Open access publishing practice encompasses a whole universe of highly specialised knowledge. On the one hand there is the important development of expertise over years. And on the other hand, there is the practical application of this expertise and the communication with researchers or administrative staff. To avoid disconnected specialist discourse, feedback between specialists and target groups is important so that the ever-emerging new developments in open access – for example in the area of funding models or formats – can be used productively and in the interests of science.

At its meetings, which have taken place approximately every two months since June 2022, the focus group "Open Access Communication" has been examining how this can succeed. Initiated by Katharina Schulz and Matthias Laugwitz, the focus group is coordinated by Christoph Hornung and Katja Wermbter. The founding idea focused on public relations and community work on the topic of open access. However, when the group was constituted, it soon became clear that diverse disciplinary and institutional backgrounds and experiences and interests come together under the term communication. Accordingly, an approach evolved that tries to accommodate this wide range of experiences and contexts. The individual meetings start with a keynote that initiates a discussion and a further exchange of experiences. Whereas other open-access.network focus groups have a concrete objective, for example to draft opinions or recommendations in the area of scholar-led publishing or information budgets, the focus group "Open Access Communication" focuses on recruiting keynotes from external guests with the aim of promoting networking and comparing perspectives.

The keynotes to date have been:

• Merle Schütte (Bayreuth University Library) – The Communication Subgroup of the Focus Group Information Budget (10.11.2023)
• Athanasios Mazarakis & Paula Bräuer (Leibniz Information Centre for Economics [ZBW]) – Motivation for Open Access through Gamification (11.09.2023)
• Doreen Siegfried (Leibniz Information Centre for Economics [ZBW]) – Content Marketing on Open Science (29.06.2023)
• Marc Lange (Humboldt Universität Berlin) – Communicating with and Advising Researchers in the Context of Monograph Funds (05.05.2023); see Recommendations for Action [Handlungsempfehlungen] for open access publishing funds
• Katja Wermbter (Specialised Information Service [FID] BAUdigital, Braunschweig University Library) – FID BAUDigital's Survey on Open Access and Research Data Management (23.02.23)
• Ben Kaden (VuK OA Brandenburg) – Communicating Open Access (19.01.23); see training materials by Heinz Pampel and Ben Kaden
• Yuliya Fadeeva (Duisburg Essen University Library) – Stakeholder Mapping Project AuROA (19.10.22); see poster on the OASPA 2022 Conference
• Matthias Laugwitz (IST-Hochschule für Management, University of Applied Sciences, AuROA) – Communication as a Catalyst for Success (20.07.22)

There is a strong consensus within the group that different people from "different worlds" often have different concepts and views that are of relevance in communication about open access. From this, a question can be derived that suggests many ramifications and can be considered the recurring motivation for the discussions in the focus group, namely: Who talks in what way with whom in what institutional and disciplinary contexts to achieve what? It is clear that this question opens up a spectrum of topics or discourse on communication on open access, the complexity and magnitude of which could hardly be completely covered by the keynotes and the ensuing discussions. However, this is neither the aspiration nor the motivation of the focus group. Rather, the aim is to communicate about open access communication – to reflect on its complexity, diversity, and structuring. And last but not least, the focus group aims to offer the participants an opportunity to develop an awareness of their own position(s), roles and objectives when communicating about open access.

Following established models of scientific communication, it can generally be stated that different circles or discourse fields of communication play a role in communication about open access. The structuring of the communication, on the other hand, depends inter alia on the target groups, possible communication channels, and motivations.

In the focus group discussions, it has become particularly clear that the specific conditions and structures at an institution shape the possibilities for action and communication. A whole range of relevant questions have been uncovered:

(1)   What exactly does one want to achieve through the communication? Is it a matter of promoting specific offerings or of imparting basic understanding and competencies?

(2)   Besides open access, what other factors play a role in researchers' publishing decisions (reputation, substantive and financial factors, etc.)?

(3)   Who are the communication partners? Is it a matter of communication between open access specialists or with the institution's administration, the library, the communication department, researchers, funders, companies, or publishers?

(4)   What type of institution is it? Is it a small research institute with a clear disciplinary profile? Or is it a comprehensive, self-administered university with a hospital and a great variety of disciplines?

(5)   How strongly are open access and open science anchored in the institution? Have guidelines been issued by the umbrella organisation, or is there an institution policy?

(6)   What attitudes towards open access does one encounter at the institution? What role do career stages and reputation mechanisms play?

(7)   What is the disciplinary background of the institution, and what is the publishing culture like? Is open access already the norm there, or is it still laden with prejudice? Are the disciplines book- or publisher-oriented, like (most) of the humanities? Or are they like meteorology, where open access articles are the norm? Is the impact factor a decisive reason for publishing in a particular journal, or do the names of the editors or the "good name" of the publisher matter more?

(8)   What role does the communicator play at the institution? Do they speak for a communication department with a focus on the institution as a whole or, for example, for a specialised information service (FID) that represents a specific trans-institutional disciplinary community?

(9)   What institutional framework exists for the communication? What is the general status and anchoring of open access and open science, for example in the form of institutionalised positions, existing services and other structures, and policies?

(10) And, quite practically: How many staff are available?

All this shapes the decision as to how best to talk about open access, and when, how often, and with what media and formats this should best be done. The experiences gleaned from the discussions thus yield a diverse range of possible approaches. Whether these be individual workshops or regular events at graduate schools, whether it is better to give lectures, attend teaching and introductory events, or offer gamification formats therefore depends on the specific situation and objectives.

In line with the diversity of the topics, the focus group is also taking more and more approaches and examples into account. For example, we plan to address communication about predatory practices, a topic where it may not be possible to rely on the same assumptions when communicating with publishing authors as one does when communicating within the open access community.

New members are always welcome to the group – either just to listen at first or to make concrete suggestions or ask questions.

The dates for future meetings, the link to the group mailing list, as well as all other relevant participation information can be found here: https://open-access.network/en/networking/digital-focus-groups/translate-to-english-fokusgruppe-kommunikation.

Hornung, C., & Wermbter, K. (2024). Mit wem wie und wozu worüber reden? Die Fokusgruppe Open-Access-Kommunikation. open-access.network. doi.org/10.64395/w11kt-fwg26.