Friday, 25 July 2014

ALPSP Awards spotlight on... bioRxiv, the preprint sharing service for the life sciences from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory


Nice place you've got there, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

With only a few weeks to go before our annual September conference, thoughts turn to the finalists of the ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing, sponsored by Publishing Technology. The winners will be announced at the conference, but if you can't wait until then, here's the first in a series of spotlights on the finalists.

We asked John Inglis, Executive Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, to tell us more about finalist project bioRxiv, the preprint sharing service for the life sciences that the Laboratory initiated in November 2013.

ALPSP: Tell us a bit about your company

JI: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (www.cshl.edu) is located 35 miles east of New York, on the north shore of Long Island.  It was founded in 1890 and was historically important in the development of genetics and molecular biology last century.

Today it has first-class research programs in cancer, neuroscience, genomics, plant science, and quantitative biology.  But the Laboratory also makes a huge contribution to scholarship and the professional education of scientists through highly regarded conferences on its main campus and its center in Suzhou, China, laboratory and lecture courses, an innovative graduate school, a center and archive for the history of molecular biology, and the outstanding journals, books, and electronic media produced by its Press (www.cshlpress.org).  

So the Laboratory's long-established culture combines both doing science and sharing science with many thousands of investigators who visit our campuses and an even larger number worldwide who benefit from its publications.

bioRxiv metrics

ALPSP: You have submitted the bioRxiv project for the Awards. Tell us more about how it works and the team behind it.

JI: A preprint is the manuscript of a research paper that has not yet been accepted for publication by a journal. bioRxiv is a service for the open online distribution of preprints. It's free for both authors and readers. Authors categorize their manuscript in one of 25 life science subject categories and identify their findings as "new", "confirmatory", or "contradictory". The manuscript is submitted through an automated system that creates a pdf, attaches a DOI, and displays the abstract in the bioRxiv site. The pdf can be previewed and downloaded. Manuscripts are posted usually within hours of submission, with only minimal screening and no peer review. They can be revised any time and prior versions are retained on the bioRxiv site. Usage metrics and altmetrics for each posted manuscript are publicly available. When a version of a manuscript is published by a journal, a link is posted from the preprint to the paper.

bioRxiv is a service of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory managed by a small team within CSHL Press that includes co-founder Richard Sever, production manager Linda Sussman, lead technical developer Ted Roeder, and administrator Inez Sialiano.  bioRxiv is hosted by HighWire Press, where it gets great support from Bert Carelli and the drupal development team and Kevin-John Black and the Bench>Press crew.  We also rely very much on a group of about 50 bioRxiv Affiliates, young principal investigators who screen submitted manuscripts and assure us that the content is indeed science.

ALPSP: Why do you think it demonstrates publishing innovation?

JI: There is technical innovation in the automated system that ingests and posts manuscripts with minimal human intervention. But much more importantly, we see evidence that bioRxiv is beginning to change information practices within the broad sweep of life science. The long established online preprint server arXiv covers physics, computer science,  mathematics, and since 2003, areas of biology with a quantitative component, such as population genetics. In only 8 months, bioRxiv has received more than 550 manuscripts and every one of the life sciences categories is represented. As expected, the largest categories are the more quantitative, such as evolutionary biology and bioinformatics, in which preprints are familiar but a substantial number of manuscripts are in cancer, genetics, cell and developmental biology, neuroscience, immunology, ecology  -  areas of science in which sharing preprints is a new behavior among authors.

Publication link
There are changes, too, among journals.  Since bioRxiv began, many journals and publishers have either changed or clarified their policies to state openly that they will accept for publication manuscripts that have been shared as preprints. 20% of the manuscripts currently on bioRiv have been published in final form in a long list of journals that include the leading general journals and prominent titles in more specific areas. 

These journals understand and support the distinction between the sharing of information that bioRxiv makes possible and the validation of knowledge through peer review, a function that still resides with journals.

Another area of innovation is the enabling of prepublication critical scrutiny and discussion of findings that bioRxiv makes possible. There is a commenting function on the site which so far has been used only for a small number of papers. But when it happens, there can be useful dialogue between authors and readers.  There is a lot of social media activity around bioRxiv posts, including twitter discussion and blogging. And authors tell us they get a great deal of direct, private comment on manuscripts through email. It's our impression, therefore, even at this early stage in the life of the service, that posting a manuscript to bioRiv offers the author an opportunity for community feedback that could improve the manuscript before it's submitted to a journal for publication. And perhaps, therefore, speed its acceptance, although of course we have no evidence for that.

In summary, bioRxiv is changing the way information in the life sciences is shared.  It's helping quicken the pace of research.  It's empowering early career scientists, who can share their results and gain visibility before they have built a publication record.  And it's enabling investigators to create and share a citable, discoverable record of work accomplished that can be evaluated by grants and hiring committees, even though it has not yet been formally published.
The Laboratory's mission

ALPSP: And finally, what are your plans for the future?

JI: The Laboratory is committed to bioRxiv for the long term but we're impatient to spread the word about the availability of the service as rapidly as possible. We still have much to do to make scientists worldwide aware of the service and its benefits. We are still adding features and functions to the site and next up will be some general data about the relative distribution of preprints among subject categories and the journals that have published final versions. We are talking to publishers about their preprint policies and where appropriate, advocating for change. We may well develop a list of preprint-friendly journals on the bioRxiv site.  Several publishers are interested in offering authors the possibility of posting their manuscript to bioRxiv at the same time it's submitted to a journal. We have tested this functionality in the Bench>Press submission system with one of the CSHL Press research journals Genome Research and many authors liked it, so we're working now with other journals that use B>P and would like to offer the opportunity via other submission systems. Other things we are considering include a rating system that readers can attach to posted manuscripts.

We are excited about the rising rate of submission, increasing usage, extraordinarily interesting and important science being posted, and growing awareness and discussion of the information being shared through bioRxiv.  Its future will be driven in a major way by what the community tell us they want the service to be.

The ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing will be made at the ALPSP International Conference. Book now to reserve your place.

Wednesday, 23 July 2014

ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing 2014: recognising blood, sweat and tears in scholarly publishing

There's nothing quite like winning a prize, is there? And when it comes to gaining recognition from your peers with an industry award, it must make the long hours, hard work, inspiration and perspiration worthwhile.

That's certainly what it felt like for ALPSP's Best New Journal winners Faculty Dental Journal, Innovation in Publishing winners PeerJ, highly commended Drama Online and Contribution to Scholarly Publishing recipient Anthony Watkinson when they were interviewed after the ceremony at last year's conference (skip to 1:30 in the video).



We can't believe another year has almost passed and the ALPSP Awards for Innovation in Publishing 2014 are almost upon us. The judging has commenced and the tension is mounting for our finalists. Congratulations to them all for reaching the short list.

bioRxiv from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
Edifix from Inera Inc.
Frontiers open science platform
IOP ebooks from IOP Publishing
JournalGuide from Research Square
ReadCube Connect from Labtiva Inc
RightsLink for Open Access from the Copyright Clearance Center

Keep checking back as we profile each of them over the next seven weeks. If you want to be there on the night, make sure you register for the Annual Conference and Awards Dinner. Book before 8 August to avoid the late registration fee.

Friday, 6 June 2014

Beyond text, reading and subscription: in conversation with Alison Jones

Alison Jones knows content. Her career spans over 20 years in trade and academic publishing where she has shaped strategy in senior digital innovation roles at companies such as Palgrave Macmillan, and now as a business coach, consultant and independent publisher.

We caught up with Alison in advance of the ALPSP seminar Beyond the basics - the next steps for scholarly content and wrappers seminar to find out what lessons she has learnt about developing content beyond traditional wrappers.

How would you define scholarly content and wrappers?


'It used to be very easy to define scholarly content and its wrappers: there were journal articles and books (monographs, edited collections), and at a stretch theses and conference proceedings. In other words, the wrappers pretty much defined the content in the print paradigm. Everything outside this definition was considered ‘grey literature’.'

We first ran this topic as a seminar three years ago. What do you see as the main changes in customers’ reading preferences since then?


'There’s a growing recognition that this ‘grey literature’ is actually where the conversation is happening: scholars continue to care passionately about the quality and reputation of their traditionally published content, but they’re increasingly engaged in the pre-publication conversation too. I'm delighted that Sierra Williams from the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog will be joining us to explore how this is shaping the academic landscape.

Another huge change has been around data and other non-text elements: when you’re accessing a scholarly text on screen rather than on the printed page you can have access to the ‘back story’, the detail of the research findings, recordings of interviews, software code and so on. Data is a whole seminar in itself - how it can be optimised for sharing and reuse, negative data, metadata, analytics - and indeed this is an emerging specialism within academia itself for which there aren't as yet well-defined career paths and evaluation metrics. Two organisations doing particularly interesting things with data are OECD and PLoS, and I'm looking forward to hearing about the latest development from both of them at the seminar.

Mobile has traditionally been seen as something that’s impacted on trade publishing rather than academic, where the PDF has clung on tenaciously, but as the population at large becomes more accustomed to reading on mobile phones and tablets, and the devices themselves have become ubiquitous, the impact of mobile technology and reading on scholarly material is really starting to be felt. Libraries are responding to the growing demand from students for access to content and services on their mobiles: Liz Waller from York Library will be talking about the challenges and opportunities associated with this.

Finally, we’re seeing a growing number of tools and services that are based on or enabled by content, the love-child of content and code, if you like. The RSC’s LearnChemistry is a good example of this and David Leeming, their Strategic Innovations Group Solutions Manager, will talk us through how they optimised 170 years’ worth of content for flexible digital delivery.'

What approaches to evolving and developing content for a changing market have you used? What worked and what lessons did you learn?


'One of the most successful launches at Palgrave Macmillan during my time there was Palgrave Pivot, a format midway between the journal article and the monograph. This was a direct result of in-depth market research, which allowed us to make the investment with confidence since we knew there was a strong market interest. We effectively reassessed the traditional outputs, which were based on print constraints: a book needed to be bulky enough to have a spine readable on a library shelf, an article slim enough to fit in an edition with several others. Online of course these constraints simply don’t exist: the Palgrave Pivot format allows scholars to publish their research at its ‘natural length’, rather than having to chop it down into an article or pad it out into a book, with a 12-week maximum production schedule. For me, it was a great lesson in innovating organically, and ensuring the benefit can be clearly stated and clearly understood.

Another interesting example from the Macmillan group is Digital Science’s FigShare, which emerged from founder Mark Hahnel’s own frustration with the limitation of data storing and publishing, particularly negative data, which had value to the community but no official route for dissemination.  As with Palgrave Pivot, its starting point was a frustration with the current situation, which is always an opportunity for innovation.

Of course there’s a limit to what any one publisher can do on its own: much of the most interesting work today is being done through partnerships and collaborations across the community, including sourcing content from non-traditional players. Tim Devenport of EDItEUR will be speaking more about this, and our final session of the day will be a panel drawing together different perspectives to explore ways in which we can work together even more productively.'

What do you recommend to your clients now?


'My clients these days are mostly business owners (although I do still work with some scholarly presses). My focus is first on the organisation’s strategy: once this is clear, well articulated and understood, I work with clients to plan the content that will support this strategy. Together we create multi-channel plans that begin long before publication, engaging the community in the process of writing, which not only improves the book but also builds awareness and interest in it.

The book is only one part of a content plan: social media, particularly blogs, and off-line activity such a speaking have a vital role to play in building and disseminating the message. Once published, the book then becomes a springboard for ongoing conversation and can generate new forms of delivery in its turn, such as training materials. The days when you could lock yourself in a room until the manuscript was complete then send it to a publisher and wait for the launch party are dead: long live the content revolution!'

Alison Jones is a business coach, content marketing consultant and independent publisher. 

She is chairing our 'Beyond the basics - the next steps for scholarly content and wrappers' seminar on Tuesday 24 June 2014 in London. Book now.

Friday, 16 May 2014

What are researchers’ views on Open Access publishing? How do we ensure research has impact and that the public engage with it? How are such developments affecting learned societies?

Here, in a guest post, Elaine Devine from Taylor & Francis, asks these key questions for scholarly communications, and teases us with some answers from forthcoming Taylor & Francis surveys.

"In my role as Communications Manager for Author Relations at Taylor & Francis, I'm often asked what researchers really think and what impact their articles have within their discipline and in the wider world. We also publish on behalf of many learned societies, who have a huge stake in the success of their community's research, and we conduct a range of studies ourselves to track and monitor these trends.

Recent surveys conducted by Taylor & Francis show:

  • Almost half of Taylor & Francis authors plan to choose green Open Access, and a third plan to choose gold, for future publications. (2014 Open Access Survey) 
  • 80% of respondents feel researchers think societies are relevant (2014 Society Survey)
  • Rigorous peer review is still seen as the most important service to authors in 2014 (2014 Open Access Survey)
  • Society conferences and annual meetings remain most valuable to members (2014 Society Survey).

Supported by the Academy of Social Sciences and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, Taylor & Francis is hosting seminars on ‘Open Access and Society: Impact and Engagement’ to discuss and debate these findings, and much more besides.

With speakers from publishing, learned societies, academia, funders and policy makers, the seminars offer an opportunity to hear views from all sides. From the European Commision to HEFCE, Society for Research into Higher Education to the National Library of Sweden, CrossRef to Deutsche Forschungsdemeinschaft, you’ll be able to hear them discuss the challenges and opportunities they currently face and, crucially, how to deliver research impact and public engagement in an Open Access context.

Free to attend, the seminars are in London on 19 May and Brussels on 17 June. If you are interested in Open Access these promise an engaging and exciting day. Read the full agenda, register to attend by clicking on the links above, or follow us on Twitter at #oaandsociety.

We look forward to seeing you there."

Elaine Devine is Communications Manager (Author Relations) at Taylor & Francis, who partner with researchers, scholarly societies, universities and libraries worldwide to bring knowledge to life. Their published content spans all areas of Humanities, Social Sciences, Behavioural Sciences, Science, and Technology and Medicine.

Thursday, 15 May 2014

Marketing Open Access programmes and publisher case studies

Caroline Sutton, Co-Action Publishing
In the final afternoon session at The Mechanics and Reality of Open Access, Caroline Sutton from Co-Action Publishing talked about marketing. They have seven employees publishing 34 journals with most income coming through APCs. For them, Open Access equals free access with re-use under a CC BY licence to keep it simple and easy to use.

Marketing channels are similar to subscription publishing. Promotional activities are run in conjunction with conferences. They have outreach to libraries, social media activities, email campaigns, etc. To some extent they are seeking to meet the same needs: access to peer reviewed literature and a publication outlet. But she believes that OA and hybrid journals are two very different products.

Open Access is knowledge as a network; knowledge as infrastructure; Open Access as a key infrastructural element. It's about creating connectivity within this network. Traditional publishing recognises knowledge as property. One of the biggest challenges in OA publishing is to get your head around the non-proprietary mindset around content. Sutton believes she acts as a midwife trying to get content out into the world. They keep this in mind when developing marketing strategy. But they also have to keep in mind where they make money (subscription income versus APCs). Sutton feels that the hybrid approach contradicts these two views.

At Co-Action, their customer groups are researchers, funders, institution/library, others (practitioners, political leaders, patients, citizens, journalists, etc). They consider consumers of content (reader) and contributors to content (author). In subscription publishing, the key market is the institution/library as you sell subscriptions to them. The researcher as reader is also important to drive usage to help secure renewals. There is also some interest in the 'Others' category.

With OA publishing the researcher as author is central to publishing: to buy the service and submit papers and then to recommend to others. They also provide a lot of services post publication. As publishers they have had to rethink what their role is. What do they contribute? They need to communicate this in the marketing. With the hybrid model the Funder is the primary target group, but there is also a lot of work with other groups.

One final question that Sutton posed was is advocacy marketing? Why have some OA publishers engaged in advocacy? She believes they had to go to market and make their presence felt. Have we seen advocacy in the marketing content of hybrid models? She concluded they have to be careful with their email marketing as predatory publishers spamming research communities has created a bad reputation for all.

The final session included brief case studies from a variety of publishers.

Nicola Gulley
Nicola Gulley, Editorial Director at IOP Publishing outlined how they researched what the best model would be that worked for their research communities. The findings indicated that the hybrid model was the best option.

What they have seen so far is a similar pattern that they have seen in existing journals. In the first quarter of 2014 there was increased uptake in hybrid. Gulley also noted increased interest in the business model from researchers. The big message was - and continues to be - flexibility in the model is key.



Hazel Newton
Hazel Newton, Head of Author Services in the Open Research division at Nature Publishing Group/Palgrave Macmillan reflected on how the wholesale application of the STEM approach to Open Access in relation to the humanities and social sciences (HSS) had worried the research community. There were also concerns about quality and lack of choice. Researchers felt bamboozled by CC options.

In their 2013 author survey, 84% said they would publish OA if the best or most appropriate journal was OA. 68% thought their specific area of interest would benefit from OA journals. Interdisciplinarity is an exciting area in research and funders are increasingly thinking about it. However, the smallest area for funding is in HSS.

As a result they are launching Palgrave Communications later in 2014. Offering choice spanning humanities and social sciences it will champion interdisciplinary research. It will be about quality and furthering the discipline, not just methodologically sound. There are more than 80 international editorial board members. There will be no restrictions on the length of papers and licences will be CC BY (but alternative licences are available). The APC is set at £750.

Kathryn Spiller
Kathryn Spiller, Head of Publishing at Bioscientifica recounted that when she took over, they launched an OA journal. Their societies wanted it, but it also reflected market demand for an interdisciplinary journal. They didn't intend to publish Open Access only products. Subsequently, everything they have done has been market driven and it so happens has all been OA.

They have doubled their publishing programme, all with OA products. A potential new approach they are exploring is for a niche, interdisciplinary project to secure grant or sponsor funding so it can be OA, as there is no research funding available.

Open Access: what does the librarian or customer community need and how do we install new plumbing?

John Norman
John Norman is Director for the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies at the University of Cambridge. He kicked off the afternoon sessions at The Mechanics and Reality of Open Access seminar.

At Cambridge, they conducted research into getting published. The experience doesn't split STEM/Humanities so much as single researcher (author) versus team research (multiple authors). Positive emotional states are associated with publication and impact. Negative emotional states are associated with making publishing decision, rejection and using publisher system.

Researchers are the ultimate customers. What do they need? Access to all important research relevant to their field. They don't always get it. What they want is access to be timely and convenient. And they want the same for the production of their articles.

When RCUK policy came into force, they took a service model of 'tell us about your article and we'll tell you what options are available.' They tried to keep it simple as it is so complex so they could take the burden of complexity off the author. It has proved to be a very popular approach.

The overall number of articles is c. 8,000 per annum. They have c. 500 publishers they deal with annually. From enquiries, they made 277 payments (invoices which they authorised). There were 72 articles submitted to the institutional repository. Interestingly, 40% of articles had some sort of publishing problem and 296 articles were available in a satisfactory form for RCUK at 4 April 2014. There were 364 APCs authorised; £724k committed; with an average APC c. £1800. Full data on Cambridge's APC payments is available on figshare).

They find it most helpful to use a diagram of the publishing value chain to explain to authors (article submission; initial review by publisher / article rejected; peer review / article accepted, Copyright Transfer Agreement signed / Article rejected; publishing / typesetting / copyediting / article published; public review / withdrawal, modification, altmetrics.) There is no doubt in Norman's mind that the Version of Record is considered more important by authors.

Multiple mandates to comply with can be tricky
The complexity of understanding multiple funder information shouldn't be underestimated. They average around 30 minutes per enquiry for their team.

One example is an article that acknowledges funding from BBSRC and the British Heart Foundation. The relevant Open Access policies are HEFCE, BBSRC, BHF, publisher and institution. That's five different sets of mandates to comply with, some of which are contradictory.

What would help? Simple, unambiguous, machine readable published information from publishers on key elements of an OA option.

  • Version: are we talking about the publishers Version of Record or the Author Accepted Manuscript (and can we limit options to these two). 
  • Licence: can we make explicit the licence options that apply to the article and limit the range (CC useful for this)? 
  • Embargo: make explicit a single embargo in months from known publication date. 
  • Price: it may be free, but does the price exclude tax for each version/licence combination? 

Some simple things publishers can do to help libraries (John's wish list) are a notification to the institution that an author has had an article accepted. Provide a free print copy of accepted article version in PDF form on acceptance and a free print copy of accepted article version in PDF form with licence.

Norman's final point was don't forget the reader. Creative Commons licences express permissions in a way the reader can easily understand.

Jisc's Neil Jacobs
Neil Jacobs from Jisc talked about 're-plumbing' infrastructure. It needs to be more flexible and scaleable in a time when universities and funders have new roles. What do universities need to know? Questions such as how do I know if author papers have been submitted to journals? What authors have published? What have we paid for APCs? Have we complied with funder policies? What are our financial liabilities?

He reflected on the complexity in the publishing content cycle and metadata requirements. It is not sufficiently scaleable or accessible. If you take standards and identifiers, there are some clear gaps including Publisher and APC identifiers.

Other emerging areas for standards and identifiers are research data and software. In the future, there will likely be a requirement for relationships such as attribution, contribution, affiliation and citation. Jacobs closed with a mention for the OA Implementation Group's guide to Gold for Open Access for Learned Societies.

Setting up Open Access policies and the different business models

Vicky Gardner from Taylor & Francis
The second half of the morning at The Mechanics and Reality of Open Access seminar covered practical implementation issues for setting up internal policies. Vicky Gardner, Open Access Publisher at Taylor & Francis, described 'the third age of publishing' as subscription, site licence and OA. There is the increasing influence of funders and policy makers and changing roles for libraries and publishers.

What does it mean? Operational challenges include:
  • increasing granularity with article-level workflows.
  • increased variation
  • APC mechanisms
  • implications for subscription business (conversion to full gold) OA would render many journals unsustainable
  • anticipating OA policies and mandates - impact on institutional processes
  • internal and external reporting
  • cost.
Questions to ask yourself when implementing Open Access include: Do we hold publication until payment is received? Should we offer multiple APCs? How much information do we provide to authors? How can we consistently capture data for reporting?

Underlying considerations for consistently capturing data have a cross-industry element (FundRef, CrossMark, Prospect, NISO standards). There is classification (research funder vs APC funder), accuracy of data inputs (eg APC funding). You also need to consider how the data might be used (future proofing): it takes investment. And don't forget about past articles. With embargoes do you increase (will it protect subscriptions? Link to article half lives?). Should you decrease? (But some think you can't put genie back in the bottle... and what is the value of the version of record?)

Areas to consider with waivers include whether they are regional (corresponding author, offer only on full? What about local titles?) or no questions asked (is this sustainable? It allows those in genuine hardship to publish.)

Considerations for double dipping
  • Global offset - equitable to subscribers, but difficult to calculate.
  • Local offset - can accommodate in bulk deals. Equitable to those investing in OA. Is there granularity? Can be difficult to calculate.
  • Top up model - avoids double dipping issue. Maintains the subscription market.
Thinking about licence choice
  • How many?
  • Which ones?
  • What do authors want?
  • What do funders want?
  • Subject differentials?
  • Permissions and third party content.
What are the lessons learned? Flexibility is key: sometimes a small tweak is all it takes. You need to engage with many different departments, editors, societies, librarians, funders. Make sure to use the talent in your business. Accept that you don't have all the answers - new workflows won't be right straightaway, strategic planning can only anticipate future developments.

We're all on a learning curve - manual workarounds are easy to implement in the short term and more practical in many senses than immediate investment in automation. Keeping staff informed about OA developments is just as important as external communications. One size does not fit all - there are many different preoccupations, perspectives and opinions, not just funder, policy maker, publisher. Consultation is key.

It is early days and the market is immature. This relates to APC intermediaries, HEI and publisher knowledge, and the take up of OA by researchers. Internal workflows are short to medium term. Change and complexity will be constant. And it is not just about research, also think about grey literature. But remember, OA is scalable.

The Royal Society's Phil Hurst
Phil Hurst from The Royal Society provided an overview of the different business models. At The Royal Society, their subscription model dates back to c1800. Originally, RS Fellows (400) received copies as part membership dues (no opt out). There were 300 on general sale through the Society's bookseller, and the Society received income, minus fees and expenses. External sales did not recoup the cost of printing. Only in recent years has the subscription model become more profitable.

Now? They use a subscription and green OA model. The institution or individual pays a regular fee for access to content, it is free to submit articles, but access is only available to subscribers. The advantages are that it is a proven model and infrastructure; the subscription supply chain is relatively efficient; there is no processing of APCs. The disadvantages are that the dissemination of content depends on budget availability. There is more content, but stagnant library budgets are a challenge. While it is relatively easy to manage, they still need people or agents to develop new business. Green OA requires repository infrastructure and it can be a challenge to get authors to deposit post prints.

Hybrid gold OA is relatively easy to implement. You retain the subscription income and it can be a transition to full OA as authors choose preferred publication model. However, there is potential for double dipping. It can be difficult to provide subscription discounts in a granular way and it is not always compliant with OA funders/mandates. Practical considerations include setting the price, collecting payments and a transparent pricing mechanism. At The Royal Society they have 'no fee, no free' model, but authors can retrospectively convert to OA.

Pure gold OA is a model where cost scales with submissions. It can lead to a more effective market (cost competition) with greater dissemination of content and potentially faster/higher citations. However, funding sources are not always available and quality and income are in conflict. Predatory publishers hinder OA reputation and can undermine authors' trust. Practical considerations include the need to collect a greater number of payments and the need to promote online payment (by credit card). The customer (author) will often not fund payment, so you need to demonstrate quality.

OA membership is where authors from member institutions receive a discount on pure or hybrid OA. This can take the form of a supporter or pre-pay (eg PMC, Hindawi) or postpay approach. The Royal Society has an OA 'supporter' membership. The benefits are that authors receive 25% discount on APCs, it increases research awareness about options, provides a customised institutional web page and is a cost-effective flat annual fee. Practical considerations include linking the author with institution, dealing with multi-authored papers: which institution gets the discount? You need a new system, have to set the price and while it is proving cost-effectiveness, they still need sales people. Other examples include PeerJ, IOP Publishing OA funding pilot in Austria and the RSC gold for gold programme.