Mapping the Publishing Challenges for an Open Access University Press

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the degree of the article's novelty, in my opinion, is not high - I still think that the article is highly significant. It is interesting to read about how an understaffed university press is coping with various challenges, and the article contributes to experience sharing between university presses.

On the whole, the article is clearly written and is easy to read, but I think that the reader can be helped along even more. Attached are some suggestions for revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Line 25: Added reference and explained.
Line 28: Added reference
Line 54: Corrected numbering of headings
Lines 71-78: Split the sentence to make it clearer
Lines 71-77: Updated to refer to publishing model rather than business model
Lines 85-142 (Table 1): I have updated the table, removed the panel colours as we don't need them, and explained the missing journals.
Lines 166-167 and 178-179: I have updated the first paragraph.
Line 174: Added a reference to Janeway
Line 216: Altered sentence
Line 227: Corrected and updated table
Line 264: Added
Line 282: Corrected
Lines 242-287: I have kept the Jisc quote as I think it is useful and shows that Jisc is doing lots of work supporting institutions with OA. I have changed the wording after it to make it clearer that the guidance is useful, but we need to think a little differently for those institutions not using the repository for Press outputs.
Lines 285-287: Moved the indicated sentence
Line 298: Corrected
Lines 301-303: Rephrased
Line 346 (Figure 4): Updated and added to the figure
Lines 351-255: Included journal title in full
Line 391: I couldn't find this correction
Line 411: Added the year
Line 431: Corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for writing this paper. You address a subject of great interest to those in the OA and publishing communities, and your practical rather than theoretical grounding is likely to interest readers, especially those in a position to start a university press or convert a legacy publishing model to an OA one. Below, I've noted several areas in which your paper can be improved, chiefly by supplying more detail than you've currently given.  

[Line 4] I would use a different metaphor, preferably a gender neutral one. 

[Line 25] You might move your third sentence to follow this one to more quickly explain what a New University Press is and how it differs from a traditional publisher.

[Line 28] I don't see a full citation for this paper in your bibliography. 

[Line 31] This is implied by your use of "open access" in the previous line. Redundant.

[Line 32] Delete the apostrophe from "it's"

[Line 37] Give Fields its own sentence. 

[Line 41] What does "high quality" mean in this context? Don't assume your readers know. 

[Line 56] No need to offset this clause with commas. 

[Line 57] I think the word you want is "reactive."

[Line 58] Delete "and"

[Line 58] Consider rephrasing. Although it's true that academics are required to publish, I would hope the Press' authors are otherwise motivated to do so, and choose your Press for reasons other than mere convenience. 

[Line 62] Your editors do more than react to proposals, right? Give us a fuller sense of the evaluation that goes into making a high-quality product. 

[Line 63] Mind weak verbs like the one you've used here. The Press proactively identifies. Look for other opportunities throughout your paper to weed out these so-called "be verbs." Pair your subject with an action verb whenever possible.

[Lines 71-78] This is a run-on sentence. Instead, take each item in turn and give your readers a full explanation of the ways your business model maps to and furthers the aims of the University's research strategy. Supply concrete examples of each. For example, can you point to specific policymakers or companies that have used Press scholarship? How did they benefit? 

[Line 149] What about external kinds of review? You've told us about internal mapping exercises, but I assume the Press also performs landscape analyses to determine "new areas for growth." Give us a fuller picture of the work that goes into deciding new subject areas in which to publish. 

[Line 154] If your audit of publishing processes comprised the first step in revising the commissioning process, might it make more sense to lead with it? Consider reordering your sections. 

[Line 161] Weak verb. Revise.

[Line 167] Explain what COPE membership would mean for the Press. Does it carry certain obligations, expectations? How will it enhance the Press's reputation and credibility? Why is COPE membership important for NUPs? 

[Line 172] I'd like to see these statements included as appendices, or at least as linked references so I can more easily learn about them. 

[Line 175] You introduce "the new platform" here, but you don't detail Janeway until the next section. Give us the explanation here, or at least indicate that such details are forthcoming. 

[Line 182] Consider including some figures that demonstrate these dashboards in action. Give readers a window into the publication process from both the author and editor vantage points. 

[Lines 184, 187] web-based, time-consuming 

[Line 192] This sentence is awkwardly phrased. I understand you to mean that efficient workflow and transparency rest on a foundation of strong relationships, and are not possible otherwise. Can you say this instead? 

[Line 193] Does the cited article provide guidance on developing and maintaining such relationships? If not, your readers might like to know more about the Press's practices in this regard. 

[Line 200] Did the workflow struggle or did the staff responsible for that workflow? Be specific in your choice of subject. 

[Line 202] "processes and statistics" -- such as?

[Line 203] Tell us more about Janeway. Why did you select it instead of its competitors? Does it agree with the Press's OA values? Seize this opportunity to emphasize your Press's commitment to OA in every part of the publishing infrastructure, not just in its end products. 

[Line 208] Introduce the authority you cite as evidence. According to whom? Don't make readers interrupt their reading to determine why they should trust the evidence you adduce. Also, use only those most relevant parts of quoted material. There's a bit in here about "the Library," but you're the U of H Press. 

[Line 237-8] Weak verb. Revise. Also, you decline to explain how Janeway offered "more than we had anticipated." Don't be stingy with the details, especially since yours was the first publisher to sign with the company! Tell us how this partnership accords with the values of both Press and platform.  

[Line 248] You haven't introduced this quotation. Tell us why you've cited this portion of Jisc's guides. What's the context? Introduce, cite, then explain. 

[Line 263] I wouldn't assume that all readers are familiar with these organizations and services. It might be helpful to include a glossary. Add a sentence or two making it clear how these services improve discovery. 

[Line 275] Will all readers know what Summon means in this context?

[Line 282] effective 

[Line 286] There are much better sources on OA's citation advantage than the ones you've cited here, peer-reviewed studies published by major journals. Use the best authorities available.

[Line 294] Not to mention research interest. Monographs are sold not just by a summary of their contents but on the promise of new knowledge. 

[Line 302] This issue, OA's impact on print sales, has been extensively studied. I expect to see some acknowledgment of that here. Is your experience similar to or different to that of other OA publishers?

[Line 309] "a selection of institutions," increasingly those which can afford such subscriptions. See Roger Schonfeld's writing on the decline of the Big Deal.

[Line 315] Include a brief appositive that explains Agora Pulse. Again, don't assume readers understand all of the tools and services which are second nature to those in publishing.  

[Table 4] These are total article downloads across all titles? I was briefly confused on reading this table because you previously mentioned "downloads of books and journals."

[Line 349] Delete "further"

[Line 349] A minor point, but I find "taught student journal Fields" a mouthful. Consider "Fields, a journal publishing student scholarship" or similar. 

[Line 351] Give the full title.

[Line 353] Start a new sentence after "longevity."

[Line 391] Janeway is misspelled

[Line 396] "...more to be done." I think your paper would improve if these next steps were given their own section. Acknowledge the limitations of the work you've done so far. Give us a road map of the improvements ahead of you. This needn't be pessimistic. On the contrary, tell us more about the ways the Press seeks to improve. This is a chance to underscore your progressive bona fides.

[References] Proofread your citations. Select a style and use it consistently. No URL is given in your first reference, for example. Ensure that your readers have all the information they need to establish trust in your evidence. 

Author Response

Review 2

[Line 4] Amended

[Line 25] Amended

[Line 28] Added

[Line 31] Amended

[Line 32] Corrected

[Line 37] Amended 

[Line 41] Changed to professional as this is more accurate 

[Line 56] Corrected 

[Line 57] Corrected

[Line 58] Corrected

[Line 58] Rephrased 

[Line 62] Expanded 

[Line 63] Rephrased

[Lines 71-78] I have reorganised this sentence into a bullet point list to clearly mirror the strategy points that come before it. I like the idea of expanding on the strategy and finding the right examples to illustrate it, but I think it would be suited to a different paper which specifically looks at how institutional strategy is mirrored (or not) by university presses. This is something I am currently researching.

[Line 149] This is something I am currently working on – I have mentioned it in the paragraph but it isn’t ready to expand on. 

[Line 154] I understand your point, but I structured the article in the order of a standard publishing journey as I thought this was most logical. 

[Line 161] Amended

[Line 167] Amended 

[Line 172] I’m not sure how to address this, I can’t see which bits would need appendices? Do you mean to demonstrate the improved transparency? 

[Line 175] Amended 

[Line 182] I didn’t want to make a huge section of the article just about Janeway, as I thought it would make it unbalanced. Plus the dashboard features are still being developed and, although already useful, I think in another 6 months they will be even further improved and more ready to be analysed etc. 

[Lines 184, 187] corrected 

[Line 192] Rephrased 

[Line 193] Yes it does 

[Line 200] Altered 

[Line 202] Expanded

[Line 203] Expanded 

[Line 208] Updated 

[Line 237-8] Updated  

[Line 248] Updated 

[Line 263] Expanded 

[Line 275] Expanded

[Line 282] Corrected

[Line 286] I have added some additional sources

[Line 294] I agree. With this sentence I am trying to highlight the differences with marketing content behind a paywall vs OA content. 

[Line 302] I have expanded on this and linked to the OAPEN report

[Line 309] Added reference

[Line 315] Amended  

[Table 4] Amended

[Line 349] Corrected

[Line 349] Amended 

[Line 351] This is given just before the figure in the new caption

[Line 353] Amended

[Line 391] Cannot find this mispelling

[Line 396] Added a new section and expanded.

[References] Updated 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all I would like to congratulate the author for the work. I think it is a good work summarising the main points to be considered when establishing an open access university press.

However, I missed some section on how to deal with copyright issues. It would be interesting to know how this press understand open access and which licenses they use for journals and books accordingly. Moreover I would like to know how they manage the copyright with authors.

I also miss some comments about sustainability and how they assume the costs of publications. Do they charge some fee to authors? Do they make any difference to university authors and external authors, as other university presses, for instance UCL?

Finally, as a general remark the text is a bit biased in the UK case with some lack of context in some cases for a non UK reader.

Regarding the text in detail, I miss a definition of the term New University Press (NUP). The term is introduced in the abstract and in the first line of the Introduction. What are the conditions for a university press to be labelled as a NUP?

In row 30 the author mentions that there are “print versions available for sale”. How many copies do they print, in average? Or is it a print-on-demand model?

In row 42 there is a mention that the total staff is 0.6. Does it mean 0.6 FTE?

In row 54 there is a misnumbering of the section that causes another error in the final section

From row 79 to 82 there are mentions to the REF system that might need a broader explanation for a non UK reader that is not familiar with this research assessment

Table 1 has nor title nor explanation and it is not mentioned along the text. I understand it refers to the previous paragraph on the REF but it would be useful to link text and table for a better understanding,

In row 156 there is a mention to section 3 but I don’t know if it is really subsection 2.3. All the numbering needs a final check.

In row 162 there is an explanation of the peer review system for books where it is not clear if double blind review is used too as in the case of the journals.

In row 181 there is a mention to the new platform, already mentioned in a few rows before. I guess is the platform explained in subsection 2.3 but not sure. I would like to have a reference to that subsection, if it is the case, or a clarification if it is another platform.

In rows 235-240 there is a mention to Janeway as the chosen platform but I miss the arguments why it was chosen and if it fulfils all the requirements.

Author Response

I have added a note about the CCBY license we use.

I have added information about our APC and BPC.

I have tried to make abbreviations and UK specific content clearly explained.

Added a definition of a NUP

Amended 0.6 FTE

Explained the REF in a UK context

Checked section numbering

Expanded on the explanation of Janeway

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for revising your paper, and so quickly, too. I think your article is stronger than it was before. Below, I answer a few remaining questions.

>>I like the idea of expanding on the strategy and finding the right examples to illustrate it, but I think it would be suited to a different paper which specifically looks at how institutional strategy is mirrored (or not) by university presses. This is something I am currently researching.<<

I'm glad to learn this work is underway. Might it be worth mentioning in this article? You could anticipate questions like mine by letting readers know that you plan to follow up this paper with additional research. Or you could eschew such a commitment and simply acknowledge the limitation.

>> I’m not sure how to address this, I can’t see which bits would need appendices? Do you mean to demonstrate the improved transparency?<<

You refer to Press "statements about the review process, business model and copyright procedure." It would be helpful to either include them with your article as an appendix or link to them in your references so readers can easily find them.

>> I didn’t want to make a huge section of the article just about Janeway<<

I'm satisfied with the additional information you've added to this section. I wanted to better understand why the Press chose Janeway and not some other platform. You've answered that question in the new version.