AAUP 2009: Transformative OA Approach (I. Anderson)


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

AAUP 2009: Transformative OA Approach (I. Anderson)

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Background and context </li></ul><ul><li>Two initiatives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SCOAP3 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Springer Open Access Pilot </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Benefits and challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Future directions </li></ul>
  3. 3. UC Support for Open Access
  4. 4. But UC faculty also tell us: <ul><li>They don’t want their work disrupted </li></ul><ul><li>They don’t want to be told where to publish </li></ul><ul><li>They don’t want to pay to publish </li></ul><ul><li>They want OA deposit to be easy </li></ul>
  5. 5. In their own words <ul><li>“ As subscription prices climb, …[w]e need an affordable alternative that preserves both quality and prestige. </li></ul><ul><li>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.” </li></ul><ul><li>David Crohn, Department of Environmental Science, UC Riverside </li></ul>
  6. 6. The Big Deal: Angel or Demon? Unit costs have declined and availability has increased since the advent of the big deal
  7. 7. Libraries support OA and enter into Big Deals for some of the same reasons: <ul><li>To reduce the overall cost of the scholarly publishing system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>by placing market pressure on high price publishers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>by seeking more sustainable publishing models </li></ul></ul><ul><li>To maximize the amount of information available to their users despite limited budgets </li></ul><ul><li>Because faculty want it </li></ul><ul><li>To support broader uses – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>library-oriented uses: instruction, e-reserves, ILL </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transformative uses: data mining, e-science </li></ul></ul><ul><li>To help the academy regain control of the dissemination of scholarship </li></ul><ul><li>As a public good </li></ul><ul><li>To reduce the overall cost of the scholarly publishing system </li></ul><ul><ul><li>by placing market pressure on high price publishers through negotiation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>by seeking a more sustainable unit cost </li></ul></ul><ul><li>To maximize the amount of information available to their users despite limited budgets </li></ul><ul><li>Because faculty want it (the content) </li></ul><ul><li>Missing from this equation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Broader use, public good, control of the publishing enterprise </li></ul></ul>Open Access Big Deals
  8. 8. Oxford-LISU pricing study Trends in Scholarly Journal Prices 2000-2006 White & Creaser (March 2007)
  9. 9. Turning Demons into Angels <ul><li>If we accept that </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some existing publishers provide good value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authors value the services and imprimatur that current publishers provide </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Academic societies also value these services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>As evidenced by their flight to the big publishers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Then it follows that transformation is an appropriate path to pursue </li></ul>J.A.S. Collin de Plancy. Dictionnaire Infernal. Paris : E. Plon, 1863. Page 89. Notes: demon of discovery and of ingenious inventions.
  10. 10. Two “First in the U.S.” UC Initiatives <ul><li>SCOAP3 Support </li></ul><ul><li>UC-Springer Open Access Pilot </li></ul><ul><li>Both share common features </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Support the existing journals while converting them to OA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintain the library’s role in the funding and negotiation process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitate deposit of final published articles OA repositories </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. SCOAP3 http://scoap3.org <ul><li>Initiative based at CERN to convert core high energy physics journals to open access </li></ul><ul><li>Methodology: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Libraries / countries pledge funds via a formal “Expression of Interest” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing subscription funds will be redirected into a funding consortium governed by contributing organizations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Governance structure to be established </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Once fully funded, SCOAP3 will </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Issue a formal tender for publishing services (from existing publishers or other publishers) via competitive bid </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitate deposit of final articles in open access repositories </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Pledges received to date: $8.8 M / year (63% of total needed) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>U.S. Libraries: $2.5 Million (70% of anticipated total) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Participating countries: 21 </li></ul></ul>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
  12. 12. Springer-UC Open Access Pilot http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/alternatives/springer.html <ul><li>All UC-authored articles are published with full and immediate open access via Springer’s Open Choice program </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Any UC author, not just corresponding authors (up to a stated limit) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Two-year pilot agreement 2009-2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Cost included in CDL’s license agreement with Springer </li></ul><ul><li>Similar to Springer arrangements with Max Planck Society, Univ. of Gottingen, and Dutch University Consortium </li></ul><ul><li>Final published articles are deposited in CDL’s eScholarship Repository </li></ul><ul><li>Springer and UC will cooperate in analysis and evaluation of the results and report out their findings </li></ul>
  13. 13. OA is integrated into the acceptance process
  14. 14. OA is integrated into the acceptance process
  15. 15. Faculty responses to the Springer pilot <ul><li>… 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- </li></ul><ul><li>This looks to be a very, very good thing. Thanks for pulling it together! </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Detailed FAQ for faculty available at http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/alternatives/springer.html </li></ul>
  16. 16. Differences between SCOAP3 and Springer arrangements <ul><li>SCOAP3 places direct control of the journals in the hands of the funding consortium, ‘outsourcing’ peer review and editorial functions </li></ul><ul><li>Springer arrangement ‘transforms in situ’ – rights remain with the author, but publisher retains control of the journals </li></ul><ul><li>SCOAP3 is discipline-based, Springer is publisher-based </li></ul>
  17. 17. Benefits of a transformative approach <ul><li>Non-disruptive </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For authors - supports the existing credentialing and reward system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For publishers and societies – leverages existing relationships and funding streams </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Scalable (Springer model) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can operate at scale by having the institution (through its library) negotiate arrangements with publishers and facilitate article deposit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Converts many journals at once </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Supports OA for authors who lack research funding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Humanities and social sciences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Early career authors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Avoids version proliferation </li></ul><ul><li>Convenient – author rights and repository deposit are a function of the system </li></ul>
  18. 18. Challenges* <ul><li>Publisher resistance </li></ul><ul><li>Cost control </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We can negotiate to bring costs down </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Contraction of the funding base </li></ul><ul><ul><li>There are many more readers than authors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some libraries will pull out if enough content is OA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Loss of corporate revenue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Corporate, government, and other non-academic institutions comprise 25%-30% of the author community </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>% of subscriber community? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No obvious role for funding bodies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Shifting of costs to large publishing-intensive research institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Conflicting incentives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Attempts to manage costs at the institutional level could affect institutional authors wishing to publish </li></ul></ul>* (some of these are challenges to any OA model)
  19. 19. Possible future directions to achieve sustainability <ul><li>Embargoed access </li></ul><ul><ul><li>sufficient incentive to maintain subscription base? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Diversify the revenue stream </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Article processing fees as a component of funding to capture research &/or dept. support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Library handles administration, institutional deposit arrangements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizations choosing not to subsidize via an institutional arrangement pay higher article processing fees </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Submission fees </li></ul><ul><ul><li>See next slides </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. Controlling Costs through Submission Fees <ul><li>Total cost of journal publishing system: </li></ul><ul><li> $8,900,000,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Articles published worldwide: 1,350,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Average rejection rate: 50% </li></ul><ul><li>Articles submitted worldwide: 2,700,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Hypothetical submission fee: $100 </li></ul><ul><li>Hypothetical submission fee revenue: </li></ul><ul><li>$270,000,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Submission fee revenue as % of worldwide costs: 3.03% </li></ul><ul><li>Estimated annual growth of research publishing : 3% </li></ul>At a very modest fee, submission fee revenues would offset the growth in new research publishin g
  22. 22. in Stuart’s words… <ul><li>“ 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.” </li></ul><ul><li>Stuart Shieber, </li></ul><ul><li>The argument for gold OA support </li></ul><ul><li>The Occasional Pamphlet </li></ul><ul><li>on scholarly communication </li></ul><ul><li>June 11th, 2009 </li></ul>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.
  23. 23. Images courtesy of Cornell University Library