1. The Blame Game? Open Access Overview and Library Perspectives Colin Steele

2. Overview of Issues  Debate is really about changing modes of scholarly communication not solely Open Access (Houghton Report, 2003)  Crucial issues for change are Research Assessment Exercises including practices for tenure and promotion and peer review  Open Access dialogue is not simply about STM articles nor is OA a solution to the alleged library “serials crisis”  OA should cover the entire scholarly output

3. Open Access Frameworks, Budapest et al  Implement a policy to require researchers to deposit a copy of all their published articles in an open access repository (IR in particular)  Encourage researchers to publish their research articles in open access journals where a suitable journal exists and provide the support to enable that to happen  Implications of forthcoming UK Research Council statement on research grant publication

4. Fighting Over The Academic Body

5. Elsevier Research : Author Priorities: Michael Mabe Data from 36,188 Authors; 0= unimportant 10= very important 2= 1 6 5 7 8 4 2= QUALITY & SPEED

6. ALPSP Briefing: Open Access  Janet Boullin, OUP and Sally Morris, ALPSP citing:  CIBER – What do (4,000) Authors Want? (2004) 82% know ‘little’ or ‘nothing’ about OA 32% had self-archived on own/department site, 21% in Institional Repository 11% had published in OA journals Positive about OA, but 48% would not pay, circa 33% not above £500

7. ALPSP Briefing 2 OSI/JISC study (2004) c.100 OA and 100 non-OA authors 55% of former had not paid a fee (36% not required, 19% waived) 62% of latter aware of OA Small percentage of latter had self-archived 77% would do so if compulsory (8% unwillingly)

8. Cutting The Scholarly Mustard?  Caroline Michel (Harper Press) March 3, 2005: “Guardian World Book Day Forum”  “Mr Colman said that he made his fortune not from the mustard people ate, but from the mustard that remained on the side of the plate when the meal was finished”  Comparison here with most academic articles relatively little read, little used and little needed except for RAE’s ?

9. Academic Dross?  30% of titles from Big Deal publishers account for 80% of articles downloaded (Gatten and Sanville, D-Lib magazine) :  “Titles deemed to be of low value might then be discontinued to save the associated costs”  Simon Mays-Smith (Credit Suisse First Boston) “Does More Access Mean Less Library?” (UKSG, 11 April 2005) reaffirmed most useage from relatively few high value high cost journals

10. Commercial Publishers and Big Deals  Do we therefore need the “Big Deals”?  Derk Haank, “Commercial Scholarly Publishing in the World of Open Access” (UKSG 11 April 2005), “One is not allowed to make money out of science publishing”! – Surely the question is the amount  Only 24 Springer OA articles so far – but if $3,000 US no wonder!  Second half of 20 th Century did see major changes in STM publishing aggregation – differing views on history of publishing

11. Guedon and Mabe Battle over the History of Publishing

12. Open Access Issues  Confusion over terminologies such as “author pays”, eg UK Government 2004 response  If academics find it difficult to understand or even know about the “green and gold” OA paths, how will they keep track of many differing OA fees?  Ayris (UKSG 2005): University College London faculty mandates, links to research office and citations  Embryonic principle of cost recovery of academic time for commercial publications?

13. Publishers and Open Access?

14. Current “Author Pays” Fees Unsustainable: Mabe Drivers of cost per article: Rejection rates Format Production quality High Print + electronic High Low Electronic only Low All these costs per article have to increased by 33.3% and 16.6% = 50% to account for poorer authors and corporate free riders. This would make the average $5,700 and the Science charge $15,000 per paper, difficult for even funding bodies to afford ScienceCellImmunityBioScienceCancer Cell Est. STM Industry mean Estimated STM industry mean: (John Cox Associates) Estimated costs per article for selected journals: assumes all authors pay $thousands 10.0 9.2 7.6 7.0 6.4 3.8 PloS Au charge BMC Au Charge

15. One for Public Library of Science

16. PNAS:Open Access Uptake PNAS Subject Classification % Articles Open Access Genetics21% Neuroscience19% Microbiology18% Chemistry8% Statistics0% Diane Sullenberger, ALPSP 8 April 2005

17. PNAS OA Conclusions  Are OA papers read more and sooner than subscription access papers? Yes, by almost 50% in the first month  Are OA papers cited more and faster? No  Does OA cause subscription cancellation? Not Sure  Australian experience would lead to a definite no, unless journal was near to 100% OA  Martin Richardson (UKSG 12 April) “Experimenting with Open Access Publishing” - OUP experience, with journal articles available on OA 6-12 months paid subs declined 4% 2003 and 8% 2004

18. Reward Systems: The Key To Scholarly Change  RAEs and University League Tables still the “fatal attraction” ( Professor A J van Raan - Leiden )  Michael Day, Institutional Repositories and RAE study:  http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints- uk/docs/studies/rae/rae-study.pdf http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints- uk/docs/studies/rae/rae-study.pdf  Need to re-engineer reward systems for SC change  Campus advocacy programmes will “kick in”: eg  www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/scholarlycomm/scho larlycommunication.htm ACRL toolkit 2005 www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/scholarlycomm/scho larlycommunication.htm

19. Mode 2 Research and Mode 1 Publishing  Increasing divergence of research communication and formal publishing practices for scholars  Need for less heated dialogues on future of scholarly communication and more economic analysis of the issues required  UKSG – comments from Derk Haank and Dan Tonkery (EBSCO) – the latter that “wasted” money spent on IRs would help solve the “serials crisis”

20. Campus Budget Changes?  But what about the hidden costs in terms of campus infrastructure and time of the academic community in editorial board activities, refereeing, etc for the major international STM publishers  Sally Morris article Learned Publishing”The True Costs of Scholarly Journal Publishing” April 2005 – costing summaries within serial framework

21. Phelps. Provost of Rochester  http://www.arl.org/sparc/meetings/ir04/ir04spe ak.html

22. Role and Function of Institutional Repositories  Repositories will be increasingly important for institutional scholarship frameworks  IR’s intersect digital libraries, e -research, teaching and learning, courseware, records management, preservation and RAE issues  IR’s preserve and make available globally institutional digital assets - new models of scholarship (Abby Smith CLIR)

23. New Strategies on Campus?  Managing Digital Assets, Donald Waters, Feb 2005:  http://www.clir.org/activities/registration/feb05_spkrnot es/waters.htm http://www.clir.org/activities/registration/feb05_spkrnot es/waters.htm  “Presidents, Provosts, Deans, Scholars, Librarians and Technologists together must find ways within the larger academic community for their institutions to work together to realise the extraordinary economies of scale that are possible” to effect “new modes of ongoing operation”

24. Institutional Budgets  Recent papers from Phelps, Lewis, Stern, etc  Libraries spend a lot of money buying material for the academic community which is relatively little used – public good input  IR‘s relatively low cost - see 2004 DSpace, California, Hong Kong and Australian figures - compare US 20 million plus on serials acquisition by California University

25. The Deconstruction of Books Into Serials  E- slicing of books - rentals of texts and e- course pack developments  Rise of PODS and serial “reconstructions”  Consortial monograph offerings in serial type searches and useages  Impact of Google Print and Amazon within a book  Google recent purchase of BookSurge significant

26. New University E Presses

27. ANU E Press Download Figures for 2004  Still early days, but figures impressive for downloads in 2004 of ten reprint academic titles  HTML 189,688  PDF (complete book) 11,350  PDF (chapters) 38,074  Mobile devices 70,210- who are these?  Includes web crawlers but still significant figures

28. Australian ARIIC Framework  Australian government encouragement of institutional knowledge frameworks  ARIIC (Australian Research Information Infrastructure Committee). OA framework:  Building the infrastructure, such as institutional repositories, that will advance open access  Raising awareness of the principles and practice of open access publishing within Australian research institutions

29. ARIIC 2  Implementing public policies that ensure fair use of copyrighted information for educational and research purposes  Cooperating with Australian governments to improve access to scholarly information, and to maximise the amount of information in the public domain  Cf also JISC, UK RLN, European initiatives

30. ISI and OA IRs  James Pringle, VP Product Development, Thomson Scientific, “Partnering Helps Institutional Repositories Thrive” http://scientific.thomson.com/news/newsletter/200 5-02/8264025/ http://scientific.thomson.com/news/newsletter/200 5-02/8264025/  “Showcasing a university’s intellectual output”, while for governments the “overriding goal is disseminating information to the public”  ANU and Monash one of seven ISI test sites  ISI links such as with Highwire an increasing trend

31. Vast Potential but Under Populated

32. APSR

33. ARROW Project

34. Nature: A Case Study  David Hoole, ALPSP, 8 April 2005  New business opportunities: include filtering, personalisation and file management  Authoritative accessible content (preferably in a one-stop shop)  Pay-per-click lead generation  User behaviour as a source of revenue

35. In the end :”It’s not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change” Charles Darwin (Thanks to Gerald Coppin, Nature Publishing)

36. Knockout Futures?  Two tier publishing systems – High Toll Access and low Open Access  “Digital media titans”(Gartner) will increasingly concentrate power at the commercial end  Publishing minnows either gobbled up or float free in Google type OA seas  Elsevier dictum: “Close enough for free – excellence for a fee”  Instead : “Most free. The best for a fee”?

37. Conclusion: Back to the Future  The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge 1832 (UCL Archives) had as its mission to “impart useful information to all classes of the community” by acting as an intermediary between authors and publishers –  Ultimately however the Society failed as it did nothing more than “stuff our mouths with kangaroos” – ie did not meet market needs  Who will deliver:

38. The Future Information Knockout?