Library 2020 presented by Robert Gerrity, University Librarian, University of Queensland.
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•994 views
With all the change and innovation that has happened during 2015, and with more on the horizon, which will the academic library of 2020 look like?
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Library 2020 presented by Robert Gerrity, University Librarian, University of Queensland.
Similar to Library 2020 presented by Robert Gerrity, University Librarian, University of Queensland. (20)
More from Talis
More from Talis (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Library 2020 presented by Robert Gerrity, University Librarian, University of Queensland.
- 1. Library 2020 TALIS Insight 5 February 2016 Bob Gerrity University Librarian University of Queensland
- 2. Library 2020: the need for radical change TALIS Insight 5 February 2016 Bob Gerrity University Librarian University of Queensland
- 3. Outline 2015: a few key events and trends Industry consolidation Emerging technologies and innovation Horizon Report, Library Edition Future of the Professions Need for radical change Open Access – tipping point? Library 2020—what does success look like?
- 9. Industry consolidation 46% 46% 8% CAUL Libraries - Library Services Platform Vendors Ex Libris III (inc. VTLA) SirsiDynix
- 10. Industry consolidation 31% 49% 18% 2% CAUL Libraries - Discovery Platform Vendors ProQuest Ex Libris EBSCO Endeca
- 11. Industry consolidation Less competition Fewer choices More pressure on smaller publishers/vendors Opportunities for libraries to leverage common platforms
- 13. Scholcomm innovation Authoring tools Overleaf Peer review Publons, Academic Karma Bibliometrics Altmetrics, Impactstory Personal Digital Libraries Readcube Research Data Management Figshare
- 21. Scholcomm Innovation Many new tools that address old problems in new ways Often geared toward multiple audiences (individual researchers, research teams, publishers, etc.) Mix of open-source and VC-funded commercial development
- 26. Horizon Report tackles Libraries Trends accelerating technology adoption in academic and research libraries Challenges impeding technology adoption in academic and research libraries Important developments in technology for academic and research libraries
- 27. Trends accelerating technology adoption Long-term impact trends (5 or more years) Increasing accessibility of research content Rethinking library spaces Mid-term impact trends (3-5 years) Evolving nature of the scholarly record Increasing focus on research data management Short-term impact (1-2 years) Increasing value of the user experience Prioritization of mobile content and delivery
- 28. Challenges impeding technology adoption Solvable Embedding academic and research libraries in the curriculum Improving digital literacy Difficult Competition from alternative avenues of discovery Rethinking the roles and skills of librarians Wicked Embracing the need for radical change Managing knowledge obsolescence
- 29. Important developments in technology 1 year or less adoption timeframe Makerspaces Online learning 2-3 year adoption timeframe Information visualization Semantic web and linked data 4-5 years adoption timeframe Location intelligence Machine learning
- 30. The Future of the Professions
- 31. Future of the professions In a technology-based internet society, increasingly capable machines will take on many of the tasks that have been the historic preserve of the professions…transforming the way expertise is produced and distributed…and leading to a dismantling of the traditional professions. Examples: Education: more people signed up for Harvard’s online courses in a single year than have attended the actual university in its 377 years of existence Health: more visits to WebMD (190 million unique visitors/month) than to all doctors in US combined Law: online dispute resolution-–eBay e-adjudication system manages 60 million disputes per year, more than 3 times the number of lawsuits filed in the US Accountancy: 48 million Americans filed their tax returns using online tax preparation software, bypassing tax professionals Architecture: At WikiHouse, an online community designed a house that could be printed and assembled for less than £50,000
- 32. Kickstart radical change by embracing innovation
- 33. Library Innovation Examples: Library as Publisher
- 34. Library Innovation Examples: Research Data Management
- 38. Library Innovation Examples: Discovery replaces OPAC
- 39. Scholarly Publishing: Radical Change Needed
- 40. Scholarly Publishing: Radical Change Needed
- 41. OA Scholarly Publishing – Progress to date http://chronicle.com/article/As-an-Open-Access-Megajournal/234890
- 42. OA progress – tipping point?
- 43. OA progress – tipping point?
- 44. Planck findings Under current subscription system, between $4,100 and $5,400 is already being paid per research article through library subscription spending Based on predicted average APC ($2,160), there is already enough money in the system. A large scale transformation from subscription to OA publishing is possible without added expense. For a meaningful cost analysis it is important to differentiate the APC-relevant articles (corresponding- author papers) from the rest of the publication record.
- 45. OA progress – tipping point?
- 46. OA progress – tipping point?
- 47. OA progress – tipping point?
- 48. OA progress – tipping point?
- 49. OA progress – tipping point?
- 50. OA progress – tipping point? UQ numbers (2014) 8,000 research articles 50% corresponding author UQ (assumed) 4,000 APCs $2,000 avg. APC =$8m total in flipped model Vs. $9.75m spent on subscriptions
- 51. OA 2020 Will flip happen? Major implications for library operations/workflows/systems All the work associated with managing subscriptions and toll-access (proxies, KBs, etc.) goes away New workflows required to manage APCs Only applies to scholarly journals; existing model remains for books, databases, etc. If no flip, where will OA be?
- 52. Libraries 2020: what will it take to succeed? Demonstrates leadership on campus (e.g., data management) Able to resource new services initiatives within existing or smaller budget Able to demonstrate (provide evidence of) value Agile Diverse Post-digital Integrated
- 53. Thank You
Editor's Notes
- Good morning. The advertised topic for my talk this morning was Library 2020—looking at the key challenges and opportunities facing university libraries in the coming years. As I was reflecting on some of the library and higher-ed trends and developments of the past year, a strong sub-theme developed—the need for radical change.
- So the revised title of my presentation is Library 2020: the need for radical change. What I’ll present is not so much a clear picture of what academic libraries will look like in 4 years, but rather talk about some of the major disruptions we have faced or are facing, that will necessitate significantly different approaches, skills, resourcing, and organisational structures.
- We saw many new examples in 2015 of an ongoing trend toward increasing consolidation in the academic library marketplace. On the publishing side, we saw the merger of Springer and Macmillan’s Nature Publishing Group, announced in January and completed in May. The new company is a multi-billion dollar entity in the league of Elsevier, Wiley, and Taylor and Francis. To give an idea of scale, the new company ranks 2nd behind Elsevier in terms of percentage of papers published annually. One interesting aspect of the merger was that it did not include Macmillan’s Digital Science division, home of a number of startups that I’ll touch on later. ===== The larger theme of the deal is, of course, consolidation around a market that is relatively stable and growing, albeit slowly at a base rate. Consolidation has been occurring overtly and less obviously in the journals and scholarly market for decades, but has accelerated recently in both branded portfolios and mergers and acquisitions. There are some key reasons for this: More research outputs. The number of papers continues to increase. This is a major driver for the increasing number and size of journals in the market. Bigger publishers have greater reach, can attract more papers, can sell into more markets, and can launch more journals more easily. Relatively flat site license revenues. The market is not natively supporting sufficient price increases. When this happens, other techniques have to be employed to drive revenue growth. The most effective of these it to position yourself to take money from other players in the market by offering more bang for the buck, thereby diverting money from smaller players over into your pockets. The “Big Deal” has been the most obvious technique here, one that has been mimicked by smaller publishers that have expanded their journals portfolios and sold them as packages. Despite being disparaged, the Big Deal still works, and the Small Bundle is also working. All of this places singleton titles at a severe disadvantage, while making contracts with larger publishers more enticing. Open access. Commercial open access (OA) publishing has grown significantly over the past 5-7 years.APCs are higher for larger publishers, as RCUK data have repeatedly shown, which makes these publishers eager to solidify their positions. Springer brings BioMed Central to the deal, one of the most successful OA publishers. NPG has been slow to move into the OA realm. As a combined entity, Macmillan-Springer is likely to command higher prices on the market and be in a position to extract further price increases over time. Digital workflows and commerce. Digital is not cheaper or simpler than print. The fixed costs of digital publishing are significant, and if not taken to scale, they can overwhelm smaller publishers. Vendors are one way to get some benefits of scale, but vertical integrations inside larger corporations are the most efficient way, as the fixed costs of headcount can be rationalized as well as the technical infrastructure. Data publishing. Larger publishers have more data to process, more infrastructure on the technical and sales/marketing fronts, and more reason to leverage all these assets. Prospects for lucrative data publishing are certainly driving consolidation, as more information assets means more data under one roof. Globalization. Larger organizations can cover the globe more effectively. Often, regional contacts can generate both business and editorial opportunities — the best papers, better marketing, more sales. Scale is key to addressing the entire globe effectively. Rick Anderson, who blogs here and is Associate Dean for Scholarly Resources and Collections at the University of Utah, summed it up in a news report from Science: . . . publishers are fielding more and more submissions and chasing smaller and smaller budgets while also dealing with an increasingly complex scholarly communication environment. It’s a very tough position to be in.
- In November, Thomson Reuters announced that it was “exploring options” for its IP & Science Business, publisher of Web of Science and InCites Among the potential buyers identified by industry analysts: Springer Nature, Wiley, and Elsevier, which currently produces several competing products, including Scopus and SciVal. The implications for academic libraries of a sale of the TR IP&Science business could be minimal or significant, depending on whether it is acquired by Elsevier, which would likely merge the existing competing product, or to Springer Nature or Wiley, in which case probably not much would change for library customers.
- Moving on the the world of library technology, there was a major development in the last quarter of 2015, with acquisition of Ex Libris by ProQuest. While then announcement of the acquisition emphasized that the current products of both companies would continue to be developed, it’s quite hard to imagine based on previous consolidations in this marketplace that the combined company won’t work aggressively toward combining parallel products, such as Primo and Summon in the discovery space. The acquisition also clearly marks the end for Intota as a comprehensive Library Services Platform intended to compete with Ex Libris’s Alma, Innovative’s Sierra, OCLC’s Worldshare Management System, and SirsiDynix Bluecloud.
- This slide, from Marshal Breedings library technology site, provides a visual representation of consolidation over time in the industry, with many vendors early on (on the right of the slide—going back to 1968) and very few currently (on the left of the slide). In terms of core library management technology—previously the library management system including an online public access catalog, moving in recent years to cloud-based library services platforms to manage back-office operations and library discovery layers replacing OPACs, there has been a long history of mergers and acquisitions. http://librarytechnology.org/mergers/
- Here’s a closer look that shows the major consolidation that has taken place over the last 15 years. For the university library sector, we’re essentially left with four commercial vendors providing library management systems.
- So what does this look like for the Australian university library sector, for library discovery systems and library services platforms? The is what the Library Services Platform vendor market share pie looks like, with the vast majority of university libraries using Ex Libris (mostly Alma, at 46%) or Innovative (mostly Sierra, also at 46%), with much smaller number using SirsiDynix.
- On the Discovery Platform side, we have 18% using EBSCO’s EDS, 31% using ProQuest Summon, and 49% using Ex Libris Primo. With the ProQuest / Ex Libris merger, though, one company now has 80% of the market. While the merged company has indicated it will continue to develop and sell both discovery products, it is hard to imagine that the two will not converge within the next few years.
- So what are the implications of this continuing industry consolidation? On the negative side for university libraries as customers, there is less competition and fewer product choices. In the publishing sector, the dominance of the big publishers is putting huge pressure on smaller publishers. On the plus side though, I think the potential benefits of strength in numbers, both in terms of negotiating more effectively with vendors but also in achieving operational efficiencies with shared systems by harmonizing approaches to standard back-office operations much more aggressively than we’ve done in the past.
- While 2015 provided many examples of the continuing consolidation trend in scholarly publishing and in library management systems, it also provide many examples of innovative new products and services for higher education. We saw lots of press coverage about innovation in 2015, including pieces like this one from Forbes, arguing that the traditionally risk-averse culture of higher education has to change if the sector is to survive.
- I’ll provide a few examples of innovative new products and services in the scholarly communication arena, including tools for collaborative authoring, research data management, evaluating research outputs, and personal digital libraries http://librarytechnology.org/mergers/
- Developed by one of the startups in the Macmillan Digital Science division, which was not part of the Springer/Nature merger. Provides an online, collaborative authoring editing tool for researchers, based on the widely used LaTeX text editor. Supports automated submission of papers to a growing number of publishers. Also includes editorial and peer-review features for publishers.
- Another recent startup is Publons, which allows researchers to track and showcase their contributions to peer review, an important but historically undervalued component of scholarly publishing. UQ is doing a pilot project with Publons which will allow us to showcase our researchers’ peer review activity alongside their publications and other research outputs in our institutional repository, eSpace.
- There’s another related startup initative that we recently learned about from a researcher at UQ, called Academic Karma. It’s a peer review network independent of journals, where members can submit papers to an existing preprint servier like arXiv or bioRxiv and have the paper peer reviewed for free, in return for reviewing the work of others. Following review, papers can be submitted to publisher of choice, along with the reviews.
- ImpactStory is an open source, web-based tool that provides altmetrics to help researchers measure and share the impacts of all their research outputs—from traditional ones such as journal articles, to alternative research outputs such as blog posts, datasets, and software.[1] It aims to change the focus of the scholarly reward system to value and encourage web-native scholarship. ImpactStory is a nonprofit organisation funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation [2] and the National Science Foundation.[3]
- Readcube personal digital library platform—combines discovery, document and citation management tools, supported across multiple user devices
- To solve our greatest challenges we need a 21st century update to scholarly communication. Our mission is to efficiently publish the world's knowledge. We do this through Internet-scale innovation and Open Access licensing to save your time, your money, and to maximize recognition of your contributions. We aim to drive the costs of publishing down for the academic community, while improving the overall publishing experience, and providing authors with a publication venue suitable for the 21st Century. We have two peer-reviewed publications: "PeerJ" serving the Biological and Medical sciences and "PeerJ Computer Science." Additionally we publish "PeerJ PrePrints", which is an innovative ‘preprint server’ covering both Biology and Computer Science. Authors pay for a lifetime publishing plan, which gives them the ability to publish their articles with us for free. The Q&A + annotations platform provides a second route to recognizing contributions for knowledge-share.
- Kudos – VALA promo message yesterday "I am looking forward to my first VALA and meeting anyone interested in increasing the reach and impact of research publications. I am a co-founder of Kudos, which provides tools for researchers to explain and share their work for wider audiences. We make it easier for institutions and publishers to benefit / learn from researchers’ efforts to ensure that work is found, read, and applied or cited. We give you insight into how, where and when researchers communicate, bringing together downloads, citations, and altmetrics to show what is working – across open channels like Twitter, but also “closed” channels like email.
- Moving briefly to more general technology innovation, we saw in late 2015 this announcement from Deakin University about the successful launch of IBM’s Watson “cognitive computing” technology at Deakin. According to the press release, students at Deakin University ask IBM Watson 1600 questions a week to learn the ins and outs of life on campus and studying in the cloud. As the first university in the world to introduce IBM Watson cognitive computing technologies, Deakin is progressing its use of Watson, expanding its capabilities and teaching the system to understand new sources of information. We’ve been hearing about artificial intelligence for many years without seeing much in the way of deliverable systems, so it’s good to see it in use at Deakin in support of an improved student experience. Unfortunately, it’s behind the student authentication system at this point so I couldn’t do any exploration of how well it works. If there’s anyone here from Deakin, I’d love to hear later on how smart Watson really is.
- Apparently Google is also investing heavily in artificial intelligence and machine learning to stay on top in web searches. The RankBrain AI system is now incorporated into the Google search algorithm mix, to handle search words and phrases that are unfamiliar to Google’s standard search engine. Read more: http://www.itnews.com.au/news/google-moves-to-artificial-intelligence-for-search-queries-411046#ixzz3ymKxnLjR
- Among the notable technology deaths in 2015 was the library card catalog. I thought it had died some time ago, but apparently OCLC still had customers for its catalog card printing service until it was discontinued on October 1 of last year.
- We also saw in 2015 the release of the 2nd Library edition of the New Media Consortium Horizon report, which examines key trends, significant challenges, and important developments in technology for their impact on academic and research libraries worldwide. The Horizon Project has been around for quite some time now—the first horizon report, covering the landscape of emerging technologies for teaching, learning, and creative inquiry, was released back in 2004. While it may not always be an accurate predictor of the impacts emerging technologies will have, I think the report can provide useful perspectives and context for libraries and universities in evaluating their current technologies and in planning for the future.
- Long-Term Impact Trends: Driving technology adoption in academic and research libraries for five or more years > Increasing Accessibility of Research Content Rethinking Library Spaces Mid-Term Impact Trends: Driving technology adoption in academic and research libraries over the next three to five years > Evolving Nature of the Scholarly Record 12 > Increasing Focus on Research Data Management 14 Short-Term Impact Trends: Driving technology adoption in academic and research libraries over the next one to two years > Increasing Value of the User Experience 16 > Prioritization of Mobile Content and Delivery
- Challenges Impeding Technology Adoption in Academic and Research Libraries Solvable Challenges: Those that we understand and know how to solve > Embedding Academic and Research Libraries in the Curriculum > Improving Digital Literacy Difficult Challenges: Those that we understand but for which solutions are elusive > Competition from Alternative Avenues of Discovery > Rethinking the Roles and Skills of Librarians Wicked Challenges: Those that are complex to even define, much less address > Embracing the Need for Radical Change Managing Knowledge Obsolescence Embracing the Need for Radical Change: [from the report] Academic and research libraries are facing ongoing leadership issues that impact every aspect of their facilities and offerings, including updating staffing models and addressing a lack of financial resources. Compounding this challenge is the need to adapt to the rapidly evolving landscape of technology and to understand its impact on patron behaviors. Once patron needs have been identified, libraries are tasked with revising or building new infrastructure to support more effective research practices, yet the change in focus on integrating innovations seems to be at odds with traditional modes of thought that govern academic and research libraries. Library leadership will require radically different thinking to provide adequate and sustainable support for new initiatives and business models. In order to be effective, this type of thinking will need to extend across the entire organization from the top down — from deans and directors to librarians, support staff, and new hires.
- Important Developments in Technology for Academic and Research Libraries Time-to-Adoption Horizon: One Year or Less > Makerspaces Online Learning Time-to-Adoption Horizon: Two to Three Years > Information Visualization Semantic Web and Linked Data Time-to-Adoption Horizon: Four to Five Years > Location Intelligence
- One of my recommended readings from 2015 is The Future of the Professions, by Richard and Daniel Susskind. The future that the authors describe is as follows: “There are two possible futures for the professions. The first is reassuringly familiar. It is a more efficient version of what we already have today. On this model, professionals continue working much as they have done since the middle of the nineteenth century, but they heavily standardize and systematize their routine activities. They streamline their old ways of working. The second future is a very different proposition. It involves a transformation in the way that the expertise of professionals is made available in society. The introduction of a wide range of increasingly capable systems will, in various ways, displace much of the work of traditional professionals. In the short and medium terms, these two futures will be realized in parallel. In the long run, the second future will dominate, we will find new and better ways to share expertise in society, and our professions will steadily be dismantled. That is the conclusion to which this book leads.” In the Horizon Report the authors make the case that we need to embrace radical change; In the Future of the Professions the authors argue that radical change is inevitable, whether we embrace it or not
- Broad argument: In the print-based industrial society, the professions played a central role in the sharing of expertise. They have been the main channel through which individuals and organizations have gained access to certain kinds of knowledge and experience. In a technology-based internet society, increasingly capable machines, operating on their own or with non-specialist users, will take on many of the tasks that have been the historic preserve of the professions. The authors anticipate an incremental transformation in the way expertise is produced and distributed in society, that will lead eventually to a dismantling of the traditional professions. Selected stats: -more people signed up for Harvard’s online courses in a single year than have attended the actual university in its 377 years of existence -there are more unique visits to the WebMD network of health websites than to all the doctors working in the United states -3 times as many disagreements each year amongst eBay traders are resolved using online dispute resolution than there are lawsuits filed in the entire US court system -on its 6th birthday, the Huffington Post had more unique monthly visitors to that the website of the New York Times, which is 164 years old -in 2014, 48 million people filed tax returns prepared with online tax preparation software rather than a tax professional -at WikiHOuse, ano online community designed a house that could be ‘printed’ and assembled for less than 50,000 pounds
- Radical change usually doesn’t happen overnight. The impact of external changes and pressures often take years to be felt, and it’s rarely obvious early on during those changes where your organization or business’s future state lies. I’d like to offer just a few examples of innovation in the academic library world over the past decade, triggered by the digital revolution. I think these all demonstrate that, for the most part, university libraries have embraced the need for significant, if not radical change, developing new services to address real and anticipated needs, and applying traditional library skills to solve new problems.
- Library-based scholarly publishing services is one new service area being offered by some academic libraries. Library-based publishing can be seen as a logical extension of library support for open access and as a counterpoint to ongoing resistance by many commercial publishers to reasonable library pricing models that reflect the world we live in, rather than the world that used to be. Open-source software such as the monograph and journal publishing systems developed by the Public Knowledge Project make it relatively inexpensive for libraries to provide free or low-cost e-publishing solutions for the community they serve. The Australian National University’s Press is one example. This provides a scholarly publishing platform primarily for ANU academics. The published titles are freely available to read online, and available in print through regular distribution such as Amazon. Similar library press initiatives elsewhere include a low-cost print-on-demand option.
- Another relatively big innovation being adopted by many libraries is creating and supporting “makerspaces,” community-oriented spaces where people gather to create, make, and learn using a variety of technologies and tools. The SLQ’s Edge, launched in 2010, is a good example of this. To quote from the Edge website: “Conceived as a model for the library of the future, The Edge, launched by State Library of Queensland (SLQ) in 2010, is at the forefront of re-imagining libraries for the 21st century. With a mandate to empower Queenslanders to explore creativity across art, science, technology, and enterprise, The Edge is a visionary space for ‘creating creatives’; a melting pot of ideas and innovation, capacity-building, experimentation and innovation.”
- A major challenge faced by most libraries in an age of abundant information and competition for budget dollars is demonstrating the value they provide to the communities they serve. Providing evidence that use of library services contributes to some positive outcome is difficult. Libraries have many potentially rich sources of data documenting use of their services, but they typically do not have access to data to correlate that usage with outcomes, such as student success. Many of you will be aware of the University of Woollongong’s innovative work in this area, where they created a framework to join library usage data (in the form of loans and usage of online resources) with student data, including demographic and academic performance information. As a result, they were able to demonstrate a strong correlation between students’ grades and use of library information resources.
- One of the major library innovations of the past decade was the introduction of discovery systems that leverage disruptive search technologies pioneered in the 1990s, first by Digital Equipment Corporation with AltaVista and later by Google. In 2006, North Caroline State University introduced what they called a “revolutionary new online catalog” based on the commercial search platform Endeca, later purchased by Oracle. The system featured a simple, google-like search option, relevancy ranking, faceted browsing similar to commercial shopping sites like Amazon, FRBR concepts, and suggest and autocorrect features. This was followed by the development of large central indexes of library journal content by vendors like Ex Libris and Proquest, with their Primo and Summon products. One of the major challenges of a big and disruptive innovation like library search is that while it largely displaces an earlier technology—the library OPAC—and is clearly the technology of the present and future, the OPAC still retains value for some library users. Determining the “right” time to pull the plug on displaced technologies and services is in my view one of the key challenges for an organization trying to support innovation.
- Brief look back OA movement began in Feb. 2002 with the Budapest Open Access Initiative An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment, for the sake of inquiry and knowledge. The new technology is the internet. The public good they make possible is the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds. Removing access barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge. For various reasons, this kind of free and unrestricted online availability, which we will call open access, has so far been limited to small portions of the journal literature. But even in these limited collections, many different initiatives have shown that open access is economically feasible, that it gives readers extraordinary power to find and make use of relevant literature, and that it gives authors and their work vast and measurable new visibility, readership, and impact. To secure these benefits for all, we call on all interested institutions and individuals to help open up access to the rest of this literature and remove the barriers, especially the price barriers, that stand in the way. The more people who joint the effort to advance this cause, the sooner we will all enjoy the benefits of open access. Open access to peer-reviewed journal literature is the goal. Self-archiving (I.) and a new generation of open-access journals (II.) are the ways to attain this goal. They are not only direct and effective means to this end, they are within the reach of scholars themselves, immediately, and need not wait on changes brought about by markets or legislation. While we endorse the two strategies just outlined, we also encourage experimentation with further ways to make the transition from the present methods of dissemination to open access. Flexibility, experimentation, and adaptation to local circumstances are the best ways to assure that progress in diverse settings will be rapid, secure, and long-lived. Sponsored by The Open Society Institute
- Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities The Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities of 22 October 2003 was written in English. It is one of the milestones of the Open Access movement. The wording of the English version shall prevail. Preface The Internet has fundamentally changed the practical and economic realities of distributing scientific knowledge and cultural heritage. For the first time ever, the Internet now offers the chance to constitute a global and interactive representation of human knowledge, including cultural heritage and the guarantee of worldwide access. We, the undersigned, feel obliged to address the challenges of the Internet as an emerging functional medium for distributing knowledge. Obviously, these developments will be able to significantly modify the nature of scientific publishing as well as the existing system of quality assurance. In accordance with the spirit of the Declaration of the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the ECHO Charter and the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, we have drafted the Berlin Declaration to promote the Internet as a functional instrument for a global scientific knowledge base and human reflection and to specify measures which research policy makers, research institutions, funding agencies, libraries, archives and museums need to consider. Goals Our mission of disseminating knowledge is only half complete if the information is not made widely and readily available to society. New possibilities of knowledge dissemination not only through the classical form but also and increasingly through the open access paradigm via the Internet have to be supported. We define open access as a comprehensive source of human knowledge and cultural heritage that has been approved by the scientific community. In order to realize the vision of a global and accessible representation of knowledge, the future Web has to be sustainable, interactive, and transparent. Content and software tools must be openly accessible and compatible.
- http://chronicle.com/article/As-an-Open-Access-Megajournal/234890
- The Max Planck has hosted an annual conference to further the discussion around open access. The latest conference, Berlin 12, took place in November 2015. Ironically, unlike previous meetings and seemingly in philosophical conflict with the underpinnings of the OA movement, the meeting was by invitation only. On December 8 and 9, 2015, representatives from several regions (Asia, Europe, and North America) met in Berlin, Germany, to discuss a proposal to flip subscription-based journals to open access models. The initiative is being led by the Max Planck Society, the organizer and host of the invitation-only Berlin 12 Open Access Conference. The rationale for the initiative is based on an analysis undertaken by Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL), which found that a flip to open access would be possible at no financial risk, “maybe even at lower overall costs” to the system. The objective of the conference was to build a consensus for an internationally coordinated effort to shift libraries’ journal budgets away from subscriptions and towards article processing costs (APCs). In general, most conference participants were supportive “in principle” of a collaborative, international effort to accelerate the transition to open access, although a number of concerns were expressed about a model in which APCs would prevail. For a summary of the key points of the EOI and a description of the discussions and concerns raised at the conference, read the Association of Research Libraries report on the Berlin 12 Open Access Conference: http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/2015.12.18-Berlin12Report.pdf The objective of the conference was to build a consensus for an internationally coordinated effort to shift libraries’ journal budgets away from subscriptions and towards article processing costs (APCs). The meeting was attended by 96 participants from 19 countries, with several US and Canadian representatives (listed below). The major point of discussion was an expression of interest (EOI) that would form the basis for gaining support and moving forward with the initiative. Once published, organizations will be invited to sign the EOI and it will be used to galvanize interest in the initiative around the world.
- This is the research paper publish
- Global journal subscription spending: EUR 7.6 billion ($8.2 billion) Total estimate article output: 1.5 - 2.0 million papers Calculated expenses per article: EUR 3,800 ($4,100)
- The Pay-It-Forward project at the University of California (UC) is investigating the financial sustainability of the “Gold” model for Open Access (OA), in which journal publishers charge authors an Article Processing Charge (APC) to generate revenue instead of subscriptions. Large research universities in North America such as UC and its library partners (Harvard, Ohio State University, and the University of British Columbia) account for a large number of research articles each year, and we need to understand how that will change the costs associated with scholarly communication at our institutions, particular library budgets. The project has collected data on journal budgets and expenditures, publishing costs and APCs, attitudes about Gold OA of publishers and authors at various career stages, and authorship patterns at our institutions. We are using this data to create a financial model for Gold OA at research universities, and will report our findings to-date and planned project outcomes.
- Library Resource Expenditures ARL (2014): $1,534,077,855 Project participants Harvard: $44,854,018 UCAL: $76,447,857 Ohio State: $18,977,914 UBC: $16,763,126 Total: $157,042,915
- For OA slides Library Resource Expenditures ARL (2014): $1,534,077,855 Project participants Harvard: $44,854,018 UCAL: $76,447,857 Ohio State: $18,977,914 UBC: $16,763,126 Total: $157,042,915 CAUL (2014): $AU297,905,101 CONZUL (2014): $65,871,167