The survey study (run in May-October 2022) was the first stage of the research, and it provided a broad picture of the state of digital transformation in the Polish publishing ecosystem.⁵ The survey targeted Polish publishers and editors, mostly from the humanities field. It aimed at diagnosing the state of OA practices and crucial technological needs, as well as shortcomings in collecting and analysing metadata (such as keywords and references). The goal was to identify the needs of scholarly publishers in the area of digital services and tools used in the publishing process, from content editing to dissemination of publications. The questions focused on collecting information about particular technologies – software and applications – that are currently used and mapping the state of OA and digital publishing in Poland. The survey was sent to 126 scholarly publishing houses in Poland, commercial and institutional, out of which 34 responded. Among the preselected entities, 30% were university presses (32) and Polish Academy of Sciences institutes’ presses (5). Others were commercial scholarly publishers or not-for-profit presses specialising in the humanities and social sciences. The survey shouldn’t be considered representative, however, high responsiveness was not the goal. We used a tool typical for quantitative research, but our research questions and goals are more typical for qualitative approaches: naming the biggest challenges, pointing out technological shortcomings, and formulating the first research hypotheses regarding the publishing ecosystem in Polish humanities and social sciences.

The second stage of the research was semi-structured interviews with selected stakeholders regarding technological needs and solutions, publishing process, as well as concepts and ideas for further development of OA models in Poland (Ciesielska & Jemielniak, 2018; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). The interviewees were selected from among the respondents of the survey, following their answers – only entities that publish in OA were invited to the interview. In November-December 2022, we conducted 4 interviews with employees of scientific publishing houses in Poland.⁶ To obtain a broad context, we also talked to the editor-in-chief of “Wolne Lektury” – a non-governmental website that provides e-books already in the public domain⁷ and with a member and spokesperson of Open Book Publishers – an association of OA publishers based in the UK.⁸

The last stage of the study was driven by design thinking approach. The research team organised a two-day design thinking workshop, which was facilitated by two professionals who were briefed on the research objectives and initial findings beforehand. It was conducted online in March 2023, and it engaged 23 participants from 13 entities: university presses and libraries, research institutes’ publishing departments, a commercial publisher, an infrastructure provider and members of the research team. Below, we present the framework and theoretical premises behind the design thinking process utilised for our study.

Design thinking is an analytical and creative process usually applied for prototyping or creating new products or solutions (Bender-Salazar, 2023; Kimbell, 2011; Meinel & Leifer, 2012; Razzouk & Shute, 2012). While there isn’t one universally agreed-upon definition, design thinking generally involves a dynamic and iterative process. It’s considered a learnable skill, enabling individuals to approach problems creatively (Leung & Qiu, 2017). With its emphasis on understanding stakeholder needs and generating innovative solutions, it provides a structured framework to synthesise prior research findings and develop concrete action proposals (Pressman, 2018). On the one hand, it is used to engage publishers in prototyping solutions to their problems and challenges, and on the other hand, it provides insights into how they tackle problems and think about solutions. Several models and frameworks exist to describe the design thinking process. One common approach is a five-stage process that includes empathise, define, ideate, prototype, and test (Lewrick et al., 2018). Another popular model is the Double Diamond, developed by the British Design Council⁹ (Caulliraux et al., 2020; Johnson, 2023; Kochanowska et al., 2022).

The five-stage process of Design Thinking, often cited as a micro-cycle, is described as iterative and human-centred, with the ultimate goal being the development of a solution. The initial phase of empathising involves immersion in the unique circumstances of the problem. It requires gathering information from multiple perspectives, seeking to deeply understand the user’s needs, goals and motivations. The next phase, define, is about synthesising the information gathered during the empathise stage, filtering, selecting and structuring ideas to clearly articulate the problem and define a specific design brief. This step narrows the scope and provides direction for the following stages. The ideate phase focuses on generating a multitude of potential solutions and exploring different design concepts. This is a divergent thinking phase, encouraging the exploration of a wide range of possibilities. The prototype phase is a transition from abstract ideas to tangible forms. This step involves creating quick and testable versions of potential solutions, which are then shared with users for feedback and further refinement. Finally, the test phase is where these prototypes are evaluated, with user feedback informing further improvements. This iterative process leads to a suitable, refined solution (Dam, 2025).

The five-stage process can be effectively combined with the Double Diamond model, which provides a broader framework for the design process. The Double Diamond is a visual representation of the design process, emphasising the duality of divergent and convergent thinking. It is made up of four phases: Discover, Define (first diamond), Develop and Deliver (second diamond) (Figure 1).

The first phase in the Double Diamond model, Discover, corresponds to the initial part of the empathise stage in the five-stage model. It’s a divergent thinking phase, aimed at gathering broad insights and identifying user needs. Following that, the Define phase in the Double Diamond aligns with the define stage in the five-stage process, focusing on converging and filtering the insights to create a clear and actionable problem statement. The second diamond begins with the Develop phase, which connects with the ideate and prototype phases of the five-stage model. This phase involves the generation of multiple solutions and the testing and refinement of these ideas, using prototyping and feedback. Finally, the Deliver phase corresponds to the test phase in the five-stage model, and it focuses on further refinement of the chosen solutions, as well as their implementation. The Double Diamond model underscores the iterative nature of the design process, highlighting the importance of moving through divergent and convergent thinking. It also emphasises the need for empathy and user-centred design, providing a universal language for navigating the intricate journey from concept to creation, as well as facilitating better communication and collaboration among multidisciplinary teams (Johnson, 2023; Kochanowska et al., 2022).

In our workshop, the two design thinking frameworks were applied in a complementary way. The five-stage process offered a detailed, iterative structure for engaging with stakeholders’ needs and developing potential solutions, while the Double Diamond model provided a higher-level framing that highlighted the alternation between divergent and convergent phases of work. Together, they ensured that participants could explore a broad spectrum of ideas and then refine them into actionable proposals. This interplay between the two models was particularly effective in balancing creativity with feasibility, as it allowed the group to move fluidly between open exploration and structured decision-making, ultimately leading to the formulation of collaborative solutions grounded in both innovation and practical constraints.

The number or percentage of OA monographs published in Poland is difficult to estimate, given that no comprehensive data is collected. According to our survey, 25 out of 34 presses (22 of them specialised in the humanities) published at least one book in OA in 2021. Worth mentioning is a huge gulf between the numbers provided by university presses and those reported by other entities, such as commercial publishers or research institutes of the Polish Academy of Sciences, among others. Universities in general are ahead of the others in the number of books (in print, electronic or OA) published: in 2021, the University of Warsaw published 266, the University of Łódź 252, and the Jagiellonian University 200. In the case of the University of Łódź, 252 refers to the total number of titles published in 2021, while a special institutional project enabled 400 books to be made openly available, including both newly released monographs and digitised volumes from the backlist. Though unprecedented for Poland, it shows that for a significant institution, it is possible to conduct a large-scale project aimed at opening their publications. Among commercial publishers, the biggest numbers were 140 and 105 provided by Cracow-based publishers. Concerning OA books, the publishers mentioned both new monographs published after the embargo period and freshly digitised books that had previously been distributed in print. Usually, the number of OA books for 2021 was a lot smaller. Even at the Warsaw University, the number was 49, whereas in smaller presses, public and commercial, it was usually between 2 and 10. Only one of our interviewees declared they publish OA from their own income, albeit after the embargo period. The primary format of the electronic version is usually PDF, given that little additional editing effort is needed. Rarely do scholarly presses publish e-book formats (ePUB, mobi), which are more time-consuming (but they can be implemented if that supports a sales strategy of a publisher).

Gold OA, which remains relatively uncommon within the Polish academic publishing landscape, is typically funded through individual research grants or, less frequently, institutional resources. According to our interviewees, one of the key factors limiting its uptake is the incentive structure embedded in the national research evaluation system. When researchers have access to publication funding, they tend to allocate it to prestigious foreign publishers that are also more highly rewarded in the evaluation process. For instance, a monograph published with one of the 36 top-ranked foreign presses is awarded 200 points, whereas publications with approximately 700 other presses – including all Polish publishers – receive only 80 points. This system discourages authors from choosing domestic publishers and may partly account for the limited prevalence of gold OA in Poland. Commercial Polish publishers report that they are unable to compete with foreign presses, neither in terms of evaluation rankings nor in attracting grant funding to cover book processing charges.

In university presses the majority of books are published under a 12-month obligatory embargo on OA due to universities’ open mandates (which is compatible with a recommendation from the 2015 ministerial document on OA) (Kierunki Rozwoju Otwartego Dostępu Do Publikacji i Wyników Badań Naukowych w Polsce, 2015), but as one of the participants noticed, there is a tendency in some institutions to shorten this period to 6 months. In such cases, OA is a natural stage in the monograph’s life cycle, but it is not the core of a publisher’s strategy. It is enforced by top-down regulations and does not necessarily lead to exploring a sustainability model for OA publishing. However, some university presses start to publish OA without any embargos:

Based on this statement, we can presume that at some point there might be a turn towards diamond OA with no embargos and fees for authors or readers, at least at the biggest and wealthiest universities in Poland. This slow evolution leads to reflections on sustaining this publishing model and even developing it:

The interviews revealed that for many publishers, OA and visibility among respected academic audiences are becoming more important than sales income. This shift is especially apparent among public academic presses, which are increasingly open about the fact that their income is so moderate it no longer justifies the low visibility and weak metrics associated with closed publishing models. One of the participants noticed that publishing books immediately in OA increases the metrics:

Therefore, improving the metrics of their products has become essential for editorial teams. They needed to better understand the concepts of metadata depositing and interoperability. Some editors improve technical skills and also advocate in their institutions for registering a DOI and signing agreements with commercial databases, such as EBSCO or Scopus (more adequate for humanistic outputs than Web of Science). In many cases, firstly, they learned to appreciate those factors in journal publishing, also thanks to implementing the Open Journals System (OJS) software:¹¹

The same publisher, whose comment is mentioned above, is now implementing Open Monograph Press (OMP), an open-source management software for book publishing similar to OJS. Another participant openly declared they are interested in such technological solutions but would need support to implement them:

According to our research, such software is not yet widespread in Poland. During the editing process, publishers still mostly rely on communication with authors via email. For promotion and distribution (which OMP covers through providing a customised platform for readers) they use institutional repositories and run their websites. Since OMP or any other similar product is not used, publishers and editors, sometimes supported by university library units, must work on preparing metadata in various formats and indexing in databases such as Google Scholar, Scopus or EBSCO on their own or with the help of library units. In those cases, university presses seem to be in a better position compared to commercial publishers, since for public entities in Poland, visibility and high impact levels have become crucial lately due to the 2018 law introducing new evaluation criteria for publicly funded scholarly institutions.¹² Private entities that do not rely on expert support of information science departments, if they wish to remain competitive, need to build their own technical capacity in this area. Otherwise, they will have problems staying on the ministerial list of scored publishers and offering authors attractive contracts.

Primary information on publishers’ and presses’ needs and challenges in OA monograph publishing collected in the first two stages was a starting point for preparing scenarios for the design thinking workshop conducted by external experts. The workshop aimed to investigate the book publishing process in more detail to identify deficiencies and areas for accelerating changes. To provide a structured framework for the discussion on challenges and possible solutions, the publishing process was mapped and six main stages of the process were defined: text submission, review, content editing, preparation for publication and distribution (Figure 2).

The process for electronic publishing remains very traditional and runs a parallel course to the usual steps of processing books for print. The main differences and most challenging tasks from the publishers’ perspective concern the last stages (4 and 5). During preparation for publication (4), the question of metadata becomes crucial: it is customary for publishers to add metadata to a publication (or have it added by external support bodies such as a university library) as soon as the final version is created, i.e. at the end of the technical processing stage. However, experts working with databases point out that weaving this task as early as possible could effectively streamline the process and improve the quality of the final deposited metadata (Rosiński, 2024). The final stage of distribution (5) usually lies entirely with the editors of the publishing house or the university bodies that support it. The basic form of distribution, obligatory for most institutional publishers, is to deposit the publication in a university repository. Then there is also the issue of the publisher or delegated university staff (librarians, open access specialists, promotion and distribution departments, etc.) having the metadata indexed in various databases. During the Discover phase of the workshop, we focused on the last two stages: preparation for publication and distribution. Participants pointed to several issues that constituted a challenge:

Workshop participants noted that many authors still believe in a printed book as a tangible and visually appealing evidence of their work. Publishers often share this viewpoint because selling physical copies remains their primary source of revenue, despite the enhanced traceability and measurability of usage in digital formats.

Publishers face challenges with authors who are reluctant to embrace OA and lack knowledge about metadata requirements. This issue is exacerbated by older authors’ low digital literacy and resistance to new systems, complicating digital collaboration and standardisation.

Publishers are concerned about the high costs associated with publication, which in Poland are rarely covered from author grants.

The absence of regulations concerning online dissemination poses significant challenges for publishers. Licensing and contracts with authors publishing in OA are the most pressing problem. There is a need for a centralised authority to resolve legal-formal issues and provide guidance on licensing agreements.

Visibility of the publication becomes the biggest need and challenge for publishers, which they define as even more important than sales income. The multitude of databases and formats creates a labour-intensive process for managing metadata, impacting daily operations. Multi-author monographs and updating older publications for OA further complicate this task.

Maintaining high-quality systems for publication deposition and retrieval is a significant cost for publishers. Additionally, a shortage of qualified staff and ineffective digital tools contribute to operational inefficiencies and scepticism about technological solutions. There are problems with technical capacity. Small entities in particular have low access to software and servers, as well as technical support. Implementing a dedicated piece of publishing management software is often too big of a challenge. Since their technical capacities are strongly dependent on the few people they hire, and considering their low technical and financial capacity, it is difficult for them to keep up with metadata curation, which is not an integral part of the editing process, but something perceived as an “extra” duty. As a result, in case of gold OA, they register DOIs in time, and in case of books published in green OA after the embargo period, there is not even a workflow in place.

In mapping the challenges, we found that some of the problems mentioned above depend on external factors, while some of them can be overcome through cooperation (Table 1).

While publishers have limited influence over the perception and pace of change within the book publishing sector, as well as over the policies guiding authors’ publication strategies, their technical capacity and legal expertise, when leveraged through collaborative efforts, have the potential to yield effective, community-serving solutions. The collaborative solutions we outline below exemplify such efforts by addressing key challenges associated with open access publishing.

Collaborative models may allow for the creation of joint funding sources, which help cover the costs associated with metadata development, format preparation and distribution while reducing the financial burden on individual publishers. Collaboration allows the development of unified metadata standards or even a common database, which can reduce the labour involved in entering information into different forms while improving data consistency and accessibility. Common agreements on licensing standards can make it easier for publishers and authors to make decisions on OA publishing. Creating central support resources can make it easier for publishers not only to maintain their infrastructure but also to offer a more coordinated approach to solving technical problems. Implementing a single platform that also makes it easier for authors to provide metadata and manage their publications can minimise the difficulties associated with their lack of digital knowledge and skills. It can also support the creation of common educational programs to help understand and embrace the idea of OA.

Three solutions proposed during the Develop phase of the workshop emphasised the need for collaboration and knowledge exchange: 1) one database aggregating metadata of monographs, 2) a common instance of publishing management platform shared by several presses, 3) a set of guidelines and good practices on metadata curation for Polish and Slavic languages.