I read with interest the recent Scholarly Kitchen Guest Post entitled “Why a Society Publisher is Moving Toward Read and Publish Models” by Emma Wilson of the Royal Society of Chemistry on their adoption of the Read and Publish model. The article was well written and cogent, but with one significant flaw – a fundamental dissonance between mission and publishing business sense that denudes the argument. You come away with a fatal sense that if the Read and Publish model succeeds, the ability of the Royal Society of Chemistry to raise enough operating income to fulfill its mission as a society falls away.

complicated balanced scales

Let me back up a little. I work at the American Mathematical Society (AMS) as Associate Executive Director, responsible for running the publishing division. The Society is of medium size, and has a rich history. Founded in 1888, the AMS has 30,000 members worldwide and supports mathematical scientists at every career stage. The AMS publishes around 100 books a year including monographs, graduate and undergraduate textbooks, conference proceedings, translations, and works of popular mathematics, including children’s books. The AMS publishes a range of journals and a discovery database called MathSciNet® that is a fundamental part of a research mathematician’s daily life. Indeed the AMS has its own printing and distribution facility in Rhode Island. The reality is that 70% of AMS revenues come from publishing activities, including subscription revenues from books, journals, and the database MathSciNet®. Surplus funds go directly back into our programs. If subscription revenues were to evaporate, the ability of the AMS to provide services and programs that fortify the mathematical sciences community would likely also evaporate. The AMS does not play the “Big Deal” game. Two of the journals have separate journal open access spin-offs that use the Gold open access (OA) model. In the AMS OA model, a mathematician’s paper is considered for publication by the parent journal editorial board, and following acceptance, the author is given the option to publish in the subscription journal, or its open access sibling. This separates the editorial decision from the business decision, and yet is not a hybrid offering as the two journals are independent entities. While they exist as an option for those mathematicians who are mandated to publish OA, there really has been little take-up, even with heavily discounted APCs.

The reality is that the culture of mathematics is different from other fields. Approximately 25% of AMS authors receive research funding from a federal agency, with the result that there are limited funds available for Gold OA author-pays model publishing. The intellectual property of a mathematics article lies in the article itself, rather than the article being a report of an experimental study, and these articles are as valid today as they will be in 30 and even 300 years. The article of record published in a journal of record is important for a mathematician’s progress in the field, for example in securing tenure and further grant funding. The article of record coexists with preprints in progress hosted on arXiv, and mathematicians value the complete ecosystem of preprint to published article of record. Advances in mathematics occur more slowly than in many other science fields. According to a 2013 study by Phil Davis on journal usage, mathematics is at the extreme for the life of journal articles. Across all subject disciplines, journal usage half-lives peaked between two and four years. However, 17% of all journals had usage half-lives that exceeded six years, with mathematics journals at the extreme — 36% of the mathematics journals examined had usage half-lives exceeding six years.

While I applaud the Royal Society of Chemistry’s willingness to experiment, the reality for most society publishers is that subscriptions are important. OA is important also, and no publisher should stick their head in the sand hoping it will go away. The issue at play here is that one size does not fit all. If one accepts the role of academic societies as important, and that for most societies, publishing provides the fuel to provide programs and services to their communities, how do we shape our programs to reflect a range of models that will provide elements of OA, a sustainable revenue stream, and an understanding of how publishing needs to reflect differences in disciplinary culture? For many societies, including the AMS, journal subscriptions and APCs are at the inexpensive end of the scale already.

Perhaps the answer lies in a more heterogeneous approach. Societies should experiment with OA models, be they gold, or perhaps even diamond/platinum if they can afford to do so, but maintain subscriptions in the mix. For example, if the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House decides to revisit public access policies in the US, in light of the emerging Read and Publish models, and Europe’s positioning of Plan S with all its implications, it is a society’s responsibility to be honest, not just with customers, but with themselves. Let’s be considered about our approach. For example, in a Green OA setting, let’s not rush to impose 6-month, or shorter embargo periods, perhaps rather considering varied embargo periods that acknowledge the valuable activities of non-profit societies, as well as the diversity of cultures among fields. There is nothing wrong with developing a mixed economy that best suits a range of communities and types of business.

Robert Harington

Robert Harington

Robert Harington is Associate Executive Director, Publishing at the American Mathematical Society (AMS). Robert has the overall responsibility for publishing at the AMS, including books, journals and electronic products.

View All Posts by Robert Harington


10 Thoughts on "Societies, Mission and Publishing: Why One Size Does Not Fit All"

This is so very sane that I am not sure much attention will be paid to it. Which is of course a part of the problem. Perhaps you could have mentioned the importance and the considerable difficulty of refereeing many papers in mathematics.

Agree with your last line … not wrong. My worry – and what I’ve heard from others – is that it may not be possible unless a society has a publishing program of certain scale.

Re RCS … it was mentioned in a comment that they are monitoring impact on $ carefully. I’d also note that MIT has said it is paying more for RAP than it did for its subscriptions. I appreciate their ability to devote funds in this way; I’m not sure we can rely on that from others.

Which makes an excellent plug for our upcoming webinar:

The Future of Publisher Independence in a Consolidated Scholarly Ecosystem

Scale and consolidation are the driving forces in today’s scholarly publishing ecosystem. Mergers and acquisitions are happening at an ever-increasing pace as the largest of publishers grow larger. Key pieces of publishing infrastructure and promising new startups are being purchased and integrated with the offerings of the largest commercial players. What does this mean for the independent scholarly publisher, the research society with journals, and the university press? Can one remain independent while relying on competitors for mission-critical services? How will libraries cope with “Big Deals” growing even bigger and reaching into every aspect of the research workflow? Join us for a conversation on the future of independence.

I happened to read this post shortly after emerging from a discussion about creating a more ‘respectful’ working culture in our industry and the importance of speaking out as a bystander. I’m therefore breaking my habit of not commenting on Scholarly Kitchen posts (although I’m a regular reader). It’s been said before that discussion on this blog can sometimes be unnecessarily negative/intimidating, or at least perceived as such. In that light I was struck by the wording of the introductory paragraph here: ‘The article was well written and cogent, but with one significant flaw – a fundamental dissonance between mission and publishing business sense that denudes the argument. You come away with a fatal sense that if the Read and Publish model succeeds, the ability of the Royal Society of Chemistry to raise enough operating income to fulfill its mission as a society falls away.’ Perhaps those words could have been rephrased, for example: ‘The article was well written and cogent, but I came away with a fatal sense that if the Read and Publish model succeeds, the ability of the Royal Society of Chemistry to raise enough operating income to fulfill its mission as a society falls away.’ This would convey a similar sentiment but without seeming to attack the original post or assuming that the interpretation reached by the author of the new post was (or should have been) the take-away reached by everyone. I’m sure this was unintentional and perhaps I’m the only one who interpreted it this way, but I do wonder how many potential guest bloggers this sort of language might deter.

Critical analysis is the lifeblood of this blog. We are very careful to avoid any personal attacks, and this was not one (in fact, the author of the previous post was not describing her personal opinion, but rather the business strategy of a large society publishing organization). The notion that one’s ideas might be subject to debate and critique is indeed, as you suggest, something that likely scares away some authors and commenters. Blogging in this manner is not for everyone — it takes someone who both enjoys the process of frequent writing, but also a willingness to be publicly challenged. But we see The Scholarly Kitchen as a forum for the open discussion and debate of ideas, and with that comes some degree of disagreement.

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on how rhetoric matters as much as the idea being presented – particularly in light of your hesitance to speak out in the past. I don’t read the introduction the way you did but as an author I’m very interested in how readers read as well as how authors right. (For what it’s work, personally, I didn’t come away from the piece that is mentioned with a sense of that fatal flaw but rather the sense that RSC will abandon/revise RAP if the success of RAP means that outcome!)

Thanks – I have no objection to critique per se, I’d simply suggest that the tone could be rethought. As I said, I might be the only one to have interpreted it that way – Lisa’s comment suggests that perhaps I was! This isn’t the first time I’ve thought that Scholarly Kitchen posts and comments could be phrased in a more positive manner though, and I’ve heard others voice similar opinions.

From my point of view, I see two needs in the mix that don’t necessarily need to be in conflict. The first is society revenue in exchange for scholarly communication services and community building (the vibrancy of said society). The second is a looming need for open communication. I believe that colleges and universities need (not want … although I think we want it too) vibrant scholarly societies. Would they be willing to help fund a society knowing that the society would provide (open) publishing and activity opportunities for its scholars?

To me, hitting up individual scholars to help fund publishing directly is like swinging at a nail with a hammer and consistently hitting your thumb all the while insisting that the only way to get that nail into the wood is by extreme thumb pain.

Is the thought that if you spread the possible revenue streams around to individual scholars that it’s a safer bet than developing a set of larger revenue streams at the institutional level? Would there really be that much more of a revenue risk? Does this need a rethink? That risk might be huge … I just think it should be considered.

Leave a Comment