Uncategorized Category

0

Is Open Access a disaster for publishers? Maybe not

In a posting from Scholarly Kitchen, Kent Anderson notes that while the movement to open access could affect Elsevier’s bottom line (and presumably that of some other large commercial publishers) it’s not likely to be the end of them.  Read the full post here.

0

Appealing the Georgia State case

From Bernie Sloan in Publishers Weekly:

“The three publisher plaintiffs in the Georgia State University e-reserve case yesterday lodged an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn one of the most significant fair use rulings in decades.”

Full text at: http://bit.ly/OdNDbb

0

“Library of the Future” Nets Large NEH Grant

As reported by Jennifer Howard the The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Wired Campus, the proposed Digital Public Library for the Humanities netted a $1-million grant from the National Endowment.  DPLA hopes to become an open-access national digital library.  Read the full story here.

0

Altmetrics: Trying to Fill the Gap

Judy Luther’s recent post on Scholarly Kitchen highlights developments in Altmetrics, the movement to extend the measurement of the impact of scholarly research beyond the traditional metric of journal impact. Among other efforts, she mentions the article-level metrics (ALM) in development at PLoS.

Read more: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/25/altmetrics-trying-to-fill-the-gap/

0

A New World for Libraries and University Presses?

More and more research libraries are using patron-driven acquisitions (PDA), a service where their patrons choose the titles libraries purchase (usually e-books) by actually using them.  PDA can allow a library to only buy books that someone reads, and pass on those that aren’t used.  But university presses — which rely on these libraries for sales — often publish titles that garner very little readership. If the libraries — or their users — aren’t buying, how will the presses cope? Soon-to-be published research by Joe Esposito offers some insights. Click here for the story by Steve Kolowich in Inside Higher Ed.

0

New Open Access science journal, backed by O’Reilly Media, launches

PeerJ is a peer-reviewed journal-and-preprint service with a new publishing model: researchers pay a modest membership fee to publish in the journal, while retaining copyright to their work. Lifetime memberships begin at $99.

For more details, see this entry on the Wired Campus blog: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/new-publishing-venture-gives-researchers-control-over-access/36651

0

Fister: “An Academic Spring”

Be sure to check out Barbara Fister’s piece “An Academic Spring“. She follows scholar Timothy Gowers’ decision to withraw his participation from the scholarly activities of the large publisher, Elsevier:

“Gowers faulted the corporation for high prices, bundling subscriptions in ways that made selection prohibitively expensive for libraries, and for supporting the Research Works Act (RWA), proposed legislation that would prohibit government agencies from requiring that publicly funded research be freely accessible within a year.”

Gowers’ decision prompted action across academia. A petition against Elsevier was created, and brought together 10,800 signatures from those scholars who intended to boycott Elsevier as well.

Fister connects the “Academic Spring” with last year’s “Arab Spring” in a clever way that just might propel sudden change.

0

MLA Changes Copyright Policy

The Modern Language Association (MLA) has recently changed its copyright policy to allow authors in its publications to retain copyright. Authors will now be able to include versions of their work on their own web sites and in institutional repositories. Inside Higher Education has this article for more information.

Kevin Smith’s “Saying the right things, then doing them” goes into further detail and analyses what MLA’s shift may do to the humanities.

These 3 points may be most important,

  1. Open access is not only possible, but is even vitally important, in the humanities.
  2. Open access, especially in its “green” form of author self-archiving, is not a threat to scholarly societies.
  3. The value of organized publishing efforts is in the services they provide around the content, not in the content itself (which, of course, the publishers do not create).
0

Harvard Faculty Advisory Council: “Major Periodical Subscriptions Cannot Be Sustained.”

In a statement dated April 17th, Harvard’s Faculty Advisory Council, in a memo to all faculty, stated:

We write to communicate an untenable situation facing the Harvard Library. Many large journal publishers have made the scholarly communication environment fiscally unsustainable and academically restrictive. This situation is exacerbated by efforts of certain publishers (called “providers”) to acquire, bundle, and increase the pricing on journals.

For the full statement, see http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448

The memo goes on to point out that Harvard’s costs for these publishers now approaches $3.75 million. Iowa’s costs for the three largest publishers (presumably the same group, though precisely which are included in the Harvard figure is not clear) is expected to be around $3.2 million in FY2012. While the figure quoted is said to be around 10% of Harvard’s total acquisitions budget, $3.2 million is over 20% of Iowa’s total.

The memo concludes with a strong statement and list of suggested actions, worth quoting at length. Note that DASH is equivalent to our own Iowa Research Online, though unlike Harvard, Iowa does not have an open-access policy (aka “mandate”).

It is untenable for contracts with at least two major providers to continue on the basis identical with past agreements. Costs are now prohibitive. Moreover, some providers bundle many journals as one subscription, with major, high-use journals bundled in with journals consulted far less frequently. Since the Library now must change its subscriptions and since faculty and graduate students are chief users, please consider the following options open to faculty and students (F) and the Library (L), state other options you think viable….

1. Make sure that all of your own papers are accessible by submitting them to DASH in accordance with the faculty-initiated open-access policies (F).

2. Consider submitting articles to open-access journals, or to ones that have reasonable, sustainable subscription costs; move prestige to open access (F).

3. If on the editorial board of a journal involved, determine if it can be published as open access material, or independently from publishers that practice pricing described above. If not, consider resigning (F).

4. Contact professional organizations to raise these issues (F).

5. Encourage professional associations to take control of scholarly literature in their field or shift the management of their e-journals to library-friendly organizations (F).

6. Encourage colleagues to consider and to discuss these or other options (F).

7. Sign contracts that unbundle subscriptions and concentrate on higher-use journals (L).

8. Move journals to a sustainable pay per use system, (L).

9. Insist on subscription contracts in which the terms can be made public (L).

0

Chronicle: Scholarly Groups’ Choices Yield Diverging Fortunes

A Chronicle of Higher Education article on the financial positions of various scholarly societies. Journals published by such societies often help subsidize the operations of the society, and their outsourcing to commercial publishers usually leads to higher costs to libraries.

See the story “Scholarly Groups’ Choices Yield Diverging Fortunes” in the April 1 Chronicle.