<h1>Publishers Acting as Partners with Public Institutions of Higher Education & Land-grant Universities (2020)</h1> <hr /> **NOTE: This scoring system has been superseded. See the [Publisher Scoring System project page][1] for updates.** <hr /> For more information, see the related article published in MDPI's *Publications*, July 2020: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030039. @[toc] -------- ## Summary ## This wiki introduces a scoring system to evaluate publishers’ practices through the values of higher education, libraries, and learned societies. In this provisional scoring system, tentatively called Publishers Acting as Partners with Public Institutions of Higher Education & Land-grant Universities (PAPPIHELU, hereafter referred to as PAPPI), partners are publishers that focus on empowering researchers and scholars and also the institutions of higher education that support them. They see faculty, students, and institutions of higher education as essential partners, not customers, and emphasize the rights of content creators and disciplinary experts in the publishing process. PAPPI criteria evaluate how well a publisher’s practices are in synchronization with the common worldview and ethic of public and land-grant institutions of higher education and their libraries. In brief, here is how PAPPI works: > Points are earned by journal publishers. A publisher with a commitment to public access, interest in sustainability of scholarship as a scholarly enterprise, demonstrable business practices that align with values of libraries and land-grant institutions, and respect for the rights of authors as content creators earns more points > than one with less open, sustainable, "like-missioned," and author-centered practices. PAPPI scores are calculated in a way similar to the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification for architectural and building projects: "Projects pursuing LEED certification earn points for various green building strategies across several categories. Based on the number of points achieved, a project earns one of four LEED rating levels: Certified, Silver, Gold or Platinum" (https://www.usgbc.org/). As with LEED certification, PAPPI scores reflect an overall achievement of credits that result in levels or tiers. Instead of "silver," "gold," etc., PAPPI categorizes a publisher's earned credits using numbered tiers. PAPPI Tier 1 publishers act most strongly as partners with libraries, institutions, and researchers: - PAPPI Tier 1 Publisher: 62-89 credits (70%-100% of 89 possible credits) - PAPPI Tier 2 Publisher: 45-61 credits (51%-69% of 89 possible credits) - PAPPI Tier 3 Publisher: 27-44 credits (30%-50% of 89 possible credits) The provisional system could include a "Starred Publisher" designation for publishers that adhere to publisher best practices as outlined by the Committtee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any publisher that is a member of COPE would receive a starred status. For example, a publisher would achieve a "PAPPI Tier 1 Starred Publisher" designation by earning at least 62 credits in a PAPPI evaluation and by being a member of COPE. Another publisher who earns at least 62 credits but is not a member of COPE would achieve a "PAPPI Tier 1 Publisher" designation. PAPPI aims to help institutions and libraries consider whether or not a publisher's practices mirror their values in order to make decisions about allocation of resources. It also aims to identify those publishers that act as partners with researchers, libraries, and land-grant institutions and give them credit for doing so. N.B. No library has vetted this system, and no library has used it. PAPPI has many weaknesses, but it is being shared for several reasons. First, it illustrates what a values-based, numeric scoring system of publishers might look like. Second, it asks readers to consider whether such a system has utility for those involved in scholarly publishing. If it does have utility, then PAPPI is a starting point and not the end product. Further discussion can be found in an article about PAPPI published in MDPI's *Publications*, July 2020: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030039. ------------------------------------------ ## Scoring Library ## What follows is an example of evaluation criteria with a potential weight/point system. The weight/point system in particular will need a good deal of further review. Credit is determined by a publisher’s score in the following main categories: 1. Public Access 2. Article Processing Charges 3. Copyright 4. Author Use 5. Educational Use 6. Business Model 7. Discoverability 8. Business Practices 9. Publishing Practices 10. Other Innovations <hr /> **(1) Public Access** Credit is given if the publisher favors public access as defined below. 4 = Publisher makes articles fully and immediately available to the public in at least 85% of their journals (and they are DOAJ-listed journals or the publisher is an OASPA member) 3 = Publisher auto-archives 100% of articles in a non-profit repository (owned by government or HE institution) within 6 months of publication 2 = Publisher auto-archives 100% of articles in a non-profit repository (owned by government or HE institution) within 12 months of publication 1 = Author-optional archiving of articles to a non-profit repository (owned by government or HE institution) within 12 months of publication for 100% of articles, using either the post-print/ author-accepted-manuscript or publisher’s version <hr /> **(2) Article Processing Charges (APC)** Article processing charges should not vary widely between a publisher’s journal titles in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Consistency and reasonableness are the aim. Credit is given based on a publisher’s average APC across all open access titles. (In the future, the number of journals with APCs over $2,500 may detract from the overall credits earned by a publisher. If additional fees are possible, such as fees for color charts, these are taken into consideration in a separate category.) These dollar amounts were informed by the University of California’s Pay It Forward project. 4 = Average APC is 0-999$ 3 = Average APC is 1000-1499$2 = Average APC is 1500-1999$ 1= Average APC is 2000-2500$Note: For publishers not providing OA/APC options, article publication fees should be considered instead using the same point:cost ranges above. <hr /> **(3) Copyright** Copyright agreements should be the same across all journal titles and favor true author ownership or open licenses. Credit is given if 100% of the publisher’s journal titles allow authors to retain all rights to their work, or the articles are openly licensed for community use and reuse. Any exclusive license to the publisher should be for 12 months or less, otherwise the score in this category will be zero. When copyright ownership and licensing policies differ across journal titles, assign the score using the most restrictive permissions. 3 = Author retains all rights 3 = CC BY or CC BY-SA license 2 = CC BY-NC or CC BY-NC-SA license 1= CC BY-NC-ND with copyright belonging to the author and/or Author retains all rights to post-print (including right to share accepted manuscript anywhere immediately) <hr /> **(4) Author Use** Credit is given if 100% of a publisher’s journal titles allow authors to reuse the content they have authored without written permission if the work is cited and a link to the publisher’s version is provided. Any exclusive license to the publisher should be for 12 months or less. This is separate from the copyright criterion as some publishers give authors these rights even though copyright is transferred to the publisher. 3 = Authors may reuse work they authored for any purpose, commercial or noncommercial 2 = Authors may reuse work they authored for any noncommercial purpose 1 = Authors have limited explicit permissions, such as explicit permission to reuse full articles in theses/dissertations <hr /> **(5) Educational Use** Credit is given if 100% of a publisher’s journal titles allow reuse of articles for noncommercial educational use without either written permission or a fee if the work is cited and a link to the publisher’s version is provided. Though several of the Creative Commons licenses embody this right, not all publishers use a Creative Commons license even if their publication agreements match one of the license’s permissions. 3 = Anyone, including authors, may reuse articles for noncommercial educational purposes (12 month embargo or less) 2= Authors may reuse work they authored for noncommercial educational purposes (No embargo) 1= Authors may reuse work they authored for noncommercial educational purposes at their institution (No embargo) <hr /> **(6) Business Model** Publishers with missions that parallel and/or mirror the missions of HE institutions, and public land-grant institutions especially, are favored. 4* = Nonprofit Publisher, not tied to institutions of higher ed (e.g., a scholarly society) providing additional support for students and researchers through its services (e.g., scholarly society providing graduate student members travel scholarships or developing educational resources for K-12 students). This support is core to their mission, founding, and/or purpose. They exist outside of institutions and epitomize the meaning of “partners” with institutions of higher ed. 3= Nonprofit Publisher, tied to institutions of higher ed (e.g., a university press or library press). 2 = Nonprofit Publisher, other (e.g., not a society, not a university press). 1 = Journal/Publisher Owned and Distributed by Faculty or Academics who determine policies and do not have a non-profit status. *Note: If supplemental materials published for non-scholarly audiences, such as K-12 educational resources, are openly-licensed, the publisher earns an additional point. <hr /> **(7) Discoverability** Publishers that provide rich open access metadata and contribute to their journals’ discoverability are favored. Note: A publisher may earn points in more than one criteria within this category. 3 = Metadata can be shared following an established schema, such as NLM, RDF, or MODS 3 = Metadata is open access 3= Articles are published using a permanent identifier, such as a DOI or Handle 2 = Publisher provides rich metadata, improving discoverability and reuse, including descriptive, technical, structural, and administrative (IP) metadata elements 2= Publisher voluntarily contributes metadata to open initiatives, such as the DOAJ or PMC, even when not funder-required (Note: A journal being listed in the DOAJ does not count as metadata contributions to DOAJ; journals must add article-level metadata to DOAJ to earn points.) <hr /> **(8) Business Practices** The practices outlined below represent best practices from outside the field of librarianship (e.g., website accessibility standards) and institutional considerations from librarians’ experiences (e.g., Nondisclosure Agreements). Note: A publisher may earn points in more than one criteria within this category. 4 = The publisher’s website and its online publications meet the latest standard of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines from the World Wide Web Consortium 4 = The publisher does not allow the same editorial board, with the same review process, to lead multiple journals (such as one hybrid, one open access) 4 = The publisher has not politically lobbied against public access policies. 4 = No boards of journals have left en masse due to disagreements over subscription costs or other terms. 4 = The publisher’s agreements with libraries (via journal subscription agreements and/or via the publisher’s licenses of other products) do not include Non-Disclosure Agreements or similar limitations. 3 = The publisher permits text and data mining at no cost for scholarly purposes. <hr /> **(9) Publishing Practices** Many of the criteria in this category relate to COPE’s best practices and membership evaluation; however, PAPPI identifies preferred practices. Publishers may not be COPE members and can still earn points in this category. Note: A publisher may earn points in more than one criteria within this category. 5 = Publisher is a member of COPE (or at least 90% of its journals are members) 4 = The publisher waives or reduces APCs to authors and institutions unable to pay the full APC. This applies not only to countries but also to smaller institutions, regardless of country. This applies to publication fees when OA is not an option. 3 = Tables, graphs, illustrations, etc. published in each article clearly identify creator name(s) and include a clear rights statement. 3 = The publisher clearly grants permission for academic reuse of author-created tables/graphs/illustrations without seeking further permission. 3 = The publisher clearly grants permission for reuse of articles as chapters in theses/dissertations by the same author at no cost, provided appropriate citation/notice is given in thesis/dissertation (see COPE recommendations). 3 = The publisher’s journals are preserved by participation in CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, or other established preservation effort. 3 = Charges outside the APC, such as color image charges or page charges, are in line with actual costs, i.e., color image charges should be 10% of the APC up to 200 dollars, that is, 10% of 2000$, or less. 3 = The submission fee is 0-150\$ and can be waived for hardship. 2 = Authors, or at least the corresponding author, are identified with ORCIDs. 2 = Authors are allowed to share their pre-prints on a disciplinary pre-print server. <hr /> **(10) Other Innovations** Innovations in openness, transparency, usability, community, or preservation are favored. Credit is given if a publisher has at least one journal with any of the innovations with one asterisk, or if 85-100% of journal titles include any of the innovations with two asterisks. Note: A publisher may earn points in more than one criteria within this category. 3 = Article-level Metrics available* 2 = Functional ORCID integration* 3 = Registered Reports (peer-reviewed methodology from Center for Open Science)** 3 = Publishes any scholarship reviewed as “good scholarship” (Eliminating arbitrary numbers of articles per issue)** 2 = Open peer-review** 2 = Articles provide proper author contributions using CRediT (Contributor Role Taxonomy by CASRAI)** Note: Many of the criteria in this category are more applicable to journals published in the sciences and social sciences and less applicable to the humanities. This category needs further consideration to accommodate publishers in the humanities. ----------- ## Notes on Additional Criteria ## Consider earning points for: - Improving diversity, inclusion, and equity in scholarly publishing (perhaps regularly publishing and/or translating research from outside the Anglosphere, or publishing reports and perspectives from practitioners outside of R1 institutions) - Not charging higher fees for CC licenses (see Danny Kingsley's 2017 blog post, "Flipping journals or filling pockets? Publisher manipulation of OA policies," https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1726) - The reasonableness/nature of any legal suits publisher has brought against libraries or institutions (How to consider this numerically?) - Showing support for non-profit publishers (e.g., another product from the publisher's parent company, such as a citation indexing database, making it easy for vetted external publishers to be indexed in the product/service) - Treating research data not as a commodity but as a shared, open resource - Privacy. See the Library Freedom Institute, Library Freedom Project: Vendor Privacy Scorecard (https://github.com/alisonLFP/libraryfreedominstitute/blob/master/LFI2/finalprojects/Library%20Freedom-%20Vendor%20Scorecard-%20110719.pdf) ------------- ## Examples (Estimated Scores of Four Publishers) ## Four publishers were evaluated in categories 1-9 above. See overall results below; more in *"Data (Detailed Scores)"* in *Menu/Project Wiki Pages* above. Before publishing the study, analysis was done to score four individual journals, one from each publisher. Though the scoring system should be applied at the publisher level (not the journal level), these scores for single journals were used to estimate what the publisher’s overall score would be. The final scores, calculated by sampling two of the publisher's full publication lists and both society's journals (available in the article linked above), proved to be similar to the preliminary scores. No publishers were scored in category 10. In category 8, no journals were scored for the criterion of “Meets the latest standard of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines from the World Wide Web Consortium.” In category 9, no journals were scored for the criterion of “Tables, graphs, illustrations, etc. published in each article clearly identify creator name(s) and include a clear rights statement.” *The Journal of Neuroscience* (society publisher) - Estimated Score = 69 - Actual Score for all Society for Neuroscience = 67 = **PAPPI Tier 1 Publisher** *Cliodynamics: The Journal of Quantitative History and Cultural Evolution* (individual published/library-hosted publishing service) - Estimated Score = 74 - Actual Score for all UC eScholarship Publishing = 66 = **PAPPI Tier 1 Publisher** *Evolutionary Ecology Research* (individual faculty publisher) - Estimated Score = 45 - Actual Score = 45 = **PAPPI Tier 2 Publisher** *City, Culture, and Society* (Elsevier title with 24-month embargo) - Estimated Score: = 31 - Actual Score for all Elsevier = 31 = **PAPPI Tier 3 Publisher** ---------- Calculations for Preliminary Estimates: *For calculations of actual scores, see "Data (Detailed Scores)" in Menu/Project Wiki Pages above.* J of Neuroscience = 69<br /> (1) 3 (2) 0 (3) 3 (4) 3 (5) 2 (6) 4 (7) 13 (8) 20 (9) 21 (10) X Cliodynamics = 74 <br /> (1) 4 (2) 4 (3) 3 (4) 3 (5) 3 (6) 3 (7) 13 (8) 20 (9) 21 (10) X Evolutionary Ecology Research = 45 <br /> (1) 1 (2) 3 (3) 3 (4) 3 (5) 2 (6) 1 (7) 0 (8) 16 (9) 16 (10) X City, Culture, and Society = 31 <br /> (1) 0 (2) 1 (3) 0 (4) 1 (5) 1 (6) 0 (7) 8 (8) 0 (9) 20 (10) X [1]: https://osf.io/zb9g6/