Open Access eBooks in South Africa

By Andrew Joseph (Digital Publisher, Wits University Press) <Andrew.Joseph@wits.ac.za>

“Never minded working hard. It’s who I’m working for.”

— Gillian Welch and David Rawlings, “Everything Is Free”

The state of South African research output appears to be rather healthy. Proportionally, we have the second highest number of female researchers in the G20, a very strong impact in medicine and health-related research (despite relatively low output), and high output (but relatively low impact) for the humanities and social sciences (HSS). There is a general increase in scholarly book production (up about 19%), and on the whole, research and research output in South Africa is growing at a rate of about 12%. (Adams and Rogers 2021).

What we don’t see is a corresponding increase in publications by local publishers (Le Roux and Cassells 2022; DHET 2020). It is apparent that most researchers continue to choose to publish with nonlocal publishers. This is especially true of open access (OA) monograph publishing which, while offered by some local presses, is certainly not the norm. At the onset of OA monograph publishing, especially in Europe and North America, there was for local publishers a sense of not knowing exactly where to begin, despite strongly supporting its fundamental intention and wanting to participate. Notably, the HSRC Press was one of the early adopters and initiators of an OA monograph publishing program in the early 2000s.

There has always been strong enthusiasm for OA publishing in South African institutions, usually from the institutional or reader perspective. The benefits were obvious particularly for journals: increased accessibility and lowered cost for libraries and readers in a deeply unequal society. Combined with state-planned digital infrastructure in the early 2010s, and the envisaged increase in access to internet services and devices, the assumed uptake/access/usage appeared to be a sure thing. However, both infrastructural development and increased internet and communication technology services came to be provided by private enterprise, not the state, which put paid to the hoped-for coherence of implementation. The enabling of local publishers to develop their own, or participate in existing, OA programs was limited to the outcome-driven need for OA. It would have been far more useful and productive for a program for local stakeholders to be developed, in which aspects such as changing business models and technology skill improvement were systematically approached. Instead, local publishers have had to contend with the continued (and rightly so) calls for increased OA offerings, while not having had the benefit of participating in a coordinated program to enable them to do so.

Publishers in South Africa have however risen to the challenge, and through cooperative and individual efforts, most presses are publishing OA monographs. Most if not all university presses have participated in Knowledge Unlatched initiatives since its inception, and many have taken this impetus further. Wits University Press has made a number of backlist titles OA and attempts to publish 10% of its frontlist program as OA. Similar initiatives are underway at UNISA Press and African SUN Media, with HSRC Press continuing its OA offering. The University of Johannesburg Press and the recently relaunched University of Cape Town Press have been established following a library publishing model, and are “OA only” publishers. Nonuniversity-press OA publishers too have been active in this sphere, including AOSIS and African Minds.

Recent collaborative projects, which have helped presses begin to collectively identify issues and potential solutions, include the OA Committee in the National Scholarly Book Publishers Forum (under the auspices of the Academy of Science of South Africa) and an OA working group in the Scholarly Publishers Committee of the Publishers Association of South Africa (PASA), which looks into OA more generally. These initiatives include publishing staff at both management and operations levels and are attempting not only to develop practical collaborations, but also to ensure information and skill sharing. It is essential, to my mind, that these groups grow and extend their inclusion. The participation of policymaking bodies is essential to mitigate the effects of this delayed start. Discussions with such bodies as the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), Universities South Africa (USAf), PASA, and the South African National Library and Information Consortium (SANLiC must continue to grow, and programs should be developed around this activity. In a twist on our usual mode of “South African exceptionalism,” I believe we should imagine that we’re the slipper being tried on by many feet, and not a Cinderella waiting for the opportunity to assume our “rightful” position.

What may be observed from the South African example is a strong ideological impetus, with neither planned infrastructural support nor comprehensive future planning. As a result, better OA book services appeared to be offered by North American and European publishers, despite great local initiatives at the time, such as that of HSRC Press. This perception has taken great effort to alter, particularly in the minds of authors and institutions.

What could make it all come together? 1. Local publishers should refocus on processes, constantly re-examine underlying intentions and mission, propose regulations, and consider the role of technology organizations. We should not simply focus on immediate outcomes (i.e., instant access for readers and institutions), but should work towards coordinated capacity building, alignment with standards, and participation in the development of OA monograph publishing initiatives. This approach will lead to a deeper, structurally embedded, and accountable offering. 2. Increased coordination at a policy level for national government, institutions, libraries and local publishers. A greater gain would include regional cooperation, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. This would be an important first step in the internationalization of knowledge (production, access and control). Further, this must tie into the Open Science initiatives (we are, for instance, contributing to the International

Science Council Future of Scientific Publishing program (https://council.science/actionplan/futureof-scientific-publishing/)), and journal-focused programmes such as the Plan S Small Publishers

Toolkit program (https://www.alpsp.org/SPA-OPSproject-report-and-toolkit). 3. There will have to be a definitive realization of digital infrastructure projects at a state level. This matter is laden with the historical and geographic baggage of apartheid and colonial legacies of course, but managed, practical gains can be made, particularly in relation to higher education institutions. (Czerniewicz 2022) 4. You’ll forgive my lack of enthusiasm for initiatives such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals project. For a multitude of reasons, previous iterations have never come close to achieving the aims and good intentions. They do provide a set of principles, but my fear is that without regulatory clout and infrastructural enabling, this non-achievement may repeat itself, though I do, of course, hope that I am proved wrong.

Perhaps supporters of the intent and allies from outside the region could advocate for consultative, sustainable, and practical implementation of the principles. What has been particularly problematic in the past has been the reliance of the private sector in infrastructure provision. The focus on economic growth, not on economic development, and a lack of regulation has contributed to the lack of delivery and must be avoided in the future. 5. There is a necessity for the involvement of the local publishing industry — UPs and commercials — especially in future planning for metadata, identifiers, metrics, and reporting obligations. Usage data in particular is something of interest (especially the work of the Open Access Data Trust Project https:// www.oabookusage.org/) that should see an alignment between research management systems, funders, and publishers. 6. Fundamental to an understanding of the need for accurate, consistent standards-based metrics are the licensing and copyright regimes that underpin the dissemination and reuse models. We face serious challenges with the proposed Copyright Amendment

Bill in the country, to which scholarly publishers have raised serious objections; unanalyzed changes to the already fragile supply chain, the lack of socioeconomic assessment, and specifically a reduction of the term of copyright to 25 years will have serious implications for OA monograph publishing, especially in HSS. (Joseph and Wightman 2018; Tomaselli 2019) 7. The influence and possible (yet to be proposed or realized) contributions of Big Tech organizations must be mediated by regulatory mechanisms and a clear separation of power, a client-supplier relationship with clear controls and restrictions.

Open access is as much a policymaking issue as it is a practice. We should avoid redefining this as a “problem” to be solved through individual action(s), nor should we maintain a reverential regard for technology “solutions.” The fundamental principles are easily agreed to; democratizing the production of, and access to knowledge; and that that knowledge will encourage debate and thus “change” society. The devil is, of course, in the details regarding the form this should take and how implementation would best suit the very people it is intended to benefit. If not, we run the risk of a technopopulist solution: a “decontextualized, event-driven” activity (Streeck 2022) with little location in history and thus no substance with which to deal with the challenges faced collectively.

References

Adams, Jonathan and Gordon Rogers. 2021. “The Annual G20 Scorecard — Research Performance 2021.” https://clarivate. com/lp/the-annual-g20-scorecard-research-performance-2021/.

Czerniewicz, Laura. n.d. “Multi-layered digital inequalities in HEIs: the paradox of the post-digital society.” Global University Network for Innovation. Accessed June 3, 2022. https://www. guni-call4action.org/article/multi-layered-digital-inequalitiesheis-paradox-post-digital-society.

Department of Higher Education and Training. 2020. “Annual Report 2018/19.” South African Government. https://www. dhet.gov.za/Commissions%20Reports/DHET%20Annual%20 Report%2019-20.pdf.

Joseph, Andrew and Jeremy Wightman. 2018. “Copyright Bill threatens publishers.” New Frame, December 5, 2018. https:// www.newframe.com/copyright-bill-threatens-publishers/.

Le Roux, Elizabeth and Laetitia Cassells. 2022. “South African Book Publishing Industry Survey.” Publishers Association of South Africa. https://publishsa.co.za/wp-content/ uploads/2022/02/2019-2021-Publishing-Industry-Survey.pdf.

Streeck, Wolfgang. 2022. “In the Superstate.” London Review of Books, January 27, 2022. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v44/ n02/wolfgang-streeck/in-the-superstate

Tomaselli, Keyan. 2019. “South Africa’s Copyright Amendment Bill: Implications for universities.” The South African Journal of Science, 115(5/6). https://sajs.co.za/article/ view/6283/7657

Welch, Gillian and David Rawlings. 2001. “Everything is Free.” Time (The Revelator). Acony Records.