As part of the data collection for the PALOMERA project, a survey was designed and distributed in 2023 on the needs, obstacles and challenges of policymaking for open access books. This article summarises the major findings of the survey analysis.
This article shares the key findings of a stakeholder survey conducted in autumn 2023 as part of the PALOMERA project on the needs, obstacles and challenges of policymaking for open access books. It provides a snapshot of attitudes and levels of knowledge about open access book policies in general and individual measures in particular (Dreyer, Tummes & Stone, 2024).
A total of 420 complete responses were received from 30 countries within the European Research Area. Participants were able to select more than one stakeholder type, which resulted in a sample size for different stakeholder groups of 574.
Most stakeholders state that they have a good knowledge of the areas in which they are active. Declarations and policies are particularly well known in countries where they have been issued. In centrally organised countries, respondents are more aware of the existence and dissemination of their policies than in countries where federal states are responsible for education and where initiatives on a national level do not have the same impact.
Regarding the importance of stakeholder involvement for the implementation of open access book policies in their country, all countries surveyed stated that all stakeholders should be more intensively involved, with the exception of international publishers. A different picture emerges when looked at from the stakeholder perspective. In general, respondents not only think that their own group should be more strongly represented, but they also state that they would like to see a stronger presence from all other groups.
At the country level, the vast majority thought that an open access books policy at both the national and international level would change academic publishing for the better. However, interest in shaping national open access policies is less pronounced, with only around half of those surveyed being interested in participating. At the stakeholder level, there were similar results, but publishers were much more undecided. Interestingly, while being the least convinced about the change for the better within academic publishing, publishers are the most interested in participating in the design of such a policy.
The conditions and environment of open access book publishing are rated more positively at the institutional level than at the national level. Financial resources and sufficient information are still considered to be a clear need. Technical infrastructure for open access books is considered to be slightly better. From the stakeholders’ perspective, improving the conditions for the publication of open access books appears to remain a particular challenge.
There was broad agreement from all respondents that all quality measures were important for open access books. However, open peer review measures – although important to funders − were considered slightly less important by respondents, mirroring the response of the DIAMAS survey. All statements about measures to increase the visibility of open access books were also considered important to varying degrees by the whole sample.
Sufficient and correct entries in the metadata record was considered the most import aspect of this set of statements, reflecting the widely known issue that metadata for books should be improved. This was particularly supported by libraries and publishers in the stakeholder sample. The use of common persistent identifiers such as DOIs was considered almost equally important for similar reasons.
The transparent calculation of book processing charges was regarded as the most important statement in the economic measures section. Separate budget lines for open access and non-open access books are perceived as less important across the whole sample. However, this view may change over time if funders require evidence of payment as a condition of funding.
Regarding technical infrastructure, respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of publicly funded technical infrastructures rather than commercial solutions.
A key issue is the creation of awareness through a communication strategy. This topic came into light in large parts of the survey. For example, it is noticeable that stakeholders rate the situation in their own area of interest more positively. By implication, it can be assumed that if knowledge of the numerous products, services, funding opportunities, platforms and technical infrastructures were better, the transition of the book market to open access models would also be assessed more positively.
Overall, the survey underscores the need for tailored visibility strategies aligned with stakeholder priorities and policy frameworks to maximise the impact and accessibility of open access books.
This article is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.