Open Access week – Taylor and Francis

A nice gesture from an academic publisher! http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/open-access-week-2013

Taylor & Francis is pleased to announce that we are waiving Article Publication Charges (APCs) for a number of journals from 21st October until 20th November. This decision celebrates two key events – the 10 year anniversary of one of the milestones in the Open Access Movement, the Berlin Declaration, and Open Access week (October 21st-27th). Papers submitted to selected titles from the start of Open Access Week until the end of the Berlin Convention will be able to publish on an Open Access basis free of charge.

You may also see the results of T&F’s survey of authors relating to OA last year: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey

Print to e: do publishers now have the upper hand?

Wiley now have an online form stating the reasons why e-only is preferable over print – convenience, online articles get published more quickly, wider discoverability (articles as well as journals).  They have also announced some of their titles will cease to be published in print format.

Elsevier have some science and medicine titles which publish in both print and e-formats, but the e-version has more content, these articles still counting towards an author’s ‘version of record’ when it comes to publication lists and assessment for the REF.

ACS have launched their new titles in e-only format for 2013, with no print equivalent.

SpringerOpen journals have no print version, only e.

In addition, many publishers are offering much reduced pricing for their e-only titles, making the movement from print to e an attractive prospect, while other smaller publishers have moved to the ‘version of record’ being e with a print-on-demand approach to hard copy.

In some subject areas of course there will always be print only titles, at least until costs decline for websites of high quality.  There used to be a resistance to titles which made high use of images appearing in e-format, but high quality reproduction of tables, figures and photographs have changed things considerably.

Even in fashion the Vogue Archive has been gaining subscribers, while high definition photographic imagery can be seen across a number of titles.

Resource discovery tools such as Primo and Summon have enabled a far more detailed approach to be taken by students and academics in their search for articles on their topic of interest.  Together with Zetoc tables of contents for the high impact print journals the ability to read widely and keep abreast of changes in a particular field has never been better, alongside such classic research tools as journal alerts and saved searches.

The publishers seem to want to force our hand.  They claim that when they cease to publish print as a matter of course, their e-production costs will go down.  They are dipping their toes into Open Access waters without producing hard copy versions of those titles (just as BioMedCentral did on launch).

Perhaps finally the ​print journal from the mid and large sized publisher is dying.  It has been a slow decline, and although some opportunities have been missed in providing and promoting the new soft copy formats, they are way ahead of their hard copy cousins in terms of convenience, usability, discoverability, and currency.

Open Access: why does it cause such a stink?

I’m the co-editor of a journal in the LIS field, published by a multinational publisher.  Our journal allows authors the freedom of choice.  If they wish to archive their work in a repository, whether subject or institutional, they may do so, at any time, with a link back to the version of record, as accepted, when it is published. 

These terms are extremely generous when compared to other publishers who might embargo content for up to two years in social science/humanities subjects.  This is the green OA route.

We also have, as of this year, a gold OA option by which an author can opt to pay a fee to make their article available immediately on the Taylor and Francis platform.  It’s not cheap, but it gives a choice, and for authors/institutions rich enough to pay the fee, or who are mandated to make their work available by the gold route by their funders, it is an alternative to the green option.

Remember also the gold option gives you the right to use the typesetting which the publisher has used for your work, rather than simply uploading your pre- or postprint (depending on the journal, the publisher, and what they allow).

However one of our regular contributors finds the automatic email sent to all authors informing them of the gold OA option ‘offensive’.  They are dismissive of anything other than the green OA option, although in some cases, REF outputs or tenure status depend on the availability of content as published in the version of record. 

I believe authors can make up their own minds.  They are free to archive and/or free to pay.  There are question marks, of course, relating to subscription payments and whether these should be reduced proportional to the amount of articles funded by gold OA authors.  There is a sense that publishers are using OA as a potential new revenue stream rather than embracing the freedom of research.

Only today, a well-known publisher (not mine) who has not been averse to pricing controversies in the distant past, has been roundly slated for their position on gold/green OA, essentially saying that for them it is an either/or situation.  If you’d like to archive under green OA, and you are not required to do so, go ahead.  Otherwise, your green route is embargoed and let’s see your money to publish as gold.

It’s an interesting conundrum.  OA is probably the most exciting development in scholarly publishing in years.  Every publisher will have a different take on it.  But let’s quit the in-fighting. 

If you don’t want to publish in a journal which is solely OA, that’s your choice.  If you’re avoiding embargoed green OA, good for you.  If you hate the idea of paying anything to make your work OA, then OK.  But remember that the word is ‘choice’.

I’d love to see our journal become a true hybrid with all the colours of OA represented.  Maybe a top-flight gold article every issue, a fair smattering of green, and a small sliver of white, but that sliver has to continue to decline.

Is this a US-UK conundrum, or it is just pockets of authors who are on the brink of becoming quite rude when it comes to sharing their views on OA?  I’d love to know.

The Serials Librarian, T&F, and Open Access

Before I launch into the meat of this post, I would like to confirm a few things.

Yes, I am currently the co-editor-in-chief of the journal The Serials Librarian.

Yes, this journal is published by Taylor and Francis and is part of the same group of journals in Library & Information Science as the title Journal of Library Administration which has been mentioned in the blogosphere lately.

Yes, Taylor and Francis are a Green OA publisher and their LIS titles have benefitted since 1 November 2011 from a clause allowing the author to make either their original manuscript or the accepted version of their manuscript available in institutional repositories and similar services.

The relevant bit from the Taylor & Francis Author Services LIS Rights:

“Copyright is retained by the author, who grants a license to Taylor & Francis to publish the version of Scholarly Record, but who remains copyright holder and is free to post versions of the Article – Author’s Original Manuscript (preprint) and Author’s Accepted Manuscript (postprint) – at any time, without embargo, with a link to the Version of Scholarly Record.”

Please note that the wording states ‘at any time’.  Authors do not have to wait for the Version of Scholarly Record (i.e. the final typeset page with all the links and what we used to call ‘bells and whistles’) to appear – simply to add a link to it when it does appear.

Taylor and Francis have since launched an optional Gold OA model which seems to have caused all the fuss, assuming that the Green route pilot has been dropped in favour of only allowing authors permission to share their articles if they pay the publisher for the privilege.  In fact the Gold OA option, clocking in at around $3,000 per article, is set up to allow the Version of Scholarly Record to be made available on the informa website for free.

The mass resignation of the editor-in-chief and the editorial board of Journal of Library Administration so early in its tenure is a matter for great regret, I feel, but the blog and listserv posts on the topic which do not present the whole picture, are potentially more damaging.  We have had curt emails from prospective authors who ‘do not wish to post in a closed access journal’ without enquiring further.

I fully support Open Access initatives of whatever form, Green, Gold, or Hybrid.  OA is still a relatively new way of publishing and the recent threatened lawsuits regarding possible ‘predatory’ publishers, ie. those which simply exist to make money and produce any content offered, means the area remains an emotive subject for some.

However, attacking commercial publishers who need to make their money somewhere, and which do provide quality content which has been assessed, peer reviewed, and copy edited, purely because their content is not ‘free’ seems counter-productive.  I do understand all the arguments around the area of scholarly communication and have previously commented on the RCUK issues around OA and Open Access and the Big Deals.

Obviously, as an editor on a journal in the LIS programme I am concerned that misinformation and the actions of the editor and board of JLA might cause us some damage – I hope that this blog post has done something to redress the balance.

I stress that this post is my personal view, and does not necessarily represent that of my co-editor, or of NASIG, who are associated with The Serials Librarian.  Nor has this post been vetted by my colleagues at Taylor & Francis, with this being my personal blog.

Open Access and the ‘big deals’

With the publication of the Finch report, advocating Gold OA and (in some eyes) downgrading the need to mandate Green OA so that authors do not see their research locked into closed access journals, the profile of ‘Open Access’ has never been higher.

RCUK, the UK’s research funding councils, have long supported Green OA as the way forward in sharing research.  Indeed, they now stipulate that research wholly or partially funded by their members must be submitted to journals which are compliant with RCUK policy (no embargo on submitting to a repository, no ‘pay to publish’ option).

As a journal editor, for Taylor and Francis, I have seen our submissions fall because of T&F’s stated policy on Green OA (although there is a generous exemption for titles which fall within the scope of Library and Information Studies, as ours does).  Many authors support OA to the point of withdrawing their work from consideration from any title which does not allow instant sharing of content.

So how does this impact on the ‘big deals’?  Where publishers are dipping their toes into the waters of ‘hybrid Open Access’, will the pricing and make-up of such deals be affected?  Many still charge based on a historical subscription profile to safeguard profits – but in the case of a hybrid title, supported by an institution by paying for its authors to submit and make their work accessible to all, is there not a case for stating we are paying twice?

Sage have​ recently become the first big deal publisher to grant reduced rates for OA article submission, and this may well be a growing trend.  Ten or so years ago, there was a sense that OA might overturn the classic publishing model for journals, and there is still a sense that the ‘journal’ as we know it might give way to an article purchasing model, whether funded by authors or subscribers.

Gold OA might be supported by Finch and the UK Government, and it might be true that an ideal model of publishing would be to have titles fully funded by their submission authors/institutions/funding councils – but the ongoing debate does indicate that there is still very much a ‘Gold vs Green’ or ‘Gold/Green is Best’ faction out there.

Understanding e-resource licensing

As part of preparation for a training session requested by some subject team colleagues, I wanted to share a quick ‘ten things to remember’ about e-resource licensing.  This might assist those of you who have an interest in the area or need to have a basic understanding of the contract set between us as licensee (the University) and publishers/providers/aggregrators as licensor.

1.  WHO can access?  Look for user groups and definitions.  What is an ‘authorised user’?  Is there ‘walk-in access’ available?  Are any groups specifically excluded (alumni, retired staff)?  Are any activities excluded (commercial use)?

2.  HOW long is the notice period if we wish to cancel?​  In the case of a multi-year agreement, look for an ‘opt-out’ clause and any conditions attached to such a clause.  If it is an annual renewal take note of the notice period (usually 30 days, sometimes 60 or 90).

3.  WHAT is covered by the licence?  There should be a list of material appended as an appendix to the main agreement or a link to where such documentation may be found (e.g. a title list).  Is there post-cancellation access, and if so, which material is covered by it?  What is the policy on material which ceases publication or transfers to another publisher?

4. WHERE can the material covered by the licence be accessed (e.g. a publisher platform, on-campus only, off-campus?).  Are there any restrictions on use overseas?

5. WHICH forms of authentication are available (e.g. Shibboleth, Open Athens, EZProxy, IP address, Username and password)?

6. WHAT specialist software is needed, if any, and are there restrictions on certain browsers and/or operating systems?  This may not be present in the licence but if it is, it should be noted?

7. WHICH activities can be carried out by authorised users (e.g. inclusion of material in coursepacks, inter-library loan), and which are not allowed (e.g. ‘systematic downloading’).

8. HOW does the licence define a ‘campus’?  Note that multi-site campuses are usually defined as those with seperate administrations which would not cover KU.  If we are charged on a tier basis based on our size, is that tier stated correctly in the licence?

9. WHAT is the process in the event of a licence breach, and what is covered by the definition of a ‘breach’?

10. WHICH jurisdiction is the licence to be enforced under?  US licences often quote the state of origin, for example.

Finally, is the licence based on a ‘Model’ such as the JISC licence, or is it simply an adapted ‘terms and conditions’?  Is it available in machine-readable format (for example, in ELCAT)?

Open access and the Green/Gold debate

Stevan Harnad’s ‘call to arms’ on SERIALST today focused squarely on the wording of the Open Access Policy Statement of the RCUK (Research Councils UK) and its perhaps unintended ambiguity.

See http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/934-Disambiguating-RCUKs-Open-Access-Policy-Statement.html for Harnad’s suggested revisions, to allow an author the choice of choosing either a Gold or Green OA option rather than only going for Green if they can’t go for Gold.

To quote Harnad:

“GOLD means the journal makes the article OA with CC-BY (“Libre OA”), usually for a fee.

GREEN means the author makes the article OA (“Gratis OA”) by depositing it in a repository, and making it OA within 0-12 months of publication”.

So is the RCUK’s statement really ‘a colossal failure’ which will cause funders and publishers alike to evaluate their position within the OA debate?  Does the ambiguous shift towards going for Gold before even considering Green mean that the Gratis OA route is under serious threat?  And should the effort being expended in the Green v Gold debate be directed toward making sure any repository embargo is 6 months or less?

Will the perceived focus on Gold OA above Green OA in the Finch report cause the whole scholarly publishing movement with regard to OA to change?

For details of current publisher policies re repositories, see RoMEO.

Challenges facing e-resource librarians

I first put this together in 2008 when asked to consider what would be the concerns and challenges for e-resource librarians by 2014.  Four years later was I anywhere near the mark?

My first reaction was to group my thoughts into eight distinct areas:

Management                   Staffing                  Technology              Perpetuity               Invisibility            User understanding           Licensing          Sharing

 

My 2008 projections for Management:

—By 2014 publications such as proceedings in e will exceed those in print

—Web 3.0 / the intelligent web will develop

—Libraries will be truly virtual

—Staff skill sets must evolve to cope

—Virtual training packages for students plus virtual helpdesks will be the norm

 

2012 thoughts: What has really taken off is ‘the cloud’ and mobile interfaces (iPad etc.).  Both only starting to emerge four years ago, now central to our thinking and the way we manage, organise and access digital content.  I still believe in the 24/7 virtual library and I think the physical collections will decline to be replaced by more technologically developed solutions to access and share information.  I’m not sure about virtual worlds like Second Life and virtual realities but time will tell.  By 2014?  It isn’t impossible. 

 

My projections for Staffing:

 

—By 2014 staff will be much more virtual-savvy and confident

—Turnover of staff means younger dynamic librarians come in

—Potentially less team- or site-based working

—LIS courses will have e-resource components by default

—Networking will become key

 

2012 thoughts: What I omitted was that our customers/audience will have higher expectations and require high level support across a number of areas.  I can see specialisms continuing, but also a more fluid dynamic – as cloud applications are hinting at – which does not compartmentalise processes or staff working within those processes.  On the other hand it is counterproductive to expect every member of staff to know everything as this is impossible.  I do see more home-based working, more working on mobile devices, more working across social media and networks.  I also see universities becoming more fluid rather than having students coming to a physical building for their tuition, with all the different demands thats puts in place on staff there to support them.  In terms of e-resource management we need people people as well as technical geeks, and LIS graduates should be prepared to mix the two.  This is the one area where there is potential for the line which marks IT from library to be crossed for good (and for the good).

 

My projections for Technology:

 

—By 2014 sign-on between systems will be truly seamless

—Virtual mirrors of real life scenarios will become commonplace

—Books and journals will need added value to survive in an ‘open access’ marketplace

—ICT skills will become central to e-resource provision

 

2012 thoughts: I didn’t go far enough.  Will sign-on actually matter going forward?  What about open access, Creative Commons, material created for sharing?  Where do publishers see their resources going in the future?  Added value is needed absolutely when there is quality content available ‘for free’.  I’m no longer convinced about the virtual mirrors but it’s an intriguing idea.

 

My projections for Perpetuity:

 

—By 2014 more than 70% of all information will be available digitally (currently it is around 10%)

—Paper collections will largely disappear

—Legal deposit of dot.uk material will be guaranteed

—Project Transfer will become an engrained part of publishing practice

 

2012 thoughts: Absolutely yes on the amount of content, but at what cost for both purchase and adminstration?  Who looks after it, who monitors its quality?  When everyone can be an author in seconds, will peer review eventually die out?  Has the reference librarian of old lost their mojo and ability to keep track of the vast expanse of material being created day by day?  Is all media permanent or is some of it so transient it is likely to disappear from view?  Paper collections may well go outside of archives – and even they will eventually become digital once copyright issues around unpublished material has been addressed.  Legal deposit of all dot.uk content by 2014?  It looked as if this could have become a reality, but lack of commitment and resource may have scuppered it.  And Transfer needs to gain teeth if it is ever to be a fully ingrained step in publishing practice.

 

My projections for Invisibility:

 

—By 2014 every library will have a dedicated e-resource unit, seen as essential

—IT skills will increase and so will understanding of e

—Enhanced collaboration between sectors

—Repositories, portfolios, VLE, intranet – boundaries will become less clear

—Added value of service

 

2012 thoughts:  I still believe in all these, and that ‘invisibility’ will become ‘visibility’ because of them.  Projects like ELCAT, KB+, JUSP and others have led to considerable collaboration between sectors and institutions, and this can only continue after years of talking about it and saying ‘wouldn’t it be great if …?’.  But all this takes resourcing – time, money, manpower.  Do we have it?  Are we committed to it?  What level of service are we hoping to achieve?

 

My projections for User understanding:

 

—By 2014 information literacy (and the SCONUL 7 Pillars) will be part of assessment

—Library will be needed to guide and develop users in the content they choose and trust

—Books, journals, databases, websites will all mean the same to a user

—Response times will have to shrink even further

 

2012 thoughts: We’re already there with IL assessments.  I do believe that to a user content = content and they don’t care what it is, where it is from, who buys it, who produces it, or why it is there.  This can be foolhardy or even dangerous – going back to the ‘everyone’s an author’ view – it isn’t just about distrusting Wikipedia.  And yes, a 24 or 48 hour turnaround time on an email query will no longer be a viable KPI.  How do we deal with that?

 

My projections for Licensing:

 

—By 2014 publishers will be more receptive to the model licence

—Licenses will enable a full range of copying and sharing possibilities

—Copyright and e-resources will sit more closely together

—The internet will become more, rather than less, regulated … but self- or state-regulated?

 

2012 thoughts: Licensing seems to be becoming more complex, rather than less, and interpretations vary.  Ideally one licence should fit all, but will we ever get there?  A ‘full range of copying and sharing’: we need to ensure that licences do not override our basic copyright allowances enshrined in law.  New copyright initatives will seek to encompass digital content – it will have to, if projections are correct about the decline of print!  Regulation of the internet – curious I mentioned this.  Now I’m not sure if this is practical, possible, or desirable.  If it is – how would it work?  China has state-regulated internet access.  The world must not follow suit unless we want to put a brake on education. commerce, marketing, and the global network.

 

My projections for Sharing:

 

—By 2014 e- will not be tied to national, international, or sector boundaries

—Collaboration between subject groups and research units will increase

—Copying material from one format to another will become legally easy as well as technologically

 

2012 thoughts: I think subject groups might well become research units.  Format shifting is coming according to the Hargreaves recommendations.  Those boundaries are shifting.

 

There are many diverse challenges, it is clear – the greatest one being that it is no longer about resources or collections alone, but anything and everything together.  The speed of change is bewildering, exhilarating, exciting.  It is possible that change will come so fast that we can’t react to it, but we must try.  Making do will no longer ‘do’, and who knows in the future what we will be required to do, when. why, how and where from?

 

The Serials Librarian: call for papers

The Serials Librarian<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wser20/current>, the journal for continuing print and electronic resources affiliated with NASIG<http://www.nasig.org/>, is currently seeking content for Volume 63 (2012) and Volume 65 (2013).

The Serials Librarian is an international journal covering all aspects of the management of serials and other continuing resources in any format – print, electronic, etc. – ranging from their publication, to their abstracting and indexing by commercial services, and their collection and processing by libraries.

The journal seeks scholarly articles on any and all aspects of continuing resources (acquisition, promotion, cataloging, development), specifically those dealing with projects relating to serials management from around the world, especially from Europe, Australasia, and Asia. Topics include, but need not be limited to:

 *   Case studies on how institutions and organizations monitor and manage collections

 *   The devising of big package deals for providing serial publication content

 *   The adaptation of libraries to the demands of e-resources

 *   Open access and the testing of RDA

Contributions from those in publishing giving a different perspective to that of the subscriber or end-user are welcome as well. Authors may also contribute materials to the journal’s columns which exist on a range of subjects.

 Please send all initial questions and ideas to the editors at: editorserialslib@gmail.com<mailto:editorserialslib@gmail.com>.

 For more information about The Serials Librarian, including complete submission instructions, please visit the journal’s webpage: www.tandfonline.com/WSER<http://www.tandfonline.com/WSER>.

 The Serials Librarian allows authors to post the peer-reviewed version of their article (although not the published .pdf) to their institutional or subject repository immediately following publication, so long as the original source of publication in the Journal is referenced, and a URL link is made to the Version of Record on Routledge’s website.

 

The “Don’t subscribe” subscription model

Multi-Science Publishing have adopted this slogan “Don’t Subscribe” in relation to their e-journals this year.  Professional suicide?  Not a bit.

Instead, they are promoting a new model of payment which their director, Bill Hughes, is calling ‘PofU’.  What is this?  Well, it is simple.  “Pay Only For Usage”.

There’s a capped price for the year of $5,000.  There’s one guaranteed invoice.  There’s no hidden costs or nasty surprises. 

From their press release:

“Very simply, this is how it works. Our content and its backfile is made available in your library. If downloads are made, we charge $5 per download. If there’s no usage, then no payment – you’ve got nothing to lose. If there’s usage, then you’re meeting specialist needs without the burden of a subscription. And the download costs are capped so you don’t face unlimited liability. Even if the value of downloads reaches the cap value (usually $5000) you can still make more downloads at no extra cost. What could be simpler, or more fair?”

I await developments on this one with interest.  I’ve never been particularly convinced in the viability of usage-based models and have never been able to make sense of a model where you have no idea what you might be charged with the need to encumber budgets appropriately.  But, having said that, I’m open to new ideas and new models, and this one might well have something going for it.  $5 per download is significantly lower than a typical pay-per-view model.