The Limits of ‘Free’

‍

There is an old, somewhat clichéd Yorkshire saying: “you don’t get owt for nowt”. Which of course translates as “you don’t get anything for nothing”. A little cynical perhaps but, as with most old sayings, there is an underlying truth.

‍

As an independent publisher or institution developing a scholarly publishing programme, this maxim is worth keeping in mind when considering software options for your publishing workflows, from submission through peer review, editorial decision making and into downstream production.

‍

On the flipside, there is often a misconception that software provided by a commercial vendor on a software-as-a-service (SaaS) basis is an expensive option more suited to larger commercial publishers; or that it is somehow antithetical to the ethos of open research, open science and open access because a commercial entity needs to make money to be viable.

‍

This perception probably isn’t helped by a number of legacy software platforms being acquired by large publishing entities as part of their technology ‘stack’; or by software companies dependent on venture capital for their existence, with investors probably looking for a return on their investment sooner rather than later.

‍

Many start-up journals and smaller, institutional publishers tend to opt for open source software to get started with their publishing operations. In itself, this is a perfectly logical approach – particularly if an institution can lean on internal resources such as its IT department to help with the implementation and absorb the costs.

‍

There is also a sense of ‘ownership’ fostered by this approach, especially if the journal is Diamond Open Access with initial funding – and ownership – on the part of the institution.

‍

But there are two potential and fundamental risks to this approach, especially in the medium to long-term.

‍

Firstly, the risks of conflating open source with open research, open science and open access. Adopting the principle of openness does not mean that these things are all the same, or that they are intrinsically dependent on each other.

‍

Secondly, the risks in the idea that ‘open’ – and specifically open source software – means ‘free’.

‍

There is no such thing as free software!

‍

Somebody, somewhere has to develop a roadmap and write the code. Somebody, somewhere needs to implement the software and ensure it is configured to meet the specific needs of the publishers, its publications and its stakeholders. Somebody, somewhere needs to train and support the users of the software. Somebody, somewhere needs to keep the software updated with the latest technology capabilities and integrations. Somebody, somewhere needs to maintain the hosting or deployment environment, to ensure zero or minimal downtime for a mission-critical workflow solution.

‍

So, this brings up the question of sustainability. How do start-up journals and independent publishers create sustainable, and potentially scalable, publishing operations?

‍

Some of the burden is of course carried by the open source development community, particularly upstream in writing and updating the source code. And there are regional and national initiatives to promote and support open research infrastructure (Invest in Open Infrastructure is a good resource on this), as well as various funder mandates (the recent OA policy announcement by the Gates Foundation, for example). But these initiatives also require substantial and – critically – ongoing investment by governments, funders or institutions. Again, nothing comes for ‘free’.

‍

Without this investment, the burden of maintaining an open source system will ultimately fall on to the shoulders of the start-up journal or the independent publisher. And this burden is amplified if the open source software is deployed on that publisher’s own servers. Where are the resources to maintain the software in terms of deploying updates, plugging in integrations, and ensuring uptime? Where do you go if your IT department is unable or unwilling to provide the resources?

‍

So, what’s the alternative?

‍

Partnering with an experienced software provider doesn’t have to be expensive, and it doesn’t mean that you are compromising on a commitment to open research or open access. Particularly if the software provider is truly independent with extensive, demonstrable experience of working with a broad spectrum of scholarly publishers across the globe – from individual journals and small societies through to large societies and commercial publishers.

‍

‍Software-as-a-service means that the burden of maintaining infrastructure, development roadmaps which deliver innovation at scale, regular software updates, and first-line user support are all taken care of by people who are experts in the technology – and, ideally, experts in understanding and supporting scholarly publishing workflows. And this burden is met in a way which is predictable in terms of the ongoing budget for the journal, publisher or institution.

‍

‍Kriyadocs is ideally placed to support start-up journals and larger independent publishers of journals and books with a best-in-class, next-generation platform for supporting authors with their submissions, supporting editors and reviewers with peer review, and supporting production teams with full XML conversion, copyediting, proofing and automated typesetting.

‍

‍How does Kriyadocs support openness?

‍

• We support a variety of peer review models, including open peer review, with innovative, in-document review capabilities to support a more granular approach to peer review.

• We are able to deliver content and metadata directly to downstream indexing platforms and aggregators, to improve the reach and discoverability of your content.

• We support equitable, inclusive publishing with our new Kriyadocs Presubmit platform to help non-native English-speaking authors and less experienced researchers to put their best foot forward when submitting their work to a journal.

• We seamlessly deliver your content to third-party hosting platforms, including OJS.

• And we seamlessly integrate with third-party open access payment and tracking platforms, including the OA Switchboard, supporting open research at a practical level.

‍

Kriyadocs is trusted by scholarly publishers in regions as diverse as Latin America, Asia, Europe and North America to support their workflows. We provide automated bilingual publishing solutions to support the publishing process in regions where English is not the native language for the majority of scholars. Kriyadocs is a leading scholarly publishing technology business, and we are proud to be founded and headquartered in the Global South, delivering world-class products and services. And our collaborations with trusted regional partners such as Sabinet in South Africa show a commitment to supporting scholarly publishing across the globe at scale.

‍

In closing, remember that whilst there is no such thing as ‘free’ when it comes to software, there are clear benefits and value to considering a SaaS option such as Kriyadocs when planning how to publish your journals and books in a sustainable, efficient, affordable – and open – way. Plan a sustainable future for your publishing enterprise from the outset.

‍

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Linna Guo, China open research specialist, for her insights and feedback on this post. My thanks also to my colleagues at Kriyadocs for their valuable contributions.

‍