In our previous post, we introduced some basic models of journal access. But in case these solutions don’t quite fit your needs, here are some more ways to fine-tune the benefits and options your journal offers.
Hybrid access #
So far, we’ve talked about journals that get their money either on the author side, or the reader side. Hybrid journals do both.
Essentially, a hybrid journal is a subscription journal that publishes a certain portion of its content open access — free to read, reuse, and redistribute. The paywalled content is of course funded by subscriptions, while the open-access content is typically funded by some combination of article processing charges (APCs) and transformative agreements. The idea is to offer some flexibility to both authors and publishers. Authors can choose whether to pay for the open-access publication of their article (if they have the financial backing to do so), or to allow the work to remain paywalled; and publishers are able to draw from multiple types of funding sources.
Hybrid journals have sometimes been described as “hybrid OA journals”, but many consider this term to be misleading. “Hybrid OA” highlights the “OA” portion of the combination, while glossing over the “subscription” aspect entirely. Simply “hybrid” seems to be the most accurate label.
It’s important to know that the hybrid model has some baggage to contend with. Perhaps most prominently, some hybrid journals have been accused of unscrupulously “double-dipping” — charging the same institutions once for publishing, and then a second time for reading. As a result, many in the research community dislike hybrid models. Moreover, many proponents of open access reject the hybrid model outright, since (by definition) a hybrid journal is only partly open access. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) will not list hybrid journals, and some open-access funds (such as those at the University of California at Santa Barbara, the University of Duisburg-Essen, and the University of Agder) will not financially support publication in hybrid journals.
We’ll be honest: We think the negative connotations around hybrid access make it a risky choice, and that the flexibility it offers is usually outweighed by the added effort of managing all the options. But if you do choose to go down this path, make sure you take time to consider how you present your model to readers and authors alike. Clear communication of your policies will be particularly crucial, so that authors can know what to expect when they submit.
The bottom line: A combination of open and closed access. Commonly, though not technically, associated with APCs.
Green OA #
Green OA functions a bit differently than what we’ve discussed so far: the author (rather than the publisher) makes a version of their own work open access. Or, to rephrase this into our “barriers” framework, Green OA functions by removing barriers to authorial redistribution.
Authors typically distribute their articles by depositing copies into arXiv or other open-access repositories. An increasing number of research institutions run their own such repositories, and require the authors they fund to deposit their works. The act of adding one’s own article to such a resource is called “self-archiving”.
Most publishers permit the practice of self-archiving. Those who do so explicitly, as a matter of policy, can be called “Green OA publishers”. Many others merely silently tolerate the practice, which is widespread and firmly entrenched in the research ecosystem.
Some publishers add caveats to their self-archiving policies. For example, they may allow authors to self-archive only specific pre-publication versions. Or, a publisher may impose an embargo period, requiring authors to wait a number of months or years after publication before depositing their articles. However, this last practice runs afoul of some open-access mandates; many authors are required by their institution to publish only in journals that permit non-embargoed Green OA.
Green OA can be combined with most other access models, even the “closed” ones. Many journals (including MSP’s) operate under a traditional subscription model, and also permit authors to self-archive the author’s accepted manuscript without an embargo period. These journals therefore draw funding from the reader side, while still satisfying funder OA mandates — enabling all authors to submit, regardless of their financial situation.
One last thing to know about Green OA: The license options for the deposited version are determined by the repository that receives it. The publisher’s license terms — your terms — will apply only to the published version.
The bottom line: An option for author-driven OA that you can offer alongside most other access models.
Subscribe to Open #
Subscribe to Open, or “S2O”, is a newer approach to open access, and one that’s probably not as well known as the others. It has sometimes been described (including by its co-creator Raym Crow) as “conditional OA”.
In the S2O model, a journal primarily functions just like a traditional subscription journal: It offers subscribers access to paywalled content in exchange for a fee. In addition to this, however, the journal sets a deadline, and a goal — a “threshold” — for the amount of subscription funding it hopes to receive by that deadline.
If the journal receives enough subscription payments to reach its funding goal by the stated deadline, then the upcoming year’s content will be published open access. In other words: if the threshold is met, the collected subscription fees directly fund OA publishing.
But if the journal does not reach its goal in time, then the upcoming year’s content continues to function as if published in any other traditional subscription journal: only paying subscribers will have access, and reuse and redistribution may be limited.
Additionally, in this case, new subscriptions initiated after the deadline incur a higher subscription price than than the pre-deadline orders. The intent is to encourage well-funded subscribers to commit their orders early on, rather than delay and gamble that the content will become freely available without their participation.
Among open-access models, S2O has an advantage that it builds on the same system that traditional-access journals use. Libraries and publishers can mostly follow their usual subscription-renewal processes; but now, these systems function in support of open-access publishing. Conversely, S2O is also the rare subscription-funded model to have the support of the open-access community. The DOAJ does and will list S2O journals, and some institutions (such as the University of Arizona and Columbia University) have begun listing support for S2O journals alongside their other open-access initiatives.
A possible disadvantage of S2O is that it may not work as well for newer journals still trying to find their audience. Indeed, this is why when MSP began our Subscribe to Open program in 2023, we started with five of our most established journals. All the same, we think the Subscribe to Open model shows great promise, and we’re watching closely as it continues to develop.
The bottom line: Conditional financial barrier to reading.
Variations upon variations #
This is far from an exhaustive list. If you’ve paid attention to the various access, publication, and licensing policies of scholarly journals, there’s a good chance you’ve come across yet more access models — some completely different from these, or some not quite the same as one we’ve listed here.
That’s because, ultimately, these policy choices and the terms used to describe them are up to each individual publication. There’s no law saying that you can’t publish a paywalled article using a CC BY license, or that you have to permit authors to self-archive their work. There’s no single authority that determines which terminology most properly describes a particular access model.
But the more important question isn’t what you are permitted to do. Rather, you should ask yourself what will enable your journal to thrive. Which policies will attract authors and protect the funding that your journal needs? How do your different policies overlap and interact? Your journal won’t survive without cooperation from both authors and readers: how will you earn their trust?
You might say that the established access models are the result of many years’ worth of attempts to find answers to these questions. Hopefully, the information here will help you find your own.
Further reading #
T. Mellins-Cohen, “ Making sense of open access business models”, The Scholarly Kitchen post, 2024: For those interested in the commonalities and differences between different types of open access-models, this guest post offers a well-organized overview.
Header image by Glen Noble, available from Unsplash. Free to use under the Unsplash License.