The Future Of Open Access


Published on

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

The Future Of Open Access

  1. 1. The Future of Open Access: Licensing Trends, Alternative Publishing Models and the Impact on Libraries, Publishers and Their Clienteles Richard R. Bernier - Reference and Electronic Services Librarian March 10, 2008
  2. 2. Background <ul><li>Society publishers - fewer journals, fewer articles </li></ul><ul><li>Society publishers turn over publishing tasks to commercial publishers -> profit oriented = more titles, higher prices </li></ul><ul><li>Society publishers begin to operate like commercial publishers </li></ul>Licensing Trends
  3. 3. Add Electronic Journals to the Mix <ul><li>Electronic journals originally an added bonus to the paper subscription, no extra cost </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Publication cost for electronic publishing is much lower than print </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Then extra cost for electronic </li></ul><ul><li>Either print, electronic or both – e-only not much cheaper </li></ul>Licensing Trends
  4. 4. How They Maintain Prices <ul><li>Add real or artificial “added value” such as: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bundled print and electronic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross subject bundled packages – pay for all or nothing, leaving libraries with content they don’t want and unable to pick and choose journals. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Electronic - Access vs. own electronic </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To prevent cancelation of electronic subscription </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To sell print subscription as well </li></ul></ul>Licensing Trends
  5. 6. Commercial Publishers - Doing Just Fine Licensing Trends The STM publishing makes up 5 % (19.2 billion dollars) of the 358 billion dollar information industry in 2005. Outsell, I-Market Hot Topics , Information Industry Outlook: FutureFacts 2007, p20.
  6. 7. This Model Can Not Sustain Itself <ul><li>Libraries can not continue on this path. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Just-in-case” model no longer works </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperative agreements to hold on to paper copies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Smaller libraries purchase “access” more and rely heavily on ILL. </li></ul><ul><li>Will we move to a pay-per-article model? </li></ul>Licensing Trends
  7. 8. Other Impacts <ul><li>ILL requests become harder to fill </li></ul><ul><li>Resources are harder to obtain, or take longer </li></ul><ul><li>Diffusion of scholarship – more journals + cut subscriptions = lower readership = lower impact factors </li></ul><ul><li>Creates barriers for people in developing nations </li></ul><ul><li>Stretches library budgets to the breaking point </li></ul>Licensing Trends
  8. 9. Alternative Publishing Models <ul><li>Open Access </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Guild Publications Model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open Access Journals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutional Repositories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>E-Print Archives or subject repositories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Born Digital” Scholarship </li></ul></ul>
  9. 10. Hopes for the Open Access Movement <ul><li>Increased pressure on publishers to be more competitive with their pricing </li></ul><ul><li>Increase access to scholarship by removing cost and access barriers </li></ul><ul><li>Speed up the publishing process by making it available sooner than publish date </li></ul>Alternative Publishing Models
  10. 11. Hopes for the Open Access Movement <ul><li>Researchers material beyond journal articles and books </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning and complex multimedia objects used in instruction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simulations and visualizations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Audio/visual </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Webcasts and conferences (e.g. paper with presentation audio, video, or PowerPoint presentation) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lectures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complex datasets derived from research </li></ul></ul>Alternative Publishing Models
  11. 12. Hopes for the Open Access Movement <ul><li>Can include informal scholarly communication – blogs, wikis, list-serves and other social software content, good for capturing the essence of scholarly debate </li></ul><ul><li>Other forms of non-traditional research such as graduate and undergraduate research like theses and dissertations </li></ul><ul><li>Aids in interdisciplinary research from seamless searching across repositories </li></ul>Alternative Publishing Models
  12. 13. Guild Publishing <ul><li>Research output from an academic department or a research institute </li></ul><ul><li>Has not gone through peer review publishing process </li></ul><ul><li>Working papers, technical reports, occasional papers, research memoranda </li></ul><ul><li>Strictly a supplement to formal publishing </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits: rapid access to new research, low cost, easy to setup </li></ul>Alternative Publishing Models
  13. 14. Open Access Journals <ul><li>The Directory of Open Access Journals list </li></ul><ul><li>1, 041 journals. (was 1,029 about 2 weeks ago) </li></ul><ul><li>Author concerns early-on included: </li></ul><ul><li>Worries about quality of content in OA journals / low impact factors </li></ul><ul><li>Won’t rank high in tenure review </li></ul>Alternative Publishing Models
  14. 15. Success of OA Journals <ul><li>Higher citations per article </li></ul><ul><li>Higher impact </li></ul><ul><li>Authors are becoming more aware of open access journals and starting to trust them more. </li></ul>Alternative Publishing Models
  15. 16. Success of OA Journals <ul><li>Submissions to BioMed Central have seen sustained and rapid growth over the last several years. </li></ul>Alternative Publishing Models Matthew J. Cockerill and Vitek Tracz, “ Open Access and the Future the Scientific Research Article ,” The Journal of Neuroscience, October 4, 2006, p. 10079-10081 .
  16. 17. Institutional Repositories <ul><li>Can include published or non-published works </li></ul><ul><li>Can include non-traditional forms of research (presentations, undergraduate/graduate research, datasets, multimedia etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>A showcase of an institution’s intellectual output and serves as an indicator of its academic quality and priorities. </li></ul><ul><li>Accepted protocols such as OAI and OAI-PMH make IRs inoperable and searchable through central search tools such as </li></ul>Alternative Publishing Models
  17. 18. OAIster <ul><li>OAIster </li></ul><ul><li>Feb 2005 - 5 million records, 405 institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Dec 2005 – 6.3 million records from 578 institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Oct 2006 – 9.8 million records from 704 institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Oct 2007 – 13.6 million records from 896 contributors </li></ul><ul><li>March 2008 – 15.3 million records from 934 contributors </li></ul>Alternative Publishing Models
  18. 19. e-Print Archive <ul><li>arXiv - Physics, math, non-linear science, computer science, and quantitative biology – hosted by Cornell University </li></ul><ul><li>CogPrints – Cognitive Science – hosted by Southampton University </li></ul><ul><li>Los Alamos Physics Archive – Physics </li></ul>Alternative Publishing Models
  19. 20. “ Born Digital” Scholarship <ul><li>Digital nature of electronic form is inherent to the scholarship itself </li></ul><ul><li>Hypertext, multimedia, databases, datasets </li></ul><ul><li>Traditional scholarship that relies on digital component. (e.g. a hyperlink to a video simulation) </li></ul><ul><li>Suffers from lack of recognition due to its lack of adherence to accepted standards of scholarly communication </li></ul>Alternative Publishing Models
  20. 21. New Challenges and Roles <ul><li>Educate our users on Open Access journals, IRs and search tools </li></ul><ul><li>Open access journals > providing access from library website </li></ul><ul><li>IRs will lead librarians to engage faculty in the scholarly communication process </li></ul>Implications for Libraries
  21. 22. The Publishing Triangle Implications for Libraries Publishers Faculty Librarians
  22. 23. The New Publishing Triangle Implications for Libraries Publishers Faculty Librarians <ul><li>Copyright assistance </li></ul><ul><li>Metadata enhancement </li></ul><ul><li>Content management </li></ul><ul><li>and preservation </li></ul><ul><li>Increased visibility of </li></ul><ul><li>librarians within the </li></ul><ul><li>institution </li></ul>
  23. 24. New Missions for Libraries? <ul><li>SPARC – Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition – “ A Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper ”, 2002. – </li></ul><ul><li>“ As the volume of high quality web-based open access research expands, the role and value of the library’s journal collections will decline proportionately. Library programs and budgets will have to shift to support faculty open access publishing activities in order for the library to remain relevant to this constituency.” </li></ul>Implications for Libraries
  24. 25. Digital Preservation <ul><li>Major new challenge for librarians </li></ul><ul><li>An area of librarianship that is in developmental stages </li></ul><ul><li>Transformation of the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) from a theoretical framework to complete all-in-one systems is a work-in-progress. </li></ul>Implications for Libraries
  25. 26. Distributed Digital Preservation <ul><li>LOCKSS – (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Open source software solution used for backing up copies of online journal issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A network where each member backs up the journals of each other. Multiple members = multiple copies. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires publisher approval and participation </li></ul></ul>Implications for Libraries
  26. 27. New Copyright Challenges <ul><li>Librarians need increased awareness of copyright from an author’s viewpoint as well as a librarians </li></ul><ul><li>Greater awareness of digital resource licensing trends and how to gain leverage over terms </li></ul>Implications for Libraries
  27. 28. Implications for Researchers <ul><li>Free and immediate access to the latest research </li></ul><ul><li>Access to non-traditional research and data </li></ul><ul><li>Greater equitability and access to medical information around the globe </li></ul><ul><li>Students become producers </li></ul>
  28. 29. Implications for Authors <ul><li>Higher impact due to wider dissemination and free access </li></ul><ul><li>Authors should become more knowledgeable about the publication agreements and copyright that they sign over to the publishers . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Author addendums to retain copyright </li></ul></ul><ul><li>New business models - Author-pay </li></ul>
  29. 30. Implications for Authors <ul><li>Peer review process will continue to be the cornerstone of academic advancement </li></ul><ul><li>Journal impacts will continue to play a role and be a measure of quality </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But individual article level impacts will also play a role and will need to be factored into the tenure review process </li></ul></ul>
  30. 31. New Challenges <ul><li>Challenging for publishers (commercial and non-profit societal) </li></ul><ul><li>Threatens their business models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OA Journals – competition for authors, but it can co-exist </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IRs are a greater threat </li></ul></ul>Implications for Publishers
  31. 32. Publisher Opposition <ul><li>Opposition from the publishing industry and organizations </li></ul><ul><li>Range from simple dismissals to reasoned cases </li></ul><ul><ul><li>E.g. PRISM (Partnerships for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine) – Association of American Publishers </li></ul></ul>Implications for Publishers
  32. 33. Publisher’s Future <ul><li>The future is uncertain </li></ul><ul><li>Some journals will fold, but most will adapt </li></ul><ul><li>Experiments with publishing and business models will continue </li></ul><ul><li>The journal will continue to be the main method of scholarly publishing for the foreseeable future. </li></ul>Implications for Publishers
  33. 34. New Business Models <ul><li>Some cut costs by dropping print versions </li></ul><ul><li>Add new services and features to attract subscribers </li></ul><ul><li>Some print versions will serve as teasers to richer online content such as case studies, available only through online subscription. </li></ul><ul><li>Pay per view options </li></ul><ul><li>Author fee (institution fee?) </li></ul>Implications for Publishers
  34. 35. Response to OA Journals <ul><li>Adding open access to their journals to varying degrees </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Complete, immediate open access – abstracts only </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Different OA Journal models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Delayed OA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Partial OA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Author Fee OA </li></ul></ul>Implications for Publishers
  35. 36. Response to IRs <ul><li>Many allow depositing articles into an IR, but the preprint version (not published version) </li></ul><ul><li>Many require some sort of embargo, (6 mo - year) </li></ul><ul><li>Some require a link back to the published version. </li></ul>Implications for Publishers
  36. 37. National Institute of Health <ul><li>National Institute of Health (NIH) - Mandate via an act of congress – Jan 2008 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires all investigators of NIH funded projects to deposit an electronic version of their final, peer reviewed version of their manuscripts into PubMed Central upon acceptance to be made available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authors must notify publishers of this requirement upon article submission </li></ul></ul>Mandated Deposit
  37. 38. Universities <ul><li>About a dozen institutions worldwide (Europe, Asia, Australia) have mandates </li></ul><ul><li>Without a mandate, voluntary submission to IRs is very low (approximately 15%) When required, submission is up near 100% </li></ul><ul><li>First in the U.S.? </li></ul>Mandated Deposit
  38. 39. Universities <ul><li>Harvard University – Feb 12 th </li></ul><ul><li>Makes no mention of when it must be deposited which allows embargos </li></ul><ul><li>Faculty members can opt-out by obtaining a waiver. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>May undermine policy’s effectiveness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But faculty voted on it and it is now the “default position” – opt-out rather than op-in </li></ul></ul>Mandated Deposit
  39. 40. Impact <ul><li>Expect other universities to follow suit </li></ul><ul><li>As more universities act together, it will force publishers to adjust policies to accommodate. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Expect blanket policy changes, not changes per institution </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Publishers have already begun to accommodate </li></ul>Mandated Deposit
  40. 41. Conclusion <ul><li>Open Access will grow in importance to libraries as a strategic approach to collection development which will reshape it’s overall mission and roll within academia. </li></ul><ul><li>Publishers will continue to grapple with new models and most will adapt and survive under these new models. </li></ul><ul><li>Open Access will be further integrated into the peer review publishing & tenure review process. </li></ul>
  41. 42. Questions? <ul><li>Richard Bernier </li></ul><ul><li>Reference & Electronic Services Librarian </li></ul><ul><li>Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] ___________________________________________________________ </li></ul><ul><li>Selected Bibliography </li></ul><ul><li>The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper , Prepared by Ryam Crow, SPARC Senior Consultant, The SPARC Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, Washington D.C., 2002. </li></ul><ul><li>Leslie, David M. “ A Shifting Mosaic of Scholarly Publishing, Scientific Delivery, and Future Impact Changing the Face of Learned Societies ,” Journal of Mammalogy, April 2007, Vol. 88 Issue 2, p275-286. </li></ul><ul><li>Drake, Miriam A., “ Scholarly Communication in Turmoil,” Information Today ; Feb2007, Vol. 24 Issue 2, p1-19. </li></ul><ul><li>Willinsky, J., “The Nine Flavours of Open Access Scholarly Publishing ,” Journal of Postgraduate Medicine ; Jul-Sep2003, Vol. 49 Issue 3, p263-267. </li></ul>