Although it takes time for new publishing models to develop, a number of studies are beginning to evaluate some of the different models of providing online barrier-free access to scholarly research.

• Course Check: A Conversation with Three Open Access Publishers about the Challenges of Sustainability,” presented at the June 2007 SPARC-ACRL Forum

• “Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles,” Gunther Eysenbach, PLoS Biology 4, no. 5 (2006)

• “Open Access Self-Archiving: An Author Study,” Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown (Truro, Cornwall, UK: Key Perspectives, May 2005) [PDF]

• “The Facts About Open Access: A Study of the Financial and Non-Financial Effects of Alternative Business Models on Scholarly Journals,” by the Kaufman-Wills Group for the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (2005)
  Note: Addendum (PDF)

• “Keystroke Economy: A Study of the Time and Effort Involved in Self-Archiving,” Leslie Carr and Stevan Harnad, University of Southampton, UK (April 2005) [PDF]

• “The Impact of Open Access Journals: A Citation Study from Thomas ISI,” Marie E. McVeigh (Thomson Scientific, October 2004) [PDF]

• “Economics of Open-Access Journals,” Mark McCabe, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Christopher M. Synder, George Washington University (June 2004) [PDF]

• “Open-Access Scholarly Publishing in Economic Perspective,” Malcolm Getz, Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University (June 2004). This article examines university expenditures under the open-access publishing mode. [PDF]

• Nature: The Forum (2004). A collection of specially commissioned insights and analysis from leading scientists, librarians, publishers, and other stakeholders.

Peer Review and New Models

A major challenge facing any new model publications is achieving recognition through peer review processes. Most new publishing models incorporate peer review processes of some kind, and often use processes identical to print publications. Nonetheless, positive perceptions of peer review practices are necessary for many new publications to succeed.

• Scholarly Communication: Academic Values and Sustainable Models, C. Judson King, Diane Harley, Sarah Earl-Novell, Jennifer Arter, Shannon Lawrence, and Irene Perciali (Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, July 2006) [PDF]

• Nature Peer Review Debate

• “Does Tenure Need to Change?” The Scientist, online discussion, July 2007

• PLoS ONE is the most visible journal working with a new kind of peer review process.

Scholarly Societies React to New Models

Scholarly societies face many challenges in developing new publishing models but there are now several examples of societies developing innovative and creative responses.

• American Philological Association and the Archeological Institute of America Task Force on Electronic Publications, Final Report (April 2007)

• Society for Neuroscience: “The Journal of Neuroscience Institutes New Publishing Policy” and “Open Access Publishing Raises Questions,” Neuroscience Quarterly (Winter 2006)

• Modern Language Association Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure, “Report on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion” (2006)

• The American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB), “Timely Free Access to Taxpayer-Funded Research Does Not Threaten Financial Stability of Scientific Journals” (2006)