Transcript Overview

Issues in Scholarly
Communication
Mary M. Case
University Librarian
University of Illinois at Chicago
Dominican University
November 30, 2006
Scholarly Communication
REVIEWER
SOCIETY
AUTHOR
READER
EDITOR
The Market Economy
Research
Findings
Author/Reader
Copyright
Publisher
The Economic Realities
Scientific, Technical & Medical
Publishing Market
$7.8 billion
Includes Primary &
Secondary STM
publishing.
Commercial
68%
Non-profit
32%
Aggregators represent an
additional $1.6 billion
(Total: $9.5 billion.)
Source: Outsell Inc., "Industry
Trends, Size and Players in the
Scientific, Technical & Medical
(STM) Market” (Aug. 2000).
STM Market 2004
$12.4 billion industry
$2 .5
$0 .8
$7.0
$0 .8
$0 .7
$0 .6
Source: Outsell “I-Market,” Sept. 2005.
Elsev ier
Thomson
Wolters K luwer
Holtzbrinck
Springer
Rest of STM
Elsevier Science
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
-10.00%
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Operating Margin
2000
2001
2002
2003
Revenue Grow th
2004
Reed Elsevier PLC Jan.1, 1993
Elsevier Science & Medical
1997 MDL
Legal
1994 LexisNexis (Mead Data) [$1.5b]
1998 Beilstein
1988 Michie (Mead purchase)
1998 Engineering Information
1989 Martindale Hubbell (Reed)
1998 BioMedNet & ChemW eb
1996/1998 Shepards
1999 Cell Press
1997 40 legal pubs from Thomson
2000 Endeavor
1998 Matthew Bender
2001 Academic Press
2002 Quicklaw, MBO Verland, FactLANE
2001 Churchill Livingston
2003 Applied Discovery
2001 W . B. Saunders
2003 Dolan Media Company
2001 Mosby
2001 MD Consult
2002 STM Holtzbrinck
Commercial Effects on Pricing
• High prices for commercial publications
• Significant price disparity between notfor-profit and commercial publishers
• High annual inflation rates
• Significantly higher prices the result of
mergers, even those of a relatively
modest size (Mark McCabe, Georgia
Tech)
Average Journal Prices
$700.00
$600.00
$500.00
Science
Social Sciences
Humanities
$400.00
$300.00
$200.00
$100.00
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
$0.00
Sticker Shock: $12,495
OR
http://www.englib.cornell.edu/displays/stickershock/default.html
Price per Page
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
Eco
logy
Source: Carl Bergstrom,
[octavia.zoology.washington.edu/
publishing/pageprice_table.html]
Eco
Atm
M
os S ath
ics
cien
ce
nom
For-profit
Neu
Phy
s
ros
cien ics
ce
Not for-profit
Price per Citation
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
Atm
Eco
Eco
Ma
th
os
l og
n om
Sci
y
ic s
e nc
e
Source: Carl Bergstrom,
[octavia.zoology.washington.edu/
publishing/pageprice_table.html]
For-profit
Neu
Ph
ys i
ros
cs
cie
nc e
Not for-profit
ISI-Ranked Biomedical Titles
Variable
N
1988
1998
MEANSMEANS
NONPROFIT
Price
335.43
Cites
118
146.31
118
12540.22
Papers
118
250.50
6348.25
207.85
COMMERCIAL
Price
837.82
Cites
3167.54
818
258.71
818
1800.37
Biomedical Titles
Rate of Growth 1988-1998
250.00%
200.00%
150.00%
100.00%
50.00%
0.00%
Price
Source: Mark McCabe,
ARL 207
Citations
Nonprofit
Commercial
Papers
Median Journal Prices
All Subjects
900
800
700
Elsevier
Nat ure
Kluwer
Lippincott
Springer
Blackwell
Sage
T&F
OUP
Chicago
Cambridge
JHUP
Pounds
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Source: White &
Creaser, Oct. 2004
Electronic Publishing Exacerbates
Problems
• E-products are often priced as add-on to print
– Without re-engineering legacy systems, electronic
publishing adds costs
– Unless library cancels print, does not reduce spend with
the publisher
• Libraries do not own digital content
– Must license rights for perpetual access
– Limits libraries’ ability to archive & preserve
• Licenses can be restrictive
– Dictate who can use resources for what purposes
– Often more restrictive than copyright law
• Publishers are bundling content
– May include titles libraries would not have subscribed to
– Limits ability to cancel
• Researchers cannot easily manipulate text & data across
proprietary systems
The Big Squeeze
Impact of the Big Deal
90%
80%
60%
50%
Big D eal
O ther
40%
30%
20%
10%
Year
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
0%
1
Share of Spend
70%
Casualty of Journals Prices
• Significant decline in the purchase of books
• Books accounted for 40% of materials
purchased in 1986
• In 2004, account for only 22%
• Results in decreased print runs for scholarly
monographs (from about 1500 to 200-300)
• Press rejection of manuscripts based on
potential sales, not quality
• Creating issues for young faculty trying to
publish their first book
How Could This Happen?
• Significantly increased federal funding for research,
esp. after WWII & Sputnik
• Growth of the research university
• Increase in faculty and students
• Increased competition for tenure, promotion, and
grants
• Increased productivity  publications
• Twigging of the disciplines  new journals
• Inability of professional and scholarly societies to
expand rapidly enough
Attractive Business Model
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Highly motivated authors
Free content
Professionally committed reviewers
Modestly supported editors
Captive market - libraries
Exclusive ownership of copyright
Federal funding driving the engine
Copyright Transfer Agreements
• Often require exclusive transfer of all rights in
every format and every language for all time in
every nation
• May require seeking permission and paying a
fee to use your own work in your classroom or
in another publication
• Copyright is divisible; transfer of all rights not
required for a publisher to do its work
• Copyright agreements can be modified
Summary of the Problem
• Culture & expectations of the academy drive
the generation of content & provide the
captive market for publishing
• Commercial, and to a lesser extent, not-forprofit publishers have learned to exploit this
culture
• Academy has it within its control to change the
system
Strategies for Change
•
•
•
•
•
•
SPARC
Public Library of Science - PLoS
Open/Public Access
Library Publishing Systems
Institutional/Digital Repositories
Mass Digitization
SPARC
Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources
Coalition <http://www.arl.org/sparc/>
• Membership organization that leverages
libraries’ strengths & resources
• Encourages the development of low-cost,
high-quality alternatives to high-priced
commercial journals in STM
• Supports new partnerships to expand not-forprofit publishing capacity
• Promotes open access:
– Open access journals
– Distributed digital repositories
Public Library of Science
•
•
•
Founded in Oct. 2000 by a coalition of research scientists
dedicated to making the scientific literature a public
resource
Circulated an Open Letter ultimately signed by nearly
34,000 scientists from 180 countries
When publishers still did not respond, decided to start their
own publishing operation
Launched:
PLoS Biology in Oct. 2003
PLoS Medicine in Oct. 2004
Computational Biology in 2005
PLoS Genetics in 2005
PLoS Pathogens in 2005
PLoS Clinical Trials due in ‘06
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
PLoS Open Access Model
• Authors retain copyright
• Articles deposited in PubMed Central
(PMC) at point of publication
• Electronic access free; small fee for
print subscription
• Publication fees charged to authors paid from institution, grants
• www.plos.org
Open Access Journals
• DOAJ = 1800+ titles (www.doaj.org)
• Quality assessments
– PLOS Biology - impact factor of 13.9, #1 in
general biology journals
– BMC titles increasing in rankings, with 5 in
the top 5 of their specialties
• Journal of Postgraduate Medicine - 60%
of the citations to the journal from
1990-2004 have been to issues since
2001 when the journal went open
access (Chronicle, Sept. 19, 2005)
Advantages of Open Access
•Expanded access to
research
•Expanded impact of
research
•Reduced systemic cost
•Accelerated innovation
Lawrence, Steve (2001). “Free
online availability substantially
increases a paper's impact.” Nature,
Vol. 411, No. 6837, p. 521
<www.nature.com/nature/debates/eaccess/Articles/lawrence.html>
Public Access
• NIH Public Access Policy
–
–
–
–
–
Grant recipients & NIH researchers
Deposit in PMC within 12 months of publication
Voluntary
Final accepted manuscript
Effective May 2005
• Wellcome Trust (UK)
–
–
–
–
Grant recipients
Deposit in PMC or UK PMC within 6 months of publication
Requirement
Effective Oct. 1, 2005
NIH Policy
• NIH report to congress, February 2006
– Less than 4% of NIH-funded manuscripts have
been deposited into PMC
• NLM Board of Regents recommendation to
NIH Director Zerhouni, February 2006
– Policy cannot achieve goals unless deposit is
mandatory
– Recommends only 6 month embargo
– Final published version most desirable
Potential Legislative Mandates
• American Center for CURES Act of 2005
– Introduced in Dec. 2005 by Lieberman (D-CT) and
Cochran (R-MS)
– Would require deposit of funded research results in
PMC within 6 months of publication
– Applies to all HHS agencies
– Non-compliance may be grounds for refusing future
funding
• Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006
(S2695)(FRPAA)
– Would require all agencies who grant over $100m
per year to develop public access policies
Library Publishing Systems
Creating cost-effective infrastructure to help
make scholarly literature more openly
available to scholars worldwide at little or no
cost
Digital Repositories
• Infrastructure & services for capturing, disseminating,
and preserving the digital resources created by an
institution and its members
• May contain pre-prints, articles, technical reports, edissertations, courseware, audio/video, software,
datasets, etc.
• Can be both disciplinary and institutional
• E-publishing software integrated with IR’s
Mass Digitization
• Google Print
– Google Publisher
– Google Library
• Internet Archive, Yahoo, Microsoft - Open
Content Alliance
• Will create a demand for and an expectation of
free, quality content on the Web
Creating Change
• As a librarian . . .
– Learn about the issues
– Join SPARC, PLoS, BMC
– Provide a pool of funds for author fees
– Develop an educational program for campus
– Talk about these issues with faculty
– Provide copyright support for faculty
– Develop an institutional repository or epublishing system
– Negotiate aggressively with publishers
Creating Change
• As an individual faculty member. . .
– Learn as much as you can about the issues
confronting scholarly communication
– Find out about projects and proposals intended
to transform the system
– Encourage discussion of scholarly
communication issues in your department and
school
– Include electronic publications in promotion &
tenure discussions
Creating Change
• As an individual faculty member. . .
– Support junior faculty who choose to publish in
non-traditional venues
– Participate in discussions of campus intellectual
property policies
– Encourage development of an institutional
repository ... and deposit your work there
– Stay open to new ideas
– Take responsibility - Help shape the future
Creating Change
• As an author, reviewer, or editor. . .
– Submit papers to quality journals with open
access or reasonable pricing practices
– Post your own work to an institutional or
disciplinary open access repository
– Review, understand, and modify, if necessary,
any publishing or editing contracts
– Be aware of the pricing, copyright, and licensing
policies of publishers
– Consider declining to review for or serve as an
editor of unreasonably expensive journals
Knowing Your Rights
• You own the copyright to your work
• Copyright rights are divisible
• You should retain the rights to use your own work in the
classroom and in coursepacks, and to post it on your website
and on publicly accessible online archives
• Creative Commons - copyright for creative work
<www.creativecommons.org>
• SPARC - Copyright Resources for Authors
http://www.arl.org/sparc/resources/copy.html
Creating Change
• As a member of a scholarly society . . .
– Encourage the society to explore alternatives to
contracting out or selling publishing rights
– Explore ancillary revenue sources to reduce
dependence on subscription revenue
– Encourage the society to consider making their
journals open access
– Encourage the society to create competitors to
expensive titles
Creating Change
• As a library user . . .
– Support cancellation of expensive low-use
titles
– Invite librarian participation in faculty
departmental meetings & graduate
seminars
– Find out about journal cost-effectiveness
studies
– Support the library’s participation in
projects such as SPARC, PLoS, BioMed
Central
Resources
• Create Change
– www.createchange.org
• ACRL Scholarly Communication Toolkit
– www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/scholarlycomm/
scholarlycommunicationtoolkit/toolkit.hrtm
• ARL Scholarly Communication
– www.arl.org/osc
• SPARC
– www.arl.org/sparc/
• Information Access Alliance
– www.informationaccess.org/
The Dream
“… The ability to speed the results of better
research into useful and productive applications,
whether in a hospital, a courtroom, or
anywhere, will have enormous consequences for
the lives of people.”
AAAS IP Report, 2002
Today’s researchers are fighting for it….
Tomorrow’s will demand it