Open access publishing is a popular concept in academia and most of Leiden’s scholarly journal articles are now published open access in some way. For books, however, the variety of open access publishing platforms is so large that researchers may find it time- and energy-consuming to examine all of them, navigate through their different features, and decide which one best suits their forthcoming publication. Therefore, I would like to propose a comparison framework that integrates a weighted grading system. There are two advantages of the framework: firstly, it is a quantitative approach that reduces complex information into a numerical result, allowing for an at-a-glance interpretation of the large amount of data that will be collected in the process; secondly, its flexibility allows researchers to customise the parameters and weights in the framework based on their specific needs and preferences.

The framework breaks down the comparison into the following steps: (1) selecting platforms, (2) listing comparison criteria and measuring factors, (3) deciding primary publishing goals and assigning weights, (4) developing rating scales, (5) collecting data, (6) scoring and calculating. To illustrate how it works, I will take the publishing project I worked on during my internship at the Leiden University Libraries Centre for Digital Scholarship as an example. It concerns a forthcoming edited volume that collects an estimated ten articles written by different authors in commemoration of the retirement of a distinguished scholar in the field of the humanities.

Step 1: Selecting platforms

The table below presents a non-exhaustive list of some well-known open access book publishing platforms, arranged alphabetically, and introduces the content they publish and the type of partners they collaborate with.

Platform	Published content	Content provider
Fulcrum	Books, articles	Individuals, publishers
Manifold	Books, journals	Individuals, publishers
Open Book Publishers	Books	Individuals
Open Monograph Press	Books	Individuals, publishers
Pressbooks	Books	Individuals, publishers
Pubpub	Books, journals, articles	Publishers
Quarto	Books, articles, etc.	Individuals

Considering the requirements for the publishing project, I will focus on the five platforms that support book publishing and that allow individuals to publish with them: Fulcrum, Manifold, Open Monograph Press (OMP hereafter), Pressbooks, and Quarto. I am excluding Open Book Publishers here, because it has a different mechanism: authors need to submit their writings to be reviewed by the platform’s editors, while on other platforms authors can freely publish.

Step 2: Listing comparison criteria and measuring parameters

I have established a set of criteria for evaluating the platforms:

Criteria	Parameters
Cost model	- Cost for author
Distribution and impact	- Indexing in major databases - Long-term preservation - Persistent identifier
Hosting and license	- Hosting options - License options
Technical features	- Collaboration among contributors - Multimedia support - Analytics - Format - Customisation
Author friendliness	- Editorial assistance - User support
Reader friendliness	- Display options - Functions

Step 3: Deciding primary publishing goals and assigning weights

The primary publishing goals of the said project are visibility and affordability. Therefore, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most important, the first two criteria receive a weight of 5. The following table summarises the weights and the respective rationale.

Criteria	Weight	Rationale
Cost model	5	Cost is often the most critical factor for authors, especially when funding is limited.
Distribution and impact	5	This is key to open access publishing, which aims to reach a wider audience. Outstanding performance in this respect enhances a work’s reach and citations, contributing significantly to the author’s reputation and the publication’s influence.
Hosting and license	4	Flexible hosting and licensing options are valuable as they impact the accessibility, longevity, and availability of publications. However, this may be secondary to cost and accessibility factors.
Technical features	3	The functionalities reinforce the platform’s adaptability and robustness. A medium weight reflects its importance without over-prioritising it.
Author friendliness	2	This aspect benefits authors by making the publishing process easy and providing support throughout the process, although it may not directly impact accessibility or reach.
Reader friendliness	2	A user-friendly interface improves reader engagement and content accessibility.

Step 4: Developing rating scales

In this step, a standardised rating scheme is created for each criterion, once again on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 representing excellent performance or full compliance. Below is an example scale for the criterion of reader friendliness based on its two parameters of display options and functions.

Rating	Performance
1	Poor: minimal or no display customization options; lacks basic functionalities, such as search or download, and may not support comments or navigation aids.
2	Fair: limited display customization options; basic functions like search and download are present but may be slow or hard to locate; limited or inconsistent navigation aids.
3	Average: functional interface with some customisation options for display; includes standard functionalities like search, download, and basic navigation options; some additional useful functions may be present, but these are limited in scope or usability.
4	Good: provides a range of display options and customisable features; supports useful functions such as search, download, advanced navigation, comments, and potentially offline access or annotation.
5	Excellent: offers extensive display customisation options to enhance readability and cater to the needs of different readers; advanced functionalities are seamlessly integrated, including robust search, flexible download formats, detailed navigation, annotation, comments, etc.

Step 5: Collecting data

This step requires gathering information from the platforms’ websites and exploring the existing publications made available through these platforms to evaluate the reader interface. The table below summarises the data collected.

	Fulcrum	Manifold	OMP	Pressbooks	Quarto
Cost for author	$2500 per title	No cost	No cost	$12 per month per book	No cost
Indexing in major databases	No	No	No	Pressbooks Directory, EBSCO, Ex Libris	No
Long-term preservation	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Persistent identifier	Yes	No	No	No	No
Hosting	Yes	No	No	Yes	No
License options	Flexible	Flexible	Flexible	Flexible	Flexible
Multimedia support	Yes	Yes	Yes	Limited, upgradable at a fee	Yes
Analytics	Limited	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Format	ePub	Not specified	PDF	Multiple	Multiple
Customisation	No	Yes	Yes	Limited	Yes
Editorial assistance	No	At a fee	No	No	No
User support	No	At a fee	No	At a fee	No
Display options	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Functions	Navigation, search, citation	Navigation, search, comment, highlight, citation, annotation	Search	Navigation, search, annotation	Navigation, search

Step 6: Scoring and calculating

For each platform, every one of the six criteria is scored, the score multiplied by the weight assigned in Step 3, and the weighted scores summed to generate a total score. The table below shows the score each platform received for each criterion.

Criteria	Fulcrum	Manifold	OMP	Pressbooks	Quarto
Cost model	3	5	5	2	5
Distribution and impact	3	2	1	4	1
Hosting and license	5	3	3	5	3
Technical features	3	4	4	4	5
Author friendliness	1	3	1	2	1
Reader friendliness	4	5	1	3	2

This final table presents the corresponding weighted score for each platform and the sum, the highest possible of which is 105.

Criteria	Weight	Fulcrum	Manifold	OMP	Pressbooks	Quarto
Cost model	5	15	25	25	10	25
Distribution and impact	5	15	10	5	20	5
Hosting and license	4	20	12	12	20	12
Technical features	3	9	12	12	12	15
Author friendliness	2	2	6	2	4	2
Reader friendliness	2	8	10	2	6	4
Sum		69	75	58	72	63

It can be concluded that Manifold scores the highest among all platforms in the comparison, meaning that its performance is well-balanced across various aspects and it could therefore be a suitable platform for the aforementioned publication project.

Conclusion

The above illustrates how the proposed comparison framework functions and helps to find the most suitable open access self-publishing book platform. Interested researchers can feel free to adjust the criteria and measuring parameters, weights, rating scales, and scores to reflect the requirements of their own publishing project.