1. THE SOUND OF ONE HAND CLAPPING: THE POLITICS OF SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION CHANGE COLIN STEELE

2. Welcome to the Caves of Steele

3. Swedish Background  Grateful for the invitation – my first visit to Sweden but feel that I can empathise through Henning Mankell’s novels.  His titles in English perhaps resonate in the Scholarly Communication(SC) environment?  Who are the SC Faceless Killers?  Are Librarians continually Sidetracked, always One Step Behind the multinational publishers whose tollgates are a Firewall?

4. Nordic Timeframes  What has changed since the First Nordic Conference?  Open access policy statements and Institutional Repositories developments ( Lund and Nordic initiatives much appreciated)  The US dollar decline - the equivalent of a Scholarly Communication ‘Pearl Harbour’?  The US entered the periodical ‘war’ late but we can’t win without them?. 65%of STM market in North America

5. The Serials Pricing Debate?

6. Policy Initiatives Increased Governmental / Societal Attention  Berlin October 2003 Declaration  Mexico December 2003 Academies of Science  World Summit on Information Society December 2003  OECD Declaration January 2004  U.K. Science & Technology Committee Enquiry into Scientific Publications 2004

7. Scholarly Knowledge Black Holes  Need to step back to remember the issue is the creation, distribution and access to scholarly knowledge in all forms  Not an insignificant issue here for universities and research institutions !  But big picture issues often neglected by Vice Chancellors/Provosts/Presidents  What are the required political steps to facilitate SC change?

8. Have We Seen a Flight Of Political Acumen?

9. Also Need to Expect the Unexpected  New information technologies emerge that are rarely forecast or assume unexpected dimensions  ‘World–changing marvels to us, are only wallpaper to our children’( Bruce Sterling)  Computers are “the oxygen of the future”- Cambridge-MIT Pervasive Computing Initiative  What will be the intended and unintended consequences of the “Google Age?”-

10. Berkley Data Analysis  UC Berkeley School of Information Management & Systems. New Stored Information Grew 30%/Year Between 1999 and 2002. 92% Of New Information Is Stored On Magnetic Media Hotmail Generates 400 Petabytes (10^15) Of New Information Each Year Lyman – Librarians lost and Google won

11. Abuzz Advice Trader Answers.com Ask An Expert Sources.com AskERIC AskJeevesAskVRD.org Ask the Old Buzzard CNN’s Ask an Expert Page Consejos practicos Google Answers Internet Public Library “Ask A Question” Keen.com Pregunta a los expertos Taxcafe Wondir Ask Auntie Nolo AskBAR Experts.com Poser un question Ask-A-Geologist As Ask Volcanologist Ask Dr. Math Ask Dr. Universe Ask Shamu How Things Work MAD Scientist Network NASA Quest Pregunte a un expero Schools Online Project ScienceLine Scientific-American: Ask the Expert Ammdoc.com Buscamed Eclevelandclinic.com Econsults.partners.org Enviar pregunta Expertdoc.net Findcancerexperts.com Go Ask Alice Mdexpert.com Physician referral center Poser une question Pregunte a RxExpress Ask Joan of Art National Museum of Art Reference Desk Ask Made iVillage AskLISA Laboratorio de estudos urbanos Google / OCLC Social landscape OCLC – compiled from various sources (August 2003)

12. Impacts of the Mobile Phone Generation / OCLC

13. OCLC Top Ten OCLC – compiled from various sources (August 2003) http://search.yahoo.com/top2003 Last Minute Addition: Last Minute Addition: Amazon.com Top Ten Tech Searches 2003 1.Ringtones 2.Digital Cameras 3.Mobile Phones 4.HDTV 5.MP3 Players 6.iPod 7.TiVo 8.Plasma TV 9.DVD-R 10.Camcorders Top Ten Tech Searches 2003 1.Ringtones 2.Digital Cameras 3.Mobile Phones 4.HDTV 5.MP3 Players 6.iPod 7.TiVo 8.Plasma TV 9.DVD-R 10.Camcorders

14. OCLC: The High School Student The technology I want most is… “a PDA device that contains all the information I need to do my work.” —High School Student

15. The SC Next Generation  Today’s rules are often the answer to yesterday’s problems- scholarly ossification in publishing?  Is the process of knowledge/information access going to be transformed and new paradigms imposed de facto?  Eg impact of continuous high speed access, electronic social networks, blogs, etc on scholarly communication patterns – ”unwashed” OA emerges?

16. NSF Knowledge Ladder/ Bordogna

17. NSF Report June 2003  NSF Report Knowledge Lost In Information (only issued February 2004)  Ubiquitous Knowledge Environment or the Information Ether  First decade of digital library research proves humanity’s ability to generate and collect data exceeds our ability to organise, manage, and effectively use it

18. NSF 2  “Broader access to information resources, particularly in e-Science and e-Learning will be a significant accelerator for developing nations moving into the digital age  Disciplines that currently have little knowledge of or interest in grid computing, cyber infrastructure or digital libraries will discover unforeseen opportunities”

19. eResearch Infrastructure

20. Data Curation  Most scientific data never “published’ and if publicly available relatively little interoperability  “Mapping knowledge domains” NAS April 2004- charting, mining, sorting, enabling, navigating and displaying information  How does E-Research, grid computing and data intensive science interact with traditional library communities? (Professor Tony Hey. Head UK E Science)

21. Keller’s Cerebral Library 1931

22. Keller 1931 and Beyond  Readers assembled to read a book a day  After five years readers brains stored to provide instant access to accumulated knowledge!  Arthur C Clarke’s neural chips not too far away nor current semantic web visions  Alan Turing / Bletchley. ‘Not lose track…need efficient librarian types to keep us in order’

23. Is the Whole SC “Order” Distorted by Science?  Are we coming at all of this from the wrong end discipline wise? Avoid science”friction”!  Two things often get confused / linked– the science periodical pricing “crisis” and the institutional repository/open access movements  More pragmatic to tackle the non-science disciplines first ?

24. Keller Fiesole 2004: “Casting Forward”  “It has become more obvious to me that preoccupation with the journal literature of STM, 90% of which has a half-life of under 12 months, distracts us … ”  We should turn to “an article economy and just-in-time mentality” rather than Big Deals  Anarchy of the information superhighway

25. Historical SC Settings  Guedon and Mabe -differing views of the history of scholarly communication  Public or commercial perspectives of history  Undoubted potential for change in the twenty- first century through Internet distribution but will authors change their historical rewards mould?  “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result” Dilbert

26. Will it Be The Death of a Library or Publisher Salesman? ( Arthur Miller)

27. Nature Debate, March 2004  Declan Butler, Nature Debate began 19 March  Submissions by various players including Elsevier, and Public Library of Science  Wrong to “consider ‘journals’ as a single homogenous entity, to which one universal publishing model can be applied”.  “Diversity is everywhere” – I would add books to the debate in terms of future formats/debates

28. The Sound of One Hand Clapping A Major Problem?  Open Access zealots talk to Open Access zealots?- eg CERN Feb & ? LIBER June 2004  Multinational publishers only talk to their authors and report to their shareholders?  Academics rarely talk to anyone outside their discipline?!  Lack of engagement from the SC silos?- the Sound of One Hand Clapping?

29. Zen There Was You  What is the sound of one hand clapping? – No contact, no sound, no reaction  Meditation through Zen Buddhism is apparently for one to face the questioner  Multinational publisher v open access enthusiast?  We then assume appropriate Buddhist posture and thrust one hand forward !

30. Zen There Was You 2  This process apparently opens the minds from the strictures of linear thinking and opens up new possibilities !  (The sound of one hand: 281 zen koans. By Hau Hoo)  But how do we leave the “caves of ignorance” and attain to the SC peace “in which the (OA) phoenix has left the golden net”

31. Not Enough SC Research  Large amounts of money spent on purchasing material but very little on research analysis of the SC process  Eg, real costs of publication – see debates on Lib License and American Scientist email lists  Reality checks of peer review/citation analysis  Costs if Library fiscal aggregator in OA

32. Insecure Foundations of Debate: Sandcastles of Dreams/biases?

33. Australian Research Study: International Comparators  Australian DEST Digital Research Practices Study October 2003  http://www.cfses.com/documents/Changing _Research_Practices.pdf  Collaboration extensive in research process  Major gap between authorial process of creation and reader consumption of scholarly research material

34. DEST 2  Researchers moving into mode 2 disciplinary and collaborative activity BUT  Remain in conservative mode 1 frameworks in relation to scholarly communication  Who questions the underpinnings of the scholarly process in digital environment?  NSCF Conference Canberra June 1 2004. Sir Gareth Roberts keynote speaker – RAE’s essential to process of change

35. Research Assessment Issues  Use of publications in bibliometric analyses of individuals,departments & universities  Dominance by ISI – impact of Elsevier Scopus?  ISI citation awards impact SC publishing patterns  New metrics to provide alternative or supplementary models? Eg user recommendations, semantic proximity, user behaviour patterns, IR downloads etc

36. Thanks to Jan Velterop

37. JISC OAI Survey  Almost 2/3rds of respondents aware of OAI concept but only 25% aware of OAI by their institutions  Primary reason for choosing OA outlet was belief in principle of free access to research information  Publication fees to come from research grants and then institution or library  Much ignorance of eprint archives but  If publishing work in OA was condition of grant most would comply – change the incentives!

38. Intellectual Commons Through Open Access  Zwolle Principles: clearly need in SC reforms clearer allocation of rights that balance the interests of all stake holders-unbalanced now?  Authorial ignorance or intransigence  Work of Lessig and Creative Commons. Move to Science Commons to include legal areas (patents, data) and subject matter (biomedicine)

39. Lawrence Lessig: Science Commons

40. Michael Mabe Fiesole 2003  Elsevier 2003 Survey What Do Authors Care About: 70% from university sector and 14% from research institutions  List of preferences in following order: Reputation, refereeing and quality, refereeing speed, impact factor, production speed, role of editor & editorial board, physical quality & publishing services

41. Academic Author / Reader Dysfunctionality  Authors seek out top journals ie. importance of brand name but often don’t know the name of publisher  Authors as readers rarely want the journal in it’s totality but rather the article and “free”  But none of this really matters to the financial bottom line of publishers as third party pays  Crucial issue to engage the author

42. Sally Morris / John Cox  “But in the end the only thing that will drive change is author behaviour”, Sally Morris, ALPSP, email to LibLicense 5 March 2004  Not quite but a very very important point  Link to incentives change necessary  “The market is dysfunctional as price signals do not reach the real customer”(John Cox)

43. Who Cuts Through the Tentacles of Dysfunctionality?

44. Raym Crow: Geneva

45. Raym Crow 2

46. A Road Map – The Budapest Open Access Initiative  Self-Archiving : Scholars should be able to deposit their refereed journal articles in open electronic archives which conform to OAI standards  Open-Access Journals : Journals will not charge subscriptions or fees for online access - seek other sources to fund peer-review and publication

47. Open Access. A Bit Skeletal However in Contrast to

48. Publishing Science Financial Oysters

49. Open Access Issues  “Is OA a scholarly mass movement or a sectarian enthusiasm by a small but vigorous theological interest” Worlock (Fiesole 2004 )  Debate on funding OA models in universities. Difficult to move from library purchasing to author/library funding  Issues re library as ‘fiscal aggregator – costs debate eg Duke, UK Watkinson figures,etc  King at Southampton.OA cost 0.5% of US science budget

50. Friend, Southampton/Steele  Establish repositories in every university  Create structures to validate repositories, link them and harvest their content  Establish expectation or requirement that reports resulting from all publicly-funded research will be available on open access  Steele: public funding, public knowledge, public access  Steele :Major IR issues now cultural and political not technical

51. ANU E-Prints 2003  2000 documents lodged without sustained campaign of advocacy-grey/guild literature  219,306 pdf downloads but need to halve re spiders  Top countries without spiders Oz/USA 62%. Top countries with spiders 80% USA/Oz  Asian studies,Social Science and Law predominate. Top article science - 1765 downloads  Need for individual scholar advocacy in certain science disciplines

52. DSpace ANU

53. QUT E-Prints

54. QUT E-Print Repository Policy  Material which represents the total publicly available research and scholarly output of the university to be located in the E-Print repository-Academic Board policy  Common Australian theme- Collect and promote composite university output  Also contributes to the growing international corpus of OA material- federated searching mechanisms

55. Scholarly Communication Frameworks: USA  Important that US universities keep up the SC momentum and the US dollar does not rise? Cf Australian experiences 1986 -2004  California, Cornell, Harvard, Research Triangle statements etc- Suber listing of initiatives  Proof of the pudding however will be in academic user reaction?  SPARC 2004 SC Priorities useful model

56. CIC Report  CIC summit on scholarly communication in the humanities and social sciences, Dec 2003 www.cic.uiuc.edu www.cic.uiuc.edu  Each university should examine where its press stands in institutional structures (Stanley Fish)  While the group agreed the book retains its importance, relevant players may not be taking full advantage of new SC systems

57. Virtual Vaudeville NSF

58. 3D Virtual Theatre Performance

59. New Monograph Trends  Books will be deconstructed in the digital age?  Books and chapters indexed and abstracted and full text searchable/linked etc  Aggregated monograph subscription packages  Impact re independent scholars and electronic ghettoes?  Debate re humanities assessments/Unsworth  “Mickey Mouse and Milton”- Blaise Cronin and Kathryn La Barre. Learned Publishing April 2004

60. Roy Tennant Publishing Model

61. California eScholarship

62. eScholarship Issues  Think wider than the epress to escholarship repositories. UCSD Center for US/Mexicam studies had 13,889 downloads by Feb 2004  1000% increase in short period- impact on Guild literature  Libraries play important role - links ARL, AAUP  Free books on the net usually sell more hard copies! Lawrence Lessig Penguin book 2004

63. ANU E Press

64. ANU E Press 2  Funded by Vice Chancellor over three year period with primary aim to distribute research output in social sciences and humanities especially monographs  Return to original ? concept of University Press – promoting only output of ANU (younger) researchers  Library ‘inputs’ research material to the university for institutional “ public good “  Press / IR’s ‘output’ research material for the university in similar pattern and have ‘Library business model’.

65. Cornell Internet-First University Press

66. Think Outside the Box?  “Universities may find that a more honest way to track the cost of publications would be to fund them up front, publish them electronically and publish them free”, W G Regier, Director University of Illinois Press, 10 September 2002  “Library” becomes the public scholarly commons for input and output?

67. The Way Forward?  Need to make researchers, administrators and policy makers aware of the SC issues and of potential alternate/supplementary models (Swedish Research Centre for Scientific Communication, Helsinki January 2004)  Need more holistic research analysis so we have better data for debates – more international collaborative initiatives?  Probably end up in the short term with hybrid situation – SC evolution not revolution!

68. Leadership Strategies  Need to ‘stimulate’ institutional and Governmental policy makers  Introduce structured advocacy programs by discipline and by topic  Populate institutional repositories from the top eg link research output / offices to IR operations  Encourage recognition within reward systems of open access initiatives

69. Lets Get Political  LET’S GET POLITICAL (sung to the tune of Olivia Newton John’s Physical !) “I’m saying all the things that I know you’ll like Making good publication I gotta handle you just right I took you to an intimate repository Then to a suggestive archive There’s nothing left to talk about Unless it’s horizontally”

70. Let’s Get Political 2  “Let’s get political, political I wanna get political, let’s get into political Let me hear your publications talk Your publications talk, let me hear your publications talk”.  and lets move the focus of debate and action forward  Pictorial futures follow ?

71. Cuddling up to Publishers

72. Nord by Nord West – who flies the scholarly communication plane?

73. Multinational Publisher Borg Futures

74. Male Librarians must Hold on to their …

75. Lets Take the Long View. Crow Herbert Von de Sompel Carl Lagoze OAI

76. To Brighter SC Futures ! Thank you