As Dreyer et al. (2024) noted: “Due to its federal structure, Germany has a large number of policy documents: Policies at the level of the federal states, statements from research funding organisations, papers from ministries, and many more” (pp. 14–15; see also Bärwolff & Benz, 2023). Twenty-seven per cent of respondents in Germany appear to have considered one of these existing strategies to be a national open access policy, whereas 47% stated that Germany did not have a national open access policy (Figure 1). Over a quarter (26%) of respondents in Germany even stated that they did not know whether the country had a national open access policy. In light of the unclear situation in Germany, the latter result is probably due not only to a lack of awareness on the part of the respondents but also to the fact that the response behaviour of the respondents, most of whom were professionally involved in open access, may simply be an accurate reflection of the fact that the situation in Germany actually is ambiguous.

Accordingly, awareness of the existence of a policy dedicated to open access books was also lower in Germany compared with other countries, for example France (see Figure 1). The situation in Germany thus poses particular challenges for the communication of science policy.

But why is this important? Well, awareness of the existence of a national open access policy is a prerequisite for a commitment to open access. And interest in participating in the design of a national open access policy was in fact remarkably low among respondents in Germany (see Figure 2). Incidentally, these data reveal a further interesting correlation, namely that an interest in participating in the design of a national open access policy for books appears to be associated with an interest in participating in the design of an open access policy for books at an institutional level. In countries with a high level of awareness of the existence of a national open access policy, interest in participating in the design of an open access policy for books at an institutional level was also measurable. The design of an open access policy for books should therefore not be regarded as a national-level process.

As Dreyer et al. (2024) noted: “Policy processes are participatory processes. Firm decisions on content can already be made by excluding or allowing certain stakeholders to participate” (p. 25). Therefore, respondents were asked which stakeholder groups should be involved in future policy processes for open access books and which groups were already well represented.

The respondents indicated that they would like international publishers – who are often associated with greater market power and a higher level of circulation – to have less influence on policy processes in the future. This finding corresponds to the frequently expressed desire by respondents that scholar-led initiatives should be given more influence on policy processes in future (see Figure 3): 58% of respondents as a whole (“All countries”) perceived that international publishers were currently “very important” or “important” for the implementation of open access book policies; however, only 55% of respondents as a whole desired that they should exert a comparable influence in the future.

In addition to the cross-country comparison, the data were also broken down by stakeholder group (see Figure 4). All stakeholder groups expressed a desire for a greater involvement of almost all other stakeholder groups in the implementation of open access book policies in the future. However, the increase between the perceived current importance and the desired future importance was smallest for commercial publishers. In the case of the market-dominant, international scholarly publishers, it was even desired that they should play a less important role in the implementation of open access book policies in future (see Figures 3 and 4). By contrast, the strongest increase between the perceived current importance and the desired future importance was observed in the case of scholar-led publishing initiatives (see Figures 3 and 4).

Publishers also played a special role with regard to the assessment of the impact of open access policies on academic publishing. Although respondents from publishing houses were least convinced that a national open access policy for books would change academic publishing for the better, they expressed the strongest interest in participating in the design of such a policy (see Figure 5).

One insight gained from the survey conducted within the framework of the PALOMERA project is that many stakeholders would rather participate in the design of an open access policy for books at an institutional level than at national level. Strong institutional involvement through clever participation mechanisms and simultaneous dovetailing of the institutional and the national levels could therefore be a promising approach to a policy design that involves stakeholders at all levels from the outset. In such a bottom-up approach, the RPOs would act as an intermediary body between the level of the researchers and the national or European level. Although federal states with successful open access strategies demonstrate the policy-design possibilities that the federal system offers, the federal states are further intermediaries between the stakeholders and their national representatives. This leads to a complex situation in which clearly structured governance and coherent communication concepts become even more important – as the comparison with other countries, for example centralist France, shows. Libraries could play a key role here. If something has to be decided or discussed in relation to information infrastructures, they could become important points of contact.

Regarding stakeholder groups, the survey data underscore the widespread impression that a growing scepticism towards commercial business models is fuelling the need for scholar-led communication infrastructures. The willingness to participate in the design of policies for open access books was strong among representatives of all the stakeholder groups who participated in the survey. Here, the respondents expressed a desire for the involvement of small and medium-sized publishers.

Finally, a look at the problem areas of the open access transformation shows that every helping hand is needed. Although open access books now enjoy a good reputation, almost all respondents stated that they saw a lot of room for improvement in terms of information policy, financial support, and technical infrastructures (see Figure 6). In this respect, the PALOMERA survey also has an appellative character. However, the call for a progressive policy for open access books is not only addressed to policymakers at EU and federal level. As the results of the survey suggest, it should also be taken seriously at the institutions: in the humanities faculties, the seminars, the professional associations, and the libraries. In other words: at grassroots level.

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0).