This document summarizes a librarian's presentation on academic publishing and open access models. It discusses the librarian's institution's experience with open access e-books and role as a publisher. It also covers open access to data and initiatives for metadata evolution, interoperability in scholarly communication, and knowledge discovery. The conclusion notes that the role of librarians has changed from retrieving specific information to helping users find what they need from the abundant information available.

1. ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’
A librarian’s view
Tullio Basaglia
CERN Scientific Information Service
Library section head
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

2. The Library as a service provider
• OA (e-)books: our experience
• The institution as a publisher: publishing and (co-)authoring services
• OA data and data archiving initiatives
• Metadata evolution
• From institutional repository to CRIS (=Current Research Information
System)
• Initiatives for interoperability in scholarly communication
• Initiatives for knowledge discovery
• Conclusion
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

3. OA (e-)books
• 3 books by CERN authors + 3 en preparation (two publishers)
• ‘Hard science’ titles: limited audience:
• The aim is science dissemination
• The model: a lump sum pays for perpetuel OA to the book. The deal
includes also the purchase of a certain amount of paper copies to be
sold at our Bookshop.
• The future: OA ebook + print-on-demand?
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

4. Publishing and (co-)authoring tools
• We adopted the OJS (Open Journal System) platform to host our
publication series “Yellow reports” (=reports and conference
proceedings), CERN’s Annual Report and a new journal, the ‘CERN
IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation (CIJ)’, dealing with
innovation and technology transfer.
• OJS provides a suitable environment for manuscripts processing and
for peer review.
• 40 researchers are testing three ‘co-authoring’ platforms: Authorea,
doDOC and Overleaf to help us in the selection process.
• Issues: branding + reflection on the business model is needed
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

5. OA: news from the front
• APCs – need to monitor appropriate usage of funding and appropriate
application of cc – this implies administrative costs (=staffing and
budget)
• Potentially considerable increase in the cost of publication – policy
issues (=‘what to fund?)
• It’s the library’s budget that is at stake!
• Workflows still in development at the publisher’s end
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

6. Archiving of and OA to data
• The archiving and open access to data deriving from scientific
experiments is of crucial importance:
 For the reproducibility of results
 To preserve them for future generations
 To connect them to the related publications
 Because more and more often, funding bodies explicitly require that data be
preserved and made generally available.
 For educational purposes (schools, crowd science)
• The Open Data portal is divided into two sections: Education and
Research:
http://opendata.cern.ch/
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

7. A joint effort between researchers and CERN’s Scientific
Information Service, requiring IT development and an
adaptation of the metadata model
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

8. Public CERN Open Data:
Level 1-3
Data in High-Energy Physics
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’
Presentation de S. Dallmeier-
Tiessen au SIPB, 7 juin 2016

9. The institution as a data provider: policy
issues
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

10. Data analysis and preservation in
particle physics
• Representatives of the scientific collaborations working on the Large
Hadron Collider approved a policy for open access to experimental
data
• They allocated the resources needed to carry out the project
• They defined a data format suitable for ‘exploitation’, prepared the
data and cooperated to the definition of the metadata model.
• There is a world-wide coordination effort among the main laboratories
in particle physics to define common criteria for data analysis and
preservation.
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

11. The metadata must evolve…
• Is JSON the future?
• JSON = JavaScript Object Notation, it uses a JavaScript notation
• Advantages:
 Simple syntax: name/value
 More flexible than MARC
 More human-readable than XML
 Should allow us to describe artifacts and entitites of
different nature: documents, but also users,
data etc., using the same notation system
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

12. Bibliometry (first steps towards a Current Research
Information System)
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

13. Bibliometry (cont’d)
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

14. Initiatives for interoperability in scholarly
communication
• An european project: THOR (Technical and Human infrastructure for Open
Research), in the framework of the Horizon 2020 programme
“It will establish seamless integration between articles, data, and researchers
across the research lifecycle. This will create a wealth of open resources and
foster a sustainable international e-infrastructure. The result will be reduced
duplication, economies of scale, richer research services, and opportunities for
innovation.”
• For authors: ORCID = Open Researcher & Contributor ID
(=desambiguation => metrics of impact)
• For institutions: Ringgold, OrgRef and GRID (=Global Research Identifier
Database)
• For articles (and other artifacts: software, datasets): DOI
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’

15. Initiatives for knowledge discovery
1. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WAS NOT DESIGNED TO REGULATE
THE FREE FLOW OF FACTS, DATAAND IDEAS, BUT HAS AS A
KEY OBJECTIVE THE PROMOTION OF RESEARCH ACTIVITY
2. PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO ANALYSE AND
PURSUE INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY WITHOUT FEAR OF
MONITORING OR REPERCUSSIONS
3. LICENSES AND CONTRACT TERMS SHOULD NOT RESTRICT
INDIVIDUALS FROM USING FACTS, DATAAND IDEAS
4. ETHICS AROUND THE USE OF CONTENT MINING TECHNIQUES
WILL NEED TO CONTINUE TO EVOLVE IN RESPONSE TO
CHANGING TECHNOLOGY
5. INNOVATION AND COMMERCIAL RESEARCH BASED ON THE
USE OF FACTS, DATA, AND IDEAS SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED
BY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’
“The Hague declaration on
knowledge discovery in the digital
age” - LIBER

16. In guise of a conclusion…
“We’ve gone from looking at a desert, in which the librarian had to walk
into the desert for you and come back with a lump of gold, to a forest, to
this huge jungle in which what you want is an apple. And at that point,
the librarian can walk into the jungle and come back with the apple.”
Neil Gaiman, interview at Bookpage.com
http://www.bookpage.com/the-book-case/2010/04/14/neil-gaiman-talks-
about-his-love-for-libraries/
23/06/2016
By the Book 2016: ‘Academic Publishing and Open Access
Models. How open is open enough?’