This document discusses the role of scholarly publishers in the digital age and the challenges they face. It notes that publishers provide value through peer review, editing, and navigation/search features for online content. However, digital content has characteristics like dynamic updates and various file formats that impact archiving and access over time. New models are needed to address issues like long-term preservation, customized access options, and integrating related datasets. Publishers will need to explore alternative revenue sources beyond annual subscriptions to support these evolving roles and responsibilities. Collaboration across institutions will be important to develop solutions and standards.

1. 5/19/2005
What are scholarly publishers good for?
David Stern
Director of Science Libraries
and Information Services
Yale University
david.e.stern@yale.edu
Society for Scholarly Publishing
Boston
June 2, 2005
Beyond distribution
Added Value Issues:
n Peer Review
u Filtering for quality
n Peer Review Coordination
u Communication
u Software (tracking)
u Office space/telecom costs?
n Copy-Editing
u Look-and-feel (branding still/ever important?)
u image manipulation
u Significant modifications?
u Language enhancement
Enhanced Value Issues:
n Navigation
u Metadata (A&I service)
u Visualizations
u Filtering
u Citation manipulation
u Awareness services
u Threads/Virtual Reviews
F Layperson news sources
F Teacher tools
n Customized options
u Differential pricing
u Data/popular summaries/teaching reviews?
1

2. 5/19/2005
Characteristics of online material
F Dynamic nature of material
• May always be modified (versions, corrections)
– Requires validation/authentication
• Momentary manifestation from a database
– Single snapshot from a simulation/program
F Non-standard tools
• Variety of viewers (compatibility)
• Short half-life for software products
• Proprietary formats
F Unbundled portions
• Access to specific graphs/charts/captions
• No page numbers for referencing
• Isolated 3D images in separate tools
• Related raw data in separate files (GenBank)
• What does this mean for journal subscriptions?
Possibilities for enhancement
Technology = Efficiencies/Enhanced options
F Navigation using metadata
• Beyond simple text words
– Citation/Frequency links
– “Find Similar” algorithms through harvesting
– Visualizations of hierarchies/concepts
F Searching across disciplines
F Cross publisher subject packages
• Normalization of discipline thesauri
F Integrated multi-media platforms
• Articles and supporting material
– Teaching tools
– Large datasets
Challenges:
n New players: better positioned?
u Journal of Insect Science
F faculty and library collaboration
u SPARC
F Guaranteed start-up revenue
n Unbundled data
u Subscriptions or pay-per-view
u Sub-article purchases (and modifications?)
n OA
u Hidden subsidies for other purposes
u Justification for costs
F Reduced costs/efficiencies
F demonstrated by APS
2

3. 5/19/2005
Challenges:
n Preservation
u Responsibilities for raw data
u LOCKSS outside solution
n Archival access
u Responsibilities for perpetual access
u Responsibilities for enhanced options
n Archiving revenue base
u Annual fees or membership or OA?
F Long-term value of pre-published data
F Vs value of navigation between items
Challenges for preservation
Traditional text and multi-media platforms
Individual publishers’ sites
• Build redundancy through duplication and Cooperative
arrangements with national libraries, government labs, etc.
• Some offer immediate Open Access to archives.
Shared functional platforms and archives
• Highwire
– commercial access for one year
– Open Access after an embargo period
– (protects subscription revenue)
• JSTOR consortia
– access limited to members
– “Fair Use” removed with e-journals
– Copyright: ILL system threatened
Challenges for preservation
Strictly preservation archives,
NOT functional platforms and archives.
LOCKSS duplicated repositories
• Raw data for emergencies
• No seamless functionality
• DMCA restrictions on sharing
– subscriptions
– technologies (efficiencies)
– Unnecessary redundancy/cost
3

4. 5/19/2005
Self Archiving?
Self-archiving as a realistic solution?
Neither the institutional or individual approach is
served by comprehensive federated searching,
nor are they mounted on mature platforms.
Therefore, neither provides any real commercial
challenge or scalable alternative yet.
Historical Considerations
Challenges:
Historical Use of Archives
Alternative search options and requirements:
Historians require different search
options and metadata indexes.
• Yale/Elsevier testbed
• Who will create these contextual search points?
If searching across disciplines (taxonomies),
the system requires normalization of metadata
and thesauri.
Next Generation enhancements
Personal data linked to outside data
F Knowledge Management
• Personal/lab databases
– Local storage of lab results
– Local storage of group knowledge
– Links to published literature
• Data manipulation
– Modification of raw data sets
– Repurposing of raw data
– Not only the “PDF” format (image)
– Copyright/permissions/acknowledgments
4

5. 5/19/2005
Extreme alternatives
Challenges:
n Pre-print services
u Separating peer review and distribution
u Speed/review continuum (discipline-specific)
n Post-publication peer review
u Remove commercial escalation
u Reduce expensive manuscript rejections
u Integrated material
u Layers of searching based upon desired tools
F Peer reviewed vs teaching tool vs raw data
Reduce Costs
REDUCE THE LEGITIMATE COSTS OF PEER
REVIEW
To reduce costs one must separate support for
expensive peer review from less expensive
(commercial) distribution and archiving.
If this cannot be done due to socio-economic
factors, one can at least reduce the number of
materials immediately requiring expensive peer
review. My post-publication peer review archive
overlay offers one such model.
http://www.library. yale.edu/scilib/modmodexplain.html
The Tiered Model
5

6. 5/19/2005
Post Publication Peer
Review
Search
Tools ($) Editorial Board(s)
Peer review process
A&I
Services
Free E-print
server(s)
High Energy Physics Organic Chemistry Medicine
Moderator Moderator Moderator
Post Peer Review Options
Summary
Longer-term Implications
There are real costs for these basic
activities and new possibilities which
need to be explored, developed and
supported. If not by annual fees, perhaps
by consortial buying groups.
Material can be housed centrally, at
Centers of Excellence, or distributed for
customization. (DMCA sharing issues?)
Include non-peer-reviewed material.
6

7. 5/19/2005
Next steps
Collaboration responsibilities
Help design the new networks (standards,
metadata, links, federated search
engines, network ontologies , etc).
Facilitate Centers of Excellence:
subject repositories, archives, guidelines.
Make authors/editors/administrative
stakeholders aware of the issues.
Leverage historical liaison and R&D
strengths to create new navigation
networks.
7