|Author:||Asmussen, T., Boucher, M.-C., Dalkilic, E., Drubek-Meyer, N., Finger, J., Ganz, K., Heinig, J., Heuer, J., Kirchner, A., Klassen, O., Kunz, R., Mirbeth, J., Neufend, M., Rauchecker, M., Steiner, T., Wenninger, A. & Wrzesinski, M.|
|Published in:||self published|
The importance of Open Access is rapidly gaining traction. National and international research funding organisations mandate and promote OA for their funded publications. Major publishers have also recognised its potential, having turned OA into an increasingly important element of their business models. Astronomical price tags for journal subscriptions are now being replaced by exorbitantly high author-facing OA publication fees (APCs/BPCs). This, in turn, exacerbates existing inequalities while simultaneously increasing exclusions and competition, while strengthening the oligopoly of a handful of large commercial publishers. Scholar-led initiatives that do not rely on these kinds of exclusionary author-facing publication fees can make the transition to Open Access fairer, while also fostering bibliodiversity. However, the situation of scholar-led projects – both in journal and book publishing – is characterised by (1) insufficient funding, (2) a lack of strategic direction, and (3) deficits in responsibility across disciplines and institutions.