Establishing a workflow for assessing open monograph business models: a case study from Oxford

Context

Open access (OA) publication of long‑form works, including monographs, has been steadily growing over the past decade. Recently, however, the importance of this topic has risen within academic publishing considerations, driven especially by new funder mandates.

A key driver is the UKRI long‑form policy, which came into effect on 1 January 2024 (UKRI, 2024). This requires that monographs, book chapters and edited collections derived from UKRI‑funded research be made open access within 12 months of publication under a Creative Commons licence. Alongside UKRI, funders such as the Wellcome Trust (Wellcome Trust, 2025) and Horizon Europe (ERC, 2026) also have long‑form OA requirements.

The significance of this shift is especially acute for the humanities and social sciences, where monographs are a primary mode of scholarly communication and have historically remained outside the scope of OA mandates (Shaw et al, 2023). With monographs now included in multiple funder policies ‒ and lined up for inclusion in the REF cycle following REF 2029 (REF, 2024) ‒ supporting sustainable OA monograph publishing has become a strategic necessity.

The broader context also includes ongoing policy alignment efforts across Europe. Initiatives such as PALOMERA (Policy Alignment of Open Access Monographs in the European Research Area) (PALOMERA, 2024) and the Plan S principles from cOAlition S (Plan S, 2026) highlight monographs as a growing focus for open access reform.

In anticipation of these developments, the Bodleian Libraries launched a pilot project that, amongst other workstreams, sought to develop a sustainable, structured workflow for assessing OA monograph business models. This article outlines the workflow as it stands, including its ongoing transition into a business‑as‑usual (BAU) practice.

Project background and aims

The University of Oxford is one of the UK’s largest research institutions, with a significant proportion of its research funding coming from UKRI Research Councils ‒ £181.9 million in the financial year 2023/24, or 23% of the University’s total external research income (University of Oxford, 2024).

In 2022, the Bodleian Libraries received funding from the Research England ‘Enhancing Research Culture’ fund to undertake a one‑year pilot project to assess OA monograph publishing initiatives and to develop support and guidance for researchers’ publishing activities and requirements. Funding supported a dedicated project officer and contributions to OA monograph initiatives. This project was coordinated by the Bodleian’s Open Scholarship Support (OSS) team, formed to provide strategic and practical guidance on OA across the university.

Two groups oversaw the work: the Open Monograph Working Group, a small team meeting regularly to guide project activity, and the Open Monograph Advisory Group, a wider stakeholder body providing strategic input. This project was framed by a growing need to adapt institutional support for OA to reflect the evolving publishing environment.

Key project strands included identifying and assessing OA business models from both traditional and new publishers, and developing tools such as an evaluation checklist to support decision‑making. Findings and recommendations were shared with the Bodleian’s Collections Management Strategy Group (CMSG).

Following the pilot, the Bodleian extended funding through its internal strategy fund for a second phase, ‘Sustainable Open Monographs’. This phase emphasized embedding OA monograph work into BAU workflows, with a focus on analysing the University’s monograph publishing profile across publishers and funders, assessing OA business models from established and new publishers, analysing the performance of Oxford‑supported schemes to ensure a focus on the academic needs of Oxford academics and researchers and supporting those that give us long‑term benefits.

The challenge of evaluating OA business models

Whilst ‘gold’ OA ‒ where authors pay a book processing charge (BPC) to publishers to make their work OA ‒ is the most established route to publishing work OA, this poses affordability and equity concerns. Many BPCs are prohibitively expensive, and cost transparency is inconsistent. The UKRI supports up to £10,000 (including VAT) per in‑scope monograph, but requires universities to pay the charge upfront and claim reimbursement after publication. Costs above £10,000 must be met by the institution or researcher (UKRI, 2024).

An increasing number of publishers are adopting ‘diamond’ OA models. These shift the financial burden from authors to institutions via mechanisms such as library membership schemes, Subscribe to Open (S2O) and consortia support. These collective action models often provide additional benefits ‒ e.g. perpetual access to frontlist or backlist content ‒ and aim to lower the overall cost of OA publishing. However, they depend on sufficient institutional buy‑in.

The models under which long‑form works are made OA include (but are not limited to) those described in Table 1:

(Additional information about open monograph business models can be found at Ferwerda, E. (2014)).

Each of these models has downsides as well as positives, and every scheme is unique in its details and coverage. Institutions cannot support every new scheme, particularly as the number of publishers and models continues to grow.

Institutions should therefore find structured, evidence‑based ways to assess value and decide where support should be directed.

Open access collection management principles

An assessment model works best when it is founded upon clearly stated principles, which can give clear guidance on what the priorities and goals of the institutions’ collections management policy are regarding OA.

The Bodleian Libraries maintains a collection management policy (Bodleian Libraries, 2015) covering all collections management procurement – section 9 of this covers OA and emphasizes the ethical and sustainable provision of OA content. The principles articulated in this policy inform the assessment of OA schemes.

The Bodleian library also contributes towards the RLUK (RLUK Networks ‑ Research Libraries UK, 2016) ‘Shared Principles for the Evaluation and Acquisition of Open Monograph Models’, in a draft status at the time of writing, and is internally working on a wider and more specific internal document on enabling equitable and sustainable OA/open purchasing principles at the University of Oxford.

These documents, once finalized, will provide greater clarity and focus on the assessment of OA monograph schemes.

Horizon scanning

The OA monograph landscape has grown rapidly in recent years. Alongside the rise of new OA publishers and university presses, many established publishers have also introduced OA options. While this expansion is positive, it has also produced a complex and often opaque ecosystem. There is no centralized registry of OA monograph schemes, making it difficult for institutions to track, assess and support them in a coordinated way.

To address this challenge, the Bodleian project embedded horizon scanning into its workflow. The project officer conducted proactive scanning for new OA monograph policies, schemes and publishers, while the working group and the Open Scholarship Support team contributed through ongoing monitoring of sector news, publisher updates and mailing lists.

This process included:

• regular review of platforms such as Jisc Monitor and the Open Access Tracking Project (OATP)

• monitoring communications from publishers and sector networks

• input from subject librarians and the Open Scholarship Librarian, who also tracked wider OA policy and publishing developments.

The combined approach allowed the team to identify and prioritize schemes based on relevance, transparency and alignment with institutional goals. Findings were maintained in a live spreadsheet, which has since been adopted into ongoing library workflows.

The open monograph scheme evaluation form

A structured analysis form was developed to support consistent and transparent evaluations of OA monograph schemes. This drew on sector resources ‒ including blog posts from the COPIM project (COPIM 2023) ‒ as well as the Bodleian Libraries’ own infrastructure evaluation template and read and publish assessment framework. The form was refined iteratively throughout the project, ultimately becoming the Open Monograph Scheme Evaluation Form V2.2 (see Appendix 1).

The final checklist contained 37 criteria, grouped into five thematic categories:

• Scheme Overview

• Open Ethos

• Costs

• Content

• Technical Standards.

One of the key challenges during development was finding a balance between comprehensiveness and usability. The form needed to accommodate a wide range of OA models without becoming unwieldy or overly complex. The resulting structure included two sections:

• a set of core fields that directly informed decision‑making

• an additional information section to provide useful context.

Priority was given to fields such as UKRI policy compliance, Oxford author involvement and cost‑effectiveness, which frequently proved decisive in funding discussions.

Some criteria that were initially assumed to be central ‒ such as elements under Open Ethos and Technical Standards – often ended up being less critical in practice and were moved into the additional information section.

Each criterion was assessed using a Red/Amber/Green rating system to signal overall risk or suitability at a glance. This made the form a practical tool not only for the project team but also for committees potentially reviewing multiple schemes in parallel.

Workflows

Evaluation of the scheme using the Open Monograph Scheme Evaluation Form was carried out by the project officer. Once a scheme was evaluated, it progressed through a series of committees, with updates and reappraisals being made to the form as necessary until a decision was made.

During phase one of the project, schemes were primarily assessed through the groups set up to manage and monitor the open monograph project. Horizon scanning and initial discussion were undertaken by the Open Monograph Project Group, with schemes deemed relevant being taken for further review by the Open Monograph Advisory Group. Additional commentary was sought from subject librarians and the Committee on Library Provision and Strategy (CLiPS), with a final decision on support being taken by the Collections Management Strategy Group (CMSG). (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

During phase two of the project, progress was made in bringing OA monograph scheme assessment into the ‘business as usual’ practice of the Bodleian Libraries, and so rather than the Open Monograph Advisory Group being the core forum for discussion, this role was taken by the OA Publications Review Group (itself formerly the Read and Publish Review Group). This group also contained the budget‑holding decision makers.

Initial discussion and horizon scanning were still undertaken by members of the Open Monograph Working Group, and input was sought from additional groups such as the E‑book steering group, HOSAs (Head of Subject Areas) and Subject Librarians. (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

1. Initial discussion within the Open Monograph Working Group.

2. Review by the OA Publications Review Group.

3. Input from subject librarians (via subject‑reps mailing list).

4. Endorsement by the E‑book Steering Group.

5. Final decision by budget holding members of the OA Publications Review Group.

Decision‑making

Decisions about which schemes to support were shaped in part by the absence of a dedicated OA collections budget. Instead, contributions had to be coordinated across individual subject budgets, which are also used to fund traditional (non‑OA) acquisitions. This naturally created tension: supporting OA initiatives could reduce the funds available for paywalled or teaching materials.

In evaluating schemes, the group considered a range of criteria, with particular attention to the following questions:

• Does the scheme meet UKRI OA policy requirements?

  Models like Subscribe to Open or Flip to Open can be unpredictable in their OA delivery or may impose embargoes, making compliance with UKRI policy uncertain.

• Is the scheme good value for money?

  What is the average cost per OA book produced? Are there tangible benefits for contributors, such as access to a backlist or perpetual access to additional content? This criterion often favoured larger publishers with greater production capacity and more extensive backlists.

• Is the scheme relevant to Oxford authors or readers?

  Demonstrating a clear benefit to Oxford’s academic divisions ‒ either through author participation or direct subject relevance ‒ greatly increased the likelihood of support.

• Does the scheme contribute to a more diverse and sustainable OA landscape?

  Supporting smaller publishers or under‑represented disciplines was seen as a way of encouraging bibliodiversity and long‑term resilience in OA publishing.

Identifying Oxford‑affiliated authors proved unexpectedly difficult. In some cases, even publishers were unsure of author affiliations, highlighting the limitations of available metadata and publisher workflows.

There was no fixed weighting for the criteria, nor a set threshold that guaranteed support. Each scheme was evaluated on its individual merits, with Red/Amber/Green assessments used as indicators rather than strict cut‑offs. Nonetheless, a greater number of ‘red flags’ in a submission typically led to more cautious or critical discussion. There was a tendency towards caution – discussions on a scheme would regularly be parked in order to gather more data or feedback.

Ultimately, during the project, Oxford opted to support, through project funds and content budgets, a number of schemes. These included diamond model schemes from traditional publishers, library memberships of OA publishers and OA infrastructure.

Evaluation of supported schemes

Supporting a scheme was only the beginning, with evaluation of the supported schemes needed to decide on renewal and the support for OA schemes in general. Key metrics included:

• usage statistics (gathered from publishers, aggregators such as JSTOR and OAPEN)

• presence of Oxford‑affiliated authors

• appearances on Oxford reading lists

• number of books published during the support period

• other evidence of publisher growth or service improvement.

Usage data was treated with caution: IP‑based data is incomplete and geolocation metrics do not map neatly to institutional readership. The goal was to triangulate multiple data sources to form a coherent picture. A form has been drafted to collate these metrics (see Appendix 2). This evaluation would be passed to the OA Publications Review Group when discussing renewal of support for schemes or publishers.

Next steps and final thoughts

This project highlighted the importance of a structured, collaborative approach to supporting open access monograph publishing.

One key insight was the complexity of sustaining diamond OA models. These rely on collective institutional support but may suffer from a ‘tragedy of the commons’ – where fund‑limited institutions delay or withhold contributions in the hope that others will fund the model, even though all benefit from the resulting open content. Addressing this challenge requires advocacy and shared commitment across the sector.

Looking ahead, the following actions will help embed and extend the work undertaken during Oxford’s open monograph project:

• sharing evaluation criteria, workflows and outcomes with the wider academic library community to support transparency and sector‑wide learning

• refining and formalizing institutional principles for supporting OA monograph initiatives, ensuring they reflect Oxford’s values and operational realities

• exploring the development of a dedicated OA fund, or clearer processes for coordinating subject budgets in support of OA schemes

• continuing strategic support for collective action diamond models, recognizing their role in promoting bibliodiversity, equity and long‑term sustainability in scholarly publishing.

This work will remain an evolving part of the library’s response to open access, helping Oxford researchers – and their readers – navigate the increasingly complex world of OA monograph publishing.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

A list of the abbreviations and acronyms used in this and other Insights articles can be accessed here – click on the following URL and then select the ‘full list of industry A&As’ link: http://www.uksg.org/publications#aa.

Competing Interests

The author has declared no competing interests.