Tad McIlwraith, University of Guelph and Caura Wood, York University

Survey highlights

We thank all members and all readers of Anthropologica who responded to our open access survey last July. This article summarizes the survey results and details the decision to proceed with the open access option.

In this survey, we collected respondents' opinions on paying a CASCA membership and their subscription preferences. We also asked them to rank five different financial scenarios according to their preference. Here are some key points from the results:

• 144 respondents;
• More than 90% of respondents would accept paying a CASCA membership if Anthropologica were offered in open access;
• Respondents overwhelmingly rejected the article processing charge option;
• Respondents prefer by 65% that the journal not offer a print copy rather than having to pay extra fees for it;
• Opinions are divided regarding the different funding scenarios. The most popular scenario appears to be the one proposing an increase in CASCA membership fees to make the journal free. The second most preferred scenario is the one proposing the current membership-based model, without a print copy of the journal.

Context and overview

CASCA members have long considered open access publishing as a way to make their research accessible to the widest possible readership. These discussions were accelerated by the decision of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to change the eligibility criteria for the Aid to Scholarly Journals grant program, from which Anthropologica has benefited since 1979. Under the new funding cycle beginning in 2019, only journals offered in open access or planning a transition to open access by 2021 can apply for financial assistance.

The Open Access Working Group was set up in May 2018 to assess the economic feasibility of the transition of Anthropologica from a subscriber-funded model to an open access model. Since then, we have examined the new reality of open access publishing, analyzed the journal’s financial situation, and studied various funding scenarios with or without financial support from SSHRC’s Aid to Scholarly Journals program. We also surveyed the opinions of CASCA members and the journal’s readership on the preferred path for the journal given the various proposed funding scenarios. This process was intended to allow us to advise the CASCA executive committee and the journal’s editorial board on whether to submit a funding application under the Aid to Scholarly Journals program in September 2018.

To meet the SSHRC program’s new eligibility criteria, Anthropologica must offer full open access by the third year of the grant or an embargo period (a moving paywall) on access to the journal’s content of no more than the most recent 12 months. The survey results indicate two possible options: 1) Open access with SSHRC grant funding and an annual fee share to be borne by each member (option preferred by 66% of respondents); 2) Status quo, without SSHRC grant funding and without printed copies (option preferred by 20% of respondents).

Recommendations and next steps

The University of Toronto Press has collaborated since 2014 with Antrhopologica as publisher and primary aggregator through Project Muse. Project Muse and the University of Toronto Press are both non-profit organizations. It should be noted that Project Muse only partners with non-profit publishers. This collaboration generated 2,000 institutional subscriptions for Anthropologica and the download of more than 7,500 articles annually. This collaboration has also enabled open access via self-archiving (the ‘green’ route to open access), a type of open access where the author archives their article in a public repository, an option that meets SSHRC’s open access requirement for researchers’ publications. So far, this is a model that CASCA and the journal’s editorial team are proud to offer to authors, readers, and members; we believe it is a standard we should extend or to which we should add the ‘gold’ route to open access, i.e., full open access.

Given members’ marked preference and moral support for open access and the weak support for article processing charges, the Open Access Working Group recommended to the CASCA executive committee that a funding application be made under the Aid to Scholarly Journals program for Anthropologica . At the same time, we recommended that the journal adopt a transition plan toward full open access to be achieved by the third year of the funding cycle. Note: This recommendation was accepted and the funding application was filed with SSHRC in early September by the current editor-in-chief, ^Ms. Sonja Luehrmann.

The executive committee agreed to support transitioning to full open access by the third year of the funding cycle rather than implementing a moving paywall on the most recent 12 months of content, which would make it accessible only to subscribers. The executive committee concluded that a moving paywall was unlikely to generate significant revenue for the journal or CASCA. Moreover, SSHRC has already indicated that it might consider removing the option of a moving paywall from its requirements in the near future. In addition, from an author’s point of view, the option of full open access by the third year would have the merit of offering immediate full dissemination of our work.

Questions raised in the survey

Survey respondents raised pertinent questions in addition to sharing useful suggestions. Several expressed reservations about the article processing charge option, fearing the creation of a two-tier system that would exclude early-career authors and occasional salaried authors. The aim behind the fee-share model is to eliminate economic barriers that could limit manuscript submissions and readership of the journal. Some requested that the CASCA executive committee participate in these discussions and decision-making. In fact, the committee received our recommendations in August, advised us on the issue of a paywall, and ultimately accepted the recommendation to move forward with open access on behalf of the organization. Your comments also prompted further research on our part. We are aware of the open access model of the journal Cultural Anthropology and have taken it into account in our deliberations. If we proceed with adding a fee-share to the membership to fund open access, we will seriously consider the option of a tiered system, that is, a system with different levels adapting to each person’s financial reality. Finally note that as long as our working group continues to look into the matter, possibilities such as private sponsorships and publishers offering print-on-demand (suggestions you sent us) will remain options on the table. We are working in concert with the editorial committee and the editorial team to ensure that Anthropologica remains a high-quality journal that we are proud of.

Coming up

The work of the Open Access Working Group will continue in the fall and winter. One of our main tasks will now be to study various open access funding models. We will also evaluate broader funding options (such as Libraria and Érudit), alternative platforms (such as PKP, Coalition Publica, the University of Toronto Press, and individual university libraries) and emerging best practices. Members of the working group have met with librarians and faculty at their institutions to learn more about their respective experiences with other organizations and journals. We also met with members of the committees of Libraria and of Coalition Publica to ensure we fully understand their open access model.

In the fall of 2018, the co-chair of the working group (the former CASCA treasurer), Caura Wood, participated in a session of the Scholarly Communication Institute conference in North Carolina. During this session entitled Understanding and Mitigating the Risks of Open Access for Scholarly Societies, she met members of other scholarly societies and of Libraria to exchange on the benefits and risks of open access publishing. The joint conference between CASCA and the AAA scheduled for 2019 in Vancouver will provide an opportunity to meet with editors of other anthropology journals and will allow members of the Open Access Working Group to consult the editorial board and readers of Anthropologica.

The working group is committed to seeking open access solutions that will allow the journal to reach the widest possible readership, while promoting ease of access for our research partners, colleagues, and community-based resource persons, without compromising the quality of the journal or the ability of readers to find our work. Throughout the transition, we will continue to support the CASCA executive committee as well as the editors and members of the editorial board of Anthropologica in reflecting on our achievements and the challenges ahead.

We are privileged to rely on a talented team from various regions. We therefore thank Sonja Luehrmann, Udo Krautwurst, Brian Thom, Alicia Sliwinski, Linnéa S. Rowlatt, Heather Young Leslie, and Alexandrine Boudreault-Fournier, as well as the attentive staff of the University of Toronto Press, for their time and invaluable contribution to the working group’s work and outcomes.

Finally, please note that the working group is continuously seeking new members. If you are interested in the work we are undertaking, please write to us by email. We also thank you for your support of Anthropologica.

On behalf of the members of the Open Access Working Group,

Tad McIlwraith and Caura Wood

tad.mcilwraith@uoguelph.ca / caura.wood@gmail.com

Co-chairs of the Open Access Working Group