Open Access for Monograph Publishing: Operational Thoughts and Speculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While open access started as a response to developments in journal publishing, attention is now turning to scholarly monographs. Using the experience of University of Calgary Press, as well as understandings from a neo-institutional framework of analysis, this paper examines how current open access scholarly publishing behaves at the nexus of three intersecting and competing interests: a) an uncoordinated policy environment that applies individual, institutional, and sectorial criteria; b) the exogenous market and technological pressures on contemporary publishing; and c) the embedded, symbiotic role that scholarly publishers play in academe. These factors have combined to create subtle, unintended, and potentially negative outcomes. For any implementation of a large-scale open access funding or mandate to succeed in supporting a sustainable dissemination of diverse, independent, and relevant scholarly publishing, much greater formal policy coordination and a normative and financial commitment to developing new tools for measuring impact, success, and program effectiveness are required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".