open Science). 

Team

Eine Beschreibung des Projekts auf Englisch finden Sie auf der Webseite von open-access.network.

Zeitraum: 01.02.2021 – 31.01.2023

Stakeholder-Workshop mit dem scholar-led.network: Die nicht-profitorientierte Perspektive auf Open Access

Von Martina Benz (ORCID), Malte Dreyer (ORCID) und Maike Neufend (ORCID)

Open-Access-Strategien, die auf staatlicher Ebene verankert sind, bewirken dynamische Diskurse rund um das Thema Open Access, sie positionieren Länder gegenüber global operierenden Wissenschaftskonzernen und haben nicht zuletzt eine Leitbildfunktion für die Einrichtungen und Wissenschaftler*innen des betreffenden Landes. Dennoch hat Deutschland bislang, anders als viele andere europäische Staaten, keine nationale Open-Access-Strategie.

Um Vorschläge für die Gestaltung des Politikprozesses und die Inhalte einer Open-Access-Strategie für Deutschland zu erarbeiten, planen wir im Projekt Open4DE: Stand und Perspektiven einer Open-Access-Strategie für Deutschland eine Serie von Stakeholder-Workshops. Den Anfang machte am 28. Januar 2022 ein 60-minütiger Workshop mit dem scholar-led.network.

Das scholar-led.network diskutiert und artikuliert Interessen der im deutschsprachigen Raum operierenden, von Wissenschaftler*innen geführten Publikationsprojekte. In ihrem 2021 veröffentlichten Manifest treten sie unter anderem für eine Vielfalt von Publikationsformaten, nachhaltig und öffentlich finanzierte Publikationsinfrastrukturen und eine Community-basierte Entwicklung des non-profit Publikationsökosystems ein: ideale Anknüpfungspunkte für die Diskussion über Anforderungen an eine bundesweite Open-Access-Strategie.

Der Workshop teilte sich in zwei Phasen. Im ersten kollaborativen Teil sammelten wir auf einem virtuellen Whiteboard Aspekte, die unter die im Manifest genannten Handlungsfelder – Vernetzung, Finanzierung und Bibliodiversität – fallen. Der Workshop startete also mit der Frage, welche konkreten Herausforderungen aus Sicht der Teilnehmer*innen als besonders bedeutsam für einen bundesweiten Policy-Prozess empfunden werden. Die Antworten aus dieser Diskussion wurden nach Wichtigkeit bewertet und daraufhin im zweiten Teil des Workshops in drei Kleingruppen vertieft und aufbereitet.

Vernetzung

In der Gruppendiskussion zum Handlungsfeld Vernetzung wurde die strategische Rolle offener, sozio-technischer Infrastrukturen diskutiert, wobei ein besonderer Schwerpunkt auf Tools zur Organisation von Workflows entlang des Publikationsprozesses lag. Insbesondere die bereits in der Community erfolgreich zum Einsatz gebrachte Publikations- und Kollaborationplattform Open Journal Systems (OJS) bedürfe einer stetigen Weiterentwicklung, Anpassung und Verbreitung. Dabei sehen sich sowohl die Nutzer*innen (Autor*innen und Herausgeber*innen) als auch die Serviceprovider (oft wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken) zahlreichen Herausforderungen gegenübergestellt. Vertreter*innen beider Interessengruppen waren an der Diskussion beteiligt und bemerkten übereinstimmend, dass fehlende Konzepte zur nachhaltigen Finanzierung dieser Services dazu führen, dass die technischen Potentiale der bereits in vielen Anwendungsfällen erprobten und bewährten Softwarelösungen nicht in vollem Maße ausgeschöpft werden können.

In der Hoffnung, dass sich Synergieeffekte erzielen und Redundanzen vermeiden lassen, wurde daher über Möglichkeiten diskutiert, die Entwicklung und Bereitstellung von OJS in übergeordneten, öffentlich finanzierten Organisationseinheiten zusammenzuziehen. Dabei bestand keine Einigkeit darüber, auf welcher administrativen Ebene ein solches „Kompetenzcenter für Publikationsdienste“ anzusiedeln sei. Genannt wurden die Bibliotheksverbünde und die Bundesländer. Eine nationale Lösung wurde in Anbetracht der Heterogenität des hiesigen Publikationsökosystems und seiner traditionell föderalen Struktur mit hohem Anpassungsbedarf kritisch betrachtet. Um die Interessen von Herausgeber*innen, Autor*innen und Verleger*innen in die Gestaltung und den Betrieb konsortialer Publikationsinfrastrukturen einfließen zu lassen, bedürfe es keiner komplexen Gouvernancestruktur: Kleinere Kompetenzzentren ermöglichen eine Community-basierte, dynamische und partizipative Form der Gestaltung. Dies kann beispielsweise in thematisch fokussierten Workshops, Sprints und anderen agilen Arbeitszusammenhängen stattfinden, in denen sich Überschneidungen mit der aktiven internationalen Entwicklerszene nutzen ließen.  

Finanzierung

Publikationsorte, die über ein medienbezogenes Modell finanziert sind und gebührenfreie Publikationsmöglichkeiten bieten („Diamond-OA“), können zur Diversität des Systems beitragen und Druck auf die Anbieter gebührenfinanzierter Publikationsorgane ausüben. Für einen Ausbau dieses Segments ist es jedoch nötig, dauerhaft tragfähige Finanzierungsmodelle für Diamond-Zeitschriften und -Reihen aufzubauen.

Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrats, S. 68.

Die zweite Kleingruppe diskutierte zum Handlungsfeld Finanzierung von Open Access. Dort wurde zunächst festgestellt, dass in Deutschland zwar die Notwendigkeit von Finanzierungsmodellen jenseits von Article Processing Charges (APCs) gefordert wird – wie zuletzt in den Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrats -, aber bislang wenig praktische Ansätze und Initiativen existieren.

Wichtig war den Teilnehmenden, den Fokus auf nicht-kommerzielle Formen des Open Access zu legen. Transformationsverträge wie die im Projekt-DEAL ausgehandelten Verträge mit Wiley und Springer Nature betrachteten die Teilnehmenden eher kritisch: diese böten keine befriedigende Antwort auf die drängende Frage der Open-Access-Finanzierung. Als Schlussfolgerung aus der Erfahrung der DEAL-Verhandlungen seien alternative Ansätze zu entwickeln.

Ein Ansatzpunkt in der Diskussion waren die Universitätsverlage: Könnten diese alternative Publikationsmöglichkeiten bieten? Dagegen spricht, dass Universitätsverlage vorrangig den eigenen Einrichtungsangehörigen offen stünden. Es würden allerdings Publikationsoptionen benötigt, die für Autor*innen unabhängig von ihrer institutionellen Anbindung zugänglich sind. Darüber hinaus wurde die Notwendigkeit nicht-kommerzieller Angebote auch im Bereich der Universitätsverlage hervorgehoben, diese können auch gewinnorientiert handeln. Der Blick auf den angelsächsischen Buchmarkt zeigt, wie Universitätsverlage als wichtige kommerzielle Player fungieren. Open-Access-Publizieren solle, so eine weitere Position, auch in kleinen scholer-led-Initiativen und -Verlagen stattfinden können und sich damit eine eigensinnige Praxis bewahren.

Eine zukünftige Finanzierungstrategie sollte deshalb ein klares Bekenntnis zu Diamond- und scholar-led-Open Access beinhalten. Dies müsse allerdings idealerweise mit einem Wandel des akademischen Anerkennungsystems einhergehen, z.B. durch die Integration von Open-Access-Aktivitäten als Anforderung in universitären Berufungsverfahren.  

Bibliodiversität

In der Diskussion zum dritten Handlungsfeld der Bibliodiversität wurde die Vielfalt der Publikationsformate thematisiert. Dabei waren sich die Teilnehmenden einig, dass eine Anerkennung der Vielfalt von Publikationsformaten im Wissenschaftssystem auch notwendig eine höhere Anerkennung inhaltlicher Qualitätssicherung zur Folge habe. Die Förderung von Bibliodiversität sei damit ein wichtiger Schritt zum Kulturwandel im wissenschaftlichen Reputationssystem und damit auch institutionell zu fördern, wie bspw. im Jussieu-Appell für offene Wissenschaft und Bibliodiversität gefordert wird.

Dabei stand generell zur Diskussion, wie eigentlich wissenschaftliche Qualitätssicherung weiter gedacht werden kann und muss: Braucht es die herkömmlichen Begutachtungsverfahren noch oder gibt es andere Möglichkeiten, wie bspw. eine Community-basierte Begutachtung, Open-Review-Modelle oder redaktionelle Begutachtung im scholar-led Bereich? Neben der Bedeutung des experimentellen Publizierens und der nötigen Offenheit für vielfältige Formate und Formen des Publizierens, diskutierte auch diese Gruppe über die dafür notwendige sozio-technische Infrastruktur. Die Idee einer überregionalen Publikationsplattform wurde dabei positiv beurteilt, denn dadurch könne zum einen der Workflow kooperativ genutzt werden und zum anderen die Wissenschaftscommunities besser vernetzt werden. Insbesondere die fehlende Vernetzung zwischen neuen und bereits vorhandenen Publikationsprojekten wurde als Mangel formuliert. Ein Weg aus der Projektförderung und eine strategisch bessere Vernetzung unter den Stakeholdern wurde als Herausforderung formuliert.

Empfehlungen

Aus der Diskussion mit dem scholar-led.network lassen sich einige Empfehlungen formulieren, die in einem nationalen Strategieprozess diskutiert werden können:

  • Plattformgestütze Publikationsinfrastruktur

Eine plattformgestütze sozio-technische Publikationsinfrastruktur und damit zusammenhängend ein Kompetenzcenter für Publikationsdienste, das nicht nur den institutionell angebundenen Wissenschaftler*innen offen steht, ist eine der Hauptforderungen des scholar-led.networks. Die Möglichkeiten des plattformgestützen Publikationsmanagements sind jedoch nicht hinreichend bekannt, weshalb eine professionelle, digital gestützte Organisation von Publikationsprozessen in der Wissenschaftscommunity ansprechender und breiter kommuniziert werden sollte.

  • Diamond Open Access

Der ausdrückliche Wunsch, sich auf Bundesebene zur Finanzierung von Diamond Open Access zu bekennen, wird von dem scholar-led.network als notwendiger Aspekt der weiteren Open-Access-Transformation in Deutschland betont. Eine nationale Strategie sei in der Lage, eine nicht-profitorientierte Ausprägung von Open Access nicht nur zu empfehlen, sondern Wege der Implementierung und damit auch Finanzierung aufzuzeigen.

  • Die Reputationsökonomie verändern

Der viel diskutierte Kulturwandel in der Wissenschaft ist eine dritte wichtige Forderung des scholar-led.networks. Viele praktizieren in ihren Publikationsprojekten bereits einen hohen Grad an Bibliodiversität, wie Mehrsprachigkeit oder alternative Begutachtungsverfahren und Publikationsformate. Doch dies ist längst nicht im Mainstream des Wissenschaftssystems angekommen. Ein Bekenntnis zur Veränderung des bisherigen Anerkennungssystems durch die Unterstützung von Bibliodiversität und einer positiven Bewertung von Open-Access-Praktiken, sei eine wichtige nationale Aufgabe.

Im Verlauf diesen Jahres werden wir weitere Workshops mit Stakeholdern aus dem Bereich des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens veranstalten. Kontaktieren Sie uns gerne, wenn Sie Nachfragen und Anregungen haben. Wir freuen uns auf den weiteren Austausch mit der Open Access Community. Weitere Berichte und Beiträge zu unserem Projekt werden unter anderem hier auf dem Open Access Blog Berlin erscheinen.