dec06b.indd inter net resources Jim Stemper and Karen Williams Scholarly communication Turning crisis into opportunity Many faculty see the current system of scholarly communication as an effective, known, and reliable system that is not broken and therefore does not need to be fi xed.1 Scholarly communication first entered our professional consciousness in the 1990s, centered on the topic of rising serials prices and their impact on libraries’ budgets. Our lexicon was one of problems, crises, and the clear definition of an enemy. Several years’ experience working in this arena has led to a more informed, broader perspective—part of a natural evolutionary process. Formerly we focused almost exclusively on the economic case, with some real successes. A number of faculty and administrators became outraged and engaged. But many also told us the system works just fine for them; publishers told regu­ lators that the real problem is underfunding of universities. To achieve a marked, sustained impact on scholarly communication, librarians need to be advocates for faculty and adminis­ trative action. Scholars must be the new face of this effort and focus on how the present system restricts access to their scholarship. In other words, this is no longer just a library problem of serials inflation (with a spillover effect of reduced monograph purchases), but a series of scholarly communication issues and opportunities owned by scholars, their campuses, and their societies. We still recognize access problems caused by continued high subscription costs, changing copyright laws, and the licensing of access. Current publishing models are still not eco­ nomically sustainable. But there is a growing awareness of new opportunities for more sustainable models through ongoing advances in technology. There is genuine hope that the symbiotic relationship between higher educa­ tion institutions, scholarly societies, and com­ mercial publishers, which could previously be characterized as tense and antagonistic, will realize more cooperative and benefi cial partnerships in the future. Where do we go from here? Even as we envision a future where productive partnerships are the norm, we know the road ahead will be bumpy for a while. We are trying to change systems that are largely out of the control of any one campus. The recent ARL/ ACRL Institute on Scholarly Communication2 was designed to pre­ pare participants to be educators and advocates, and to develop sustained campus programs informed by the sharing of peers’ best practices, rather than a series of singular efforts that have limited impact. We need to develop collective action in arenas such as e­resource licensing and educating faculty on author’s rights. While acting locally is an important component, we must also spend some energy on legislative advocacy. Through the cumulative effect of our ac­ tions we can accomplish infinitely more than we could alone. In that spirit, the goal of this resource guide is to give nascent scholarly com­ munication efforts a shared knowledge base, one that provides colleagues with tools to build effective programs on their campuses. Contextual overviews • Not So Quiet on a Western Front. Nature For um on Open Access (Daniel Greenstein, 28 May 2004). Writing in an ac­ Jim Stemper is electronic resources librarian, e-mail: stemp003@tc.umn.edu, and Karen Williams is associate university librarian for academic programs, e-mail: kaw@umn.edu, at the University of Minnesota © 2006 Jim Stemper and Karen Williams C&RL News December 2006 692 mailto:kaw@umn.edu mailto:stemp003@tc.umn.edu cessible yet provocative way for non­librarians, Greenstein succinctly states the basic economic problem confronting libraries. He uses the well­ known case of the University of California (UC) system and its public negotiation with Elsevier in 2003 to show how faculty, once suffi ciently engaged, can lead the call for change (and how such a call is more effective when it scales to consortial levels). Greenstein calls on librarians to not just enlist faculty and administrators as UC did, but also to engage societies as partners to experiment with different publishing options. Access: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus /accessdebate/23.html. • The Crisis in Scholarly Publishing in the Humanities. ARL Bimonthly Report: 228 (John M. Unsworth, June 2003). Unsworth speaks to the uncertain fate of the humani­ ties monograph and poses alternatives to the stand­alone, single­author work. Access: http:// www.arl.org/newsltr/228/crisis.html. Stakeholder voices/perspectives Effective advocacy begins with understanding the knowledge base, attitudes, and positions of the other players in the scholarly commu­ nication arena. We may not always agree with what we hear, but our programmatic efforts should be shaped by what we learn. University faculty/administrators • New Journal Publishing Models: An International Survey of Senior Research­ ers. A CIBER report for the Publishers As- sociation and the Inter national Associa- tion of STM Publishers (Ian Rowlands and Dave Nicholas, September 2005). A survey of more than 5,500 senior journal authors that claims to be the “largest, most representative and statistically robust study ever undertaken into the views of authors on the workings of the scholarly publishing system.” Among the sobering findings: a lack of scholar interest in retaining copyrights; a lack of awareness about institutional repositories and open ac­ cess; and a disconnect between the sense of a journal’s cost and authors’ willingness to pub­ lish in costly journals. Access: http://www.ucl. ac.uk/ciber/ciber_2005_survey_fi nal.pdf. •Scholarly Communication: Academic Values and Sustainable Models. Center for Studies in Higher Education, Uni- versity of California, Berkeley (C. Judson King, Diane Harley, Sarah Earl­Novell, Jen­ nifer Arter, Shannon Lawrence, and Irene Perciali, July 2006). This ambitious series of case studies details the results of interviews with stakeholders in five disciplines (chemi­ cal engineering, anthropology, law and economics, English­language literature, and biostatistics) about the values infl uencing their publishing activities. While confi rming the value of peer review, it concludes that we will have better short­term success in changing faculty publishing behavior if we focus on needed changes to “in­progress” communication (which is less bound by tradition) rather than final archival publica­ tion. Rather than rushing to promote open access, the report advises facilitating change where scholars see the need for it. Ac­ cess: http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications /publications.php?id=23. Society publishers • Washington D.C. Principles for Free Access to Science: A Statement from Not- for-Profit Publishers. The compromise offered by about 50 society publishers—jour­ nal content can be publicly available after a suitable embargo period (usually 6 to 12 months). The premise is that societies reli­ ant on subscription income to fi nance other activities will not lose that revenue due to cancellations, and the public will still get ac­ cess; in other words, delayed open access. The open question is whether, or at what point, an embargo really affects library subscriptions. It does affect access for end users. Access: http://www.dcprinciples.org/. • “Access to the Scientifi c Literature—A Diffi cult Balance,” New England Journal of Medicine 354(15):1552-5 (Martin Frank, April 13, 2006). The Executive Director of the American Physiological Society uses his re­ view of John Willinsky’s The Access Principle as an opportunity to restate the opposition of many society publishers to open access. December 2006 693 C&RL News http:http://www.dcprinciples.org http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications http://www.ucl www.arl.org/newsltr/228/crisis.html http://www.nature.com/nature/focus He claims that the author fees established by venues like Public Library of Science are too high for most faculty and don’t cover the true costs of publication, asserts that making the NIH deposit proposal mandatory would lead to subscription cancellations that would decimate societies, and predicts that diverting grant funds to publications would underfund research. Access: http://content.nejm.org/cgi /content/full/354/15/1552 • The Facts about Open Access. Re- search Report published by the Associa- tion of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (October 2005). A study of the financial and nonfinancial effects of alterna­ tive business models for scholarly journals. While the jury is still out, the fi ndings ques­ tion whether the current iterations of open access publishing represent a fi nancially viable model. Access: http://www.alpsp. org/publications/pub11.htm. Commercial publishers • Karen Hunter. Open Access: Yes, No, Maybe. Nature Forum on Open Access (19 March 2004). From Elsevier’s senior vice pres­ ident, strategy, comes a concise, straightfor­ ward explication of the STM publishing com­ munity’s perspective on open access, one that serves as a bookend of sorts to Daniel Green­ stein’s article from the same Nature issue. Access: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus /accessdebate/3.html. • Scientific publishing in transition: An over view of cur rent developments— W hite Paper, 14/09/06, commissioned by the Inter national Association of Sci- entific, Technical & Medical Publishers and the Association of Learned and Pro- fessional Society Publishers, Mark Ware Consulting, Ltd. This white paper includes a great deal of background information and definitions of terms commonly used when tation rates for open access articles (like Antelman’s below). Of particular interest are the findings that “[o]nly 10% of authors said that access to the literature was poor or very poor” and—informed by a survey of librarians—that publishers fear author archiving in institutional repositories will lead to journal cancellations by libraries. Access: http://www.alpsp.org/news/STM ­ALPSPwhitepaper.pdf. Librarian education and advocacy eff orts Many institutions have high­quality online re­ sources devoted to scholarly communication. The authors believe that the University of California Libraries provide an exceptionally good case study of a focused, collaborative effort. The range of resources (from toolkits to original research to faculty white papers), the high level of institutional engagement refl ected, the combination of education/out­ reach/advocacy perspectives—all add up to a set of best practices in the making. • Create Change. Scholars are the in­ tended audience of this Web site (created by ARL and SPARC with support from ACRL), which aims to help them understand the changing landscape and how it affects their research. Interviews with faculty researchers are a powerful component of the site. Access: http://www.createchange.org/. • A C R L S c h o l a r l y C o m m u n i c a t i o n Toolkit. The toolkit is a basic introduction that includes separate sections for administrators, faculty, and librarians. Access: http://www. ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/scholarlycomm /scholarlycommunicationtoolkit/toolkit.htm. • University of Califor nia Office of Scholarly Communication. This is a strong example of a site that prominently features faculty talking to faculty. Access: http://osc. universityofcalifornia.edu/. discussing schol­ arly communica­ tion issues. Signifi ­ cantly, almost half of the report is concerned • University of Califor nia Scholar ly with open access—and yet it largely neglects C o m m u n i c a t i o n I s s u e s a n d O u t r e a c h most of the recent studies noting high ci­ Toolkit. This is a great example of a “train C&RL News December 2006 694 http:universityofcalifornia.edu http://osc http://www http:http://www.createchange.org http://www.alpsp.org/news/STM http://www.nature.com/nature/focus http://www.alpsp http://content.nejm.org/cgi the trainers” site for librarians. It offers three sets of talking points for librarian interactions with faculty: Managing Copy­ right, Economics of Scholarly Communica­ tion, and the Role of Scholarly Societies. Access: http://libraries.universityofcalifornia. edu/scholarly/. • Univer sity of Calif or nia-Ber keley Faculty Confer ence on Scholar l y Pub- lishing (March 31, 2005). This conference is a good model for engaging faculty and administrators. The focus group summaries are a rich treasure trove of ideas to consider when grappling with issues like “Designing Incentives and Support,” “Journal Publish­ ing Options,” “Managing Copyright and Intellectual Property,” and “Working with Societies.” Access: http://www.lib.berkeley. edu/scholarlypublishing/. • “ C r e a t i n g a n d I m p l e m e n t i n g a S c h o l a r l y C o m m u n i c a t i o n P r o g r a m : The Univer sity of Califor nia Libraries as a Case Study.” The UCLA Library hosted this workshop for academic librarians after the inaugural ARL/ACRL Institute. It shows how library colleagues put together a schol­ arly communication program and shares valuable lessons learned from UCLA’s fi rst year. Access: http://www.library.ucla.edu /scholarlycommunication/. Potential actions Pass campus resolutions • Peter Suber. University Actions for Open Access or Against High Jour nal Prices. Suber’s is the most up­to­date list­ ing of resolutions from faculty, administra­ tors, and students—political statements to which publishers, legislators, and others do pay attention. Access: http://www.earlham. edu/~peters/fos/lists.htm#actions. Keep current • Carol Ann Hughes. “The Case for Scholar’s Management of Author Rights” Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2006). Hughes presents the philosophical case for author retention of copyright. Access: http://www.ucop.edu /lauc/opinions/author_rights.html. • Michael Seadle. “Copyright in the N e t w o r k e d Wo r l d : A u t h o r ’ s R i g h t s ” Library Hi Tech, 23(1): 130-136, 2005. Seadle advocates specific strategies for author retention of copyright. Specifically, he recom­ mends the SPARC Author Addendum as cov­ ering more situations than the Creative Com­ mons license. Access: http://www.emeraldin­ sight.com/info/copyright/copyright_column /authorrights.pdf. • SHERPA RoMEO Project. This service provides a summary of permissions that are normally given as part of each publisher’s copyright transfer agreement. It can be searched by journal title or publisher name. Access: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo. php. • SPARC Author Resources. This site introduces the SPARC Author Addendum, a legal form that enables authors of jour­ nal articles to modify publishers’ copyright transfer agreements and keep key rights to their articles. Access: http://www.arl.org/ sparc/author/. • Creative Commons. This nonprofit organization provides a set of licenses offer­ ing authors and educators “a fl exible range of protections and freedoms” for a variety of publication formats. Creators can set up customized licenses that both retain their copyright and designate their works as free for certain uses, on certain conditions. Access: http://creativecommons.org/. Archive your publications Librarians need to model the behaviors we seek to change in others. If your institution maintains a repository, use it; if it does not, consider one of the disciplinary repositories that include library and information science. • E-LIS. E­LIS is a community­owned open access archive for librarianship, information science and technology, and related areas. Access: http://eprints.rclis.org/. December 2006 695 C&RL News http:http://eprints.rclis.org http:http://creativecommons.org http:http://www.arl.org http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo http://www.emeraldin http:http://www.ucop.edu http://www.earlham http:http://www.library.ucla.edu http://www.lib.berkeley http://libraries.universityofcalifornia Support new publishing models • John Willinsky. The Access Prin­ ciple: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship. MIT Press, 2005. Willinsky offers a popular and well­ written book with a positive view of the possibilities of open access. Especially note­ worthy are Chapter 6, describing a potential publishing “Cooperative,” and Chapter 5 on “Economics” (which outlines the savings to be realized using the new Web­based Open Journal Software publishing platform). This online book is a great example of a Cre­ ative Commons license in action. Access: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/ebook. asp?ttype=2&tid=10611. • Kristin Antelman. “Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact?” College & Research Libraries 65(5)(Sep- tember 2004): 372–382. This study looks at articles in four disciplines at varying stages of adoption of open access (philosophy, political science, electrical and electronic engineering, and mathematics) to see whether they have a greater impact as measured by citations in ISI’s Web of Science when their authors make them freely available. The consistent finding is that freely available articles do have a greater research impact. [Note: this article has also been deposited in the reposi­ tory mentioned above.] Access: http://www. ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crljournal/crl2004 /crlseptember/antelman.pdf. • Director y of Open Access Jour nals (DOAJ). DOAJ is a service that provides access to quality controlled open access Journals. It aims to increase the visibility and ease of use of open access scholarly journals in all disci­ plines. Access: http://www.doaj.org/. • Clifford A. Lynch and Joan K. Lip- pincott, “Institutional Repositor y De- ployment in the United States as of Early 2005” D­Lib Magazine, September 2005. Access: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/septem­ ber05/lynch/09lynch.html. • SPARC Partners. With the publisher partner programs, SPARC supports partners who introduce price and service competition through journal publishing or other means of scholarly communication. Access: http://www. arl.org/sparc/partner/index.html. • SPARC Publishing Resources. This site offers a collection of resources for those who wish to publish and manage online journals and ar­ chives. Resources range from writ­ ten guides to com­ mercial and open source software suites. Access: http://www.arl.org/sparc/re­ sources/ pubres.html. Current awareness Web sites • ARL Scholarly Communication. Ac­ cess: http://www.arl.org/osc/. • ACRL Scholar ly Communication. Access: http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues /scholarlycomm/scholarlycommunication.htm. Newsletters • Peter Suber, SPARC Open Access Newsletter. Access: http://www.earlham. edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm. • SPARC e-News. Access: http://www.arl. org/sparc/pubs/enews/. Blog • Peter Suber, Open Access News. Ac­ cess: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos /fosblog.html Discussion list • SCHOLCOMM: ACRL’s e­mail discus­ sion list for scholarly communication issues. Access: http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues /scholarlycomm/scholcommdiscussion.htm. Notes 1. Kate Thomes, “Scholarly Communica­ tion in Flux: Entrenchment and Opportunity, Science & Technology Libraries 22, no. 3/4 (220): 104. 2. ACRL/ARL Institute on Scholarly Com­ munication, www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/ scholarlycomm/scinstitute.htm (accessed Nov. 6, 2006). C&RL News December 2006 696 www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos http://www.arl http://www.earlham http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues http://www.arl.org/osc http://www.arl.org/sparc/re http://www http://www.dlib.org/dlib/septem http:http://www.doaj.org http://www http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/ebook