Transcript Document

The Blame Game? Open Access
Overview and Library Perspectives
Colin Steele
Overview of Issues
 Debate is really about changing modes of
scholarly communication not solely Open Access
(Houghton Report, 2003)
 Crucial issues for change are Research
Assessment Exercises including practices for
tenure and promotion and peer review
 Open Access dialogue is not simply about STM
articles nor is OA a solution to the alleged library
“serials crisis”
 OA should cover the entire scholarly output
Open Access Frameworks,
Budapest et al
 Implement a policy to require researchers to
deposit a copy of all their published articles in
an open access repository (IR in particular)
 Encourage researchers to publish their
research articles in open access journals
where a suitable journal exists and provide the
support to enable that to happen
 Implications of forthcoming UK Research
Council statement on research grant
publication
Fighting Over The Academic Body
Elsevier Research : Author
Priorities: Michael Mabe
2=
1
6
QUALITY
&
SPEED
5
7
8
4
2=
Data from 36,188 Authors;
0= unimportant
10= very important
ALPSP Briefing: Open Access
 Janet Boullin, OUP and Sally Morris, ALPSP
citing:
 CIBER – What do (4,000) Authors Want? (2004)
• 82% know ‘little’ or ‘nothing’ about OA
• 32% had self-archived on own/department site,
21% in Institional Repository
• 11% had published in OA journals
• Positive about OA, but 48% would not pay,
circa 33% not above £500
ALPSP Briefing 2
OSI/JISC study (2004)
• c.100 OA and 100 non-OA authors
• 55% of former had not paid a fee (36% not
required, 19% waived)
• 62% of latter aware of OA
• Small percentage of latter had self-archived
• 77% would do so if compulsory (8%
unwillingly)
Cutting The Scholarly Mustard?
 Caroline Michel (Harper Press) March 3, 2005:
“Guardian World Book Day Forum”
 “Mr Colman said that he made his fortune not
from the mustard people ate, but from the
mustard that remained on the side of the
plate when the meal was finished”
 Comparison here with most academic
articles relatively little read, little used and
little needed except for RAE’s ?
Academic Dross?
 30% of titles from Big Deal publishers account
for 80% of articles downloaded (Gatten and
Sanville, D-Lib magazine) :
 “Titles deemed to be of low value might then be
discontinued to save the associated costs”
 Simon Mays-Smith (Credit Suisse First Boston)
“Does More Access Mean Less Library?” (UKSG,
11 April 2005) reaffirmed most useage from
relatively few high value high cost journals
Commercial Publishers
and Big Deals
 Do we therefore need the “Big Deals”?
 Derk Haank, “Commercial Scholarly Publishing in
the World of Open Access” (UKSG 11 April 2005),
“One is not allowed to make money out of science
publishing”! – Surely the question is the amount
 Only 24 Springer OA articles so far – but if $3,000
US no wonder!
 Second half of 20th Century did see major changes
in STM publishing aggregation – differing views on
history of publishing
Guedon and Mabe Battle over
the History of Publishing
Open Access Issues
 Confusion over terminologies such as “author
pays”, eg UK Government 2004 response
 If academics find it difficult to understand or even
know about the “green and gold” OA paths, how
will they keep track of many differing OA fees?
 Ayris (UKSG 2005): University College London
faculty mandates, links to research office and
citations
 Embryonic principle of cost recovery of academic
time for commercial publications?
Publishers and Open Access?
Current “Author Pays” Fees
Unsustainable: Mabe
Estimated costs per article for selected journals: assumes all authors pay
$thousands
10.0
9.2
7.6
7.0
6.4
Estimated
STM
industry
mean:
(John Cox
Associates)
3.8
Science
Cell
High
Print + electronic
High
Immunity
BioScience
Cancer
Cell
Drivers of cost per article:
Rejection rates
Format
Production quality
PloS
Est. STM
Industry mean Au charge
BMC
Au Charge
Low
Electronic only
Low
All these costs per article have to increased by 33.3% and 16.6%
= 50% to account for poorer authors and corporate free riders.
This would make the average $5,700 and the Science charge
$15,000 per paper, difficult for even funding bodies to afford
One for Public Library of Science
PNAS:Open Access Uptake
Diane Sullenberger, ALPSP 8 April 2005
PNAS Subject
Classification
Genetics
Neuroscience
Microbiology
% Articles
Open Access
21%
19%
18%
Chemistry
8%
Statistics
0%
PNAS OA Conclusions
 Are OA papers read more and sooner than subscription
access papers? Yes, by almost 50% in the first month
 Are OA papers cited more and faster? No
 Does OA cause subscription cancellation? Not Sure
 Australian experience would lead to a definite no, unless
journal was near to 100% OA
 Martin Richardson (UKSG 12 April) “Experimenting with
Open Access Publishing” - OUP experience, with
journal articles available on OA 6-12 months paid subs
declined 4% 2003 and 8% 2004
Reward Systems: The Key To
Scholarly Change
 RAEs and University League Tables still the “fatal
attraction” ( Professor A J van Raan - Leiden )
 Michael Day, Institutional Repositories and RAE
study:
 http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprintsuk/docs/studies/rae/rae-study.pdf
 Need to re-engineer reward systems for SC change
 Campus advocacy programmes will “kick in”: eg
 www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/scholarlycomm/scho
larlycommunication.htm ACRL toolkit 2005
Mode 2 Research and
Mode 1 Publishing
 Increasing divergence of research communication
and formal publishing practices for scholars
 Need for less heated dialogues on future of
scholarly communication and more economic
analysis of the issues required
 UKSG – comments from Derk Haank and Dan
Tonkery (EBSCO) – the latter that “wasted” money
spent on IRs would help solve the “serials crisis”
Campus Budget Changes?
 But what about the hidden costs in terms of
campus infrastructure and time of the academic
community in editorial board activities,
refereeing, etc for the major international STM
publishers
 Sally Morris article Learned Publishing”The True
Costs of Scholarly Journal Publishing” April
2005 – costing summaries within serial
framework
Phelps. Provost of Rochester
 http://www.arl.org/sparc/meetings/ir04/ir04spe
ak.html
Institutional Repositories Hold
the Key
• We need ubiquitous participation in IRs
Discipline-by-discipline suffices. We
don’t need “it all” to happen “at once.”
Role and Function of
Institutional Repositories
 Repositories will be increasingly important for
institutional scholarship frameworks
 IR’s intersect digital libraries, e -research,
teaching and learning, courseware, records
management, preservation and RAE issues
 IR’s preserve and make available globally
institutional digital assets - new models of
scholarship (Abby Smith CLIR)
New Strategies on Campus?
 Managing Digital Assets, Donald Waters,
Feb 2005:
 http://www.clir.org/activities/registration/feb05_spkrnot
es/waters.htm
 “Presidents, Provosts, Deans, Scholars, Librarians and
Technologists together must find ways within the
larger academic community for their institutions to
work together to realise the extraordinary economies of
scale that are possible” to effect “new modes of
ongoing operation”
Institutional Budgets
 Recent papers from Phelps, Lewis, Stern, etc
 Libraries spend a lot of money buying material for
the academic community which is relatively little
used – public good input
 IR‘s relatively low cost - see 2004 DSpace,
California, Hong Kong and Australian figures compare US 20 million plus on serials acquisition
by California University
The Deconstruction of Books
Into Serials
 E- slicing of books - rentals of texts and ecourse pack developments
 Rise of PODS and serial “reconstructions”
 Consortial monograph offerings in serial type
searches and useages
 Impact of Google Print and Amazon within a
book
 Google recent purchase of BookSurge
significant
New University E Presses
ANU E Press Download Figures
for 2004
 Still early days, but figures impressive for
downloads in 2004 of ten reprint academic titles
 HTML 189,688
 PDF (complete book) 11,350
 PDF (chapters) 38,074
 Mobile devices 70,210- who are these?
 Includes web crawlers but still significant figures
Australian ARIIC Framework
 Australian government encouragement of institutional
knowledge frameworks
 ARIIC (Australian Research Information Infrastructure
Committee). OA framework:
 Building the infrastructure, such as institutional
repositories, that will advance open access
 Raising awareness of the principles and practice of
open access publishing within Australian research
institutions
ARIIC 2
 Implementing public policies that ensure fair
use of copyrighted information for
educational and research purposes
 Cooperating with Australian governments to
improve access to scholarly information, and
to maximise the amount of information in the
public domain
 Cf also JISC, UK RLN, European initiatives
ISI and OA IRs
 James Pringle, VP Product Development,
Thomson Scientific, “Partnering Helps Institutional
Repositories Thrive”
http://scientific.thomson.com/news/newsletter/200
5-02/8264025/
 “Showcasing a university’s intellectual output”,
while for governments the “overriding goal is
disseminating information to the public”
 ANU and Monash one of seven ISI test sites
 ISI links such as with Highwire an increasing trend
Vast Potential but Under
Populated
THOMSON SCIENTIFIC
All Content Open for the Taking!?
APSR
ARROW Project
Nature: A Case Study
 David Hoole, ALPSP, 8 April 2005
 New business opportunities: include filtering,
personalisation and file management
 Authoritative accessible content (preferably
in a one-stop shop)
 Pay-per-click lead generation
 User behaviour as a source of revenue
In the end :”It’s not the strongest species that
survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones
most responsive to change” Charles Darwin
(Thanks to Gerald Coppin, Nature Publishing)
Knockout Futures?
 Two tier publishing systems – High Toll Access
and low Open Access
 “Digital media titans”(Gartner) will increasingly
concentrate power at the commercial end
 Publishing minnows either gobbled up or float free
in Google type OA seas
 Elsevier dictum: “Close enough for free –
excellence for a fee”
 Instead : “Most free. The best for a fee”?
Conclusion: Back to the Future
 The Society for the Diffusion of Useful
Knowledge 1832 (UCL Archives) had as its
mission to “impart useful information to all
classes of the community” by acting as an
intermediary between authors and publishers –
 Ultimately however the Society failed as it did
nothing more than “stuff our mouths with
kangaroos” – ie did not meet market needs
 Who will deliver:
The Future Information
Knockout?