Large language models are increasing demand for high‑quality training corpora, yet scholarly publishing lacks scalable and legitimacy‑preserving mechanisms for governing the inclusion of research articles in training datasets. Back‑catalogue agreements concluded without transparent governance can damage trust, while retroactive opt‑in campaigns impose high transaction costs and uncertain uptake. This article proposes the ‘Third Option’: a post‑acceptance, opt‑in addendum in which authors authorize defined artificial intelligence (AI) training uses of the accepted article in exchange for an author‑facing benefit. The addendum is designed to be choice‑expanding and editorially independent, and to operate across publishing models, including diamond open access journals that do not charge article processing charges. Its value is not limited to copyright permission: it can bundle provenance metadata, rights hygiene for third‑party content, dataset documentation, versioning and contractual assurances on permitted uses and auditability. The author defines withdrawal semantics as future‑only exclusion from subsequent dataset releases, while acknowledging the practical limits of machine unlearning. This article formalizes five propositions, addresses key objections and outlines a methods‑style evaluation protocol for empirical testing.
Open access (OA) monograph publishing is becoming increasingly important as new funder mandates - including UKRI's long-form OA policy - bring books and chapters into scope for compliance. For institutions, the challenge is not only financial but also strategic: how to engage with a rapidly evolving set of business models that vary in cost, transparency and sustainability. This case study describes how the Bodleian Libraries at the University of Oxford developed a structured workflow to assess and support OA monograph initiatives. Beginning as a one-year pilot project and now moving into 'business as usual', the work combined horizon scanning, evidence-based evaluation and collaborative decision-making across library committees. A key output was the development of an open monograph scheme evaluation form, providing consistency and transparency in decision-making. The study highlights both the benefits and limitations of different OA models, the tensions around funding and the lessons learned for building sustainable support. It offers practical insights for other libraries navigating similar challenges.
The current academic publishing system faces many well-identified issues. Not only is it slow and costly, but it is also an opaque system that produces a substantial amount of non-reproducible results. Peer Community In (PCI) is a non-profit organization that allows research communities to organize the open and free peer review of preprints on different thematic platforms. The authors of preprints that are recommended by these platforms can then choose to submit them to any journal or to Peer Community Journal (PCJ), a diamond open access journal, which publishes any and only PCI-recommended preprints. Because PCI follows the highest standards for evaluations and openness, many institutions and journals publicly recognize PCI-recommended preprints as being of similar value to accepted journal articles. This two-step process hence decouples the evaluation of research articles from their publication, while offering a free open access publication venue for its recommended preprints. Doing so allows researchers to reappropriate the publishing system, and the increasing number of submissions, publications and communities shows a growing demand for such alternative publishing models. Ongoing developments aim to further increase the robustness and reproducibility of published research via increasing requirements and checks at submission and promoting the use of registered reports.
This case study provides an in-role reflection by the Graduate Engagement Leads for Open Research at the University of York. It uses the methodologies of reflection in practice and reflection-on-the-future to explore the challenges, such as gaps in provision and knowledge between different disciplines, and opportunities, such as instigating new initiatives, that the Leads have faced. The case study integrates personal reflections on how the role has changed the Leads’ outlooks and knowledge of open research, and how they hope to promote an open research culture in their professional and academic work. It also reflects on the anticipated future impacts of the role, such as through updating online resources for training and advocacy, as well as reflecting on how the role has influenced our approach to open research. Through reflecting on the role, it is hoped that this case study might provide a model for how PhD candidates working in open research and scholarly communications library teams can promote open research communities of practice and help to ensure their longevity.
