Balancing ideology and feasibility: a case study on adopting and evaluating open access publishing models for a society journal within philosophy

Yrsa Neuman, Mikael Laakso

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikelVetenskapligPeer review

2 Citeringar (Scopus)


Introduction. Open access, the notion that research output, such as journal articles, should be freely accessible to readers on the Web, is arguably in the best interest of science. In this article, we (1) describe in-depth how a society-owned philosophy journal, Nordic Wittgenstein Review, evaluated various publishing models and made an informed decision on how best to adopt open access publishing for the journal, and (2) develop and implement measures to evaluate the chosen model. Method. This case study uses reports from editorial board members (mainly the editor-in-chief), Web access metrics as well as a Web survey to the journal community as well as the wider philosophy research community. Analysis. After two years as a delayed open access journal with commercial publishers, the journal made a decision to become an independent scholar-run journal without fees to readers or authors, and which would rely mainly on volunteer effort with university faculty support. This decision was made after evaluating various publishing scenarios and negotiating with potential publishers. This study breaks down what is involved in terms of input and effort compared to having handed over the publishing of the journal to an external publisher. Conclusions. For an open access journal choosing between publishing models, elements of ideology and feasibility need to be balanced. This article provides an overview of relevant elements and some means to judge feasibility in journal publishing endeavours.

Sidor (från-till)
TidskriftInformation Research
StatusPublicerad - 2017
MoE-publikationstypA1 Tidskriftsartikel-refererad


  • Scholarly communication
  • digital editing
  • Academic publishing
  • Open Access
  • Scientific journals

Citera det här