Tuesday, June 05, 2012

Publishers' Association survey on subscriptions: methodological critique

Correction June 6: the 2006 ALPSP report Survey of Librarians on Factors in Journal Cancellation is on the ALPSP website, here: http://www.alpsp.org/Ebusiness/ProductCatalog/Product.aspx?ID=26 Only the press release and the Summary and Conclusions are available to non-members. The Association of Learned, Professional and Society Publishers (ALPSP) and the Publishers' Association just released the results of a survey asking if libraries would continue subscriptions if a majority of the content of research journals was freely available. The results of this study (downloadable from here) appear alarming - predicting catastrophic losses of subscriptions and subsequently journals and publishers! This post is a methodological critique. In summary, the recommendation of this study (against an OA mandate with a 6-month embargo) is not supported by the research presented - and most importantly, by the research omitted, which is in brief all of the considerable evidence that would counter this recommendation, including a 2006 study by ALPSP itself which is not cited and has apparently disappeared from the ALPSP website.

The recommendation from this study is:
It is strongly recommended that no mandate is issued on making all or most journal articles available free of charge after a six month embargo until both libraries and publishers have had time to understand the issues better and have together taken steps to explore alternatives to a fully open access publishing model which could be mutually attractive.
Here is the simply question asked by this ALPSP study:
If the (majority of) content of research journals was freely available within 6 months of publication, would you continue to subscribe? Please give a separate answer for a) Scientific, Technical and Medical journals and b) Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Journals if your library has holdings in both of these categories.
Methodological critique:
  1. The response rate to this study was 26%. With any survey, there is always the possibility of response bias. In the case of a study like this conducted in an environment of contested advocacy for public access policy, the chances of response bias to a survey conducted of librarians by publishers' groups is likely to be above normal.
  2. A 2006 ALPSP survey which found that cancellations by librarians would likely be minimal even with IMMEDIATE free access would be minimal appears to be absent from the ALPSP website. Thanks to Mel DeSart for posting conclusions to this study on the SCHOLCOMM list. For example, even if 79% of content were freely available immediately on publication, only 10% of libraries surveyed indicated that they would consider cancelling the journals. That this study, conducted by the same association, which found very different results, was not cited and does not appear on the ALPSP website, strongly supports the idea that the study was biased - only the results supporting ALPSP's preferred conclusion are presented.
  3. The recommendation of this study implies that the only possible source of revenue for scholarly journals is subscriptions. Even for traditional journals, this has never been the only source of revenue. For many a society publisher, for example, a key source of revenue has been association memberships rather than subscriptions, and many societies and associations have traditionally subsidized their journals (while in other cases the journals subsidize the association). Advertising is another source of revenue. In many countries (such as Canada), scholarly journal publishing is not seen as a profit-making venture, and so enjoys government subsidies. Article processing fees to provide for open access is a growing potential revenue source. A growing number of libraries provide funds to cover article processing fees for open access. Why did the study not ask libraries if they have such a fund, or would consider developing one if there was a mandate for open access within 6 months? Why not mention that there are now more than 7,000 fully open access journals - including profitable commercial journals, and hundreds of society journals as noted by Suber & Sutton?
  4. A key recommendation of this study is that "no mandate is issued on making all or most journal articles available free of charge after a six month embargo until both libraries and publishers have had time to understand the issues better and have together taken steps to explore alternatives to a fully open access publishing model which could be mutually attractive". This is puzzling. If the researchers think that libraries and publishers should work together (I agree), then why was was this a publisher-only study? Wouldn't a combined library / publisher / scholar study - like the PEER project - be a better approach?  Further, this recommendation implies that the idea of libraries and publishers working together to make open access happen is a new one. As I've explained in a bit of detail in my previous post Society publishers: time to quit whining and make the leap to open access, these discussions have been going on for more than decade. Why not cite some of these discussions and related research, such as survey conducted by myself and other researchers across Canada to figure out how to help journals make the leap to open access? This is just one example!

Friday, June 01, 2012

Society publishers: time to quit whining and make the leap to open access

The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) just released a report called: The potential effect of making journals free after a six month embargo.  Conclusions are that: "the impact on all publishers’ revenues would be considerable" and "It is strongly recommended that no mandate is issued on making all or most journal articles available free of charge after a six month embargo until both libraries and publishers have had time to understand the issues better and have together taken steps to explore alternatives to a fully open access publishing model which could be mutually attractive".

Comment - in brief

This post will focus on the second argument, that time is needed to explore alternatives to a fully open access publishing model. In brief, both libraries and publishers have been in discussions about the need to transition to an appropriate publishing system for the World Wide Web for at least a decade and a half - ALPSP itself was talking about this at least as early as 1997. Most of us have moved far beyond the discussions stage. Libraries are actively providing support for open access publishing, including hosting and support services for faculty and society publishing and funds for article processing fees. There are close to 8,000 fully open access journals listed in DOAJ - many in the humanities and social sciences - including commercial journals that are turning a healthy profit, illustrating that open access is a viable business model. There are a great many supports available for publishers wishing to move to open access, including David Solomon's Developing open access journals: a practical guide and the SPARC guide on income models for open access. If publishers have not yet made the switch to open access, this is a clear indication that discussions and support for change is not enough; public policy is needed.


Details

ALPSP itself has been discussing the need for change arising from the World Wide Web, through its journal Learned Publishing, since the journal first began in 1997. In April 1997, ALPSP published an article by R. Charkin called Scholarly communities on the World Wide Web
 in which the author points out that "Whatever happens it is clear that the world of scholarly publishing is going to change beyond recognition in the next decade – and most of that change is for the better". In 2000 - a full two years before the Budapest Open Access Initiative - R.S. Berry published an article in Learned Publishing called Full and open access to scientific information: an academic's view.

  •  SPARC is a coalition of libraries, initiated by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), that seeks to partner with scholarly publishers willing to enter markets where prices are highest and competition is needed. Through its activities, SPARC intends to reduce the risks to publisher-partners of entering the marketplace and to provide faculty with prestigious and responsive alternatives to current publishing vehicles.
Libraries, through SPARC and through other initiatives, have worked hard over the past decade and a half to help publishers transition to an optimal, sustainable approach to scholarly communication, with a primary focus on open access for approximately the last decade.

The majority of academic libraries in North America are now providing services for faculty and society publishing, as noted by Karla Hahn in 2008 and myself and my colleagues in 2010. There are now close to 8,000 fully open access journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. Many libraries now have funds available to pay article processing fees for open access journals.

References

Scholarly communities on the World Wide Web
Author: Charkin R.
Source: Learned Publishing, Volume 10, Number 2, 1 April 1997 , pp. 109-112(4)
http://alpsp.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/1997/00000010/00000002/art00003

Abstract:

Communities’ has become a buzzword in the strategy departments of publishing companies. It is clear – and becoming clearer – that the Internet is not merely a potential information delivery route but a vehicle for bringing together communities. One of the problems, however, is that much of the scholarly activity on the Web is driven by people with a traditional information delivery role – writers, publishers, booksellers and subscription agents and librarians. Nobody questions the importance of these roles but community creation is different and requires skills which are frequently closer to caterers or advertising agencies or hoteliers. Time will tell how communities will develop. Whatever happens it is clear that the world of scholarly publishing is going to change beyond recognition in the next decade – and most of that change is for the better.

http://alpsp.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2000/00000013/00000001/art00005

Full and open access' to scientific information: an academic's view
Author: Berry R.S.
Source: Learned Publishing, Volume 13, Number 1, 1 January 2000 , pp. 37-42(6)

Abstract:
Stimulated by the potential of electronic distribution of information, discussions, sometimes rather tense, about the ownership and proprietary rights to scientific publications have generated something of a polarization of the communities that have stakes in this issue. There are some 'middle-grounders', but the intensity of the discourse has made them less visible than the spokesmen for the extremes. In this forum, we examine these positions and then present a case for a specific policy, in light of the views of the parties.