Contribute to an open taxonomy of players

Hi everyone - to help organise the players channel, please help flesh out an open taxonomy of open research players. Thank you!

Like Comment

International Umbrella Bodies

Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers

International Association of STM Publishers

International Coalition of Library Consortia

International Federation of Library Associations

Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association

Libraries, Academic

Cairo University

Imperial College London

Libraries, Corporate

 

Libraries, National

British Library

Libraries, Special

Wellcome Trust Library

Library Consortia

Abilene Library Consortium

Academic Consortium of Electronic Resources

Academic Libraries of Indiana

Adventist Library Information Cooperative

Alerta al Conocimiento

American Theological Library Association

AMICAL Consortium

Amigos Library Services

ANATOLIAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES CONSORTIUM

Appalachian College Association

Arizona Community College Library Consortium

Arizona Health Information Network

Arizona Universities Library Consortium

ARKLink Library Consortium

Arrowhead Library System

Association for Collaborative Partnerships

Association of Research Libraries

Association of Southeastern Research Libraries

Bayern-Konsortium

BC Electronic Library Network

Publishers, Commercial Sector

Elsevier

Frontiers

MDPI

Wiley

Publishers, Learned Societies

European Respiratory Society

IWA Publishing

Publishers, Library Presses

University of Michigan Press

Publishers, University Presses

Cambridge University Press

Oxford University Press

UCL Press

University of Michigan Press

Alicia Wise

Director, Information Power

4 Comments

Go to the profile of Pablo Markin
Pablo Markin 8 months ago

Thanks for this list. It would be interesting to get more information on how these differnet agents approach Open Access (OA), as, beyond its formal definitions, what could be making a difference within various OA models is how OA is deployed in specific situations and by particular players.

Go to the profile of Charles Watkinson
Charles Watkinson 8 months ago

Is the distinction between university presses that report to libraries and those that do not meaningful enough to distinguish them? For example, UCL Press would be a library-reporting press and would MIT Press. But does this really change the way they respond to OA?

Go to the profile of Alicia Wise
Alicia Wise 8 months ago

Great question, Charles. Personally I think the rise of library presses is in itself a response to OA, and therefore perhaps worthy of capturing them and calling out separately, but I don't feel at all strongly about this.

Go to the profile of Charles Watkinson
Charles Watkinson 8 months ago

I think there is a distinction between the ca. 30% of university presses that have come to report to presses (Michigan is an example) and the New University Presses (NUPs) that have been actively started by libraries (e.g., UCL Press). These are often grouped with Scholar-led presses. The rationale for the former relationships often predate the rise of OA, even if many of those presses are active in OA. The rationale for the latter is very tied to the rise of OA. I personally would advocate for grouping all university presses together and then having a separate category of Publishers, scholar-led (recognizing that there is a rhetorical play at work in the "scholar-led" concept but it is helpful despite that) and changing Publishers, library presses to Publishers, library publishers (using "publishers" as terminology here since that mirrors what the Library Publishing Coalition.