Advancing equity in Open Science: PLOS and the “How Equitable Is It” framework
23/10/2024
In 2023, PLOS was delighted to partner with cOAlition S and Jisc to establish a multi-stakeholder working group. Its goal was to identify business models and arrangements that moved away from article-based charges (i.e. APCs), enabling more equitable participation in knowledge-sharing.
In this blog post, we discuss the “How Equitable Is It” framework and how we, at PLOS, will use it as part of our efforts to support equitable participation in Open Science.
Background: the challenges of Open Access (OA) Publishing
We highlighted the challenges with article-based charges in the original Working Group call. The OA movement aimed to provide equitable access to research outputs, and the push to include the cost of publication in research budgets was intended to reduce the overall cost of access to published research.
Twenty years on, we see a number of unintended consequences for scholarly communication:
APCs established as the predominant OA business model in those countries/regions/disciplines where this economic argument worked but also where they restricted participation for authors with limited funds.
The rate of article growth leading to ever-increasing costs for funders and research-intensive institutions.
The article embedded as the research output of value, blocking progress towards an Open Science ecosystem.
The “How Equitable Is it?” framework
So, where does the working group’s recently launched “How Equitable is it?” tool fit into all of this? For several years, we at PLOS have been working to make OA publishing more equitable by designing and implementing new non-APC business models, like Community Action Publishing and Global Equity. Both look to spread costs more equitably amongst those purchasing publishing services.
Community Action Publishing was designed to support our selective journals without the need for a high APC. Similarly, Global Equity does not work on the basis of a “per article” or “per unit” payment for publishing, while reflecting countries’ financial situations by relating to the World Bank Criteria. Both remove barriers to publishing for authors, while ensuring that everyone can read and reuse content (with proper attribution). Institutions in Research4Life (R4L) countries can participate in both models without charge.
While we’ve designed these models with equity in mind, the “How Equitable Is It?” Framework gives us the opportunity to demonstrate this to scholarly communication ecosystem stakeholders (funders, institutions, libraries, research communities) and to point the way forward for new equitable solutions.
Funders and research institutions can play a critical role in supporting the move to non-APC based business models. Viewed through an economic lens, funders and institutions–many of whom have equity in their mission statements–and librarians and consortia, who engage in collective negotiation on researchers’ behalf, can use this tool to assess publisher arrangements and models and steer investment or collaboration towards models that enable more equitable participation.
Importantly, the tool gives all scholarly communication stakeholders – publishers, funders, librarians, consortia and researchers – a common framework to discuss these aspects and together co-create more equitable solutions. Launching the framework as a beta version was purposeful to enable these stakeholders to give feedback and help steer its future iteration and evolution.
Supporting Open Science: future initiatives
Our work at PLOS in this area is not yet done. We are embarking on a new Research and Design project, with generous funder support, that will tackle two barriers that exclude many researchers from meaningfully participating in Open Science: the affordability of APCs and the lack of recognition for Open Science contributions beyond articles.
Our aim is to develop a new, integrated solution that enhances the visibility and discoverability of non-article research outputs, including data, code, and methods. Alongside this, grounded in principles of equity and price transparency, we will look to develop a sustainable, non-APC business model for all research outputs in collaboration with funders, libraries, and scientific institutions. The ”How Equitable is it” framework will be relevant to our design thinking, as we explore inclusive and sustainable solutions for the future of Open Science.
Just as the “HowOpenIsIt” guide, created in collaboration with SPARC and OASPA, gave researchers a framework to assess Open Access journals and guide their decisions about where they publish their research, we hope the “How Equitable Is It?” tool will enable funders, library consortia, and research communities to evaluate publisher models on the axis of equity and seek publishing solutions that directly align with their values. Please try it out and tell us what you think!
The current release of the “How Equitable Is It?” tool is a beta version, open for comments and improvement. Stakeholders in the academic publishing ecosystem are encouraged to test the tool and provide feedback by the 4th of November via the form https://coalitions.typeform.com/Equity-Feedback to help refine the criteria and increase its utility. The Working Group will review all input and publish a revised version in early 2025.
Roheena Anand
Roheena is Executive Director for Global Publishing Development and Sales at PLOS. She is responsible for growing PLOS’s global profile and influence via institutional partnerships, and relationships, networks and initiatives to engage global research stakeholders in developing an equitable open research future. She has over 25 years’ experience from across the STM publishing industry, including strategic leadership of global teams and diverse portfolios at both society and commercial publishers. Roheena was previously Head of Open Access Journals at the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), with responsibility for the Open Access programme and policy for the organisation. Roheena is a member of the DORA Steering committee.
