New university press toolkit

Why start a new university press?

There are lots of reasons to start a university press. This section looks at common drivers, such as support for the dissemination of research, engagement with the wider open access agenda, and helping academics meet funder requirements as these increasingly include open access publication.

Another driver is the growing need to evolve the publishing ecology to make academic publishing sustainable for publishers, academics and institutions given the growing costs of resources and tightening institutional budgets.

About university presses

University presses have traditionally been, and continue to be, central to academic publishing. Some of the largest and oldest publishing houses are university presses, and publishing with a university press is seen as evidence of the quality of that scholarship.

New university presses aim to bring the same level of quality and academic rigour, but offer different publishing models designed to disseminate the scholarly content as widely as possible. There are a range of drivers (Lockett & Speicher, 2016) that can lead an institution to form its own university press and, usually, more than one will be relevant. Direct support for scholarly publishing ties into many related goals as universities increasingly engage with core values.

Challenging the traditional publishing ecology

One of the drivers behind the first wave of new university and academic presses was the growing dissatisfaction with the traditional publishing model. This is still relevant as the costs of content for libraries from commercial presses continue to rise steeply with institutions now having to make hard choices about which resources to invest in.

Combatting high licensing costs

In particular, the shift to digital has seen high licensing costs and expensive package deals, which limit what libraries can offer.

It can be frustrating when the author of publicly funded research or research from within an institution chooses to publish with a commercial press and therefore makes their research inaccessible due to paywalls. University presses – especially those who operate an open access model – offer an alternative to this.

Avoiding the paywall barrier

There are a range of open access funding and revenue models in use among the new university presses and established non-profit university presses that have been launched over the last ten years, all providing digital content without paywall barriers (Penier et al., 2020).

The challenge this has brought to the traditional publishing model has resulted in a change of thinking and practice among some academic communities. Institutions that share these goals and values have recognised the advantages of being part of this discussion and supporting change through founding their own university press.

Increasing academic choice

A further issue with the traditional publishing structure is the increasing lack of choice and diversity.

Over time, mergers and buyouts have seen a reduction in the number of publishers, with many becoming imprints of larger publishing houses. This limits academics choice in terms of where they publish, especially for monographs in less commercially viable disciplines.

In terms of publishing open access monographs, the funds for an institution to pay for book processing charges (BPCs) to publish with a commercial publisher are often limited. Establishing an open access university press of its own can be seen as a more beneficial model.

Institutions that support their own university press increase the diversity of the publishing environment, and create new publishing opportunities. In some places, academics have led the push to create a local university press. For example, academics from the universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York reported a lack of appropriate and high-quality publication venues, which led the libraries to found White Rose University Press (WRUP).

Elsewhere, the drive has come from libraries or from senior management at the institution supporting a wider open scholarship mission.

Supporting the wider scholarly communications agenda

Some institutions feel that a university press links to the wider mission of advancing the scholarly communications agenda. Particularly with open access presses, the link to supporting open research and open data are clear.

It also increases the capability of the institution to support academics through the scholarly communications landscape, with first-hand experience of the publishing process. This can be especially valuable for early career researchers (ECRs), exposing them to the often-opaque mechanics and timescales involved in scholarly publishing, and in particular giving them an insight into the peer review process (Barake & Welsby, 2021).

Publishing with a university press could enable ECRs the opportunity to make connections with editors and other academics, as well as giving them first-hand experience of peer feedback and how that might inform and improve their own work.

The growth of demonstrable in-house library expertise around open access licensing, the support needed for academics looking to better understand and engage with open access, and how open access publishing works in practice is very valuable. Rightly or wrongly, academics often see information coming from a publisher as having more authority. Establishing a university press can help to bring a different perspective to the research office or library.

Dissemination of scholarship and support for its reuse

An institution may set up a university press to support the dissemination of research and academic content via a publisher that shares institutional ethics and values.

Depending on policy, this could be focused on the academic content of that institution, or across academia more broadly. It brings control of what is in scope and worth commissioning within the institution, and decisions may be made using different criteria than the traditional commercial model uses.

Open access presses are not driven by sales targets, so they are able to commission based on academic quality alone, making it possible to publish more specialist works. Depending on the business model used, the lack of paywall means an institution can use its open access press to publish high-quality scholarship, supported by peer review, adoption of publishing ethics and other quality measures, available to all. For example, academics in institutions with low library collection budgets, policy makers and practitioners, as well as globally by increasing the diversity of readers, particularly in low-middle income countries (Springer Nature, 2020).

It also allows the interested public to access scholarship first hand, through citizen science projects, for example. This is very important in terms of outreach and engagement at a time when universities need to demonstrate clearly their value to wider society. Indeed, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of making scholarship open access was demonstrated. However, many of the resources that were made open access during the widespread library closures are now back behind paywalls.

Reputation and identity

An institution may decide to start a university press because of the benefits this brings to its reputation and also the demonstrable global visibility for, and usage of, its research when made openly available (KU Research, 20165 Springer Nature, 2020).

It shows the institution is invested in engaging with the wider academic community, expanding its remit to include different ways of disseminating content in ways that speak to its core values. Having a university press can demonstrate commitment to supporting the institution’s academic community, which can help attract academics to roles and distinguish a university from other similar institutions.

Engage with research funder policies

(This section was adapted from Ball, et al. (2021) under a CC BY 4.0 licence.)

While this is not a reason in itself to start a new university press, funder policies increasingly require open access dissemination of content.

This began with journal articles and is most clearly articulated by the ten principles of Plan S (pdf). The focus is now shifting to include scholarly monographs, edited collections and book chapters.

Early adopters include Austria, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the Wellcome Trust in the UK and the Swedish Research Council's intent to extend its policy to monographs and book chapters at a future date. In 2020 the Dutch Research Council (NWO) announced its renewed policy for open access monographs together with a funding scheme. In 2021, a new monographs-inclusive policy from UK Research and Innovation and cOAlition S guidelines on their policy regarding open access monographs (pdf) will be launched.

In anticipation of further funder policy announcements, a Knowledge Exchange conference paper gave a call to action for libraries, publishers and funders to support open access for books.

These are just some of the reasons why universities look to start their own presses. A good starting point is engaging with the advantages an open access press can bring to the institution and the ways in which it can strengthen its activities. A university press with a different publishing model can support academics to publish open access and help them meet funder requirements, although this does come with significant commitments to invest in resources and operational costs.

Planning

Set the goals for the press

When setting the goals of the press, it is important to consider the mission statement and aims. This should outline:

• Who the press will publish (all academics, UK and international, or academics from the local institution only)
• What to publish (specific disciplines important to the institution, or all subject areas which receive submissions like UCL Press)
• The type of work to be published (monographs, edited collections, textbooks, journals, policy briefs of reports or a combination)
• The publishing mode and format to be implemented (open access, paid for, static publications in the form of print, or living digital publications, or a combination)
• The financial model publications will work with (including subsidy from the parent institution or other partner(s), support through income from sales, offsetting against other paid for services the press can provide, or a mixed portfolio of income streams, also how many staff are needed to deliver these plans)
• Goals or considerations for growth and scale (how many books/journals does the institution want the press to publish per year? How many can it sustain?)

An example is the goals of the University of Westminster Press.

Creating a mission statement

The importance of a clear mission statement linked to specific aims and goals will support the commissioning of publications by the press. This helps to shape the future identity of the press.

Essentially, the mission statement and aims provide the backbone to the business plan and strategy. These should be set for a minimum of five years, with specific targets outlined within the plan. It should clarify not only how the works will be funded initially, but the scalability of the model and how this will be sustained over time. Planning also needs to take into account how any success will be evaluated.

Publishing is a long-term investment and planning should be flexible enough to accommodate varying and often unforeseen changes to publication timescales. These can range from one year or less (if in receipt of a short, straightforward manuscript that receives positive peer reviews) to extending into several years (if a work requires substantial editorial support, further revision or review, or an intensive copyedit or design).

The 2016 Ithaka S+R report (pdf) provides an insight into the varying publishing timescales of 382 publications by 20 US academic presses, which inevitably impacts the costs, targets and overall business plan of a press.

Setting realistic time frames

Fundamental to the planning of a press is the recognition that it takes time for a new press to establish itself amongst its peers, to attract authors and solicit submissions, and to demonstrate to their parent institution a return on investment. It is important in the planning stage to identify what the institution's desired return on investment is and what the measures of success are. This will enable the institution and the press to know whether they are achieving what they set out to do and to recognise and address issues quickly should they arise.

It is therefore imperative that the press is given long-term internal support by its institution beyond the initial first phase, with realistic time frames for set-up, commissioning, production, marketing and analysis taken into account. This then leads into the second five year plan and hopefully the growth and success of the press.

Establish a business/revenue model

(Part of this section was adapted from Penier et al. (2020) under a CC BY 4.0 licence.)

The press will need to establish its business or revenue model, regardless of whether it seeks to make a surplus or not. The 2020 report from the COPIM project makes a distinction between the two terms. Business models account for all costs, including staffing overheads etc (discussed below).

A revenue model refers to the means of generating income within a business model. The report is an extensive guide to revenue models for monograph publishers. It describes a number of revenue models that are particularly pertinent for New University Presses. The report goes on to perform a SWOT analysis of the models. The first two (below) are just as applicable to journals as monographs.

Costs

Costs of production and publishing are a much debated topic. However, widely quoted research (Maron et al., 2016) does not clearly indicate the affordable production options now available via online platforms, service providers, nor the options available for groups of authors or institutions with some publishing expertise.

Potential costs you need to consider

New university presses need to consider the following potential costs and overheads, whether handled internally or with external providers:

• Commissioning
• Peer review placement and process management
• Metadata creation
• Proofreading, copyediting, indexing; editorial checking of these
• Illustration and permission fees (or work to ensure such is avoided)
• Typesetting, file creation for digital and print formats
• Cover design or template; other design elements if demanded
• Printing, storage and distribution (if providing printed copies of published works)
• Hosting costs/and or work with existing platform
• Direct overheads or expenditure covering eg sales, distribution, marketing, author liaison
• Finance processing
• Governance
• Contracts and administration

In addition, there are indirect overheads or savings (according to how they are accounted), such as:

• Rent
• Salaries
• IT services
• Website costs and software
• Maintenance costs: heating, lighting, photocopying, stationery, postage, office supplies (desks, chairs, phones, computers)
• Travel and expenses of staff to attend events or training
• Subscriptions to industry organisations and publications
• Finance processing costs (such as bank charges, currency conversion fees, audit costs)

Staffing costs

It is possible to share job roles and functions within a library publishing setting or to benefit from academics in scholar-led settings familiar with (for instance) copyediting practice. For example, many digital first ventures, either as a workaround or as part of a strategy of building capacity, share tasks across a wider pool of library and academic staff.

However, it has not been unusual to assume incorrectly at the start of the publishing venture that no formal staff time needs to be allocated to overseeing the publishing workflow, before discovering otherwise.

Publishers themselves point to the high costs of "curation" and handling, but overheads can take a variety of forms all of them involving time, some of which might formally need to be accounted for forming an entire job description or parts of several roles. Many new university presses in Europe have staffing levels that do not exceed 1-1.5 FTE (Taylor, 2019), whereas larger operations vary and usually have more dedicated publishing staff. However, there are external providers that can absorb some of the roles, at a cost (see platforms and publishing services).

Terms of reference

Ultimately, the question of costs returns to the terms of reference set up for a new press. What does it set out to achieve and are resources sufficient for these aims? For a "flash" or one-off project, working with an external provider would likely be more beneficial, unless this is also seen as an experiment or pilot. Building capacity and researcher capability around scholarly communications and open access would require more investment over the long term. A considered process around budgeting titles individually or as a list, overseen by a designated person (or people) would help to build scale and sustain momentum that might otherwise easily be lost.

Setting up the press

Establish a governance structure

A good governance structure is essential, and needs to be considered from the start. It needs to work for the specifics of an individual press and the requirements of the host institution, and will not necessarily be the same for all presses. 

Press boards are key to the smooth functioning and growth of a press in a variety of ways. Boards benefit from terms of reference that can define the way they work and the areas of responsibility and membership (including length of terms of service etc). For example, the terms of reference for UCL Press (2014) are as follows:

1. The UCL Press Board shall be constituted as a Working Group of UCL Library Committee
2. The Board is to be chaired by the Vice-Provost (Research) or their deputy
3. The Board will formulate medium-and long-term policy and strategy for the UCL Press
4. The Board will keep under review developments in publishing, particularly in respect of university presses and campus-based publishing activities
5. The Board will identify strategies for funding and staffing to enable developments along the directions identified in the clauses above
6. The Board will act as an advocate for UCL Press to prospective authors in UCL and to the wider community of scholars outside UCL
7. The Board will oversee the budget and fundraising activities of UCL Press
8. The Board will make regular reports, and submit its Minutes, to UCL Library Committee

Choose a platform

The publishing platform a press chooses will depend largely on its aims and scope and a particular provider's offer. A minimum requirement is a website, platform or hosting service to display books and journals, to describe the press and provide resources, and link to the download or copies for sale.

There are a range of options available, including both commercial and open source.

Choose a publishing service

While the platform provides infrastructure to support the publication, the press will need to consider how it will undertake the full publishing workflow, and which aspects it will undertake in-house and which it will outsource. There are very few suppliers who provide services for the entire end-to-end workflow.

However, it is not necessarily desirable that a press outsources everything - certain parts of the workflow are very particular to a press' mission, such as commissioning (including peer review) and marketing. Most presses would therefore want these to be undertaken in-house. Creation of metadata may also be provided by the library. In general, the publication workflow for both books and journals includes the following areas, which have also been used to create this toolkit. 

Publishing services include:

• Setup, administration and general support
  Processes and specifications for the set-up, administration and support of publishing services
• Commissioning
  The procedures and processes offered around author submission, calls for papers, the peer review process, author contracts and post-contract author support
• Editorial and production
  The processes offered in the production process including copy-editing, design and typesetting, proofing, indexing, cover design, metadata and format creation and electronic and print publication
• Dissemination
  Publication activity such as library and discovery service integration, sales channels (for print books), abstracting and indexing, dissemination to external open access and other publishing platforms
• Preservation
  The approach to digital preservation of published outputs
• Marketing
  Marketing activities, such as social media, mailing lists, and book reviews
• Analytics
  Methods of reporting on usage, sales and other metrics as citations and altmetrics

Finally, before engaging in the procurement of a publishing platform, it is important to brief the institution's own procurement department in order to understand internal procurement rules. Any invitation to tender should be very clear about which of the processes listed above are in or out of the procurement process.

Attracting authors to your press

When taking the decision to set up a new university press, a key question to consider is how to attract authors to publish with the new press. Given the extensive range of alternative publishing options, many of them long-established and well known, why should an author decide to take the leap of faith and publish with a new press that is essentially an unknown entity? This section tackles key questions about common open access misconceptions, areas for legitimate concern, what authors are looking for in a press and how a new press can quickly establish those essential qualities that will reassure and appeal to authors. 

Open access myth-busting

This section on myth-busting was adapted from Collins et al. (2013; 2015) and Deville et al. (2019) under a CC BY 4.0 licence and from the OAPEN open access books toolkit (2020a,b,c) with permission from Open Access Publishing in European Networks.

It is important to dispel a number of myths and address some legitimate concerns around open access. The issues below have all been raised in recent open access workshops and discussions and are questions that all open access publishers will face.

How to attract authors to publish with your new university press

During the planning stages, more immediate and tangible considerations such as budget, staffing, governance, operations and platform choice are more likely to be at the forefront of people's minds. The question "why would an author publish with us?" could easily be overlooked. However, it is perhaps the most important question of all.

The considerable time and expense that will be involved in setting up a press will need to deliver a healthy flow of new publications in order to justify the initial investment and fulfil the press' mission. This does not mean that the press needs to compete against other publishers. Creating prestige (for this is what often attracts authors) is more about the professionalism of the press and its place as a real open access alternative to traditional publishers. However, simply offering open access, possibly funded by the institution, is by no means the only thing that matters to authors. 

The snowball effect

With all this in place, the first publications are building blocks. The press can promote their success - hopefully, they will get reviews and will attract strong download figures, and a press' published authors can become its greatest advocates. If their experience of publishing has been positive, they will hopefully recommend the press to colleagues and come back with their next book.

As the body of publishing grows, and other authors see that quality books are being well received and are attracting attention, interest and confidence in publishing with the press should increase. Hopefully, the press will be rewarded with a snowball effect of interested authors.

Publishing journals

Many new university presses publish open access journals, using models ranging from offering hosting services to providing full publishing services. It is important for any new press to ensure that its journals operate transparent and constructive processes. This is usually the responsibility of the editor-in-chief and the editorial board, while the publisher has the responsibility for overseeing that this is undertaken in line with agreed policies and with a rigorous and measurable approach.

Models for journal publishing

The models for journal publishing can vary significantly from one organisation to another. It can involve a basic level of support by the university library, such as the provision of a hosting and publishing platform along with publishing advice. In such cases, the university library does not necessarily name itself as the university press.

For other presses, the model can extend to a full publishing service where the publisher provides editorial and production services and marketing, and sometimes wider support to the editor-in-chief (EiC) and the editorial board. In these cases, the press applies its imprint. The choice will depend on the institution's mission and requirements.

Where the press offers a full publishing service, the key activities will involve supporting and encouraging the EiC and the board with a range of matters including admin, agreeing strategic plans, monitoring performance, editorial and production services and marketing.

While the majority of the work involved in driving and evaluating submissions and undertaking peer review will be done by the EiC and the board, the publisher's role is important in supporting these activities and in the overall development of the journal to help ensure its quality and reputation. These respective responsibilities should be captured in a contract but, as with book publishing, it is generally a very collaborative process.

Some presses have a dedicated journals manager when their portfolio grows to a significant enough size to warrant dedicated staff, for many presses this is another role for the press manager.

Journal governance

This section on editorial boards was adapted from University of Stockholm Press (2020) under a CC BY 4.0 licence.

A journal editorial board serves to oversee the strategy, development and quality of a journal. The journal editor-in-chief leads the journal and appoints and chairs the editorial board. The editorial board (including institutional affiliations of all members) is a requirement of the Directory of Open Access Journals and many indexing databases. Boards usually hold regular meetings during the course of the academic year, often attended by a representative from the press.

Contracts for authors and editors

This contracts for authors and editors section was adapted from Stone (2017). The original article was licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence. However, the author has waived permission allowing this work to be licensed under a CC BY licence.

It is important for a press wishing to publish open access journals to enter into an agreement with both article authors and journal editors. This ensures that both parties have agreed their areas of responsibility.

Acquiring content for a new journal

Acquiring content for a new journal is usually the responsibility of the editor-in-chief (EiC), depending on the division of responsibility between the journal and the publisher outlined in the editors agreement.

The question of how an EiC and the board plan to secure new content for a journal is usually probed in the initial new journal proposal to the press. A proposal from a prospective EiC should provide details about the board, the networks they will work with to promote the journal, and the strategies that will be employed to secure new submissions. Such a proposal should be subject to review by independent peer reviewers and by the press' editorial board, to ensure that it is credible and achievable before deciding to commit to publishing the journal.

Taking on a journal is a long-term commitment, and it is in the interests of the press that they take the necessary steps to evaluate a journal’s potential before committing to publishing it in the long term.

Ongoing management to support journal health

Once a press has taken the decision to publish a journal, it will need to establish protocols to review the ongoing development of the journal to ensure that it is actively publishing high-quality content on a regular basis. This can be ensured by the press agreeing long-term development plans with the EiC and reviewing these on a regular basis alongside agreed measures of success to ensure that the journal is active and is publishing to agreed standards.

The journal development plans need to articulate the goals of the journal and put in place measures to track the journal's activity and address any issues arising with the EiC and the Editorial Board. Even for an open access title where the press is not reliant on income from the journal, it still needs to ensure that the journal is healthy and active in order to justify the investment and uphold the reputation and mission of the press. Inclusion in some indexes also requires a demonstration of the journal's regular publishing activity.

Practical implementation steps for ensuring and monitoring a journal's health on an ongoing basis include:

• Creating journal development plans with the journal EiC, to cover submission strategies and promotion, target audiences, and other strategies to drive submissions such as special themed issues
• Making sure the press works with the EiC to ensure that the journal is publishing new content on a regular basis and to agreed standards
• Making sure the press participates in editorial board meetings, to review submission levels and engagement and to address any issues
• Ensuring the press can undertake direct engagement with editorial board members to encourage and support their direct commissioning activity and collaborate to address any specific challenges the board is experiencing
• Taking agreed steps to address any issues of low submission levels. These can include reviewing the scope of the journal, reviewing the promotion of the journal and target audiences for calls for papers, exploring different avenues for securing content such as conference outputs, special themed issues, bringing additional board members in to cover particular subject/geographic areas

Creating a transparent peer review and quality process

One of the best ways to show that a journal follows a transparent peer review/quality process is to follow the guidelines at the Directory of Open Access Journals. A transparent peer review process is a requirement for inclusion in DOAJ.

Indexing and best practice

Even if the press does not intend to submit the journal to DOAJ (although this will improve discoverability), their guidelines outline best practice. For example, be clear about the type of peer-review used, and make sure that there is a clear description of which method is used, and who in the editorial board is involved in which part of the process.

Types of peer reviews

Responsibility for the peer review process usually falls in the remit of the EiC. The publisher is responsible for checking that the process is operating well.

There are a number of different types of peer review and quality processes, including:

• Editorial review - where an article is reviewed by the journal's editor. This is likely to apply to arts and humanities journals where two editors review an article in place of a peer review
• Blind peer review - where the identity of the reviewers is not known to the author
• Double blind peer review - where the author's identity is also not known by the reviewers
• Open peer review - related to the open science agenda and can mean that the identities of the reviewer and/or author are known to the other party. It can also mean that the reviewer publishes their report alongside the published article. The reviewer role could also include non-invited reviewers. It can mean all of these as well
• Student peer review - if you have a student journal and plan to allow students to conduct peer review, it is recommended that you also have an academic advisory board to oversee operations

Other peer review practices to consider

In addition, the press should ensure that there are sound editorial practices behind the peer review process. For example, guidelines for editors on how to handle issues.

Also, the press can opt to use a submission system to track and maintain an archive of each manuscript's history and the decisions made. This could be part of the chosen publishing system or a simple spreadsheet.

Another quality stamp is membership of COPE, the forum for editors and publishers of peer-reviewed scholarly journals. COPE offers guidance and advice on all aspects of publication ethics. By signing up to COPE, a press is showing that it intends to apply the principles of publication ethics outlined in the Core Practices (2017). Presses should ensure that their journal editorial boards and peer reviewers are aware of these practices and that authors are asked to confirm that they will conform to the practices when signing a licence to publish.

Publishing books

Commissioning processes

Different commissioning strategies and approaches are needed at various stages of a press' development. At the outset, the focus will need to be on promoting the launch of the new press and encouraging submissions. As the press develops and gains visibility, authors start to send unsolicited submissions, especially if they can see other publications building up in their discipline. The focus of the commissioning activity of the press should be guided by the press' agreed strategy. 

The commissioning editor role will be referred to throughout this section. For many presses, this is just one of the many hats that a press manager will wear. The role undertakes proactive commissioning, seeking authors to write in the areas covered by the press' title list, as well as:

• Evaluating new proposals
• Placing proposals and manuscripts for peer review
• Presenting proposals and reviews to the editorial board
• Negotiating contracts
• Monitoring manuscript submission
• Checking manuscripts on delivery and preparing them for handover to production
• Managing the forward programme of contracted publications

Peer review processes

The press’s peer review process and policy should be displayed on the press website for transparency. Indeed, OAPEN and some other industry membership organisations require a press to describe their peer review process on their website and will review the policy before they accept to host or list open access books. Furthermore, clear statements on the press’s publication ethics or links to COPE core practices should also be provided. COPE refers to journal publishing but the concepts are transferable. 

The OPERAS Certification service is offered to publishers who have registered with Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB). The certification service is based on a review of three elements:

• The publisher's peer review process
• The licensing policy
• The information on the publisher's website

Agreeing a contract with an author

This author contracts section was adapted from and from the OAPEN open access books toolkit with permission from OAPEN.

Upon acceptance of a book proposal and after positive peer review, the press will need to agree to a contract with the author/editor. For book chapters in edited collections, this could be as simple as a variation of the Licence to Publish (LtP) for journal articles, or a longer contract for a single author scholarly monograph. A standard publication for author contracts is Clark's Publishing Agreements: a book of precedents, which provides templates for publishers to use and adapt. However, the contract should include a number of points to ensure that the work is fully open access.

The contract should:

• Give the press the right to first publication
• Copyright should remain with the author(s). The author retains his/her copyright and licenses specific rights, including publication rights, to the publisher. Alternatively, the author can assign copyright to the publisher provided that the work is made freely available for further distribution under the terms of an open licence
• The work should be published under an open licence, typically a Creative Commons (CC) licence. The press may have a preference for the licence under which open access books are published, but legally this is a decision for the copyright holder (at this point you may want to refer them to the OAPEN toolkit section on CC licences. If the author is obliged by a funder or institution to make the work openly available, the agreement should conform to the requirements set out in its open access policy. This may include a provision for the type of Creative Commons licence that can be used
• If there is any fee for publication, this should be mentioned in the contract
• In addition, any payment of royalties (for example for print sales) should be covered in the contract

By licensing the work openly and by allowing copyright to remain with the author, the press enables the author to have the exclusive right to make copies of the work; sell or otherwise distribute the work; prepare adaptations (eg audio editions, movie adaptations, and translations); and perform or display the work publicly. The press has the right to first publication.

Please note that a different licence and reuse rights may apply to third-party material contained in the work.

Working with an author 

Clear communication with the author is key. Once the author contract has been issued, the commissioning editor continues to be the main point of contact with the author while they are writing and preparing the manuscript. This can involve guiding the author, answering queries and giving feedback about general presentation, editorial guidelines and any questions about third party permissions. An encouraging, supportive, honest and constructive approach will help to build trust and a strong relationship with the author, and will enable the collaboration and responsiveness that are needed during the book development and evaluation process. 

Preparing and delivering the final manuscript

It's important to keep in touch with the author about their anticipated manuscript delivery date and whether they are on track to meet it.

It is not always possible for authors to meet their original delivery dates, commissioning editors negotiate with authors over new dates, reviewing the "forward publishing programme" (a programme of commissioned and potential books, often two-three years ahead, which is essential for planning purposes) to see how any delays can be accommodated.

When the manuscript is delivered by the author, it needs to be evaluated by the commissioning editor before being sent for peer review. Points to note are whether:

• The manuscript has been delivered to the word count originally agreed at the proposal stage and in the contract
• It follows the same outline, structure and content as the original proposal
• All the components have been delivered

They will also start the work of checking that all permissions have been cleared correctly. The manuscript will then be sent for peer review together with the original reports and author responses.

The anonymised reviewers report will be shared with the author, and the commissioning editor will check that the author implements the reviewer's comments. If the comments and suggestions are light, these can usually be checked by the commissioning editor. If the reviewer suggested the need for substantial revision, the revised manuscript might be sent back to the reviewer to check that the revisions have been successfully incorporated. 

Production

Having strong production processes in place is essential to ensure that content is produced in a timely fashion, to high standards and within a reasonable budget. This includes use of third-party material under a CC licence subject to the content owner's agreement. This section also describes the main formats and options for a press and its chosen routes for dissemination. The section mostly refers to books, but the values are transferable to journals, particularly the final sub-section.

Editorial and production processes

Once a manuscript has been peer reviewed and all revisions finalised and approved, it is ready to move into production.

The responsibilities of the author in preparing the manuscript, such as following a house style and clearing permission for the use of any third-party texts or images should be captured as part of the book proposal process and published on the website for reference.

They should also be captured in the author contract along with the anticipated word count and number of images. This helps to ensure that the manuscript is in the best possible shape when it is delivered.

The production manager or managing editor role is responsible for overseeing the production of books through the different stages, including liaising with the author, appointing and briefing freelancers and other suppliers, drawing up the schedule and ensuring that the book stays on track, quality control and managing the budget.

Once again, this might be another role that a press manager and supporting staff in a small scale press need to adopt during the publication process.

Using third-party copyright

This using third party copyright section was adapted from Collins et al. (2013) under a CC BY 4.0 licence.

Third party permissions need to be signed off at the production stage. One of the most important points to make about third-party copyright in open access publications, such as the use of images, is that they do not need to have the same licence as the published work. It is a commonly held belief by many authors that this is the case and is simply not true.

Publishing formats: online and print

Different file formats are required for different publication channels:

Dissemination

Part of this section on metadata was adapted from Stone et al. (2020) under a CC BY 4.0 licence.

The importance of metadata

Metadata has been referred to as a "standards jungle" (Bull & Quimby, 2016). However, good metadata is a cornerstone to discoverability and effective linking to a wider network of relevant material. Bad metadata will result in publications being lost in the noise.

Metadata can include:

• Bibliographic information
  Such as author(s), title, abstract, publication date, ISBN/ISSN etc
• Enriched data
  Such as cover images and chapter abstracts
• Persistent identifiers (PIDs)
  Such as Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID) and Digital Object Identifiers (DOI)

However, a minimum set of requirements is yet to be agreed. Metadata and discovery is being explored by the Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM) project, which will undoubtedly assist presses as the project evolves.

To understand more about the importance of metadata, Gregg et al. (2019) provide an excellent overview of issues in their literature review. These include the challenges, opportunities and gaps for metadata for various stakeholders in the scholarly communications supply chain, such as publishers, service providers, platforms and tools, researchers, funders, librarians, data curators and repositories.

In addition, a 2018 workshop (Stone, 2018) including key stakeholders from NUPs, academic-led presses, book suppliers and distributors, metadata suppliers, libraries and other experts in open access publishing tried to surface some of these issues. The workshop identified a number of themes, which are explored in this section.

Using platforms and indexes to aid discoverability

Ensuring that your open access content is submitted to key indexing services and distributed to the main external platforms where libraries and readers are likely to seek them, is essential in aiding discoverability.

Most publishers, both open and traditional, disseminate their content through a range of different channels in order to ensure that they are visible to readers. For open access, there are a number of well-established channels, some of them dedicated open access platforms and others that host a range of paywalled and open content.

Sales channels

It may seem counterintuitive to have a section on the sale of print copies in a toolkit for open access presses - it's unlikely print copies of a journal will be produced, let alone sold. However, for books, print is still the preferred format for many researchers. It is also a valuable source of additional income for open access presses.

Unlike traditional publishers whose revenue model is based on sales, open access presses have often covered their costs before publication. This allows them to set the pricing point for print sales well below that of traditional commercial publishers.

Printing of books can be undertaken as:

• Short print runs of 30-40 copies (which are warehoused and subsequently topped up by smaller print orders or print on demand
• Only print on demand from the outset

Libraries and the supply chain

Part of this libraries in the supply chain section was adapted from articles by Stone (2018), Deville et al. (2019) and Ball et al. (2021) under a CC BY 4.0 licence

While open access publishing can aid discovery and dissemination of journals and books, one of the issues that still persists for open access presses is entry into the library supply chain - the channels that library acquisition departments use to buy print and e-book content.

Discovery of journals is less of an issue if the press is able to get its titles approved by the Directory of Open Access Journals, as titles are then picked up via library discovery systems and Google.

However, getting open access books into the library supply chain is more of a challenge. The supply chain still follows a print driven workflow. E-books are available, but the system has an issue dealing with zero-priced material and open access licences and is generally designed to lock down, not open up books (Watkinson et al., 2017).

There is also little incentive for commercial intermediaries at the centre of the supply chain to make a free or open access version of a book available to libraries who may buy the print copy (Grimme et al., 2019, p11). This might result in a library acquisitions department not knowing of the existence of its own press' open access content if library supplier databases are used solely for acquisition (Barake & Welsby, 2021).

Mapping the library supply chain

There have been a number of attempts at mapping the scholarly communication lifecycle. However, it is more difficult and complicated than it first appears.

A good start is the typical book supply chain below:

Cultural change in the acquisitions process

Libraries have played an important role in facilitating the transition to open scholarship within their institutions. They provide advocacy, advice and support for funder open access policies, develop research data management and open scholarship services, and now support open access publishing. However, open access is not embedded into the culture, workflows and practices that form the book acquisition process. 

Another area that an open access press can work on within the library is in checking whether the library has open access embedded into its collection management and development policy. Many now have a digital first policy, but do not have an open first policy.

An example of best practice is Imperial College. See also Emery, Stone & McCracken for advice on how to get open into the policy (2019, page 20). This will start to shift the culture of the library towards one of open access.

However, in the meantime, make sure that library acquisition teams and subject liaison (or teaching and learning and research teams) are fully up to date with the press' catalogue and that they are helping to disseminate output, as well as recruiting potential authors and editors. 

Preservation

This section has adapted text published in Emery et al. (2020) under a CC BY-NC 4.0 licence. Thanks also to Dr Gareth Cole, research data manager at Loughborough University for advice on this section.

There are a number of options for preserving the output of a new university press, but many of these come at a substantial cost. This is an emerging area and a number of projects are investigating more cost effective, open source alternatives.

Why preserving published work is important

It is important to consider what the press wishes to preserve and why.

At present, presses will probably have to outsource preservation requirements, which will almost certainly incur costs. It is also important to note that an institutional repository is not a preservation system.

Most importantly, preservation is not one action - it is an ongoing suite of activity and needs to be considered at an early stage in the publication workflow.

Authors should be engaged with so that some risks can be mitigated at an early stage. There may be issues with third-party material that need consideration. There will also be link rot, which will affect any embedded hypertext links in a publication.

Options for open access presses

There are a number of options for open access presses who want to implement preservation policies. When considering a journal's preservation policy, it might be useful to check which publishers have an existing preservation policy through the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) - publishers with an archiving policy in place have a green tick next to their names.

DOAJ lists the following digital archiving policies in its application form for new members:

• CINES
• CLOCKSS
• LOCKSS
• PKP Preservation Network
• PMC/Europe PMC/PMC Canada
• Portico

See a list of digital preservation initiatives on Wikipedia for further information and links.

The 2017 landscape study of UK new university presses (Adema & Stone, 2017, pdf) found that those presses that did have a preservation policy used either LOCKSS, CLOCKSS or Portico.

LOCKSS is active in support of OA publishing and participation in the Global LOCKSS Network is free for open access publishers. However, LOCKSS are accepting very few publishers due to demand for preservation from paywalled publishers.

There are other options, one of which is the work being performed to help preserve Open Journal Systems (OJS) and insure that open content will remain open even through preservation (Sprout & Jordan, 2018).

Options for monographs

Regarding monographs, preservation policies do not form part of the application process for the Directory of Open Access Books. However, there is a digital preservation policy for open access monograph publishers who upload their content to OAPEN who collaborate with Portico for digital preservation. This covers presses that use publishing platforms, such as Ubiquity Press, which deposit books at OAPEN. Presses can also preserve their book and journal content directly with Portico for an annual fee.

The above options are limited due to availability and cost implications, particularly for books. To this end, the Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM) project has commenced a work package on archiving and preservation for digital monographs. This includes the following deliverables:

• Technical methods for effectively archiving complex digital research publications and for creating an integrated collection of content in different formats
• A pilot case archiving a subset of ScholarLed publications in at least two different locations
• A model which enables the expansion and uptake of the methods by other presses and libraries
• Recommendations for best practice around legal and copyright issues that complicate effective archiving of complex digital research publications (COPIM, 20208)

Initial workshops have confirmed that there is no "silver bullet" for preservation and it is good practice to preserve as much as possible in as many places as possible, eg the Internet Archive (see also Newbold, 2020). One of the initial findings was that preservation should be considered as part of the dissemination process. It is basically another way for readers to find content. It is hoped that this part of the COPIM project will deliver affordable solutions for open access monographs over the next two to three years.

Marketing

Marketing the books and journals the press publishes is important to ensure publications are seen by their intended audiences and communities. There are a number of ways to raise visibility and reach the target audience, many of which are inexpensive, but they will usually require some human resource, skills and knowledge to implement the marketing effectively. A press' marketing strategy will guide the press and be informed by its planned activities, desired outcomes, stage of development and agreed measures of success.

Create a clear marketing strategy

A clear marketing strategy is important to the success of any press. It defines the overall direction and goals, is likely to cover a number of years, and should be strongly aligned to the strategy of the press. Marketing plans are then created to detail the tactics that will be used to execute the strategy, normally focusing on the year ahead.

The strategy should capture both the marketing of the press as an entity, as well the ways in which it will promote individual titles and authors. It should define the purposes of the marketing for the range of activities and audiences, identify the press' unique offerings and the benefits of its services, and detail the key audiences that should be targeted. 

Stakeholders at the institution will usually be keen to understand how the press and its activities will be promoted, especially if the press has been established to deliver institutional strategies and is receiving institutional subsidies. Sharing marketing strategies at an early stage and ensuring buy-in at the institution is therefore an important factor in ensuring all stakeholders are working towards a commonly understood goal, with appropriate plans to support its implementation. 

What to cover in your marketing strategy

The marketing strategy impacts the way the press is run, and requires input from all stakeholders and members of the team.

Ideally it will fulfil a number of wide ranging functions and should:

• ​Describe the press, its lists and products
• Articulate positioning in the market, ethos and goals, and the role of press publications
• Understand the competition
• Identify key audiences and other presses who will also be targeting them
• Detail the tactics that will be used (therefore allowing the pess to write plans that flesh this out) to achieve goals and reach intended audiences
• Understand author expectations and have a clear course of action and rationale for the press' chosen strategy
• Align strategy to operational plans - the volume of outputs, the budget available, and the resources needed to implement the marketing plans

Create a marketing plan

Marketing plans, at both press and title level, are a practical way to focus dissemination efforts and ensure that resources linked to these are focused and measurable. They need to cover the intended audiences and the channels to reach them, as these will vary depending on the intended activity.

However, due to limited staffing in many new university presses, dedicated marketing staff are rare. There are a number of alternative options to consider including:

• Minimum marketing plans (boiling activities down to the bare essentials)
• Working with marketing teams at the institution
• Ensuring authors are undertaking their own promotion
• Hiring external third-party marketing providers
• Using interns

The extent to which a press employs these different approaches needs to be tailored to its size and goals. For presses publishing a handful of titles per year, outsourcing and drawing on institutional support would clearly be more effective than having a dedicated member of staff. A press publishing a larger number of titles per annum will reach a stage where dedicated in-house staff are likely to deliver the best all-round, consistent marketing strategy.

Many marketing activities are relatively inexpensive or even free to undertake, but do require staff resources for implementation and author liaison. There are a number of ways of doing this depending on the size of the press and varying budgets and goals.

Using social media

It is common for publishers to use social media as a key tool to promote activities and publications. When harnessed correctly, it can be a powerful tool to engage with key audiences. Social media can also provide publishers and authors with feedback from readers and provide opportunities to collaborate and engage when used appropriately. 

As with all marketing activities, having a clear sense of what the aims and objectives are is important. Social media activities should be guided by the marketing strategy and plan.

• At press level: social media can be used to announce plans, successes, calls for proposals, events and industry developments
• At title level: new titles can be announced, or older ones can be re-promoted, especially if there is an anniversary or event that they are relevant to or if there are book reviews and other accolades. This can support authors' activities

Print marketing

Print marketing still has a place in the marketing mix for academic books and journals, and can be useful when circumstances permit. Print materials commonly include flyers, brochures, business cards and catalogues, although their creation and production can be labour and cost-intensive.

Run email campaigns

In a world of social media dominance, email campaigns can still produce results - particularly for publishers who have new content to promote on a regular basis.

Email campaigns rely on building up lists of recipients who have signed up to receive promotional information from the press, or on renting lists. In order to undertake email marketing successfully, there are a number of issues to be aware of:

Impact and evaluation

Measuring impact will depend on the range of outputs being published, the funding of the press and the point at which the press finds itself.

Measuring impact

Roemer and Borchardt (2015) divide measuring impact into levels. These could include individual publications, different formats, disciplines, individual authors, edited series, journal titles etc. It could also include the value of the distribution of knowledge outside academia, such as citizen impact (Tanner, 2018). So the value of metrics may be different depending on these groups and the aim of the evaluation (Wennström et al., 2019).

Measuring impact also depends on the aims of the press, its business model and the type of outputs published. A number of measures are required to provide a balanced view.

Metrics should be treated with caution. "High impact" in some areas, such as altmetrics, are not necessarily a portent of high impact in other metrics. For example, in a data sample from Stockholm University Press it was observed that "there is no clear evidence about a relationship between high altmetric scores and high citation numbers. There was, however, a correlation between the number of downloads and citations" (Wennström et al., 2019).

Usage data

Part of this usage data section was adapted from Wennström et al. (2019) under a CC BY 4.0 licence.

Usage, whether measured in print sales or as digital download statistics is an essential form of evaluation for a press.

It's also important to be able to inform authors of the potential impact of their work. It can assist a press to evaluate which of its chosen dissemination platforms are most effective, and whether different dissemination platforms are reaching different audiences and/or different parts of the world.

Measuring publications across multiple platforms

The very nature of open access means that a publication may be available on a number of different platforms - some more difficult to trace than others. However, it should be possible for presses to obtain usage statistics from platforms where publishing or distribution agreements through third party vendors are in place.

Examples of usage analysis include:

• Research by Montgomery et al. (2017, pdf), where a detailed analysis of open access e-book usage at JSTOR was performed
• Stockholm University Press (SUP) where usage was analysed at OAPEN and the SUP publisher platform hosted by Ubiquity Press (Wennström et al., 2019)

Open access publications will also be available at many authors' institutional repositories. The Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE) indexes publications deposited in institutional repositories, academic collections and other similar resources, as long as a DOI is used. CORE is another resource to track down material available in repositories. However, not all repositories will keep usage statistics.

Furthermore, this does not account for all usage, (ie academics own web pages or their academia.edu and Researchgate profiles), but it will give some indication of the impact of a publication. SUP found that the majority of usage came from their own platform, which might not be surprising given that this is where the DOI resolves. However, UCL Press found that having their titles on JSTOR dramatically increased usage.

Measuring and comparing different outputs

Not all usage is measured in the same way. Some platforms are COUNTER compliant so data can be compared like for like. However, other platforms are not.

If in any doubt, always refer to the list of compliant publishers and platforms at COUNTER.

Repositories that use the IRUS-UK service will also keep COUNTER compliant statistics. This includes the majority of UK repositories, as well many repositories in Australia, New Zealand and most recently a pilot in the United States. Other repositories may also display usage data. There is also a difference between output (eg journal issues and articles; or books and book chapters).

For transparency, a press should list on its website:

• The platforms it uses and from which the data is derived
• The format in which they host the content
• Whether the individual platforms are COUNTER compliant or not

Additionally, multiple authors and editors have the opportunity to upload their work to multiple platforms and repositories. Chapter level DOIs will help to track usage in repositories (see more on metadata). Therefore, it is not surprising to see that SUP recorded higher usage for edited works than for single author monographs.

However, the accuracy of audited COUNTER reports may not be required in order to demonstrate the value of the press. A download, like a print purchase, is not a guarantee that something has been read.

Using non-traditional metrics

Part of this non-traditional metrics section was adapted from Emery et al. (2019) under a CC BY-NC 4.0 licence and Wennström et al. (2019) under a CC BY 4.0 licence.

A number of non-traditional metrics have emerged in recent years.

Tools regularly used by respondents

Taken from (Gadd and Rowlands, 2018).

• Scopus - 78.6%
• Google Scholar - 78.6%
• Web of Science - 69.0%
• Altmetric - 64.3%
• SciVal - 59.5%
• Publish or Perish - 33.3%
• Plum Analytics - 23.8%
• Dimensions - 23.8%
• Microsoft Academic - 21.4%
• InCites - 16.7%
• Kudos - 14.3%
• ImpactStory - 14.3%
• Other - 11.9%

As many of these metrics are still relatively immature, they can be open to misunderstanding and misrepresentation (Wilsdon, 2015). However, this does not mean that they are of no use. Used with caution (like any metric), non-traditional bibliometrics can greatly enhance evaluation of a press' publications.

Using Altmetric data

Perhaps the most recognisable non-traditional metric is the Altmetric donut. Described as complementary to citation-based metrics, Altmetric is a useful way to understand and evaluate the impact of a publication through social media as well as media coverage.

To a certain extent, resources such as altmetrics rely on self-marketing by the author to make sure that their article or book is read by their peers or the wider scholarly community. If authors participate to promote the book via social media themselves and/or the activities of the press contribute, then non-traditional bibliometrics could be a measure of how a publication was received by the network of researchers in a particular field of research - as long as they too use social media to communicate.

Once again, these bibliometrics are also reliant on good quality metadata, mostly importantly a DOI.

Citations

Part of this citations section was adapted from Wennström et al. (2019) under a CC BY 4.0 licence

The number of citations attributed to a research output is often used as a proxy to quantify the impact and value of scholarly publications. Indeed, open access content has a tendency to attract citations at a faster rate than paywalled content (Ottaviani, 2016). However, this depends on the format (journal vs book) and the discipline (arts, humanities and social sciences often display lower citation rates than science).

Citation databases are often based on a selection of sources, and unless the press’s publications are indexed by resources such as Scopus and Web of Science, citations to these publications will not appear within them.

The major issue with citations, especially for start-up journals and disciplines in the arts, humanities and social sciences in particular are that they take time to build up. Getting publications indexed in the major citation indexes can take years. However, many of the major commercial publishers' journals are not indexed. It is still possible to find references to some publications. For example:

• Dimensions (Hook et al., 2018) indexes and tracks data from OA sources
• Crossref also tracks citations and references between publications with DOIs
• Google Scholar tracks citations to all sources that they have classified as scholarly literature, although these references may come from any source, such as conference presentations etc

Although Google Scholar includes a wide catchment of sources, it is perhaps the most appropriate to use at the start.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) launched in April 2017, is "a collaboration between scholarly publishers, researchers, and other interested parties to promote the unrestricted availability of scholarly citation data" and is one to watch in the future.

Share evaluation and feedback with authors

It is vital that the press engages with its authors after publication. One such way is to report back on evaluation and feedback. The ability of the press to market an author's work is one of the things that attracts authors to publish in the first place. A robust marketing strategy and plan will also involve feedback to the author. Good feedback from the press based on metrics, evaluation and marketing feedback may create a virtuous circle by encouraging the authors to come back and to pass on positive feedback to colleagues.

Authors may not be aware of the newer forms of evaluation, such as Altmetrics (Wennström, 2019). Therefore, feeding back to authors will create awareness that authors can receive beyond traditional print sales and citations. This is particularly important for the press as it is the authors themselves who often drive this form of metrics through self-promotion of their own work.

Measuring the success of the press

To finish this toolkit, we asked each of the contributors to comment on what they saw as a measure of success for a press.

UCL Press

"For UCL Press, there are multiple measures of success that are reviewed in combination on a regular basis for different purposes.

"The key quantitative measure is the number of downloads and their global spread, which helps to evaluate how and where readers are using books and journals, to ensure that the Press is delivering its open access mission as well as other strategic priorities of the institution. Other measures include: the number and quality of proposals received, author and editor feedback, book reviews, social media and website engagement, and outreach activities.

"From this, UCL Press can build up a picture of global impact, reception and engagement that helps to inform strategies and activities."

–Lara Spiecher, UCL Press

Liverpool University Press

"Success at Liverpool University Press (LUP) is measured in various ways.
"As a non-subsidised, mission-based press, the aim to break even each year with any surplus passed to the University of Liverpool for reinvestment into academia is the main one as this ensures our viability and longevity.

"However, at LUP success is also measured through the impact of its publications (reviews, awards, citations, downloads), the engagement of authors (the number of submissions received, whether LUP is an author's first choice publisher, the number of returning authors, and author feedback) and the external partnerships developed (which reflects on how peers and the industry view LUP).

"All of this contributes to the reputation of the press, which is the most important indicator of success, especially as the University of Liverpool's name is carried on everything LUP does. It is important to remember when considering how success is measured that this should align with the overall mission statement and business plan of the press.

"Not all successes are visible on a balance sheet and it is therefore important to measure what is valued. For more information on a value-enacted approach, see HuMetricsHSS."

–Alison Welsby, Liverpool University Press

White Rose University Press

"White Rose University Press (WRUP) was initially set up to test the possibilities of library-led, open access publishing as part of White Rose Libraries wider commitment to open research and scholarship.

"As an early example of a new University Press, our initial measure of success was to prove our model was both attractive to academics and researchers, and robust enough to lead to concrete outputs.

"We wanted to demonstrate that a new press of this type could commission and produce high-quality, open access research publications that would be well received and well-used. We've met these initial goals, having established robust governance structures; peer review, editorial and production processes; and having built a strong relationship with our production partner.

"To date, we have published eight open access monograph volumes, with more monograph commissions in process, and support five research journals. Our first monographs (a two volume set) have now passed 35,000 combined views and downloads.

"As we move into our next stage of development, WRUP is looking at setting new success measures around increasing our numbers of publications and sustainability, while maintaining quality and our ability to build close, supportive relationships with authors and editors."

–Kate Petherbridge, White Rose University Press

About this toolkit

In 2017, Jisc's landscape report on new university presses (NUPs) and academic-led publishing (pdf) showed 19 NUPs in existence with a further eight planning to launch by 20211. This number has fluctuated due to the nature of many of these presses (some only publish one or two titles), but at the launch of this toolkit there are at least 17 new university presses operating in the UK, with others in the pipeline.

Funder policies surrounding open access have also led to a revival in university presses in the UK and overseas. In particular, cOAlition S and developing policies at UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and Research England have moved the discussion on open access from one that primarily included academic advocates and libraries to something considered at research office and vice-chancellor level.

Jisc's report found that many of these presses were operating with a low number of staff dedicated to the running of the press. Many consist of 1-1.5 full-time equivalent (FTE), which means that staff are often trying to cover a number of roles. Furthermore, the report established that many existing presses, or those investigating their own press, wanted advice and guidance for the following: governance and structure; licensing and contracts; financial best practice; peer review; distribution and dissemination; statistics; preservation and marketing.

How this toolkit is governed

To enable continuous updates and to ensure quality, the toolkit is governed by an editorial advisory board consisting of experts in open access (OA) publishing in the UK and mainland Europe.

Our editorial advisory board:

• Eelco Ferwerda, independent consultant
• Tom Grady, Birbeck, University of London
• Andrew Lockett, University of Westminster Press
• Kate Petherbridge, White Rose University Press
• Lara Speicher, UCL Press
• Graham Stone, Jisc
• Megan Taylor, The International Bunch
• Alison Welsby, Liverpool University Press
• Sofie Wennström, Stockholm University Press

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editorial advisory board for their time, writing, editing, and supporting knowledge, which has created this toolkit. In addition, we would like to thank Jaimee Biggins, Ian Caswell and Alison Fox of UCL Press for their contributions, particularly to the marketing section, and Dr Gareth Cole, research data manager at Loughborough University for advice on the section on preservation. Thanks are also due to colleagues at Jisc; Lindsay Roberston, digital content editor and Melanie Allen, content designer for their hard work in copy editing, refining and building this toolkit.