AAUP 2009: Transformative OA Approach (I. Anderson)

Angels or Demons The Case for a Transformative Approach to Open Access Ivy Anderson California Digital Library [email_address] Association of American University Presses Annual Meeting June 20, 2009 Philadelphia, PA

Outline
Background and context
Two initiatives:
SCOAP3
Springer Open Access Pilot
Benefits and challenges
Future directions

UC Support for Open Access

But UC faculty also tell us:
They don’t want their work disrupted
They don’t want to be told where to publish
They don’t want to pay to publish
They want OA deposit to be easy

In their own words
“ As subscription prices climb, …[w]e need an affordable alternative that preserves both quality and prestige.
The university should negotiate with publishers on our behalf so that we can retain our copyrights and share our work, but any open access or other solutions should be no more inconvenient to us than the forms we now sign that surrender our rights.”
David Crohn, Department of Environmental Science, UC Riverside

The Big Deal: Angel or Demon? Unit costs have declined and availability has increased since the advent of the big deal

Libraries support OA and enter into Big Deals for some of the same reasons:
To reduce the overall cost of the scholarly publishing system
by placing market pressure on high price publishers
by seeking more sustainable publishing models
To maximize the amount of information available to their users despite limited budgets
Because faculty want it
To support broader uses –
library-oriented uses: instruction, e-reserves, ILL
Transformative uses: data mining, e-science
To help the academy regain control of the dissemination of scholarship
As a public good
To reduce the overall cost of the scholarly publishing system
by placing market pressure on high price publishers through negotiation
by seeking a more sustainable unit cost
To maximize the amount of information available to their users despite limited budgets
Because faculty want it (the content)
Missing from this equation:
Broader use, public good, control of the publishing enterprise
Open Access Big Deals

Oxford-LISU pricing study Trends in Scholarly Journal Prices 2000-2006 White & Creaser (March 2007)

Turning Demons into Angels
If we accept that
Some existing publishers provide good value
Authors value the services and imprimatur that current publishers provide
Academic societies also value these services
As evidenced by their flight to the big publishers
Then it follows that transformation is an appropriate path to pursue
J.A.S. Collin de Plancy. Dictionnaire Infernal. Paris : E. Plon, 1863. Page 89. Notes: demon of discovery and of ingenious inventions.

Two “First in the U.S.” UC Initiatives
SCOAP3 Support
UC-Springer Open Access Pilot
Both share common features
Support the existing journals while converting them to OA
Maintain the library’s role in the funding and negotiation process
Facilitate deposit of final published articles OA repositories

SCOAP3 http://scoap3.org
Initiative based at CERN to convert core high energy physics journals to open access
Methodology:
Libraries / countries pledge funds via a formal “Expression of Interest”
Existing subscription funds will be redirected into a funding consortium governed by contributing organizations
Governance structure to be established
Once fully funded, SCOAP3 will
Issue a formal tender for publishing services (from existing publishers or other publishers) via competitive bid
Facilitate deposit of final articles in open access repositories
Pledges received to date: $8.8 M / year (63% of total needed)
U.S. Libraries: $2.5 Million (70% of anticipated total)
Participating countries: 21
APS Physical Review Letters ScienceDirect Nuclear Instruments and Methods A & B IOP Journal of Instrumentation ScienceDirect Physics letters B APS Physical review D ScienceDirect Nuclear Physics B IOP Journal of High Energy Physics Springer Targeted Journals: European Physical Journal C

Springer-UC Open Access Pilot http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/alternatives/springer.html
All UC-authored articles are published with full and immediate open access via Springer’s Open Choice program
Any UC author, not just corresponding authors (up to a stated limit)
Two-year pilot agreement 2009-2010
Cost included in CDL’s license agreement with Springer
Similar to Springer arrangements with Max Planck Society, Univ. of Gottingen, and Dutch University Consortium
Final published articles are deposited in CDL’s eScholarship Repository
Springer and UC will cooperate in analysis and evaluation of the results and report out their findings

OA is integrated into the acceptance process

Faculty responses to the Springer pilot
… we are filling out survey information on new journal interest. That's very good news, and will certainly play a role in deciding which journals to publish in. Thanks so much for your efforts-
This looks to be a very, very good thing. Thanks for pulling it together!
As an avid proponent of open access scholarly publishing, the announcement of the UC-Springer pilot agreement, struck me like a ton of bricks. I never imagined the model that you have fashioned with Springer. It seems so simple: eminently workable for scholars and sustainable for publishers. Your experiment is a monumental event that could define a new paradigm that will forever change the scholarly publishing landscape. Congratulations on your foresight.
Detailed FAQ for faculty available at http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/alternatives/springer.html

Differences between SCOAP3 and Springer arrangements
SCOAP3 places direct control of the journals in the hands of the funding consortium, ‘outsourcing’ peer review and editorial functions
Springer arrangement ‘transforms in situ’ – rights remain with the author, but publisher retains control of the journals
SCOAP3 is discipline-based, Springer is publisher-based

Benefits of a transformative approach
Non-disruptive
For authors - supports the existing credentialing and reward system
For publishers and societies – leverages existing relationships and funding streams
Scalable (Springer model)
Can operate at scale by having the institution (through its library) negotiate arrangements with publishers and facilitate article deposit
Converts many journals at once
Supports OA for authors who lack research funding
Humanities and social sciences
Early career authors
Avoids version proliferation
Convenient – author rights and repository deposit are a function of the system

Challenges*
Publisher resistance
Cost control
We can negotiate to bring costs down
Contraction of the funding base
There are many more readers than authors
Some libraries will pull out if enough content is OA
Loss of corporate revenue
Corporate, government, and other non-academic institutions comprise 25%-30% of the author community
% of subscriber community?
No obvious role for funding bodies
Shifting of costs to large publishing-intensive research institutions
Conflicting incentives
Attempts to manage costs at the institutional level could affect institutional authors wishing to publish
* (some of these are challenges to any OA model)

Possible future directions to achieve sustainability
Embargoed access
sufficient incentive to maintain subscription base?
Diversify the revenue stream
Article processing fees as a component of funding to capture research &/or dept. support
Library handles administration, institutional deposit arrangements
Organizations choosing not to subsidize via an institutional arrangement pay higher article processing fees
Submission fees
See next slides

Growth of Journal Publishing Scientific publishing in transition: an overview of current developments Mark Ware Consulting Ltd (2007) The problem of cost control for journals is at least in part due to the increase in research publication over time

Controlling Costs through Submission Fees
Total cost of journal publishing system:
$8,900,000,000
Articles published worldwide: 1,350,000
Average rejection rate: 50%
Articles submitted worldwide: 2,700,000
Hypothetical submission fee: $100
Hypothetical submission fee revenue:
$270,000,000
Submission fee revenue as % of worldwide costs: 3.03%
Estimated annual growth of research publishing : 3%
At a very modest fee, submission fee revenues would offset the growth in new research publishin g

in Stuart’s words…
“ If eventual conversion to gold OA publishing is the way that the problem […] ought to be eventually solved, then we must make it possible for a publisher to convert a journal to a gold OA business model. Currently, publishers cannot feasibly do so, as gold OA journals are at a systematic disadvantage against subscription-based journals from the point of view of attracting authors, since universities and funding agencies subsidize the subscription-based journals through their library subscription payments, whereas they do not subsidize article-processing charges for gold OA journals.”
Stuart Shieber,
The argument for gold OA support
The Occasional Pamphlet
on scholarly communication
June 11th, 2009
Stanislas de Guaita. Le Serpent de la Genèse : Le Temple de Satan. Paris : Librairie du Merveilleux, 1891. Page 0.15. Notes: The androgyne casts the double in the light of gender indeterminacy.

Images courtesy of Cornell University Library

AAUP 2009: Transformative OA Approach (I. Anderson)

by Association of American University Presses

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

AAUP 2009: Transformative OA Approach (I. Anderson) Presentation Transcript