In the past ten years a vibrant ecosystem of alternative publishing platforms has got emerged, often aiming to deal with some of the identified difficulties with traditional periodicals other than cost. These networks can differ by journals in lots of ways, off their disciplinary range and syndication type for the way they can be funded or governed. They can likewise disaggregate academic journal functions such as public record, editorial selection and peer review or perhaps focus on a wider variety of groundwork outcomes.

A primary reason why these kinds of platforms these are known as alternative is that they provide a different unit for contribution in the scholarly system, offering more democratic and available modes of socio-technical enterprise. They often provide alternatives towards the restrictive models of participation embodied simply by corporate systems and, therefore , are a essential part of the ongoing conversation around the right way to improve on the web democracy.

However , the term ‘alternative’ risks being seen as small and also restrictive as well as the fact that many of them new systems are based on existing code and features means that they may have a problem fitting to a definition of what is an alternative creating platform. To assist with this kind of, over the summer time 2022 Knowledge Exchange started a project that explores what these types of platforms perform and how they are often placed in the wider open scholarly connection ecosystem. The first thing was the newsletter of a scoping paper, followed by a set of questions designed to identify and better understand these types of new entrants.

This study was brought to a wide variety of organisations, both individuals who self-identified as alternative publishing networks and other research/scholarly communication stakeholders (including universities, funders and the larger research community). As such, some of the responses may not fully in shape the ‘alternative’ definition.

The responses for the questionnaire were analysed to recognize commonalities and differences in just how these new publishing platforms perform. The main getting was that most of the platforms that responded regarded themselves to get alternative and the majority of them had been not-for-profit. Yet , the major characteristics for almost all of these has not been their business or perhaps revenue version but rather their particular academic/institutional beginnings and their focus on open get, open source code, and open peer review.

Different aspects of the particular a system an alternative were identified, such as the level to which they offered a wider disciplinary scope than traditional publishers, whether they were based in submitted versions/preprints or applied open permits and so on. The findings were consolidated and the progress a visualisation prototype launched, together with the technology of an initial taxonomy.

The growth of these systems suggests that the demand for alternatives to dominant networking communities is good. However , it is important to avoid complacency. As these different platforms develop, they will experience the same difficulties when other digital technologies and it is essential that that they continue to make support services their goal. If they fail to try this, their benefit over popular sites will quickly go away.