Wiley Blackwell Seminar 19 Jun 09

434 views
415 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
434
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • So, £175bn for the system as a whole, the vast majority for the doing of research itself; just under £60bn (£58.9bn) for everything else, from publication to reading of journal articles Research costs covers that part of overall R&D investment as recorded by the OECD that is conducted by active researchers and authors who are part of what in the UK is called the research base (mainly in universities). So what we are trying to capture here is only that part of the investment in research that results in papers in journals.
  • Wiley Blackwell Seminar 19 Jun 09

    1. 1. Ways Ahead in Scholarly Publishing Michael Jubb Research Information Network Wiley-Blackwell Seminar 19 June 2009
    2. 2. or, “Good, the more communicated, more abundant grows”
    3. 3. The Political Context
    4. 4. Political Context <ul><li>“ developing the UK’s knowledge base and translating this knowledge into business and public service innovation” </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>“ policies for research and innovation are evolving, in response to broader reforms to boost productivity and economic growth as well as to address national concerns ( e.g. jobs, education, health) and, increasingly, global challenges such as energy security and climate change. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Governments would boost innovation and get a better return on their investment in publicly-funded research by making research findings more widely available ……….And by doing so they would maximise social returns on public investments” </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OECD Report on Scientific Publishing, 2005 </li></ul></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Whose perspective? some key stakeholders <ul><li>researchers as creators, disseminators and users </li></ul><ul><li>research funders </li></ul><ul><ul><li>public, charitable and commercial sectors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>national policy-making bodies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>research institutions </li></ul><ul><li>publishers (and secondary publishers) </li></ul><ul><li>ICT service providers </li></ul><ul><li>libraries and publicly-funded service providers </li></ul><ul><li>commercial information service providers </li></ul>
    6. 6. A particular view……….. from Microsoft
    7. 7. Some propositions <ul><li>the volume of research undertaken worldwide has increased, is increasing, and will continue to increase </li></ul><ul><ul><li>and more of it will be done collaboratively </li></ul></ul><ul><li>researchers are both producers and consumers of research outputs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>but they don’t necessarily share the same interests </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Governments invest in research because they believe it has a positive impact on society and the economy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>and they want to maximise that impact </li></ul></ul><ul><li>the costs of research, and of higher education, have increased, are increasing (and ought to be diminished?) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>cost-effectiveness an increasingly-dominant theme in current economic climate </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. The big picture: overall costs of the current system
    9. 9. Key issues Skills Services Content Who provides what and how? Is that provision sustainable? What are researchers’ needs? How can they best be met?
    10. 10. Content: user expectations and needs <ul><li>published and non-”published” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>grey literature, reports, working papers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>data: raw or refined? mine or yours? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>websites, blogs, wikis, emails </li></ul></ul><ul><li>quality-assured and non-”quality-assured”? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the good-enough source and/or version? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>pre or post-publication peer review? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>digital and non-digital </li></ul><ul><ul><li>perdurance of the book? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>role of digitisation </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Content: who provides? <ul><li>changing roles of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>researchers and research institutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>personal websites, repositories etc </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>publishers and aggregators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>direct relationship with authors and readers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>who aggregates? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>libraries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>from ownership to licensing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>consortia as aggregators? </li></ul></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Content: costs and sustainability <ul><ul><li>continued growth in the volumes of research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>constrained university budgets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>sustainability of the publishing business under challenges of </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ green” OA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ gold” OA </li></ul></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Services: user expectations and needs <ul><li>researchers as creators </li></ul><ul><ul><li>quality assurance and enhancement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>distribution and marketing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>researchers and others as consumers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>quality assurance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>search and navigation services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>access, 24x7 and permanent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>links and interoperability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>text mining (published text as data) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>funders and research institutions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>assessment and evaluation services </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Services: who provides? <ul><li>publishing services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>still needed? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>competition from other providers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>search, navigation, access & preservation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>overlapping roles of </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>search engines </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>individual libraries and consortia </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>individual publishers, aggregators etc </li></ul></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Services: sustainability <ul><li>search, navigation and access </li></ul><ul><ul><li>invigorating competition or wasteful duplication? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>levels of usage of services provided by publishers and libraries </li></ul></ul><ul><li>sustainability/preservation of digital content </li></ul><ul><ul><li>roles of publishers and libraries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>grey literature, websites, blogs, wikis, emails……. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>increasing interest in assessment and evaluation services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RAE/REF in the UK; ERA in Australia </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Skills, expertise and competences: user expectations and needs <ul><li>specialist research skills and specialist information skills </li></ul><ul><li>what’s easy, and what’s not </li></ul><ul><ul><li>and how that changes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>‘ information literacy’ approaches and their limitations </li></ul><ul><li>enhanced needs in some areas </li></ul><ul><ul><li>eg business, management and communication skills; bibliometrics </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Skills, expertise and competences: who provides? <ul><li>differences of view as between researchers, librarians and publishers </li></ul><ul><li>changes in views over time </li></ul><ul><li>de-skilling, up-skilling and complementarity </li></ul>
    18. 18. Skills, expertise and competences: sustainability <ul><li>continuing need for skills development for both researchers and information providers and specialists </li></ul><ul><ul><li>generic and specialist skills </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>complementarity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>engagement and communication </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Some conclusions: seeing through a glass darkly <ul><li>1. Users (creators and consumers) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>they are (or should be) the drivers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>but we are only beginning to understand how they use information resources and services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>imperfect understanding of the digital information environment; but they want content and services that </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>are quick and simple to use </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>are as comprehensive and interoperable as possible </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>provide for both quality-assured and non-quality-assured content </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>there’s an increasing demand for assessment and evaluation services </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Some conclusions: seeing through a glass darkly <ul><li>2. Providers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>growth in concentration of resources and services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>growth in overlaps (and competition?) between different types of provider </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>researchers and research institutions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>libraries and library consortia </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>publishers and aggregators </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>search and navigation services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>complementarity and skill sets </li></ul></ul>
    21. 21. Some conclusions: seeing through a glass darkly <ul><li>3. Sustainability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>constraints on university funding, and need for a value proposition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>while research volumes continue to increase </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>growing interest in the overall costs of the scholarly communications process, and in the (cost-) efficiency of the research process as a whole </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>growth in support from Governments and funding agencies for “gold” OA policies; and from universities and research institutions for “green” OA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>growing concerns about the pace and the costs of transition </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. <ul><li>Questions? </li></ul><ul><li>Thanks </li></ul><ul><li>Michael Jubb </li></ul><ul><li>www.rin.ac.uk </li></ul>

    ×