The author of this post, Samuel Syddall, Digital Sales Manager from Peter Lang Group, is seeking feedback on the Open EBA model presented in the post. Please add your thoughts, comments or questions using the ‘Comment’ function on the blog and Sam will engage with the responses.
The transition from traditional pay-to-access publishing models to Open Access publishing is perhaps the most significant change in the history of scholarly communications, and it is now clearer than ever that that the future of scholarly communication is Open Access.
As Peter Lang Group continues to expand its Open Access programme and looks towards a future driven by Open Access models, we have been asking what shape these models could take, and how we can best work with libraries to make this transition together. I would like to share our thoughts on this in this blog and talk about the model we have developed, which we think can dramatically accelerate this transition, called Open EBA.
Any transition to Open Access clearly needs to be viable for publishers, but it also crucially needs to fit the priorities of libraries. Libraries will only ever feel comfortable transferring their budgets from traditional pay-to-access models over to new pay-to-publish models when they feel they are getting equal return on investment on these new models.
This creates a challenge for publishers and libraries alike, as there are models offered in books publishing which already offer very high return on investment, in particular Evidence-Based Acquisition (EBA). For many, EBA has become the gold standard model for how university libraries purchase eBooks direct from publishers, especially in Western Europe.
The way EBA works is that a library pays a sum of money up front, and in return is granted access to a catalogue of titles for 12 months. At the end of the 12 months, the library uses the money they paid up front to purchase titles in perpetuity for their library. The titles they purchase will be informed by the 12 months of usage data they have acquired, allowing them to pick the best titles in the catalogue. This model offers advantages for libraries in that it ensures that they are making informed decisions about how they grow their collection, offers 12 months of access to a broad catalogue, and is comparatively easy to administer compared to other models. For publishers, the benefit is that an EBA is usually worth more than collection sales, and it is an attractive end of year purchase with leftover library funds.
This model has been highly successful for over ten years, and any new model would need to compete with EBA before it could succeed. At Peter Lang, we asked: what if we took EBA, a model which has been successful for years, and seek to adapt it to enable universities to fund Book Processing Charges, all from the same pot and within the same model?
Peter Lang’s Open EBA model keeps the same basic structure as EBA: libraries pay a fixed price to access our full catalogue of eBooks for 12 months, and then they can use the money they paid at the start to permanently purchase titles for their library. What is special about Open EBA is that we will introduce the flexibility for libraries to also allocate Book Processing Charges (BPCs) within the model, with the price of the BPC coming off the final balance used to purchase titles in perpetuity. For example, if the starting balance was £40,000, and the library spent £16,000 on BPCs through the year, there would now be £24,000 left over at the end of the year to purchase titles with. The price your institution pays will be dependent on the University’s size, but our pricing is competitive with traditional EBA models offered by other publishers.
Within a single model, libraries can access the entire Peter Lang eBook catalogue and then flexibly use the funds within the model either to make titles Open Access or purchase titles for their library catalogue.
If the goal is to transition from paying to access content towards paying to publish content, then this model ensures that as that transition happens, libraries do not see a decline in the amount of content they are making available. It also naturally adapts to different levels of publishing output: if a university has a lot of Book Processing Charges one year, more of the “budget” within the Open EBA model will go to Open Access; if the next year they have fewer titles, the budget will go towards traditional acquisition.
It is also easy to build controls into the model to ensure that a library feels comfortable with the pace of transition. A library can set a cap on how much they wish to invest in Open Access, and we can ensure that this is reflected in conversations with academics.
One of the fiercest topics of debate around Open Access books is the Book Processing Charge. Many feel that BPCs are fundamentally wrong as an approach because there is simply no funding available for them. Open EBA helps solve that by introducing a flexible model for libraries which always guarantees access to our catalogue and a budget which can be used to either finance BPCs or purchase titles, as the library chooses.
Another critique of BPCs is how they impact authors from less affluent countries and, as we develop this model, we will find ways to support the broader academic community including independent scholars, using the success of the model and the lessons we learn from implementing it to support new initiatives targeting these groups. This is a journey, but this model allows Peter Lang and university libraries to start that journey in a serious and immediate fashion.
Open EBA shows that there is a clear route towards Open Access books publishing, one which keeps the best features and the value of current models, flexibly adapts to different levels of publishing output, and lets a library set controls on the pace of transition. We are very excited to be introducing this model and look forward to engaging with the community and sharing our findings as we implement it