Hi All,
Publishing has its own language that shapes perceptions of credibility and access within the industry. While definitions may vary, there’s some common ground worth clarifying.
I’ve been developing a publishing glossary with terms, acronyms, tools, and communities involved in scholarly publishing (attached) . If anyone is working on a similar resource or would like to collaborate or review my draft which was created from my perspective, and references as an early career English publisher, I’d welcome input. I may have overlooked international initiatives, terminology or communities.
Please share your experiences. I’m especially interested in ways to adapt this glossary for diverse contexts or even for translation by others.
Publishing Glossary (read only).pdf (160.8 KB)
2 Likes
Hi Emily, this is super useful and underlines how complicated open access is, especially for researchers who just want to get their research out there!
I would suggest adding Institutional Rights Retention Policy to the Glossary, given the amount of UK HEIs who have launched them over the last few years. These will be come increasingly important if UK HEIs choose not to renew the recently Jisc-negotiated deals with Taylor & Francis, Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, and Sage.
2 Likes
Hi Emily
Thanks for your glossary. I don’t agree with your Diamond OA Definition. Diamond OA is not about coummunity funding, it’s about control and ownership by the communites Diamond Open Access | EDCH
1 Like
Hi Emily,
Really good point! The fact that we all use slightly different definitions of Diamond OA clearly shows how much we need a shared, common glossary.
For Diamond OA specifically, as Elio mentioned, one option could be to rely on the definition developed during the DIAMAS project:
“The term ‘Diamond OA’ refers to an equitable model of scholarly publication that charges no fees to authors or readers and in which the content-related elements of publication are owned and controlled by the scholarly communities.”
What is Diamond open access? | Resources
The Toolsuite, available in the EDCH Resources & Guidelines, might also be useful. There’s already a small glossary there, and it could be a good place to add other relevant definitions:
Glossary | Resources.
On my side, here are a few glossaries I know of:
Also worth mentioning: the ALMASI project is currently working on a glossary and plans to provide translations in several languages (French, English, Spanish, Portuguese). I’m not sure about the timeline yet, so if anyone has more info, feel free to jump in!
4 Likes
In Portugal, at PUB IN, we will be creating glossaries for each Focus Group we have established. We noticed that people often get confused about many terms, frequently mistaking one for another. So, this is a great initiative!
2 Likes
Dear all,
the open question is, how we can shape the definition so that it stays useful. It is ultimately a tool for us, and can be shaped for the use cases that exist. If we think about open and equitable access to reasearch by researchers and readers, your defintion may work, Elio, but if we think about libraries - how many “diamond” journals have no proper legal form, and thus can’t properly be labelled profi/non-profit? How many consortia-supported “diamond” journals are published by publishers that align totally with our aims of openness, equity, cost-reduction, science-led? They may be incorporated as commercial, but owned by a non-commercial society and act 100% in the interest of the scientific community. Or the opposite may be the case, where a “society” acts exactly like a greedy, commercial publisher, but takes part in a diamond-consortium? Do libraries have to ask their legal department to investigate the legal backgrounds of journals before they can invest? To make my case: I think we may have to leave the defintion a bit wider in order to be useful.
Best, Fabian
1 Like