Wileyexecutiveseminar.com



Transcription?Wiley Society Executive Virtual Seminar?Panel: Open Access and the Article-Based Economy: Where Are We Going?Hello.And welcome allof you.Thanks for coming back.I'm Kaia Motter and I'm a publisherin the open research group at Wiley.I'm delighted to be with you heretoday to host this session on Open Accessand the Article-Based Economy.Today we are going to learn from twoof our Society partners in the health andlife sciences about how theirorganizations are engaging with openaccess and adapting to open researchtrends in their subject areas andcommunities.So as a reminder, here are a fewhousekeeping items.So all of theattendees are muted.But please use thechat function to share your thoughts witheach other.You can share a message witheveryone or send private messages to aparticular person by selecting yourpreference in the drop-down.We'll do a Q&A at the end of thesession, but don't wait to ask yourquestions; use the Q&A function in thebottom menu to submit your questions aswe go along.You can also comment on and uploadthe questions you'd most like thespeakers to address.Finally, don't forget to explore theonline event guide for more informationabout the topics we'll cover.Eventhough this is the end of our session, westill have a few more before the end ofthe day.This session is being recorded andwill be available on demand.So with that, it's my pleasure tointroduce Kathryn Wilson, director ofresearch dissemination at the BritishPharmacological Society; and JohanNilsson, associate director at the Oikoseditorial office.They are going to share their twocase studies.And you can find theirfull bios in the online event guide.Thank you.MS. WILSON:Hi.I'm just going toshare my screen briefly.One second.Can everyone see that?Just acheck.There we go.Is that all visiblefor everyone?Great.Thank you.So thank you, Kaia, so much for theintroduction just now.And first I justwant to say a big thank you to Wiley forinviting me to speak today in thissession with Johan.And I really am pleased to be hereto share some experiences from the BPSabout the journey we are currently onthinking about open access and what thatmeans for our journals portfolio.I think it's safe to say at thebeginning our thought process on this isstill evolving.But like many of you inthe audience I'm sure, we'll explore newbusiness models and thinking -- andconsidering ways of when and how we couldpotentially make this sustainabletransition to open access with ourjournals.So I'm going to talk today aboutsome of the action we're taking in thisdirection, but first, I just want to giveyou a quick overview about the BPS.So we're an international societywith over 4,000 members in 60-pluscountries.And we have a mission tofacilitate and promote and advance thewhole spectrum of pharmacology.In addition to this, we have threewell-established and internationaljournals within our publishing portfolio.So two of these are hybrid titles,such as the British Journal ofPharmacology, which is a broad scope ofexperimental journal; and the BritishJournal of Clinical Pharmacology, whichcovers all aspects of drug action inhumans.But we also have PharmacologyResearch & Perspectives, or PR&P, whichis our gold open access title.And this journal was launched in2013.And it's in collaboration withWiley, our Middle American sister societyhere, the American Society forPharmacology and ExperimentalTherapeutics.And I'll talk a tiny bit about thisjournal later on in the talk, but just togive you an overview, in essence; thetitle was set up as a cascade journal.So it was aimed to publish out ofscope articles from the BPS journals andthe ASPET journals, but it also cascadesarticles from other Wiley titles in thesame discipline, but also actually someexternal journals from the Wileyportfolio completely now as well, sowe've been growing that.It also accepts de novo submissions,so original submissions.And that's agrowing proportion of its content.But I think the thing that I wouldsay at this point is that this journal,because it's new, it's much smaller interms of published content in comparisonto our two flagship titles.I also just wanted to say that as asociety, we wanted to really practicallyengage with open science or openresearch, particularly I think after thelaunch of Plan S in 2018.So in the last -- sorry.So inMarch 2019, after Caesar canceled andagreed on a set of public facingprinciples that appear on our website,that really highlight, I think, ourdesired approach and the way we wanted tointeract with the changes that we sawhappening around us, both in publishingbut also within our community as a whole.And so one feature in that that wereally wanted to highlight is in factopen science really neatly aligns withour mission and our values as a learnedsociety to warrant participation in ourdiscipline in pharmacology.And so I think the society reallywanted to view that as an opportunity,actually, and that's a really positivething.We're all viewing open scienceschanges, in open access particularly, asa threat.And I think that's important toflag, because it's actually sort offramed quite a lot of the work that we'vebeen doing in this area.So where are we currently in termsof open access?I've used this slidejust to flag that actually within the BPSjournals, open access makes up a smallbut growing proportion of our publishedcontent at the moment.It's growing.It looks great on theright-hand side there, but that's becausethat's PR&P, our fully golden accessjournal.And as I pointed out, it's justa much smaller title.So I think when I was thinking aboutputting together this presentation, Ithink what struck me initially is thatI'm sure many of you probably agree thatopen science, as I just mentioned, andopen research, really align with ourmission, our charitable aims, and ourkind of values as a learned society, butwithin that, there's this friction thatwe find that it does also presentoperational and financial challenges tous as learned societies.It moves us away from thistraditional subscription model as aprimary source of income for us.And Iguess in thinking of it here, a fewthings that I think we as a society havebegun to note within this when thinkingabout this transition to open access.So one of the other things we noted,and it's came up in the plenary justbefore, is that one size doesn't fit all,even in a small portfolio.So you can'ttreat all journals the same.So there isn't this point where youcan simply flip if you want to to move togold open access all of your titles oncethey reach this sort of arbitrary openaccess threshold.In reality, the reasons why youwould choose to transition a journal topure gold open access, for instance, arereally quite complex.And I think it will be reallyinteresting actually to hear from Johanin the next case study about kind of reallife example of how that's happened.And I think one of the other thingsthat can be a little bit challenging isactually accurately scenario planning fora sustainable transition.Because it'sdifficult and I think a bit unpredictableand then loads of questions in there.So there's, you know, will we losesubmissions?How will the communityreact?What does this mean for myhigh-impact selective title?And whatdoes it mean broadly, I guess, for oursociety and the finances within oursociety?But I think the ability to make atransition towards open access, just itdepends on a number of factors.And someof those external environmental factors,they're a little bit out of our control.But some of those are internal, andthey're internal to our societies and ourdisciplines, but also a really granularlevel within individual journals as well.And I think the final thing I justwanted to flag was that, I guess a shifttowards or a transition towards openaccess means for many of us that now,more than ever, we're having to look atdiversifying our revenue.And I think that in there there arelots of opportunity, but also it can bechallenging for us to do that as learnedsocieties, because we want to do so in away that has charitable impact.Andwe're often doing this at a reallypractical level with limited resources,because we're quite small organizations.So how is the BPS approaching thesechallenges?I think the first thing I'dsay is that what we're trying to do isproactively develop a tailored plan thatlooks at our journals individually andlooks at development of those journalsindividually, probably along thetrajectory they're always going to takein terms of journal development.But the overall, what we're wantingto do, is position the portfolio, thethree journals we currently have, as awhole in the society, so that we could,and we are positioning ourself as best aspossible to be able to pivot to an openaccess led business model.And so there are sort of key areasthat we've been looking at to help us dothis.And there are lots of these thatwe could talk about.What I tried to do here is just pickout three that I think are perhapsapplicable to all of us, because we'reall from different disciplines, differentbackgrounds.But the first of these is looking atincreasing high-quality submissions andpublications within our journals.And Ithink the thing I'd say here is theemphasis is on the quality piece.And, again, that was something wewere just talking about in the plenary,and it's actually something that wasspoken about in the plenary yesterday.But it's obviously a benefit tocapture as much great high qualityresearch as possible within yourportfolio.The second point is engaging withopen research and also with inclusiveresearch.And then, finally, I've added, asI've just spoken about, seeking ways todiversify revenue.And I think this is important tolook at within journals, but it's alsoimportant to look at within a societymore broadly.Because it allows you tobe able to broaden out that kind of riskthat you have by depending on one sort ofsource or one main source of income.And so practically, what does thismean?In terms of increasing high-qualitysubmissions, for the BPS we really wantto make sure we're attracting as muchhigh-quality pharmacology research aspossible.It's kind of a given and theforemost steps to drive the fieldforward, but it also makes sense when youconsider a new shift to open access to bepublishing as much good quality contentas possible within your suite ofjournals.And I think the two things to flagthere are, one, the quality aspect.Youdon't want, as it was discussedyesterday, to become a unit of revenue.It needs to be quality content.And also, I think the point there isthat across your suite of journals, whatmight work for one journal may not workfor another.So you have to evaluateeach journal in turn.And some ways that we're trying toincrease quality content within the BPSjournals, we've been doing a lot oftargeted research in regional high growthareas.So we've appointed regionalemphasis to work in those graphic areasand to do advocacy on behalf of us there.We've also actively been runningwebinars in specific regions.So inChina, for example, they are tailored to,one, promote the journals, but also totailor to the audience in the office.We're really trying to target it there.We've also been looking at directlytargeting and commissioning high-qualityand topical content.And this isprimarily also to try and target anincrease or reach in to areas that wetraditionally may not have a lot ofpublished articles from.So for those in our case, it'sindustry.And what we're trying to dothere is we increase our readership andour authorship in that area.So in terms of open research bestpractice and exclusive research, I thinkthe main point I would say here is itmakes sense when thinking aboutincreasingly open future to ensuring thatyour titles are as open and equitable anddiverse as possible.So in terms of open research bestpractice, again, I think that variesbetween disciplines in terms of what yourcommunity wants and how far you can go interms of open research best practice, butfor us that included initiatives thatreally enabled reproducibility andtransparency.So we published high profileguidelines in our flagship journal, BJP.We've also been updating and regularlyreviewing updated sharing policies.Andwe also support preprints through ourjournals.We have also been looking atmaximizing peer review efforts.And thefirst point I flagged there is aroundreviewer recognition.So to participate in Publons.Andwe're also thinking about things like CMEcredits for reviews.But the other point I flag here isaround refining the cascade processbetween our journals.So one of the things we've workedhard to do is to look at that transferprocess of articles coming from BJP andBJCP, our hybrid journals that might beout of scope or not quite at the qualitythreshold, that may be suitable for PR&Popen access journal.What we try to do there is we try tomake that process as smooth and as simpleas possible for authors so it's reallyeasy for them to find the best place toplace their research within our journals.And then focusing on a course ofdiversity, and including initiatives,this is a really, really core focus forus as a society.It's embedded withinour strategy.And it's a really keyobjective for us, so we've been workingreally hard to try and implement EDIinitiatives within the journals as well.And we're on a journey with this aswell, but at the moment that's includedmonitoring and gathering diversity dataas best as we can on our office andeditors to help build a clearerdemographic picture across our journalsso that we can set targets for future.And I think the other thing we'vebeen working really hard on this year,actually, is to try and increasetransparency around our editorial roles.This would be defining its role sothat it's clearer.And also to try andmake the recruitment process foreditorial roles as open and fair aspossible to increase diversity.And then, finally, I will just talkabout diversifying revenue a little bit.So within our journals at themoment, for us that's been looking atnon-subscription revenue lines andthinking about looking beyond, kind of,traditional reprint sales and how we cankind of draw in new ways of diversifyingrevenue there.But I think that the thing I want tofocus on today is how we're doing thismore broadly within the society.BecauseI think that journals can't deceive us inisolation.This diversifying revenue piece issomething that needs to happen acrosssociety.And there's a few ways actuallywithin the BPS that we're looking atdoing that.And the first, reallyobvious way, is saying that is thedirector system that we have within oursociety.So we brought together directoratesto help (inaudible) carry the overlapbetween, for example, in researchdissemination, which the directorate(inaudible) between events andpublishing, so we can try and find newareas of merging content.We've also been working really hardon developing a partnership stream ofwork.And this has been underpinned by aset of principles that we put togetherfor working with third-partyorganizations; so philanthropicalorganizations, but also commercialorganizations so that we can be super,super clear about, as a charity and as alearned society, what type of partners wewant to work with and why.And I think this has been reallyhelpful in enabling us to look at newpackages of content and products andservices that we may be able to formpartnerships around that have bothcharitable impact for us first andforemost, but also may potentiallygenerate new streams of income for us inthe future.And one more really good example ofthat recently is that launch of BPS Live,which is our new webinar stream.Andthis was launched in October this yearwith the journals-led webinar aroundCOVID-19 research that was published inthe journals.So in summary, I'd say -- I'd goback to the first point I made; we're ona journey where we both want to embraceopen science and open access, but also wewant to be proactive, not reactive aroundpositioning the society in our journalsin the strongest possible place to beable to respond to change.And I guess my takeaway points fromthat are that journals and journalsportfolios are unique.One size doesn'tfit all from making a transition to openaccess.And that is something the strategyfor a transition needs to be balancedaround.And it needs an in-depthknowledge of journals and their audiencesand their community.But the great thing is, societiesare super well placed to assess this,because we're embedded in our communitiesand we're embedded in our content sowe're able to assess that.And so I think, you know, there's achallenge.There's a challenge intransitioning towards open access, but Igenerally think if we get it right, itfurther proves to societies and ourjournals and our journal portfolios, andit also helps us to fulfill ourcharitable aim.So I guess I finish onsaying, just be open and think creativelyaround on how to strike that balance.Thank you.And just really quickly,I just want to thank the in-house BPSjournals team for all the work they do,and also our team at Wiley for all thesupport they give us.Thank you.MS. MOTTER:Okay.Now we're movingto Johan, the next presentation.MR. NILSSON:Okay.I'll try toshare my screen.Let's hope it goeswell.Okay.Can you see my screen?Okay.Thank you very much.Thank you,Kaia, for introducing us, and thank you,Kathryn, for a really interestingpresentation.I agree on all your pointsI think.I also want to thank Wiley forinviting me to give this presentation andpresent this case study on how we flippedone of our journals to open access.I'm going to start a bit by givingyou some background on who we are.Wework for the Oikos Editorial Office,which is the general office of the NordicSociety of Oikos, the NSO.NSO is an ecological society basedin the Nordic countries; so Sweden,Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland.And we publish a number of the ecologicaljournals, four of them with Wiley.And all of our journals have beenaround for quite some while.And werecently celebrated (inaudible) birthdayfor our journals.And just like many of you in thisvirtual room, our society, it's dependenton income from our journals to run thegeneral office and to a run societyactivities, such as meetings, workshops,and other things.We've been thinking about openaccess for quite a while.So why openaccess?For us, really, it's two answers tothat question.One is that we feelreally strongly -- just like Kathrynsaid, open science is very well alignedwith our mission.So we feel very strongly about openscience, both when it comes to the paperswe publish, but also all the informationsurrounding the papers, such as the data,the code, and recently also the peerreviews.As one of our editors in chiefsrecently said, it makes very little senseto allow fake news to run freely on theinternet while keeping the higherstandard information locked behindpaywalls.Hopefully, we will have less fakenews in the future of course, but thisstill is very much true.We want ourpapers to be out there.We want as manyas possible to be able to access them,read them.We want the content of thepaper and the data to be available outthere for a better society.However, as you -- as like the restof you, we also need to pay our bills, ofcourse.And for a very long time we havebeen relying on the subscription incometo run our operations.And what we see now, it's in manyways that you heard from the plenary, forinstance, a bit of an uncertain futurefor the subscription income, at least forsome of our journals.So in addition to more ideologicalreasons for open science and open access,we also saw a need to stop diversifyingour income and be less dependent on thesubscription income to run our society.So when we looked at our four Wileyjournals, in many ways it was an obviouschoice for a journal to flip.First of all, it is a high profilejournal in its field.It's very wellrenowned.It's well cited.And it alsohas a very strong author base in Europe,North America.So countries that couldperceive us as being rather open-accessfriendly.And maybe, most importantly, forbeing such a high impact journal,(inaudible) have a relatively low revenuefrom subscriptions.And for some years,the publication was even subsidized bythe society.So in one way, we also sawit as a way to secure the future of thisjournal.A decision like this is nothing totake lightly.I mean, it's no way back.Once you flip, you are open access.Youcan't just try open access for two yearsand then decide, no, it doesn't reallywork out; you got more money fromsubscription, let's go back.So, of course, we think about thiscarefully.We discussed it with theeditorial board, of course.Whendiscussing it with the editorial board,it was rather clear that although theysupport open access per se, they preferto wait with the decision until a laterdate.They wanted to see what washappening with open access moving inEurope and with Plan S.And one of the main concerns werethat by starting to charge APCs, we wouldbuild new barriers.Barriers that wouldstop some authors from publishing in thisjournal.And we, of course, fully understandthese concerns.They are real concerns,but we also felt that the positive sideof the flip for ecography outweighed thenegative sides.And we saw this as a necessary step,not only for ecography, but also for awhole journal portfolio to stopdiversifying to become less dependent onthis subscription income.So in May last year, the board ofthe society made a decision to flip andconvert to open access.In August thesame year, we switched submission systemand started to charge APCs for papersthat would get accepted.And in Januarythis year we published our first openaccess issue.Keeping the concerns from theeditorial board in mind, we decided tostart with what sort of field is arelatively low APC; an APC of $2,200.The society also started discussionswith the editorial board about ways tominimize this publishing barrier thatthey were afraid of creating involvingdiscussion about discounts with certainauthors and other things.And thesediscussions are still ongoing.When we announced the flip, we alsopublished an open letter from the boardfrom -- of the society, which I think isa very important thing.There theyexplained the reason why we decided toflip the journal.And as a society, I think it'sextremely important that we are astransparent as possible about thedecisions we are making.As long as wecan explain, I think our community arewilling to listen to it.We also had a rather comprehensivecommunication plan detailing exactly howwe would respond to comments, questions,concern from our community, so we couldkeep the whole team on the same roadhere.And we want to be clear, even thoughWiley, of course, helped us to a verygreat extent in communicating the flipand help us marketing it, everything wasdone in the Society's name.This was to show that this was thedecision by the society, and not by thepublisher; to show our members and thecommunity that we, as a society, believedin this.And thankfully, maybe partly due tothese precautions we took, we actuallyreceived very little negative responseafter the flip.And within the editorial board, Iwouldn't say we got a positive response,but at least it was a balanced response.And no one in the editorial boardresigned as part of this, which hadhappened from other journals that haveflipped in the past.So we see that as apositive sign, at least.And now it's been a bit over a yearsince we announced the flip and start tocharge APCs from the office.So westarted to get enough data to look atimpact of the flip.Starting with submissions isprobably the most obvious thing.AsKathryn said in her talk, it's a lot ofmodeling to make this kind of decision.And we had a model that we -- amodel that planned for a decrease of20 percent of submissions the first year.Well, for the first few months, thiswas pretty close to what we were seeing.But rather soon we started to see anincrease in submissions again.And if we compare the predictedsubmissions of 2020 with the year 2018 or2019, we actually see a very smalldecrease in submissions.So even thoughwe have an initial dip, it sort ofrecovered rather quickly.Number of submissions doesn't reporton everything.It's also important toknow where the submission comes from.When you flip a journal to openaccess, you're like -- and a model thatsomeone has to pay to publish, you'relikely to see some changes in authorship,of course.We did also see this forecography.What you can see here is somechanges that happen comparing the yearbefore the flip and the year after theflip.We can see that we have bigincreases in submissions from China,Canada, Netherlands, Switzerland, NewZealand, and Germany.We also see rather large decrease insubmissions from countries includingBrazil, Denmark, Mexico, Australia,Spain, and Sweden.Looking at these lists, though, it'snot that easy to see in clear patterns.Yes, China is increasing massively.China increases all our journals.We see Canada, Netherlands, Germany;countries that are rather pro openaccess.It makes sense that they areincreasing.But on that other hand, they haveSweden, that's a decreasing country.Andwe had a deal with Sweden, so they don'thave to pay.So it makes very littlesense that they are increasing as aneffect of the flip.But that's, as you know, workingwith journals, authorships change fromyear to year.So this could just berandom numbers.It doesn't actually sayanything.And why submissions, of course, areinteresting to look; the reallyinteresting thing is to look at acceptedpapers.The papers of our editors' faithare good enough to be published in thejournal.And if you look at acceptedmanuscripts, we actually see a very smalleffect.Sure, we are likely to publish afew less papers, 2020 compared to 2019.But 2020 is still a lot higher than manyof the previous years.So we actually have a very limitedeffect here.And if we look at theauthorship, we can't see any trends atall in changes in authorship.You might remember from the previousslide, like we had a drastic decrease insubmission from Brazil; we actually see astrong increase in accepted papers fromBrazil.So in many ways it seems like themanuscript be lost, or manuscript that weprobably wouldn't have published anyways.Another area where we had a largeeffect is in downloads.Maybe not a bigsurprise.If you make everything open toread, more people will download and readit.So you wouldn't expect an effecthere, but we definitely didn't expectsuch a drastic effect.Part of this is maybe due to Wileybeing nice enough to offer all the backcontent to open as well.So every backcontent hosted in Wiley is free to readas well, which of course boasts thedownload numbers as well.It remains to be seen if this willtranslate in citation, but of course themore people that read a paper, hopefullythey'll think it's a good paper and thenhopefully will also cite it.So to sum up a bit, we had very fewnegative reactions from our flip.Had asmall impact on submissions, but an evensmaller impact on published output.We saw a massive increase indownloads, partly as expected.In theinfo I haven't shown you any numbershere, partly because of the year hadn'tended yet.We have an increased revenuethis year compared to where we were insubscriptions, already in year one.So what made this flip successful?Well, I have a few thoughts, atleast.We obviously had a highproportion of authors that were positivetowards open access.We were in theright part of the world, but they werealso positive to the concept of openaccess, I believe.It is a prestigious journal.Andthat helps.People are more likely topay for a journal that have high prestigethan a lower journal.It's a nicecoincidence.And we also happen to get thehighest impact factor ever from a journalthe year we announced the flip.Of course, this had nothing to dowith the flip, but it probably helped indownplaying sufficient numbers a bit.And one last thing, but I don'tthink we should underestimate here, isthat this was a society journal.Our community knew that we made thischange because we believed in it.Webelieved it was the right change for thesociety for the journal, but also for thecommunity at large.And even though some people mighthave preferred us not to flip thejournal, they probably understood that wedid it for a good reason; something webelieved in was the right way to go.And I'm just going to finish withshowing one of the reactions we got onsocial media following the flip.This is one of the researchersreacting very positively to the news ofus flipping the journal, telling me hiscolleagues, saying, to make the switchand only review open access papers.Thecolleagues responded back, that's a greatpoint.At the very least, we shouldstick to society journals.Thank you.MS. MOTTER:Okay.Great.Thankyou so much, Kathryn and Johan.Thoseare great presentations and veryinformative.We have about 20 minutes for Q&A, Ibelieve, which is great, because there'ssome really good questions coming throughhere.So I'm going to just start at thetop.One of the first questions that camein from Dave Zellini is about whether ornot Wiley is going to essentially forceall journals to flip to gold OA if themembers don't agree.And so the answer to that is no,we're not.I mean, I think we have tovalue it very carefully what journals areappropriate for flipping, where there isfunding, and positive attitudes towardsOA.And, you know, I'm not sure if yourjournal is in a high-growth area, if it'sa positive area for growth, but if it'snot, and it's not ready to transition,then it's probably best served with asubscription business model.The next question I'm hoping Kathrynor Johan can discuss -- or to answer, hasto do with cascading.So Matt wants to know, you know,what, if any, challenges you'veencountered with the referring processand getting editors of the parentjournals on board with referring to thesupporter journals.And if there was anyresistance, how did you overcome that?So either of you.MS. WILSON:I'd like to say, I cantake that one.So for the PBS journals we haveeditor-led transfers.And I'd agree, Ithink that can be difficult at times.Not all our (inaudible) are always superkeen to transfer content.And so I'd be interested to hear ofhis experience within Wiley generallyabout author-led and author-choice interms of transfer.But I think the thing that hashelped within our journals is really --we've got the editor -- we've had theeditors in chief get together and talkabout what type of content they'relooking for, and whether they'rerejecting articles so that they're allsuper aware of what they need totransfer, what PR&P, our open accessjournal, is particularly looking for interms of content.And I think that makes it clearerand I think that makes it easier.And Ithink that message is then passed on toour senior editorial team who arehandling the papers by our editors inchief.So I think it's really about havingopen communication -- or we found it'sbeen helped by having open communicationbetween the editors about what contentthey're looking for, and just making surethat they're aware of that.MR. NILSSON:If I could just add,that at the Oikos office we do cascadingboth within our journal family, but alsoto other Wiley journals.And I think -- I agree.It's abouteducating editors so that we actuallyclick that extra thing, cascade, ratherjust reacting on paper.And it takes some time, but I thinkthe editors are doing really now.Wehave really high numbers of papers beingcascaded out and into our journals.Sothat's really good.MS. MOTTER:Yeah.I would just addthat, I think some of the things thathave been found to be effective is if youcan show the editor some rejected paperanalysis and show the editors where thosepapers are actually ending up and whatkind of journals are publishing thoserejected articles.Because that might help them tounderstand that, you know, even thoughthey may think that those papers aren'tsuitable for publication elsewhere, theyare eventually finding a home in anotherjournal.So that's one strategy that youcould possibly consider.And then just, you know, helping toconvince the editor that, you know, theyneed to trust that the peer review willbe handled by the editors in thereceiving journal; that's their job.And, you know, once those rejectedarticles leave the fold, you know,that's -- those authors are free to goand try to publish elsewhere.So that'stheir choice.And we should allow thoseauthors to make that choice.MR. NILSSON:Just one last commenton it.I think what worked best for uswas discussing reviewer fatigue ratherthan increased revenue.We can reallysee the problem in reviewer fatigue, andthat made them start cascading more.MS. WILSON:Yeah.I think that's areally good point about framing it inthat way.MS. MOTTER:Yeah.Great point.Madelyn has a question aboutfocusing on -- is focusing on openscience a distraction from improvingscience communication to the public?The majority of the public cannotusefully read or evaluate academicjournal articles.The fake news outthere is easy to read andintention-grabbing.Should we instead all focus onimproving translation of good scienceinto the public sphere?MR. NILSSON:That's an excellentquestion.It's actually something westarted discussing within the officeafter the plenary yesterday, which was aquestion yesterday, that part of openscience is also making the researchavailable to the general public.The one way we discussed that was topublish a summary -- publish a summarynext to our papers is something we coulddo to do that.But I don't think it's necessarilyexclusive.We can perceive both paths atthe same time.I think -- I don't thinkwe need to.MS. WILSON:Yeah.I'd agree.Ithink it's a really good point.And Ithink, perhaps, this learned societies,there is something in that.I don't -- I don't think openscience needs to be set apart from this,but I think -- I was sort of talking alittle bit at the end of my presentation,but I think this joined approach within asociety they're looking at the work thatmight be coming out through your journalspotentially an open access article, butthen how you can work within your societyto translate that into (inaudible) a newspiece and you communicate that out.It might be that you're doingsomething together in terms of the policywork you're doing and publications tomake sure that you're kind of in alearned societies are really well placedthere to be kind of marker of -- that youcan trust, we're a trusted source ofinformation.And, actually, if we can worktogether with the activities we'relooking at within our society, to alsotranslate that into a way that the publiccan view that.I think it's a really -- a reallygood thing that we should be doing.MS. MOTTER:Yeah.And I like theidea of lay summaries or, you know,patient commentary or things like that,too, as a way of helping to realize thetrue potential of open access publishingand translate it into terms that are moreaccessible to the public.We have another question from Davidasking; what is exactly the reason foruncertain future for subscription-basedmodels of the journals?Is it Sci-Hub,inability of libraries to pay forsubscriptions and researchers trying toget papers in other sometimes illegalplaces?That's probably more a question forme.I think that, as you heard from meand Andrew earlier this morning, youknow, library budgets are under a lot ofpressure and, you know, the -- there area lot of budget constraints when it comesto their inability to pay more forsubscription access.So I think that'sprobably one of the points that Johan wasalluding to.Sure.There are also threats from,you know, other illegal sources ofinformation, like Sci-Hub.We certainlyrecognize that authors are increasinglyfinding other ways to get around paywallsand to get access to information.So -- so I think those are -- thoseare the points that probably Johan wasreferring to.Okay.This is a question for you,Kathryn.How specifically is the BPSmonitoring author diversity?MS. WILSON:Yes.Good question.What or not we've done so far, I thinkthere is work to be done here.We'vebasically used a commercial toolactually, that Wiley helped bring ourattention to, to infer -- and it'sinferring gender from first name and fromcountry.And obviously, that's not ideal,because there's obviously margin of errorand there will be error within that.Butit's giving us sort of a rough benchmark,I suppose, for gender data over the lastcouple of years.I think one of the things that we'retalking about, though, within the societymore broadly, is that whether or not wecould introduce a sort of optional surveythat could be added to different partsactually of activity; so if you were anevent attendee, if you're an author, sothat it gave people the options to fillout some of this diversity data so we canstart collecting it across the society.But I think -- I mean, I thinkthere's still a lot of work for us to bedoing there in terms of collecting thisdata.And I think, again, that was talkedabout quite a lot yesterday in theplenary session.But it's something thatwe're really keen to do, because I thinkhaving that data in the first instance isreally -- well, it's vital where you needto be able to set clear targets movingforward.MS. MOTTER:Uh-huh.Do you haveanything to add, Johan, or --MR. NILSSON:No, not on this point,I don't think, no.MS. MOTTER:Okay.So moving on tothe next question.This is for both ofyou.Kathryn and Johan are both inassociations with multiple journals.Isit realistic for a smaller associationwith only one journal and from whom itgenerates much revenue to flip to OA; arethere other options; partial to OA; otheropen content?I could also help answer thatquestion.MR. NILSSON:It's a very goodquestion.I mean, it's obviously easierto flip a journal with less revenue thanone with a lot of revenue.It's less ofa risk.I think it's more about preparingfor a future where you might have toflip.I mean, you can do a lot of thingspreparing to be more open; increasinghybrid OA content and things like that.If you have muscle to start anotherjournal, things like that.I mean Kathyrn can probably talkmore about the cascade journal that youstarted.Stephanie's (inaudible) Iguess, would be wasteful, wouldn't they?MS. WILSON:Yeah, I would agree.Ithink it is really difficult if you'vegot one journal and it's very high incomefor you as a society.I would -- I wouldsay the same thing, though, and it'sessentially the same as what we're tryingto do even with a slightly biggerportfolio.It's sort of best positioningyourself to be able to make thattransition in the future.If you can.So as Johan said, trying to increasethe open access content within yourjournal makes sense to do it gradually.It doesn't have to be an overnight thing,but sort of gradually working your waytowards that and embracing things likeopen best practices, et cetera.I mean, there is also, yet, ifthere's space, I mean, we launched, asJohan just said, Pharmacology Research &Prospectives back in 2013 as a cascadetitle.And that is an option.But I think, you know, we allprobably appreciate as well, but it isdifficult to launch new journals at thistime.But if there's a clear area,that's another way to increase content.But yeah, I think overall I wouldprobably say sort of working your waytowards an increasingly open journalrather than thinking about it as a sortof it has to flip overnight necessarily.MS. MOTTER:Yeah.I would agreewith both of those points.And I thinkthat, you know, you have to determinewhether or not the journal will continueto be sustainable once it's flipped.Andif, you know, the APC that you would needto charge to make that possible is toohigh, and it's, you know, not competitivein the market, then perhaps now is notthe best time to be considering a flip toopen access.And maybe it's better to focus on,you know, growing hybrid open access oronline open output as a way ofaccommodating both needs in thecommunity.So there's another question hereabout; as well as a change in authorshipby country, does a flip cause a change inauthorship by other metrics, e.g.,institutional, affiliation, career,stage, and funding?I know Johan talked a little bitabout changes in the geographicdistribution of the authors publishing inhis journal.Do either of you have comments onthat?MR. NILSSON:I mean, what we seenis -- the (inaudible) that we flipped isusing data sets.It's often severalauthors on each papers.So I guess when your authors areprotected in that sense, we are rarelythe seller of the paper.It's definitelya concern it could happen.We have initiatives in place tryingto promote to new researchers where wehave competition of the best reviewpapers and waiving the fees in that case,for the best papers and things like that.Depending on when they -- alljournals are different.I mean, youcan't give one universal answer here.If you have an author base incountries where people are reallystruggling to pay the APC and when wedon't have Wiley agreements, it could bean effect, of course.So it all dependsfrom journal to journal, I would say.MS. MOTTER:Do you have anything toadd, Kathryn?MS. WILSON:No.I think I'd agreewith the points that Johan's made,because I have -- we have been on theother side of a full flip here.I don'twant to comment too much on that.MS. MOTTER:I think, certainly, onething that does happen with a flip isthat, you know, with the expansion ofthe -- or the introduction of the journalto a new business model, that also means,you know, broadening the community ofauthors that are publishing in thejournal.So there will, naturally, besome changes in the demographics of theauthors who are submitting.And let's see.Moving on here.Johan, this is a question for you.How many of your submissions came fromcountries with open access agreements, atleast while there was transitionalagreement countries?In addition, how much did you end uphaving to discount OA fees to be able tostill accept articles that the authorscouldn't pay for?Could you provide more informationon the finance and why you think revenuewent up?MR. NILSSON:Lots of questions inone there.So naturally, we have -- I mean, weare -- as you might remember from theplenary, we, as a Nordic Society, we arecentered in the very middle of the goldenopen access.That said, many of our office arenational.We have European and we haveUS authors.We have a fair bit ofauthors from the countries where we havedeals.I don't know the exact proportionnow, but it's somewhere around 20,30 percent if I just guess from my headhere.So it's a big proportion.Butit's still even bigger proportion thatdoesn't have access to these dealsimportantly.And at the moment we don't have adiscount system in place.So we decidedwhen it comes to discounts, the revenueyou have to get in is fixed, of course.You can always have a higher APC and morediscounts, but at the end of the day, themoney has to come in.We decided to have a lower APC tostart with to make it a bit more equalwith everyone.We are discussing variousdiscounts, but we haven't landed in anythat we feel are getting the effect thatwe want, sort of aiming towards thepeople that can't pay.For us, a bit of why the revenuewent up.Well, as I said, we did have arather low subscription income given thehigh profile journal.It was easy for usto get published the number of papersthat we needed to sort of get the higherrate that way.That's also one of the main reasonswhy we decided to flip the journal,because we could see in the modeling thatwe were likely that, within a few years,to have a better economical scenario thanwe were in last year.It just happened abit faster than we predicted, which is,of course, nice.MS. MOTTER:Uh-huh.Yeah.And tothe point of discounts on the open accessfees, they're typically -- obviously forsociety on journals, there are discountson the APC for society members.And then, as I mentioned before, youknow, many of our transitional deals inthe Wiley open access accounts alsoincorporate a discount on the full -- thelist price APC.But in general, those -- those arethe only discounts that we're offering onAPCs for a gold open access journal.All right.So we only have a minuteor so left.So I think we maybehave one -- time for one more question.There's so many here.I think we'regoing to have to circle back anddisseminate answers afterwards.But I amso happy to see this level of engagement,because I think it's good that you're allthinking about this.Kathryn, this is a question for you.When you mentioned webinars as a wayto diversify revenue, do you meanwebinars sponsored by companies in pharmaindustries?MS. WILSON:Yes.So in essence, Imean not necessarily always companieslike pharma.It could be philanthropiccompanies, but yes, at the moment.Soit's a very new stream of content for usessentially.It's a very new thing forus to be doing in terms of thesewebinars.But I think the initial thinkingis -- and we've had that discussioninternally.And it's a point underneathI think about; people not wanting to payfor it.And it's really true.There'sso much free content out there, it'sreally difficult to make people want topay for something.And so I think ideally what we wouldhope for is that we -- yes, we would findsponsorship support for these webinars.And it would depend on what thecontent is from that.So what area ofthe society it's coming from.But Ithink the hope would be that we would puttogether some really, kind of, topical,interesting content within pharmacology,but then we would match that to a sponsorwho is also sort of -- would supportthat.But again, I say that with a caveatof obviously being mindful.I talkedabout the principles we've got aboutmatching.You obviously have to matchyour sponsor, and quite carefully, toyour content.And I think that's why we've drawnup these principles about the types ofpartners we want -- we want to and areable to work with to be able to have avery successful impact.MS. MOTTER:Okay.Well, I'm afraidwe're going to have to close here andmove on to our next session.Thank you so much, Kathryn andJohan.It's been a real pleasure hearingfrom you.It's very importantinformative case studies.So thank youfor that.And we will do our best to answerthe questions that have come through andcirculate the responses offline.So thank you.MS. WILSON:Thank you. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download