[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-148203-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-148203-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","mind-the-gap-a-landscape-analysis-of-open-source-publishing-tools-and-platforms","Mind the Gap - A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms","","A landscape analysis examines how open-source publishing infrastructure has expanded over the past two decades, shifting from largely proprietary toolchains toward interoperable projects accessible to many institutions. The report clarifies why adoption depends not only on available free tools but also on community practices and integration into broader contexts. It provides an overview of the open-source ecosystem alongside individual project profiles, aiming to support university presses and mission-focused enterprises in durable, cost-beneficial decision-making and planning.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/mind-the-gap-a-landscape-analysis-of-open-source-publishing-tools-and-platforms/148203/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/mind-the-gap-a-landscape-analysis-of-open-source-publishing-tools-and-platforms/148203.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Skyler","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19","2026-08-26",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What problem does the report aim to address?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The report addresses the difficulty of understanding the noisy and fast-growing landscape of open-source publishing systems, noting there is no comprehensive guidebook or map to it.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How did the authors build and filter the project catalog?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"They assembled a master list of projects, filtered for open-source software relevant to scholarly publishing, and further筛选 for projects still under active development using evidence of ongoing work and documentation.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why does adoption require more than simply having free tools?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The report emphasizes that robust alternatives depend heavily on community practices and integrating multiple tools into a broader interoperable context, forming a system of community infrastructure rather than isolated software.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},148203,1787777192,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},2336464648746,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","MIND THE GAP  \nA Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms  \nJohn W Maxwell, Erik Hanson, Leena Desai,  \nCarmen Tiampo, Kim O’Donnell, Avvai Ketheeswaran, Melody Sun, Emma Walter, Ellen Michelle  \nCanadian Institute for Studies in Publishing, Simon Fraser University  \n[mindthegap.pubpub.org | DOI](mindthegap.pubpub.org | DOI) 10.21428/6bc8b38c.2e2f6c3f  \nTable of Contents  \n1 Introduction  \n5 The Landscape  \n29 Bibliography  \n31 Catalogue of Projects 33 dokieli  \n34 Editoria  \n35 Electric Book  \n36 Enhanced Networked Monographs  \n37 epub.js  \n38 Fidus Writer  \n39 Fulcrum  \n40 Grobid  \n41 HIRMEOS OA Metrics  \n42 Hy-phen  \n43 Hyphenopoly  \n44 Hypher  \n45 Hypothesis  \n46 Janeway  \n47 Jupiter Notebook  \n48 KaTeX  \n49 Lens  \n50 le-tex Transpect  \n51 Libero Producer  \n52 Libero Publisher  \n53 Libero Reviewer  \n54 Lodel  \n55 Manifold Scholarship  \n56 MathJax  \n57 Mukurtu  \n58 Omeka  \n59 Open Journal Systems  \n60 Open Monograph Press  \n61 Open Typesetting Stack  \n62 paged.js  \n63 Pandoc  \n64 Paperbuzz  \n65 Phenom Reviewer  \n66 Phenom Screener  \n67 Pressbooks  \n68 ProseMirror  \n69 PubPub  \n70 PubSweet  \n71 Quire  \n72 Readium  \n73 Rebus Ink  \n74 Rua  \n75 Scalar  \n76 Shiny  \n77 Stencil a  \n78 Tectonic  \n79 Texture  \n80 Vega  \n81 Vivliostyle  \n82 Wax  \n83 XSweet  \n84 Zotero  \n85 Acknowledgements  \nMind the Gap  \nIntroduction  \nOver the past two decades, a new breed of publishing infrastructure has emerged via open-source software. Where publishing toolchains had previously been almost entirely populated by proprietary and often bespoke software systems, we now see a proliferation of open-source projects available for adoption and integration—on a different economic and operational footing. Many such projects have been designed and developed by a single institution to suit its own particular needs, but the terms of open-source software licensing, deployment, and indeed governance mean these systems are also readily available to other institutions. At a more ambitious level, they may even form a layer of community infrastructure that rivals—or at least provides a functional alternative—to the commercial infrastructure run by a small number of for-profit entities.  \nThat such a proliferation of open-source projects now exists is a boon, but the landscape is noisy and difficult to understand as a whole. There is no guidebook or map to this landscape—a problem the present report seeks to address. MIT Press, in its 2018 application to the Andrew W Mellon Foundation, identified the need for a “comprehensive and critical analysis of OS publishing systems in active use” that “could prove to be durable alternatives to complex and costly proprietary services.” The present report is the result of that research and analysis.  \nOur hope is that this report will provide the university press community and other mission-focused enterprises with both an overview of the open-source landscape as well as profiles of a good number of these projects individually. Our intention is to shed light on the development and deployment of open source publishing technologies in order to aid institutions’ and individuals’ decisionmaking and project planning.  \nThere is enormous value in the collection of open-source projects surveyed here in terms of raw functionality as well as in the ways that prototyping and the evolution of design materially change the ways in which we think about publishing and scholarly communications. At a more detailed level, this report seeks to encourage the adoption and continued development of these platforms, but also to encourage the development of the community and market environment that surrounds these efforts.  \nAs such, while this report provides a catalogue of individual open-source publishing tools (see Part II), it also examines the ecosystem in which these tools and projects exist. If publishers are to develop or find robust, cost-beneficial  \n[mindthegap.pubpub.org](mindthegap.pubpub.org 1)[ 1](mindthegap.pub","cbCaisODFN08qx5U","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaisODFN08qx5U","pdf",1768809,88,"English","# Introduction\n# The Landscape\n# Bibliography\n# Catalogue of Projects","[{\"question\":\"What problem does the report aim to address?\",\"answer\":\"The report addresses the difficulty of understanding the noisy and fast-growing landscape of open-source publishing systems, noting there is no comprehensive guidebook or map to it.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the authors build and filter the project catalog?\",\"answer\":\"They assembled a master list of projects, filtered for open-source software relevant to scholarly publishing, and further筛选 for projects still under active development using evidence of ongoing work and documentation.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does adoption require more than simply having free tools?\",\"answer\":\"The report emphasizes that robust alternatives depend heavily on community practices and integrating multiple tools into a broader interoperable context, forming a system of community infrastructure rather than isolated software.\"}]","Mind the Gap - A Landscape Analysis of Open Source Publishing Tools and Platforms | PDF",222]