Transcript Does IU Have a Research Publishing or Distribution Strategy? David Shulenburger Vice President for Academic Affairs National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC)

Does IU Have a Research
Publishing or Distribution
Strategy?
David Shulenburger
Vice President for Academic Affairs
National Association of State Universities and
Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC)
SERIALS INCREASE
 1985/86
103,700 SERIALS TITLES
 1999
161,000 SERIALS TITLES
 INCREASE 55%
SOURCE: ULRICH’S INTERNATIONAL PERIODICALS DIRECTORY
CALIBRATIONS
BETWEEN 1986 AND 2000
 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX INCREASED 57%
 COST OF MONOGRAPHS INCREASED 66%
 PRICE OF HEALTH CARE INCREASED 111%
(’86-98)
 COST OF SCHOLARLY JOURNALS
INCREASED 226%
 ARL LIBRARY BUDGETS INCREASED 105%
UNSUSTAINABLE! 1986-2000
500%
450%
400%
350%
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
Price Increase
Volume Increase
Increase to Keep 1986
Proportion
Library Budget
Increase
JOURNAL AVERAGE PRICE
INCREASES BY DISCIPLINARY
CATEGORY – 2002- 2006










CPI 2002-2006 increased by 12%
AGRICULTURE
ANTHROPOLOGY
ART AND ARCHITECTURE
ASTRONOMY
BIOLOGY
Botany
BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
CHEMISTRY
EDUCATION
ENGINEERING
41%
39%
38%
37%
42%
41%
42%
34%
47%
35%












FOOD SCIENCE
GENERAL SCIENCE
GENERAL WORKS
GEOGRAPHY
GEOLOGY
HEALTH SCIENCES
HISTORY
LANGAUGE & LITERATURE
LAW
LIBRARY & INFO. SCIENCES
MATH AND C. S.
MILITARY SCIENCE
44%
36%
34%
32%
31%
40%
52%
46%
42%
53%
30%
56%










MUSIC
PHILOSOPHY
& RELIGION
PHYSICS
POLITICAL SCIENCE
PSYCHOLOGY
RECREATION
SOCIOLOGY
TECHNOLOGY
ZOOLOGY

(SOURCE - LIBRARY JOURNAL 4/15/06)
35%
45%
31%
52%
44%
41%
48%
35%
29%
WHY?
 WE GAVE OUR INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY AWAY TO PRIVATE FIRMS AND
SCHOLARLY SOCIETIES.
 THEY HAVE FOUND THEY CAN SELL IT
BACK TO US AT PRICES THAT WILL
PRODUCE PROFITS AND/OR SUPPORT
THE COST OF OTHER ACTIVITIES.
Your IUScholarWorks
 “IUScholarWorks is available to capture
the scholarly output of IU’s reseachers.
 Congratulations!
 What might it accomplish for Indiana
University?
Imagine






All IU faculty refereed publications were on-line
All IU grant final reports were on line
All IU federally-funded data sets were on line
All IU dissertations were on line
All IU masters theses and senior honors papers
All IU Centers and Institutes-related publications were on
line
 All IU Extension publications were on line
Imagine further
 That all this were available through
IUScholarWorks and readily identifiable
with IU
What Would be Different?
 For individual authors?
 For scholarship?
 For IU & its departments, centers and
institutes?
Different For Authors?
 More Visibility for Your Work
 More Citations of Your Work
 Therefore, more fame and fortune for you.
On Line or Invisible
Steve Lawrence, Nature 2001, Vol. 411p.253
Gunther Eysenbach, “Citation Advantage of
Open Access Articles”
PLoS Biology 2006;4(5)e8
 More citations
 Article cited sooner
 Citations continue at a significant rate for a
longer period of time
Where to Place Your Work to Win a
Fields Medal: arXiv.org

3. math.DG/0307245 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :


4. math.DG/0303109 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :


Title: Finite extinction time for the solutions to the Ricci flow on certain three-manifolds
Authors: Grisha Perelman
Comments: 7 pages
Subj-class: Differential Geometry
MSC-class: 53C
Title: Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds
Authors: Grisha Perelman
Comments: 22 pages
Subj-class: Differential Geometry
MSC-class: 53C
5. math.DG/0211159 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :

Title: The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications
Authors: Grisha Perelman
Comments: 39 pages
Subj-class: Differential Geometry
MSC-class: 53C
Grisha Perelman was selected as a recipient of the Field’s Medal in 2006
but he declined it
Different for Scholarship?
 Easier, More Complete Literature Review
 Reduced Probability of Reinventing the Wheel—
Less Wasted Time
 University Resources Less Severely Restrict
Scholarship
 US
 Developing nations
More Rapid Development of Knowledge
But Isn’t Everything On Line Now?
 Stephen A. Hansen, American Association
for the Advancement of Sciences
 Survey of 2,157 U.S. Scientists in March
and April 2006 reported in Chronicle of
Higher Education Daily News (January 17,
2007)
 Nearly one-third said their own research
had been affected by difficulties in
obtaining copyrighted scientific literature.
Paper Delay: History or Current
Event?
 Fleming discovery of penicillin, Journal of
Experimental Pathology, 1928
 Chain and Florey, 1938 “rediscovered” the
Fleming article and developed penicillin.
Through USDA production and
manufacturing process perfected and used
by Allied troops in WWII.
JSTOR
 Older Articles Rediscovered When Placed
Online
 Citations to them increased
Different for IU and its
Departments, Centers and
Institutes?
 Visibility Increases
 Recognition of Value Increases
 Perhaps—Some of the Increased Value
Becomes Tangible—More Funding
 Internal-A Little Less Paperwork & A Lot
More Accuracy
 Impact on Proposal Success?
It is not just academics who care.
 Pat Furlong Parent Project Muscular
Dystrophy (focused on Duchenne MD)
 Two sons with MD
 One unnecessary medical tragedy
Real per FTE Funding of U.S. Higher Education
(SHEEO)
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
EdApprops per FTE
$6,000
TuitNet per FTE
Total Revenue per FTE
$4,000
$2,000
$1980
1985
1990
1995
Fiscal Year
2000
2005
2010
Real per FTE Funding of Indiana Higher Education
(SHEEO)
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
EdApprops per FTE
TuitNet per FTE
$6,000
Total Revenue per FTE
$4,000
$2,000
$1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
The Data on Higher Education
Funding
Tot. Ed. App. Tot. Ed. Rev.
per FTE
per FTE
Indiana
1991
2006
U.S.
1991
2006
Student
Share
$7,052
$5,567
$10,853
$11,061
35%
49%
$6,954
$6,325
$ 9,414
$ 9,891
26.1%
36.0%
Source: http://www.sheeo.org/finance/shef/shef_data.htm
What I Found in IUScholarWorks
Number of Works Identified out of 2793 in
the Collection
 Money Supply 476  Pets
47
 Family Farms 645  AIDS
344
 Quilts
65
 Measles
3
 Honey Bees
60
 Mumps
3
 Waste Water
464
 Christians
213
 Child Molesters 299  Moslems
8
So, What is Your Role?
IUScholarWorks
 Place Your Stuff in the IUScholarWorks
 Develop Systems at Departmental,
College, Center & Institute to ensure that
the depositing routinely happens
 Recreate the Historical File as
possible/desirable
Role - Continued
Live by the Golden Rule


Modify Copyright Requests
Publish in Open Access or Public Access
Journals

Make Sure Your Scholarly Society
Values Support of Scholarship and
uses journal revenues only to support
its journal(s)
 Support Your Library’s Hard Decisions
Role Continued
Insist that “Public Goods”
Remain Public
 Support requirements that Scholarship produced
with Public Funds remain available to the Public
 Especially support implementation of NIH Public
Access Requirement
 Support similar public access legislative
initiatives in the future
 the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS)
voted Tuesday (Feb. 12, 2008) to give the
University a worldwide license to make
each faculty member’s scholarly articles
available and to exercise the copyright in
the articles, provided that the articles are
not sold for a profit.
NEAR
 National Electronic Article
Repository
David Shulenburger, Association of Research Libraries Annual
Meeting, Washington, D.C., “Scholarly Communication Solutions:
National Electronic Article Repository,” October 16, 1998.
REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF RECEIVING FEDERAL
RESEARCH FUNDS THAT THE AUTHOR OF ANY
SCHOLARLY MANUSCRIPT ARISING OUT OF THE
FUNDED PROJECT WOULD GRANT EXCLUSIVE
COPYRIGHT TO A JOURNAL FOR NO MORE THAN
90 (OR 180) DAYS.
AFTER THE FIXED EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHT PERIOD
ENDS, REQUIRE THAT THE ARTICLE,IN THE FORM
IN WHICH IT WAS PUBLISHED, BE PLACED ON A
PUBLICALLY ACCESSIBLE WEBSITE MAINTAINED
BY THE FUNDING AGENCY.
THE AUTHOR COULD ALSO PLACE THE ARTICLE ON
THEIR OWN OR THEIR UNIVERSITY’S WEBSITE.
NIH Public Access Mandate

The NIH Public Access Policy implements Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008) which states:
SEC. 218. The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that
all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the
National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their
final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be
made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of
publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy
in a manner consistent with copyright law.
April 7, 2008

As of April 7, 2008, all articles arising from NIH funds must be submitted to
PubMed Central upon acceptance for publication.
May 25, 2008
As of May 25, 2008, NIH applications, proposals, and progress reports must
include the PubMed Central reference number when citing an article that
falls under the policy and is authored or co-authored by the investigator, or
arose from the investigator’s NIH award. This policy includes applications
submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 due date and subsequent due
dates.
Source: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/
PubMed Central Submission
Method
 If you choose to publish your article in certain journals, you need do
nothing further to comply with the submission requirement of the
Policy. See http://publicaccess.nih.gov/submit_process_journals.htm
for a list of these journals.
 For any journal other than one of those in this list, the author must:
 Inform the journal that the article is subject to the Public Access
Policy when submitting it for publication.
 Make sure that any copyright transfer or other publication agreement
allows the article to be submitted to NIH in accordance with the
Policy.
FEDERAL RESEARCH PUBLIC ACCESS
ACT (Cornyn/Lieberman) Introduced in
2006 but not reintroduced in 2007
 Research funded by the eleven federal agencies
that fund more than $100 million per year in
research (Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
Education, Energy, HHS, Homeland Security,
Transportation, EPA, NASA, NSF)
 That is published in a scholarly journals
 Made electronically available, for free, six
months after its publication in the scholarly
journal.
FRPAA - continued
 Limited in reach to articles published in scholarly
journals
 Specifically Excluded: classified research,
unpublished manuscripts, lab notes, phone logs,
other background material used to produce the
final manuscript, research resulting in works
that generate revenue or royalties for authors
(such as books) and patentable discoveries, to
the extent necessary to protect a copyright or
patent.
Open Access vs. Public Access
 Cornyn/Lieberman and NIH’s Mandate are
“Public Access”, not “Open Access”
 What is the difference?
Open Access
 Completely unfettered public access
 No subscription fees, no membership in
eligible group
 Through OA journal, university portal, third
party portal (arXiv.org), etc.,
 May be refereed or non-refereed
vs. Public Access
 Available to public with some restriction on
access
 Common restriction is an embargo period
 May be either refereed or non-refereed
material
The NASULGC Engagement
Tradition
 We are guided by the Morrill Act:
… to promote the liberal and practical education of
the industrial classes in the several pursuits and
professions in life...
 To promote this end, we, of all scholars, have a
special obligation to share our scholarship.
 We need the traditional publishing routes for
scholarship.
 University distribution will further enhance the
value of IU research.