MOA 2013, Towards Quality Controlled Monographs in Sweden - Exploring the Possibilities for a Consortium based Approach

1. Towards Quality-Controlled
Open Access Monographs in Sweden
LiU GU UU LU SU
David Lawrence Karin Henning
Maja Pelling
Aina Svensson Katarina Bernhardsson
Jörgen Eriksson
Camilla Hertil-
Lindelöw
Thomas Neidenmark

2. Books at present
• According to Swepub, 2012: 636
• (monography+anthology; refereed+not refereed)
• 60% Swedish
• 50% monographs; 35% refereed(?) (DiVA)
• Includes all from smaller reports to
international best sellers

3. Publishing situation
• Commercial publishers
– International
• often peer-reviewed, prestigious, wide distribution,
good chance of electronic version, often no printing
charge, searchability?, no OA
– Swedish
• Rarely peer-reviewed, local prestige, variable
distribution, uncommon with e-version, printing charge
normal

7. Publishing situation cont’d
• University publishers
– University Press
• Rare in Sweden: OA, broad authorship?
– University Series
• Acta series: peer review variable, prestige local
• Thesis series: e-version, OA

8. Peer Review
• Larger international publishers can use a peer-
review similar to jourals; Editorial committee
review also used
• In Sweden often ”limited” to copy-editing
• With OA there is a strong move towards using
full peer-review

9. Summary of ”now”
• Majority of academic books from Swedish
universities is published nationally
• Visibility, accessibility, availability often low
• OA rare
• Peer review uncommon
• Printing cost 50.000 – 150.000 SEK
• Copyright lost

10. Inconsistent with other realities
• Growing requirements for university output to
be visible, accessible, internationally
recognized…

11. Solutions?
• Accessibility, visibility  e-publishing, OA
• International recognition, prestige can come
from rigorous quality control, broad author
base
• Chance of success much higher with
collaboration

12. Objective
• To improve book publishing in Sweden
– Work with universities, publishers, researchers,
funders…
– To use the strengths that each part has to
contribute to a whole:
• Publishers: editorial work flow, print distribution…
• Universities: academic quality control, e-distribution…
• Funders: financing, policy influence…

13. Methodology
• Analyse the publishing situation
• Understand the different perspectives:
– Publishers
– Funders
– Researchers
• Develop a proposal for a system
• Get feedback

14. Roles in a consortium approach
• Researchers: write, get funding, peer review
• Publishers: accept MS, format, graphics,
publish, distribute
• Academic consortium: organize peer review,
guidance on OA

15. Steering committee
Managing editorial
committee
Advisory board
ReviewersReviewers
5 people + administrator
+ technician
X-y people, editors from
existing series, senior
academics
(periodic)
A simple organization

16. Author Publisher,
university series
Publishing
Traditional publishing Workflow

17. Author Publisher,
university series
Language-
checked MS
”Modified” Workflow

18. Author Publisher,
university series
Managing editorial
committee
Gross suitability check
Language-
checked MS
Typical Workflow

19. Author Publisher,
university series
Managing editorial
committee
Gross suitability check
Reviewer 1
Reviewer 2
Language-
checked MS
Typical Workflow

20. Author Publisher,
university series
Managing editorial
committee
Gross suitability check
Reviewer 1
Reviewer 2
feedback
corrections
Language-
checked MS
Typical Workflow

21. Author Publisher,
university series
Managing editorial
committee
Gross suitability check
Reviewer 1
Reviewer 2
feedback
corrections
Language-
checked MS
Certified MS
Publishing
Typical Workflow
print OA

22. Feed back?
• Workshop/meetings with funders, publishers,
researchers
• Overall positive from all groups to the concept
• Issues:
– Details: peer-review, organization, the next step

23. Economics
• Fixed costs
– Mainly salary of managing board + admin + tech
– Currently viewed as infrastructure, ideally ”paid”
nationally
• Variable Costs
– Peer review, total 10-20K SEK per book
– Author pays (?)

24. The Next Step??
• Write a report 

25. Comments and Feedback welcome…