Welcome to Scholarly Communication 101 An

Transcript Welcome to Scholarly Communication 101 An

It’s All About Access: Issues in Scholarly Communication and Strategies for Change Ray English, Director of Libraries Oberlin College Indiana University of Pennsylvania March 24, 2007

Scholarly Communication The system through which research and other scholarly writings are: • created • • • • evaluated for quality edited disseminated to the scholarly community preserved for future use

Scholarly Communication: What’s the Real Issue?

Serials crisis? Cost of journals?

Industry consolidation? Publisher monopoly power?

Big Deals?

Monographs crisis?

Permissions crisis?

Loss of public domain?

Legislative threats to fair use?

Preservation of electronic information?

Published knowledge growing faster than library budgets?

Publishing system out of sync with new technological environment?

Fundamental issue is access Problems are resulting in loss of access barriers to access Access to scholarship by users Access to publishing opportunities Problems are systemic

Serials Crisis Extraordinary price increases Worst is scientific fields Worse for foreign publishers Commercial journals have substantially higher prices and high profit margins No correlation between price and quality Inelastic market Industry consolidation, publisher monopoly power

Journal price increases Currently averaging 8% annually* Library acquisitions budgets are relatively flat Ohio libraries increasing at app. 2-3% annually *Library Journal Periodical Price Survey, April 2006

Crisis in a nutshell

Serial & Monograph Costs, 1986-2000

North American research libraries ARL Statistics

Average journal prices by broad discipline

Arts and Humanities US Non-US Social Sciences US Non-US Sciences US Non-US Library Journal Periodical Price Survey, April 2006 $116 $230 $385 $716 $1,093 $1,866

Average prices by specific discipline Chemistry Physics Engineering Astronomy Biology Geology Math & Computer Sci Zoology Botany Health Sciences Library Journal Periodical Price Survey, April 2006 1,548 $3,254 2,850 1,756 1,724 1,323 1,278 1,259 1,238 1,132

Commercial vs. non-commercial journal prices Henry Barschall study Wisconsin and Cornell studies Ted Bergstrom’s journal pricing page http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Journals/jpricing.html

Higher priced journals tend to have lesser impact Higher priced journals tend to be published by commercial firms Higher quality journals tend to be non-profit, published by societies

Journal Prices by Discipline Bergstrom data Cost per page For-profit Cost per cite Non-profit For-profit Non-profit Ecology Economics Atmosph. Sci Mathematics Neuroscience Physics 1.01

0.83

0.95

0.70

0.89

0.63

0.19

0.17

0.15

0.27

0.10

0.19

0.73

2.33

0.88

1.32

0.23

0.38

0.05

0.15

0.07

0.28

0.04

0.05

Bergstrom, Costs and Benefits of Library Site Licenses to Academic Journals, PNAS, 2004

Journal Prices by Discipline Bergstrom data 2.5

2 1.5

1 0.5

0 For-profit Per page Non-profit Per page For-profit Per citation Non-profit Per citation Ecology Economics Atmosph. Sci Mathematics Neuroscience Physics Bergstrom, Costs and Benefits of Library Site Licenses to Academic Journals,

PNAS

, 2004

Costs of a Complete Economics Collection Bergstrom data Publisher Type Percent of Cost Percent of Cites Non-Profit For-Profit

9% 91% 62% 38%

Journal cost-effectiveness Ted Bergstrom’s journal cost-effectiveness calculator http://www.journalprices.com/

What’s going on?

Inelastic market coke vs Coke Publishers have pricing power Ability to price for profit - at the expense of access High profit margins

Industry consolidation Increasing corporate control of journal publishing • • • • • Mergers since 1980: Kluwer: 11 major publishers Wiley: 9 major publishers Taylor & Francis: 16 major publishers Elsevier: 18 major publishers Thomson: 15 publishers Migration of non-profit journals to commercial sector

Mergers produce price increases McCabe data Pergamon titles increased 22% after purchase by Elsevier Lippincott titles increased 35% after purchase by Kluwer McCabe, ARL Bimonthly Report, Dec. 1999

STM Market in 2003: $6 Billion

Global Market Shares of STM Publishers

Reed Elsevier Thomson Kluwer Springer Wiley American Chemical Society Blackwell Publishing Taylor & Francis Other

Scientific Publications: Free for All?

UK House of Commons , 2004

Independent industry analyses UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report (2004)

Scientific Publications: Free for All?

European Commission Report (2006)

Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of Scientific Publication Markets in Europe

Library responses Request increased budgets Cut subscriptions Reduce monograph purchases License electronic journals Rely on document delivery or ILL

Cancellations history at a Research I institution

Effective Year 1987 1991 1992 1993 1996 2000 2001 2002 Total Journal Titles Not Renewed 843 1,417 68 1,933 605 1,063 274 555 6,758 Dollar cost of Titles Not Renewed $160,425 $263,614 $17,944 $371,734 $196,826 $213,506 $41,000 $93,542 $ 1,358,591

Electronic journal licenses, Big Deals Advantage of bundled licenses: Additional access Disadvantage: Added cost of bundled titles Loss of library choice over content Rates of price increase Length of contracts Threats to subscriptions outside the bundle Continued pressure on monographs budgets Antitrust issue -- anticompetitive practices

Monographs crisis University presses under pressure Library markets in decline Reduced print runs Limited sales of specialized monographs

Monographs crisis How are university presses responding to economic pressures?

Publish

Bullshit

Reduce specialized monographs

Issue for faculty Monograph publishing opportunities in decline MLA Letter from Stephen Greenblatt, 2002 “The Future of Scholarly Publishing” report

New technological environment Present system derives from the print environment Networked technologies create new possibilities

Scholarship as a public good Substantial portion is funded by taxpayers supported publicly created in non-profit sector Journal literature is freely given away by authors But journal publishing is largely under corporate control A public good in private hands

Need for transformative change Traditional system is unsustainable Scholars are losing access System of out of the control of researchers and the academy

Who holds power in the system?

Who can create (or impede) change? Publishers Librarians, library organizations Faculty Congress, federal government

Importance of faculty Faculty have: Power as editors and editorial board members Power as originators of research and holders of copyright

Change strategies Competitive journals Editorial board control Declaring Independence Collective buying Antitrust actions Open Access National policy advocacy

Open access Most promising strategy to date Free, unrestricted online access to research literature Few restrictions on subsequent use

Open access Two forms: Open access journals Author self-archiving - in open archives

Open access journals - gold road Fully peer reviewed Full research content openly available on the web Publication costs covered prior to publication Lower cost structure

Open access - an access model Business models vary: Author fees, from research grants Subscriptions to non-research content Advertising Institutional memberships Institutional support, subsidies Related products and services Endowment

Examples Public Library of Science http://www.plos.org/ BioMed Central http://www.biomedcentral.com/ Hindawi Publishing http://www.hindawi.com

CERN plan Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/

Open access journals - issues Funding / business models still evolving Prestige may be lacking for new titles Publication fees less workable in some disciplines Delayed open access may be more feasible in some instances

Author self-archiving - green road Steven Harnad Subversive proposal, June 1994 Make scholars' preprints universally available to all scholars via ftp, gopher, and the world wide web

Author self-archiving / open archiving Author deposits article in an openly accessible repository Disciplinary repository Institutional repository Pre-print, post-print, final published version

Disciplinary repositories Make intellectual output of a discipline openly accessible Example: arXive - for high energy physics Math, cognitive science, economics, library science, and many other fields

Institutional repositories Capture the intellectual output of an institution Examples: DSpace - at MIT University of California eScholarship Repository Ohio Digital Resources Commons

Author self-archiving High percentage of publishers allow self-archiving SHERPA ROMEO listing http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/ Author may exert control over copyright Authors modifies publisher’s copyright agreement SPARC author’s addendum OhioLINK author’s addendum

Value of open access Increased: access (instantaneous, worldwide) readership research impact

Increased research impact Studies on research impact: Eysenbach Lawrence Hajjem, Harnad, Gingras - 10 fields Antelman Bibliography of studies available at: http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html

Value of open access Fosters scientific progress and growth of knowledge

Progress of open access Foundation and funding agency support Welcome Trust mandate OA to government funded research UK, US, many other countries Faculty / university actions Columbia, Univ. Kansas, many others Growth of institutional and disciplinary repositories Growth of open access journals

Impact of open access movement Changed the debate -- focus is now on access Widespread acceptance of self-archiving by publishers Delayed open access -- substantially increased Hybrid OA journals -- also increasing Blackwell Author’s Choice, Springer Open Choice, many others

Importance of campus dialogue and policy development ACRL / ARL Scholarly Communications Institute Create Change http://www.createchange.org/home.html

ACRL Scholarly Communications Toolkit http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/scholarlycomm/schola rlycommunicationtoolkit/toolkit.htm

Importance of campus dialogue and policy development Consider: Resolution on open access Institutional policy on self-archiving

National policy advocacy Public access to federally-funded research NIH policy -- various efforts to strengthen it Other agencies Federal Research Public Access Act Online petition: http://www.publicaccesstoresearch.org/

Change will be long and difficult But there are many reasons for optimism: Technology is on the side of change Success of OA and other change strategies Progress at the national level Scientific publishing reaching level of national policy debate Faculty engagement Librarian engagement

The Immovable Object Traditional journal publishing system Old business models Copyright and licensing, rights environment

The Irresistible Force Networked technologies, Web Ease of working and playing online Expectation that what matters will be online Open Access See Paul Courant, “Scholarship and Academic Libraries (and their Kin) in the World of Google,” First Monday, August 2006. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_8/courant/

Courant is betting on the Force “I think that the force wins; I know that it should.”

Contact information: Ray English Director of Libraries, Oberlin College [email protected]

440-775-8287