(Macalester College, 2010, pp. 1–2)

“If no new content or issues are produced for two consecutive years, the journal will be considered to have ‘ceased publication.’ The Digital Commons Coordinator will contact the department chair/head of the department and confirm that the journal is no longer being published and appropriate notices will be placed in the Digital Commons and in the catalog record.”

(Macalester College, 2010, p. 3)

Editor agreements

If a library is hosting a journal for a professional society or other body, it is probable that the library will not need to enter directly into an agreement with the journal’s editor(s) – the society will likely have established its own expectations and agreement with the editor(s) that it selects. However, many library-published journals are created by faculty (or students) at the library’s institution, and there is no intermediary body. In these cases, when the library works directly with a journal’s editors, it is important to establish clear expectations for both the operation of the journal and for individual editorial conduct.

When crafting editor agreements, libraries must negotiate the tension between their own standards and the need for editorial independence. In the same way that libraries support intellectual freedom by advocating for access to diverse knowledge and opinions, library publishers should support intellectual freedom in the creation and publication of knowledge by respecting editors’ autonomy. It is appropriately observed that this autonomy is not “absolute” – publishers need not publish defamatory or otherwise illegal content under the aegis of intellectual freedom – but such freedom should still be vigorously protected (Wager, 2012, p. 347).

Complete examples of editor agreements are given in Glassie et al. (2012) and Owen (2010), so not every element will be covered here. However, there are several core areas that merit discussion and should be addressed in every editor agreement (Glassie et al., 2012):

As discussed in Chapter 6, an editor’s ethical responsibilities should form the foundation for his or her activities. However, in addition to expectations for appropriate conduct, an editor agreement should also outline the particular tasks that are necessary for an editor to undertake in order for a journal to function properly. These tasks could include (Glassie, 2011):

In addition to these tasks, there could also be expectations that a journal’s editor(s) provide leadership in establishing policies and procedures, supply regular reports/summaries of journal activities to the publisher, coordinate with the publisher on marketing/promotional efforts for the journal, or other responsibilities that the publisher and editor(s) agree are appropriate.

As part of the editor’s rights and responsibilities, the agreement should clearly state that the editor has the final decision related to the journal’s content, for example: “The Editor shall be solely responsible for selecting, reviewing, and approving the editorial content of the Journal” (Glassie et al., 2012, p. 113). However, with this autonomy comes responsibility for the articles that are selected and published. Therefore, in the same way that authors should be asked to provide assurances that their manuscripts are ethical and do not infringe on anyone’s rights, editors should also be required to take some responsibility for the journal’s content. For example:

The “reasonably believes or has reason to know or suspect” clause within this language is important; editors should not be held solely responsible for illegal content that they publish unknowingly. Ultimately, authors must be responsible for the content of their articles; agreements with editors should not remove or lessen this responsibility in any way.

Although all editors should be required to provide these assurances (representations and warranties) regarding the nature of the content that their journals publish, editors’ degree of liability for legal claims arising out of published content will vary depending on the nature of their relationship with the publisher. Therefore, it is important to clearly describe this relationship within the editor agreement so that both the editor and the publisher understand what will happen in the event of a legal claim. For editors who work for the same institution as the library publisher (e.g., as faculty), the relationship will likely be different than if they did not – an institution is more likely to assume at least some liability for the editors if they are employees of the institution.

The nature of the legal relationship between the editor and library publisher’s institution can be addressed in two ways: through the use of an indemnification clause (see Chapter 5) and through a description of relevant insurance coverage. If an editor is a faculty member or other employee of the library publisher’s institution, the library should strongly advocate that the editor not be required to indemnify the publisher/institution from any claims or losses related to the journal’s content. The library’s publishing services are a service of the institution, and any employees of the institution who are involved in those publishing services should be considered to be acting within the scope of their employment and should not have to indemnify their employer for their activities (assuming such activities are not reckless or malicious). On the other hand, if an editor is not an employee of the library publisher’s institution, it is possible that the institution’s legal counsel will recommend an indemnification clause, as the institution would want to be protected from the actions of editors who are not their employees. If this is the case, the library should still advocate against an indemnification clause or, at most, for a limited indemnification.

If an indemnification clause is required by the library publisher’s institution, the potential impact of the clause should be limited. One of the most effective ways to do this is by (a) limiting the indemnification to only claims that arise from a breach of the agreement by the editor and/ or (b) narrowing the scope of issues for which the editor must provide assurances (e.g., by using “reasonably believes or has reason to know” language as in the earlier example; James-Enger, 2009). In this way, the editor only has to indemnify the publisher for claims that occur because the editor has knowingly (or negligently, depending on the language of the contract) violated the terms of the agreement.

Whether or not an indemnification clause is included, libraries should also consider explicitly addressing the issue of liability insurance coverage in the editor agreement. Once again, if an editor is an employee of the library publisher’s institution, and is considered to be acting within the scope of his or her employment when editing the journal, it is likely that that activity will be covered by the institution’s insurance. However, this is largely dependent on the nature of the coverage (specific publishing coverage could be required – see Chapter 6) and whether or not the editorial activities are considered to be within the scope of employment by the institution. If an editor is not an employee of the institution, it is unlikely that he or she would be automatically covered. Regardless of whether an editor is covered by institutional insurance or not, it is reasonable to describe the coverage – or lack thereof – in the editor agreement so that the editor’s expectations are clear (Glassie et al., 2012).

Although significant attention is paid here to clarifying the legal relationship between the editor and publisher, it is possible that this will be deemed unnecessary by some institutions. For example, if the editor of a library-published journal is a faculty member at the library’s institution, the institution may simply decide to have liability for journal content shared between itself and the journal’s authors. In these cases, a legally binding agreement would likely not be executed with the editor. Instead, a nonbinding memorandum of understanding could be used to establish expectations for ethical conduct and productivity. If an editor failed to meet the expectations, internal measures could be taken, such as discontinuing publishing services for the journal.

Regardless of whether an editor agreement is a legally binding contract or not, it is important to remember that the agreement should address not only the editor’s responsibilities, but also those of the library publisher (if the agreement is legally binding, the publisher’s obligations/promises to the editor must be stated) (Black, 2012). These could include either legal obligations (e.g., for what will the publisher be liable?) or practical considerations (e.g., production and preservation responsibilities). In general, the library’s responsibilities in the agreement will likely mirror its policies that describe the scope of its publishing services. This is why it is important to develop such policies prior to entering into agreements with editors or other publishing partners.

Publishing partner agreements

When entering into a publishing partnership with a professional society or other scholarly body, the concerns are fundamentally the same as when entering directly into an agreement with a journal editor. However, there are significant differences that need to be considered, primarily related to the journal’s intellectual property and to the legal relationship between the parties. How these issues are addressed depends on whether the library is providing full publishing services or whether it is serving as a host/ publishing platform for a partner.

If a library is providing full publishing services, this means that it is performing every function outside the process of soliciting, reviewing, and selecting content for publication. Those tasks are performed by the editors, editorial board, and peer reviewers, with the editors and board selected by the society or organization that is sponsoring the journal. Alternately, if a library is serving as a host/publishing platform for a journal’s actual publisher, this means that the library is performing only limited functions. The publishing partner (society, etc.) will likely manage the production workflow (design, layout, copyediting, publication, etc.), and the library may provided value-added services related to indexing, preservation, etc.

Whether a library is providing comprehensive publishing services or simply hosting services has implications for how the journal’s intellectual property should be addressed in the publishing partnership agreement. Assuming that a library is publishing mainly (or only) open-access journals, there should be no question regarding ownership of the intellectual property in the journal articles – that should remain with the authors. However, the library must still be granted an appropriate license to allow it to perform the necessary publishing services (distribution, preservation, etc.). If the library is serving as a comprehensive publisher, this license will be granted directly by the authors through the journal’s author agreement. However, if the authors enter into their agreement with a society or other body that is the journal’s nominal publisher, then that publishing partner will need to sublicense the articles to the library. As noted in the previous chapter, if the articles are licensed under an appropriate Creative Commons license, the explicit license from the publishing partner may be technically unnecessary. However, it is helpful to clearly state who owns the journal’s content, and what uses of the articles are allowed by both the library and its publishing partner. Beyond the journal’s articles, the publishing agreement should also address the ownership of the other intellectual property in the journal (e.g., trademark rights) and associated properties such as domain names. In other words, if the publishing partnership is terminated, it should have been predetermined who will retain ownership of the journal.

While the ownership and licensing of the journal’s intellectual property is essential to address in a publishing agreement, the nature of the relationship between the partners is equally important – particularly in relation to responsibility for the journal’s content. Regardless of the scope of services that the library provides (comprehensive publishing or hosting), the library’s publishing partner will usually have control over the editorial oversight of the journal and, as such, should provide assurances regarding the nature of the content. For example:

Whereas libraries are encouraged to limit (or remove) the requirement for editors to indemnify the library and its institution from claims related to journal content, the opposite is true with publishing partners. Particularly with external organizations, there is no reason to expose the library’s institution to unnecessary risk and legal liability that could arise from the other organization’s management of a journal’s content. Seeking indemnification in this context is appropriate and recommended, as it offers protection for the library’s institution and does not place an undue burden on individual scholars (e.g., authors or editors). However, the library may also wish to consider indemnifying its partner as well, so that neither party is responsible for the other’s actions:

It should be noted that it may not be possible for library publishers to indemnify their publishing partners, due to either institution-level or state-level restrictions. For example, in some states, public institutions may not be able to enter into contracts that require them to indemnify the other party:

Regardless of whether it is possible to include an indemnification clause in its publishing agreement, the library can further limit its (institution’s) liability by also incorporating language that requires its partner to agree to not hold the library liable for damages related to technological issues with the publishing platforms or other disruptions in service (University of Massachusetts, n.d.).

Although treatment of the journal’s intellectual property and the partners’ legal relationship and respective liabilities are critical to cover within publishing agreements, they certainly don’t constitute the entirety of what must be addressed. Black (2012) provides a helpful point-by-point discussion of other considerations, and closer examination of sample agreements such as that between MPublishing and a publishing partner (University of Michigan) (http://wiki.publishing.umich.edu/Publishing_Agreements#Section_C:_Agreements_between_MPublishing_and_a_publishing_partner) and the Open Access E-Journal Hosting Agreement (University of South Florida) (http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/tlar/10/) can offer more guidance on relevant issues (as can Glassie et al., 2012). It should be noted that, as with agreements governing repository collections, either fully binding legal contracts or partially binding memoranda of understanding may be more appropriate for specific institutions or situations. For both publishing agreements and editor agreements, institutional legal counsel should be consulted to determine the best model and parameters.

Intellectual property policies

As with the intellectual property policy for an institutional repository, a journal’s policy should describe the ownership of intellectual property rights and the permissible use of intellectual property (by both authors and readers). At minimum, the policy should include:

Whether they are part of a journal’s general intellectual copyright policy, or are integrated into other content (e.g., instructions for authors), each journal should also create the following policy items:

In addition to making relevant intellectual property policies easily accessible on the journal’s website, it should also be considered best practice to place appropriate rights statements on both articles and the journal site content. This will remove any confusion as to who owns the copyright (or other rights) in the respective content.

Author agreements

A journal’s author publishing agreement should reflect the journal’s policies with regard to copyright ownership, licensing, and other intellectual property issues addressed above. Similar to a submission agreement for institutional repository content (Chapter 5), the author agreement is a legally binding contract that should address, at minimum:

The author’s right to enter into the publishing agreement, and assurances regarding the nature of the article’s content, are contained in representations and warranties. Although the content of these assurances is largely similar to that in a repository agreement, it may include language that is specific to the publishing process. For example, authors may be asked to warrant that they have disclosed all relevant conflicts of interest or that all co-authors meet the journal’s requirements for authorship.

As discussed earlier in this chapter (and in previous chapters), an indemnification clause is often used in contracts to “put teeth behind” the assurances that are sought (in this case, from an author) (McNee, 2012). Although authors should be held accountable for the content in their articles, reasonable questions exist about the utility of indemnification clauses in author agreements – not least of all, what financial damages a publisher might actually hope to recover from an individual author (Indemnity …, 2001). For library publishers that value publishing agreements that are fair to authors, advocating strongly for indemnification clauses in author agreements that are also fair should be considered best practice. The American Society of Journalists and Authors suggest the following limitations for indemnification clauses (assuming such a clause is required by legal counsel):

When drafting representations and warranties and – if required – indemnification clauses in author agreements, it is especially important for libraries to make certain that they are not placing potential liability on authors that is at odds with the library’s position on fair use. In other words, if a library publisher wants to support authors’ ability to make fair use of others’ work in their articles, the representations in the library’s author agreement should not require authors to warrant that they have received permission for all use of copyrighted material. Instead, this type of representation should be limited by using a phrase such as “as appropriate” or “for all materials the use of which the author does not reasonably believe constitutes fair use”, etc.

Although the author’s representations and warranties are a necessary element of the contract, they are primarily present as a form of insurance for the publisher. The real core of the author agreement that is absolutely critical for the publishing process is the simple exchange between author and publisher: the author gives a license (permission) for his or her article to the publisher and, in return, the publisher promises to publish and distribute the article (see Chapter 8 for a discussion of license characteristics). However, in the same way that the author’s grant of license is accompanied by additional assurances (the representations and warranties), the promise (in contractual terms, “consideration”; Glassie et al., 2012, p. 61) to publish may not be the only commitment that the publisher makes to the author. Publishers may also wish to offer other considerations to authors; for example:

Publishers may also deem it necessary to seek additional considerations from their authors beyond the license to publish. For example:

From the author’s representations to the publisher’s commitments to other considerations such as those above, the exact contents and composition of a journal’s author agreement will depend on a variety of factors – the legal context, the institutional environment, the library’s policies, the journal’s discipline, etc. For example, author agreements for law review journals may wish to include clauses that allow the publisher to edit articles prior to publication, or literary journals may want to apply a different type of Creative Commons license to published articles. Library publishers should work with legal counsel to develop a standard agreement that meets the basic requirements for a sound contract, but should also be willing to work with editors from individual journals to customize the agreements so that they make sense for each journal’s constituents.

Expectations for authors

Regardless of the topic or disciplinary focus, every journal should set the same basic expectation for authors: that they submit original work, created by them, which does not infringe on or otherwise harm another individual or entity. As discussed in an earlier chapter, this basic expectation can then be parsed into several specific requirements. These requirements have been codified most notably by scientific organizations (e.g., the International Council of Medical Journal Editors), but they are relevant for a wide range of journals. A general overview of these issues is provided in Chapter 7, so this section is limited to brief recommendations (and examples) regarding each requirement.

Authorship and contributorship. Every journal must decide what level of contribution to an article merits authorship (being listed as an author). For journals where co-authorship is common, it may be appropriate to further require that authors specify the nature of their respective contributions to an article. If the library publisher’s institution has an existing policy on authorship (e.g., Washington University, http://wustl.edu/policies/authorship.html), the library may wish simply to adapt that policy.

Prior publication. The issue of what type of prior dissemination a journal will allow and still consider a manuscript for publication varies by discipline. Basic issues to consider include whether the article is significantly different than previously shared work (e.g., a poster which was expanded upon, or a thesis that was distilled) and the breadth of the prior dissemination. If the final published article will be substantially different, or has been improved from, the previous version of the work, there should be no reason to not consider publication (assuming the work was not previously formally published).

Simultaneous submission. As noted in Chapter 7, there are arguments both for and against allowing authors to simultaneously submit a manuscript to more than one journal. The prevailing practice for most scholarly journals is to disallow it, but certain publishing and review models could be conducive to it. If a journal does decide to permit simultaneous submissions, it should require that authors disclose at least the act, if not the titles of the other journals.

Conflict of interest. Each journal should carefully define what it views as a conflict of interest, the nature/scope of conflicts that it will require authors to disclose, and the process through which that disclosure must take place.

Research/scholarly misconduct. Although relevant types of misconduct will vary depending on the journal (e.g., human subject research issues may appear in a medical journal, but not in a literary journal), there are three basic categories that should be addressed for every journal: plagiarism, falsification, and fabrication. Although the latter two are commonly associated with scientific data, they are equally possible in humanities scholarship.

Privacy and defamation. Similar to research misconduct, privacy policies will be very different across various types of journals. For journals that should be concerned about privacy (e.g., those that publish human subject research, oral histories, or medical reports), a policy that requires authors to appropriately de-identify data in their manuscripts prior to submission (not just prior to publication) is necessary. If individuals must be identified due to the nature of the manuscript, authors should be advised to ensure that they have not included any content which would infringe on the individual’s privacy or be considered defamatory.

Internal policies and procedures for journals

The core policy considerations that govern a journal’s editorial process have already been addressed in this book: editorial ethics (Chapter 6), peer review (Chapter 6), corrections and retractions (Chapter 7), and responding to authorial misconduct (Chapter 7). However, there are several related internal policies and procedures that journals should consider implementing to ensure that their ethical standards are met. These policies address issues ranging from the way submissions are recruited to retention plans for journal documentation and records.

Content recruitment. As libraries, other nonprofit organizations, and commercial publishers establish numerous new open-access journals, there will understandably be a need for content to fill those journals (setting aside for the moment the issue of journals that are started based not on demonstrated need but simply publisher initiative). While colleague-to-colleague communication is often the most effective form of promoting a new journal, journal editors and editorial boards may want to market a journal more rapidly/broadly. When deciding on a promotion strategy, it is important not to use practices that could be seen as “spamming”. As stated in the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association’s Code of Conduct, “Any direct marketing activities publishers engage in shall be appropriate and unobtrusive” (OASPA, n.d.). Library publishers should establish best practice guidelines for their journal editors that address this issue. For example:

Confirming anonymity. If a journal employs a double-blind peer review process, all editors or editorial assistants should be trained to verify that identifiable information has been removed from both manuscripts and reviewer comments prior to routing those documents to authors or reviewers. Such training should include instruction on checking not only the body of documents, but also the document properties (e.g., in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF files). The journal should also establish a policy as to whether the editor will remove any remaining identifiable information or will return the document in question to the author or reviewer (as appropriate) and request that the information be removed and the document be resubmitted.

Conflict-of-interest forms. Every journal should establish standards for and policies that require editors and reviewers to disclose potential conflicts of interest. For such policies to be meaningful, however, a journal must also appropriately document the disclosures. For editors and editorial board members, it would be appropriate to require submission of a disclosure form, which could be updated annually (or as potential new conflicts arose). Having these disclosures on file can help editors to route manuscripts appropriately (especially if editorial board members are also acting as reviewers). Because many reviewers may not be regularly involved with a journal, it is not necessary to use a formal disclosure form for them. However, language should be added to the standard review request which requires disclosure of potential conflicts as soon as a reviewer identifies them.

Accessibility and content production. As previously discussed (Chapter 6) library publishing programs need to ensure that they are producing articles, supplemental files, and other content that meets appropriate standards for accessibility. Libraries should work to develop content templates and well-documented workflows to aid in the production of articles and other materials (e.g., videos) that are accessible to the widest possible audience. If a library is hosting a journal for a publishing partner, it would be appropriate to discuss incorporating accessibility standards into the publishing agreement, as well as for the library to provide templates and workflows to any partners that are undertaking their own production activities.

Submission and publication checklists. Just as authors are expected to comply with all ethical and practical (e.g., formatting) guidelines prior to submitting manuscripts, the editorial team of a journal must be prepared to check for compliance. The use of standard checklists – either completed manually or built into editorial management software – can aid editors in this task. Ideally, a checklist should be used at the time a submission is received and then again prior to final publication. Items to include in both of these checklists are discussed in Chapter 10.

Article stamping. Each journal should determine what level of transparency it will provide to authors (and readers) regarding the timeline for its peer review process. Although it is not a universal practice, many journals “stamp” their articles with the dates of the various stages in the review process: received, revised, accepted, published (some include only received and accepted dates). Library publishers should strongly consider encouraging their journals to implement this practice. It provides prospective authors with a realistic expectation for the time frame of the review process, and in some cases it can provide an indication as to how robust the review process may have been. Obviously, the latter is not an exact indicator – but articles that are received and published within a span of 10 days or less will likely have not received very thorough review (at least through traditional channels).

Records management. From a purely practical standpoint, it is important for a journal’s editors to be able to organize and track manuscripts, correspondence, contracts, and other documentation related to the operation of the journal. However, proper records management strategies should also be considered an ethical and legal imperative. If questions arise about the legality of content in an article, or an editor must initiate an investigation into alleged misconduct by an author, it is vital to be able to track communications and relevant documentation (e.g., emails, permissions, etc.). Furthermore, if a library publisher is located at a public institution, there will likely be state public records laws that apply to the library’s operations – including its publishing activities. Whether or not the library publisher is part of a public institution, it should be considered best practice to develop both a records management system and a retention program for editorial documentation:

“[A] records retention program should include a retention schedule that identifies types of records to be retained, for how long, and under what conditions, as well as guidance on privacy and ownership of these records.”

(LIS Editors, 2010b, p. 13)

Fortunately, if a library is using a publishing platform that includes editorial workflow management tools (e.g. EdiKit®), that system will likely archive correspondence and manuscript revisions, and editors should also be able to store associated files (e.g., permissions) with their respective manuscripts. For correspondence that occurs outside of the publishing platform, the editors may wish to set up a unique email account, rather than using their personal accounts, to make it easier to track and archive journal-related communications.

User privacy. Some journals may maintain email or mailing lists for individuals who are interested in being alerted to new content, or who have signed up to use other features through the journal’s website. In addition, many journal sites are configured to collect information through web analytics (e.g., Google Analytics) to use in understanding or reporting on use of the journal site. If this is the case, the journal should maintain a policy regarding which editorial team members have access to this information and for what it may be used. And, of course, as with any other website, an appropriate privacy policy should be included on the journal’s website, along with the general terms of use for the website (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of website privacy policies and terms of use).