{"id":8317,"date":"2026-10-27T03:08:03","date_gmt":"2026-10-27T03:08:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/?p=8317"},"modified":"2026-10-27T06:35:52","modified_gmt":"2026-10-27T06:35:52","slug":"paradise-lost-knowledge-regained-jan-erik-frantsvag-on-reclaiming-open-access-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/2026\/10\/27\/paradise-lost-knowledge-regained-jan-erik-frantsvag-on-reclaiming-open-access-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Paradise Lost, Knowledge Regained: Jan Erik Frantsv\u00e5g on reclaiming open access (Part 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>In the second part of this interview,<\/em> <strong><em>Jan Erik Frantsv\u00e5g<\/em><\/strong> <em>discusses the vital community-building role of smaller society journals and the ongoing need for institutional support in diamond open access publishing. He also examines the continued dominance of commercial publishers, the flaws of academic rankings and impact factors, and the disruptive potential of artificial intelligence on scholarly communication.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Scholarly communities<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I think the community function of a journal is often underestimated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Large commercial journals serve important purposes, but smaller journals frequently play a very different role. They&#8217;re not simply publication venues. They become meeting places for scholarly communities. That is particularly true in the humanities and social sciences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A small journal allows scholars to communicate with one another, discuss developments in their field, and maintain a sense of disciplinary identity. In many ways, the journal becomes a focal point for the community itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In medicine, where there are millions of researchers worldwide, publishing is often about visibility, reputation and career progression. In many humanities disciplines, publishing is much more directly connected to communication within a specific scholarly community.The subject areas can be incredibly specialised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For example, one of the journals we publish focuses on reindeer research (<a href=\"https:\/\/septentrio.uit.no\/index.php\/rangifer\/about\">Rangifer<\/a>). It&#8217;s effectively the world&#8217;s leading journal in its field and attracts authors, reviewers and readers from across the Northern Hemisphere.<\/p>\n\n\n<style>.kb-image8317_6ff573-03.kb-image-is-ratio-size, .kb-image8317_6ff573-03 .kb-image-is-ratio-size{max-width:330px;width:100%;}.wp-block-kadence-column > .kt-inside-inner-col > .kb-image8317_6ff573-03.kb-image-is-ratio-size, .wp-block-kadence-column > .kt-inside-inner-col > .kb-image8317_6ff573-03 .kb-image-is-ratio-size{align-self:unset;}.kb-image8317_6ff573-03 figure{max-width:330px;}.kb-image8317_6ff573-03 .image-is-svg, .kb-image8317_6ff573-03 .image-is-svg img{width:100%;}.kb-image8317_6ff573-03 .kb-image-has-overlay:after{opacity:0.3;}<\/style>\n<div class=\"wp-block-kadence-image kb-image8317_6ff573-03\"><figure class=\"alignright size-full\"><img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"524\" height=\"392\" src=\"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/images.jpg\" alt=\" Image: Rangifer, Journal logo\" class=\"kb-img wp-image-8323\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/images.jpg 524w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/images-300x224.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/images-16x12.jpg 16w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 524px) 100vw, 524px\" \/><figcaption>                  <strong>Image: Rangifer, Journal logo<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There are similar examples everywhere. These journals play an important role because they connect people who share highly specialised interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That makes them very different from major commercial journals. Those journals may publish excellent research, but they don&#8217;t necessarily function as communities in the same way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It&#8217;s also important when we talk about scholarly societies. People often speak about &#8220;society journals&#8221; as though they are all the same, but there are significant differences between large and small scholarly societies. Large societies, particularly some of the major North American organisations, often derive substantial revenue from publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Smaller societies, especially in the humanities and social sciences, are very different. They don&#8217;t exist because of publishing revenue. They publish because serving their community is central to their purpose. Their journal is an expression of why the society exists in the first place. These societies invest money in publishing rather than extracting money from it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I remember a <a href=\"https:\/\/dash.harvard.edu\/entities\/publication\/73120378-8bc8-6bd4-e053-0100007fdf3b\">study<\/a> (by Peter Suber and Caroline Sutton) that identified over 500 society journals, most within DOAJ.&nbsp; What interested me about that work was how many journals were tied to formal or informal scholarly communities. That community connection is often a significant factor in a journal&#8217;s success and longevity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Looking back on thirty years of open access<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Looking back on nearly thirty years of involvement with open access, what surprises you most about the way it has developed?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When we started talking seriously about open access in 2006, many researchers had never heard the term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When I wrote that report back in 1995, the phrase &#8220;open access&#8221; didn&#8217;t even exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The idea existed. The practice existed. But we didn&#8217;t have the terminology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There were already scholars experimenting with making research freely available online. Internet-based journals were emerging. Most of them were simple HTML publications because PDF was either new or not widely used and before HTML, protocols like FTP and Gopher were used to share content between scholars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The concept was there, but it didn&#8217;t yet have a name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>What surprises me most is not that open access has become mainstream but that so much money still flows to commercial publishers. The amount universities collectively spend on subscriptions and article processing charges could fund an enormous amount of community-owned publishing infrastructure. If universities redirected those resources toward scholar-led publishing initiatives, we could build systems with excellent technical standards while spending considerably less money overall.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Returning Publishing to Scholarly Institutions<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I often think about how scholarly publishing functioned before the commercial consolidation that gained strength in the 1970s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Before then, publishing was largely regarded as the responsibility of scholarly institutions, universities and learned societies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Those organisations would contract commercial providers to print journals, distribute them or provide technical services. But ownership and responsibility remained with the scholarly community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Over time, commercial publishers gained increasing control over scholarly communication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I think we need to reverse that trend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Universities, scholarly societies and research communities should once again take responsibility for publishing. Commercial organisations can absolutely provide services. Many of them are very good at what they do. But they should be service providers rather than owners. We should purchase the expertise we need while retaining ownership and control of the scholarly record.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The content belongs to the scholarly community. The decisions about how that content is disseminated should also belong to the scholarly community. Universities need to be willing to take responsibility for that. They need to align their spending with their stated values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As I often say, they need to put their money where their mouth is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Rankings and research assessment<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The problem is that the ranking culture is deeply embedded.<\/p>\n\n\n<style>.kb-image8317_177dfe-df.kb-image-is-ratio-size, .kb-image8317_177dfe-df .kb-image-is-ratio-size{max-width:494px;width:100%;}.wp-block-kadence-column > .kt-inside-inner-col > .kb-image8317_177dfe-df.kb-image-is-ratio-size, .wp-block-kadence-column > .kt-inside-inner-col > .kb-image8317_177dfe-df .kb-image-is-ratio-size{align-self:unset;}.kb-image8317_177dfe-df figure{max-width:494px;}.kb-image8317_177dfe-df .image-is-svg, .kb-image8317_177dfe-df .image-is-svg img{width:100%;}.kb-image8317_177dfe-df .kb-image-has-overlay:after{opacity:0.3;}<\/style>\n<div class=\"wp-block-kadence-image kb-image8317_177dfe-df\"><figure class=\"aligncenter size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"768\" src=\"http:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tromsdalstinden-1024x768.jpeg\" alt=\" View of Tromsdalstinden, Mountain in Troms\u00f8, Norway\" class=\"kb-img wp-image-8341\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tromsdalstinden-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tromsdalstinden-300x225.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tromsdalstinden-768x576.jpeg 768w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tromsdalstinden-1536x1153.jpeg 1536w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tromsdalstinden-2048x1537.jpeg 2048w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Tromsdalstinden-16x12.jpeg 16w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><figcaption><strong>Photo: View of Tromsdalstinden, Mountain in Troms\u00f8, Norway (Photo by Jan Erik used with permission) <\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Universities like to announce when their rankings improve. They are less enthusiastic when the rankings fall. Everyone likes seeing evidence that they have improved. But I think we often fail to ask a more important question: what exactly are these rankings measuring? And is that measurement actually relevant?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We know from decades of scholarly research that impact factors have significant limitations. There is extensive literature explaining why impact factors should not be used to evaluate the quality of individual researchers, individual articles or entire disciplines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Yet institutions continue to rely on them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That&#8217;s the paradox.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>We are scholarly institutions that often ignore the scholarly evidence when making decisions about research assessment. If we genuinely value evidence-based decision-making, we should pay attention to what the bibliometric literature tells us about the limitations of these measures. Instead, we continue to misuse them.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We often talk about rankings as though they are objective measures of quality, but very rarely do we stop to ask what they&#8217;re actually measuring.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The same is true of journal rankings and impact factors. We know there are serious problems with using impact factors as measures of research quality. The evidence has been there for decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When I was a student in the 1970s, nobody talked about impact factors. My professors had never heard of them, and I still received an excellent education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Then, around 1990, a Norwegian researcher, a professor of oncology who also became internationally recognised in bibliometrics, published a number of influential papers demonstrating why the impact factor should not be used as a measure of quality in the ways people were beginning to use it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The limitations have been documented extensively in the scholarly literature. And yet institutions continue to use impact factors to make decisions about careers, funding and research evaluation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That&#8217;s what I find so strange.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We are scholarly institutions. We claim to value evidence. Yet when it comes to research assessment, we often ignore what the scholarly literature actually says. If we genuinely wanted to behave as scholars, we would pay attention to the evidence regarding the measures we use. Instead, we continue to abuse indicators that we know are flawed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That is one of the great paradoxes of modern academia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Looking to the future<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Let&#8217;s turn that around then. What gives you optimism about the future of scholarly communication?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At the moment, I&#8217;m not sure optimism is the right word.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">What concerns me most right now is artificial intelligence. I worry that we&#8217;re approaching a period of significant disruption, perhaps even a collapse of some parts of the existing scholarly communication system. That sounds dramatic, but today&#8217;s system has many dysfunctions already, and artificial intelligence is amplifying some of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We still need scholarly communication. We still need certification, validation and quality control. But I suspect the systems we use for those purposes may change dramatically. If a collapse comes, I hope that something better emerges from it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In that sense, I suppose I&#8217;m hoping for an afterlife for scholarly communication rather than feeling optimistic about its current condition. Artificial intelligence is the major uncertainty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Without it, I could imagine a future where more universities recognise their responsibility to support publishing directly. More institutions might decide to invest in community-owned publishing infrastructure and sustainable open access models. AI makes that future less predictable.<\/p>\n\n\n<style>.kb-image8317_bcbe25-e5.kb-image-is-ratio-size, .kb-image8317_bcbe25-e5 .kb-image-is-ratio-size{max-width:510px;width:100%;}.wp-block-kadence-column > .kt-inside-inner-col > .kb-image8317_bcbe25-e5.kb-image-is-ratio-size, .wp-block-kadence-column > .kt-inside-inner-col > .kb-image8317_bcbe25-e5 .kb-image-is-ratio-size{align-self:unset;}.kb-image8317_bcbe25-e5 figure{max-width:510px;}.kb-image8317_bcbe25-e5 .image-is-svg, .kb-image8317_bcbe25-e5 .image-is-svg img{width:100%;}.kb-image8317_bcbe25-e5 .kb-image-has-overlay:after{opacity:0.3;}<\/style>\n<div class=\"wp-block-kadence-image kb-image8317_bcbe25-e5\"><figure class=\"alignright size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"653\" src=\"http:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Shelfie2-1024x653.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"kb-img wp-image-8344\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Shelfie2-1024x653.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Shelfie2-300x191.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Shelfie2-768x490.jpg 768w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Shelfie2-1536x980.jpg 1536w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Shelfie2-18x12.jpg 18w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Shelfie2.jpg 1803w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><figcaption><strong>Image: Jan Erik&#8217;s &#8220;shelfie&#8221; &#8211; background image during interview and as he describes: \u201cWhence I came, where I\u2019ll return\u201d<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>APCs and Diamond open access<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Do you think APCs still have a role to play?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Yes, actually, I do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I know that&#8217;s sometimes considered a controversial position among open access advocates, but I&#8217;ve never been completely opposed to article processing charges. My concern isn&#8217;t that APCs exist. My concern is how large they have become and how much profit they often generate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In principle, APCs can be a mechanism for sharing publishing costs among institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Diamond open access faces a different challenge. With diamond publishing, the institution supporting the journal often bears the costs, while the benefits are distributed globally. Everyone gains from the journal, but one organisation pays the bill. That&#8217;s a version of the classic &#8220;tragedy of the commons&#8221; problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">APCs, if managed responsibly, can spread costs more evenly across the system. The important thing is that they must remain reasonable. They should reflect actual publishing costs rather than excessive profit margins. And there must always be robust waiver systems so that researchers from less well-funded institutions and countries are not excluded from publishing. Done properly, APCs can support equity rather than undermine it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The real issue is not whether APCs exist. The decisive factor is whether universities are willing to invest in scholarly publishing at all. The future of scholarly communication depends largely on institutional willingness to support it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>DOAJ, trust and quality assurance<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>One of DOAJ&#8217;s major contributions has been improving trust in open access publishing. Despite that, myths about open access and predatory publishing still persist. Is there more that DOAJ can do?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I think everyone needs to understand why DOAJ matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I&#8217;ve heard journal editors say, &#8220;We&#8217;re not interested in spending resources on DOAJ. We want to focus on getting into Scopus or Web of Science.&#8221; I think that perspective misses the point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">DOAJ can be a stepping stone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Inclusion in DOAJ increases visibility. Greater visibility can improve discoverability, readership and recognition. All of those things can strengthen a journal&#8217;s case for inclusion in databases such as Scopus or Web of Science. If your goal is indexing in those databases, that&#8217;s perfectly reasonable. But I still think DOAJ should be the first step.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I think DOAJ is already doing a very good job when it comes to quality assurance. For example, the <a href=\"https:\/\/kanalregister.hkdir.no\/en\">Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers<\/a> uses DOAJ as an important source of information when evaluating journals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">DOAJ has established itself as a trusted and respected part of the scholarly infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There were challenges in the early years. Around 2014, DOAJ undertook its major reapplication process, which raised standards considerably. I <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/publications7030045\">analysed<\/a> that process in one of my studies. My conclusion was that while many journals were rightly removed, there were also journals that disappeared simply because they lacked the resources to complete the reapplication process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That, again, highlights one of the central challenges facing diamond journals. Many are small. Many are under-resourced. Some struggle to complete even straightforward administrative tasks because they have so few people involved. Importantly, many of those journals showed no signs of predatory behaviour or poor scholarly quality. They simply lacked administrative capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That remains an important issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Misconceptions about open access<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7557\/11.6395\">challenge<\/a> is that myths tend to survive much longer than facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">I remember the early years of open access when some traditional publishers actively promoted the idea that open access was inherently lower quality than subscription publishing. That claim has always been nonsense, but it has proved remarkably persistent. Even today, you still see examples of misunderstanding in scholarly literature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Peter Suber is very good at drawing attention to these issues. One example that repeatedly appears is the assumption that open access automatically means APC-funded publishing. There was a peer-reviewed article not long ago that simply assumed open access and APC publishing were synonymous. That should never have made it through peer review. If an author wants to study APC-funded journals specifically, that&#8217;s completely legitimate. But they should say so. They should acknowledge that there are many other forms of open access publishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The problem arises when researchers write as though APC publishing is the only open access model that exists. At that point, you have to ask: where were the reviewers? Where were the editors? Did nobody involved understand the wider open access landscape?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Open access includes diamond journals, institutional publishing, society publishing, repository-based models, and many other approaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Reducing all of that diversity to APC publishing creates a distorted picture of reality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Is there a future for Open Access?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There is most definitely a future for Open. There is no rationale for science in supporting Toll Access, barriered or closed science &#8211; that goes against the very nature of science. There might be some rationale for payments, but that is not rooted in the interests of science. We need, though, to solve the problems of the commons.<\/p>\n\n\n<style>.kb-image8317_3ee6ce-7c .kb-image-has-overlay:after{opacity:0.3;}<\/style>\n<div class=\"wp-block-kadence-image kb-image8317_3ee6ce-7c\"><figure class=\"alignleft size-medium\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" src=\"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Jan-Erik-Utrecht_OCT2014-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"Photo: Jan Erik Frantsv\u00e5g\" class=\"kb-img wp-image-8326\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Jan-Erik-Utrecht_OCT2014-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Jan-Erik-Utrecht_OCT2014-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Jan-Erik-Utrecht_OCT2014-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Jan-Erik-Utrecht_OCT2014-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Jan-Erik-Utrecht_OCT2014-2048x1366.jpg 2048w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Jan-Erik-Utrecht_OCT2014-18x12.jpg 18w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><figcaption><strong>Photo:<\/strong> <strong>Jan Erik Frantsv\u00e5g<\/strong> <strong>(photo credit to Frans Sellies)<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Houghton reports, for those who remember that far back (see e.g., <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/08109021003676359\">The economic implications of alternative publishing models<\/a>, Houghton &amp; Oppenheim) showed that the main impact of open access would not be to save money for libraries, but that society\u2019s return on investment in science would increase due to earlier and wider uptake of scientific results. And openness is also a value that is in tune with the values of science, and helps science work well. We cannot continue a system where \u201csome people have found a way to graft a new and efficient money making device on the communication system of science\u201d, to quote Jean-Claude Gu\u00e9don in \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.arl.org\/resources\/in-oldenburgs-long-shadow\/\">In Oldenburg\u2019s Long Shadow<\/a>\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">How the future system will look is more difficult to forecast. We will need open data, and open texts, for the foreseeable future. But will we need journals? \u2013 probably, but more as nuclei of scholarly societies\/groupings, and signallers of quality. Publishers, as in large commercial entities, are what we probably can do without. But only by taking on that role ourselves, as scholarly institutions.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em><strong>The interview was transcribed and subsequently reviewed by both the interviewer and Jan Erik, who worked collaboratively to enhance the clarity, readability, and flow of the discussion. DOAJ is grateful to Jan Erik for providing early photographs for inclusion, and all images are reproduced with kind permission. <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>In<\/em>  <em><a href=\"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/2026\/10\/12\/paradise-lost-knowledge-regained-jan-erik-frantsvag-on-reclaiming-open-access-part-1\/\">Part 1<\/a> Jan Erik asserts that universities must invest in community-owned publishing infrastructure rather than relying heavily on commercial publishers and article processing charges.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n<style>.kb-image8317_1d7923-07 .kb-image-has-overlay:after{opacity:0.3;}<\/style>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-kadence-image kb-image8317_1d7923-07 size-large\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"237\" src=\"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Context-Box_-Blog-Posts_Footer-5-1024x237.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"kb-img wp-image-7930\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Context-Box_-Blog-Posts_Footer-5-1024x237.png 1024w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Context-Box_-Blog-Posts_Footer-5-300x69.png 300w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Context-Box_-Blog-Posts_Footer-5-768x178.png 768w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Context-Box_-Blog-Posts_Footer-5-1536x355.png 1536w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Context-Box_-Blog-Posts_Footer-5-18x4.png 18w, https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Context-Box_-Blog-Posts_Footer-5.png 1881w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the second part of this interview, Jan Erik Frantsv\u00e5g discusses the vital community-building role of smaller society journals and the ongoing need for institutional support in diamond open access publishing. He also examines the continued dominance of commercial publishers, the flaws of academic rankings and impact factors, and the disruptive potential of artificial intelligence&#8230;<\/p>","protected":false},"author":378,"featured_media":5594,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"yes","_kadence_starter_templates_imported_post":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[615,1285],"tags":[1284,175,1240,1322,506],"class_list":["post-8317","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-guest-post","category-research-and-data","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-diamond","tag-guest-post","tag-rankings","tag-sustainability"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8317","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/378"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8317"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8317\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8358,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8317\/revisions\/8358"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5594"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8317"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8317"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8317"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}