Emily Farrell, [in a Scholarly Kitchen post](https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/05/12/guest-post-scaffolding-a-shift-to-a-values-driven-open-books-ecosystem/):

> Monographs, by their nature as specialized texts, often see low usage. Scholarly publishers are aware that in order to support a diverse program of scholarship, it can be necessary to subsidize, in part, long-form works that have a narrow audience. Other, more equitable models are emerging to support open book publishing. There are fully open access presses, like [University College London Press](https://www.uclpress.co.uk/) and [Athabasca Press](https://www.aupress.ca/), that are thriving using an institutionally supported model to support mission-driven monographs publishing. There are increasing numbers of scholar-led and university owned publishers, many of which are open access. There are new cooperative models for books that, like [MIT's] [D2O](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwituYborMTwAhVIGVkFHUerC40QFjAAegQIBRAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmitpress.mit.edu%2Fblog%2Fmit-press-launches-direct-open&usg=AOvVaw1J11buuBBu9Jr36XPWOmiz), forge a more cooperative pathway for monographs. [Opening the Future](https://ceup.openingthefuture.net/), currently in implementation with Central European University Press, is another example of an approach that builds a community around scholarly books publishing. All of these models are looking towards more collaborative, equitable, and accessible ways to open books for authors and readers while maintaining financial sustainability.

It's a good [piece](https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/05/12/guest-post-scaffolding-a-shift-to-a-values-driven-open-books-ecosystem/), but weirdly silent on the 800-pound rival to the surveyed models: the book processing charge (BPC). It's hard to argue for an alternative to the author-excluding BPC without confronting its existing foothold.