Cost of information

522 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
522
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
172
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cost of information

  1. 1. Sarah Kennedy, Siobhan McGuinness,Caroline Rowan & Amelie Serres.
  2. 2. Costs involved in all libraries:▪ Medical▪ Public▪ AcademicYou may be involved in buying or budgets!
  3. 3. Hulda Nelson ImageRetrieved from UC Berkeley
  4. 4.  European Commission: Supporting OpenAccess since 2006 Ireland: National Open Access Statement –October 2012 US: FASTR – February 2013NIH since 2008
  5. 5. “per capita expenditure and use of e-journals isstrongly and positively correlated with paperspublished, numbers of PhD awards andresearch.”2011
  6. 6. Non-library resources took on average 17 minslonger and cost an average of $2.10 per itemof information.
  7. 7.  http://prezi.com/so-na2e8cslj/scholarly-publishing-model/
  8. 8. Illustration by Daniel Pudles“Academic journals generally get theirarticles for nothing and may pay little toeditors and peer reviewers.They sell to thevery universities that provide the cheaplabour”2011
  9. 9. SCONUL: Libraries spent £682 million onresources in 2010/2011Average budget of a library is £4.6 millionTrinity College’s Library budget was cut by€792,645 in 2012 according to their UniversityTimes.In TheJournal of Academic Librarianship inSeptember 2010, nearly 42 percent of U.S.university libraries reported budget cuts
  10. 10. Elsevier: £724 million profit on revenues of £2billion, that’s 36% profit in 2010Springer: €250 million profit in 2010 and was forsale for 2.5 billion in 2011
  11. 11. Journals now consume 65% of library budgets.So if the library budget is the average 4.6million, then almost 3 million of thatexpenditure is on journals.
  12. 12. Karlsruhe Institute ofTechnology in Germany Biochimica & Biophysica Acta: 20,019.70 – Elsevier Chemical Physical Letters: 16,507.96 – Elsevier Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry:14,116.85 – Springer Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry:14,116.85 – Springer Journal of Organometallic Chemistry: 13,966.71 –ElsevierElsevier, Springer &Wiley = 42% of journal articles
  13. 13.  What is happening to change this situation? How are libraries dealing with the cost ofjournal subscriptions?
  14. 14. Image from www.simoncotter.com
  15. 15. • Staff• Technology• Special Collections• Materials• Self-publishing
  16. 16. Infographic taken from EBSCO LibraryCollections and BudgetingTrends Survey
  17. 17.  Self-service circulationdesks/kiosks– reduce staff costs- extend opening hours- facilitate staff deployment toother roles PC hardware-Maintenance costs-Equipmentreplacement/upgrades E-journals and e-books- supporting remote accessImage from www.techpraveen.com
  18. 18. Image from NUI Galway/AbbeyTheatre archive Image from Book of Kells,TrinityCollege
  19. 19. • Physical space• Time• Staff• Value AddedTax
  20. 20. = subscription model (by libraries,academia and/or individuals) Large profit for the publishers
  21. 21. •Increasing presence oftechnology•Library purchasing consortia=> « Broadened access to, andusage of, journal articles »(Morgan, Campbell &Teleen,2012)
  22. 22.  « pay-to-publish » model Article openly accessible to all Used by PLoS, Hindawi, BioMedCentral... Waving fees for authors in developingcountries
  23. 23.  Subscription + author pays for openaccess Rights transaction Quite popular especially in fields likebioinformatics and molecularmicrobiology
  24. 24.  Conference gathering members from thepublishing industry, academia, highereducation, scholarly societies & libraries Gold Open Access encouraged Publisher-friendly report
  25. 25.  Long-term sustainability Equitable, free, public access to readers= universality Emphasis on QUALITY
  26. 26.  Ethical dilemmas on the author’s side –notion of imbalance Pressure on institutions Not representative of the real distribution ofscholarly talent According to Price, decrease in competitivity
  27. 27.  Far from being unilaterally open access Green open access as the « standard route inthe EU »
  28. 28. Developing andimplementing theUCL ResearchStrategyUNIVERSITYCOLLEGELONDON
  29. 29.  “Accessibility, sustainability, excellence:how to expand access to researchpublications.” Outcome: even though both sides whererepresentedGold has been favourite withinthese conclusions!WHY??
  30. 30.  It has opened up a dialogue A conclusion was considered too early in theconversation. Green OA is a method of self-archiving, itallows an author to deposit the final peer-reviewed paper in a repository The above has been implement within UCLDiscovery & is the largest institutionalrepository in UK.
  31. 31. Houghton & Swan took both sides andfocused on the financial aspects of OAGreen OA self- archiving represents“costing the sample institutions around one-fifth the amount that Gold OA might cost”(2013)
  32. 32.  GREENOA: already has existing foundationslike UCL’s repositories to build upon so theywill grow evenly at a global, national andinstitutional level. GOLD OA: does not have these foundationsat a national or institutional level, as it asksfor up front costs.
  33. 33.  Mounier 2011 describes the topic of OA as a quotefrom Ghandi “first they ignore you, then they laugh atyou, then they fight you, then you win” The debate surrounding OA is very unclear withvarious different countries establishing various way toachieve open access. Embedded in this geographical view is the manydifferent disciplines and how their outlook on OA MikeTaylor (2013) illustrates that by engaging in thisGreen and Gold we are dividing researchers into anupper and lower class, and states “a two-class systemto retain a notion that they are ‘in’ when others are‘out’”.
  34. 34.  Converting the scientists to OA hasbeen effective if not slow Cause: a 2 way incentive First is economic (science- publishing industrygenerated $9.4 billion in revenue in 2011,VanNoorden, 2013) Second the paper they aresubmitting to has high –prestige (Bio-Med)
  35. 35.  Split into two teams One group will look at Green OpenAccessand one group will look at Gold Open Access Write up points for your choice and againstthe opposite group. Choose someone to present for you. (2 mins) Then we’ll vote!

×