Update November 29, 2011: Thanks to a comment on Sauropod Vertebra of the Week, I realized that my calculations were off by a bit - thanks to commenter Jeff Hecht at http://svpow.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/economics-of-open-source-publishing/According to Jeff's calculations, dividing Elsevier profit among all 1.5 million articles per year yields only $730 for OA article processing fees, not $1,383 as I had calculated. Nevertheless, this still supports my main point, that this system is not connecting with fiscal reality - the profits of one publisher could support a fully open access system, albeit at a more modest rate than my original calculation.
The original post follows:
Elsevier's Annual Report, reports "robust financial performance in unprecedented global recession", with operating profits up.
Elsevier per se and Lexis-Nexis each earned over $1 billion US IN PROFIT in 2009, for a profit rate of 35% (Elsevier) and 26% (Reed Elsevier). Together, this is MORE THAN $2 billion in profit from scholarly publishing in 2009.
If the total profit from Elsevier and Lexis-Nexis is added together and converted to U.S. dollars, the total is $2,075m. Divided by the estimated worldwide scholarly article output of 1.5 million articles per year (Björk et al, 2008), this comes out to $1,383 U.S.
In other words, the profits of this one company alone could fund a global, fully open access scholarly publishing system, at a rate of $1,383 U.S. per article.
A minority of open access journals charge article processing fees. Of those that do have such charges, some charge more than this amount; however, others charge less.
In other words, the world's scholarly journal article output could be published as fully open access with the funding that currently goes to the profits of just one company in this field.
Calculations are available here. Note currency conversion from GBP April 27, 2010
References
Björk, B., Roosr, A., & Lauri, M. (2008). Global annual volume of scholarly peer reviewed journal articles and the share available via different open access options. Paper presented at the ELPUB2008. Open Scholarship: Authority, Community, and Sustainability in the Age of Web 2.0 - Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Electronic Publishing Held in Toronto, Canada 25-27 June 2008. Edited by: Leslie Chan and Susanna Mornati. Retrieved from http://elpub.scix.net/cgi-bin/works/Show?178_elpub2008
Reed Elsevier 2009 Annual Report
This post is part of the Transitioning to Open Access series.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Wiley STM: 3rd quarter profits up 18%
From John Wiley and Sons announces Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2010 Results:
"Global STMS revenue for the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 rose 13% to $228 million"
"Direct contribution to profit for the third quarter increased 18% to $89 million"
Comment: this is a 39% profit rate, at a time when library customers are hit hard by the effects of the Global Economic Crisis. Some of the profits are coming from outsourcing from high cost regions to low-cost regions. The U.S. is losing jobs in spite of all these profits.
"Global STMS revenue for the third quarter of fiscal year 2010 rose 13% to $228 million"
"Direct contribution to profit for the third quarter increased 18% to $89 million"
Comment: this is a 39% profit rate, at a time when library customers are hit hard by the effects of the Global Economic Crisis. Some of the profits are coming from outsourcing from high cost regions to low-cost regions. The U.S. is losing jobs in spite of all these profits.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Informa (Taylor & Francis etc.): profits up, majority renewing at previous high rates
According to the Informa 2009 Annual Report, the Adjusted Operating Margin (profit) is up to 25.3% in 2009 from 2008's 23.9%. From Highlights, Summaries, and Outlook: "the majority of subscriptions are renewing in line with previous high rates". As Executive Director Peter Rigby puts it, "”During a period of sustained economic decline across the world, our Publishing assets have performed exceptionally well". Publishing is now responsible for 72% of that 25.3% operating profit.
When the majority of customers worldwide are reeling from severe cutbacks from the global economic crisis, this is an excellent example of an inelastic market, not at all responsive to customers.
When the majority of customers worldwide are reeling from severe cutbacks from the global economic crisis, this is an excellent example of an inelastic market, not at all responsive to customers.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Concordia University's open access mandate
Congratulations to Concordia!!
Concordia University recently passed an open access mandate. As pointed out in the press released, this is great timing, as next month Concordia will host the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
[I will be at Congress this year - co-presenting with Brian Owen at the Canadian Association of Learned Journals AGM on the Open Access Journals Support in Canada research project, and at the Canadian Communication Association meeting, launching my book Scholarly Communication for Librarians and presenting on the Open Content Alliance and the Google Books Settlement].
This post is part of the Canadian Leadership in the Open Access movement series.
Concordia University recently passed an open access mandate. As pointed out in the press released, this is great timing, as next month Concordia will host the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
[I will be at Congress this year - co-presenting with Brian Owen at the Canadian Association of Learned Journals AGM on the Open Access Journals Support in Canada research project, and at the Canadian Communication Association meeting, launching my book Scholarly Communication for Librarians and presenting on the Open Content Alliance and the Google Books Settlement].
This post is part of the Canadian Leadership in the Open Access movement series.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The direct and indirect benefits of open access for the public
With the Federal Research Public Access Act under discussion in the U.S., it may be timely to review the direct and indirect benefits of open access for the public. Following is an excerpt from an article that Andrew Waller & I wrote for the Library Association of Alberta newsletter in 2004.
Benefits of Open Access
So, what benefits does Open Access bring? For the academic world, as noted, it
could help libraries better cope with subscription costs and provide more stability to budgeting, give researchers more control over their works, and also allow for wider distribution of those works, something most academics desire. What about the “general public”? There are both direct and indirect benefits for the general public.
Direct benefits occur when the public reads the primary research literature. At first glance, it might not seem intuitive that the public would be interested in reading this material. Perhaps this is because there is a tendency to view “the general public” as if it were some homogenous, average group of people. In reality, “the general public” is all of us. Here in Western Canada, “the public” includes a significant percentage of the population with university degrees; graduate degrees are not uncommon. Even academic researchers are members of “the public” outside of their areas of specialty.
The most popular notion of the direct benefits to the general public, and an important one, is the ability of patients and families to directly read the literature relating to medical conditions. The need for this access is perhaps most poignantly felt when someone is diagnosed with a rare, genetic condition, one that doctors know little about, and which might well affect many members of a family.
Another example of a direct benefit is the ability of students outside the research universities to read the primary research literature. Students who begin their studies at smaller colleges or university colleges, and high school students, could have the same access to the literature as students at research universities. This, in turn, would make it easier for educators and librarians at these institutions to help these students develop information literacy skills.
There are also people who are serious hobbyists who are quite capable of following the scholarly literature, and, in some cases, these people are assisting in the advancement of scientific knowledge. One example is astronomy; apparently there are so many serious amateur astronomers in the world, that whenever a new event in the heavens occurs, it is more likely to be reported by an amateur first, rather than a professional.
Indirect benefits to the public could come through the mediation of others. In an OA world, journalists and freelance writers would have ready access to the latest in the research literature. As one example, it could be easier for a journalist to investigate an environmental problem, as well as possible solutions. It could be easier for journalists to translate the latest medical discoveries, to help “the public” understand issues like SARS and AIDS, what causes common diseases (and how they might be prevented), what kinds of treatments might someday be available when we, or our loved ones, need it, and so on.
Finally, the increased exposure to results of the research of our universities can only enhance the value of the universities themselves in the eyes of the public and politicians. Scholars giving away the fruits of their labours can only result in greater support (definitely moral and hopefully financial) for future endeavours.
From: Morrison, Heather and Waller, Andrew Open access : basics and benefits., 2004. Available through E-LIS.
Benefits of Open Access
So, what benefits does Open Access bring? For the academic world, as noted, it
could help libraries better cope with subscription costs and provide more stability to budgeting, give researchers more control over their works, and also allow for wider distribution of those works, something most academics desire. What about the “general public”? There are both direct and indirect benefits for the general public.
Direct benefits occur when the public reads the primary research literature. At first glance, it might not seem intuitive that the public would be interested in reading this material. Perhaps this is because there is a tendency to view “the general public” as if it were some homogenous, average group of people. In reality, “the general public” is all of us. Here in Western Canada, “the public” includes a significant percentage of the population with university degrees; graduate degrees are not uncommon. Even academic researchers are members of “the public” outside of their areas of specialty.
The most popular notion of the direct benefits to the general public, and an important one, is the ability of patients and families to directly read the literature relating to medical conditions. The need for this access is perhaps most poignantly felt when someone is diagnosed with a rare, genetic condition, one that doctors know little about, and which might well affect many members of a family.
Another example of a direct benefit is the ability of students outside the research universities to read the primary research literature. Students who begin their studies at smaller colleges or university colleges, and high school students, could have the same access to the literature as students at research universities. This, in turn, would make it easier for educators and librarians at these institutions to help these students develop information literacy skills.
There are also people who are serious hobbyists who are quite capable of following the scholarly literature, and, in some cases, these people are assisting in the advancement of scientific knowledge. One example is astronomy; apparently there are so many serious amateur astronomers in the world, that whenever a new event in the heavens occurs, it is more likely to be reported by an amateur first, rather than a professional.
Indirect benefits to the public could come through the mediation of others. In an OA world, journalists and freelance writers would have ready access to the latest in the research literature. As one example, it could be easier for a journalist to investigate an environmental problem, as well as possible solutions. It could be easier for journalists to translate the latest medical discoveries, to help “the public” understand issues like SARS and AIDS, what causes common diseases (and how they might be prevented), what kinds of treatments might someday be available when we, or our loved ones, need it, and so on.
Finally, the increased exposure to results of the research of our universities can only enhance the value of the universities themselves in the eyes of the public and politicians. Scholars giving away the fruits of their labours can only result in greater support (definitely moral and hopefully financial) for future endeavours.
From: Morrison, Heather and Waller, Andrew Open access : basics and benefits., 2004. Available through E-LIS.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The global scope of the open access movement
This post includes a few small points of clarification in response to one point made in a recent letter by publishers to JISC, as follows:
"It is misleading not to explain to UK universities that the hypothesized “savings” require the rest of the world to support open access. The rest of the world accounts for 93.4% of published articles, only 1-2% of which are ‘gold’ and only 7% of which are ‘green’ today. Until the rest of the world follows UK universities, which would likely take decades based on the current pace of change, UK universities would pay significantly more with no extra benefit". from: letter to M. Read, JISC, from G. Taylor (the Publishers Association), I. Russell (ALPSP) and M. Mabe (STM), March 15, 2010, downloadable from here.
Comment:
The Houghton report does not assume that the whole world needs to move to open access; the cost savings quoted are based on a scenario of a unilateral move to OA by the UK. While this makes sense for a UK-based economic analysis (the UK Higher Education system cannot require changes elsewhere), the open access movement is actually global in scope. One way to view the UK in the global picture is to look at the Directory of Open Access Journals' statistics by country. Here we see that 406 OA journals are published in the UK, just under 10% of the total number of OA journals listed in DOAJ. The long list of countries publishing OA journals illustrates the global diversity of the movement.
Similarly, the global diversity of the open access repository (green) movement can be easily seen by a search of OpenDOAR "by country". Open access repositories are spread throughout Africa, Australia, North, South, and Central America, as well as Europe.
A global analysis of cost savings from a full switch to open access is likely to show far greater savings for the UK (and every other country) than a unilateral shift. My own macro-level estimate of library savings from a full shift to open access at top-quality PLoS rates is about 2.5 billion USD, or about 56% of current expenditures, as reported in my presentation, Freedom for Scholarship in the Internet Age. This is a conservative estimate in many respects.
This letter understates the current extent of open access. Bjork et al., based on 2006 data, reported that 4.6% of the world's scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles were published open access, with more made freely available by publishers after a delay period, resulting in over 8% of articles made freely available by publishers within a year of publication. Factoring in green self-archiving, the total of freely available fulltext after 2 years was close to 20%. Since 2006, open access has continued to grow dramatically, as I report regularly in my series, The Dramatic Growth of Open Access.
Please note that my focus on this one bullet point does not imply my agreement with the remainder of the letter; rather I thought it important to highlight this particular issue.
"It is misleading not to explain to UK universities that the hypothesized “savings” require the rest of the world to support open access. The rest of the world accounts for 93.4% of published articles, only 1-2% of which are ‘gold’ and only 7% of which are ‘green’ today. Until the rest of the world follows UK universities, which would likely take decades based on the current pace of change, UK universities would pay significantly more with no extra benefit". from: letter to M. Read, JISC, from G. Taylor (the Publishers Association), I. Russell (ALPSP) and M. Mabe (STM), March 15, 2010, downloadable from here.
Comment:
The Houghton report does not assume that the whole world needs to move to open access; the cost savings quoted are based on a scenario of a unilateral move to OA by the UK. While this makes sense for a UK-based economic analysis (the UK Higher Education system cannot require changes elsewhere), the open access movement is actually global in scope. One way to view the UK in the global picture is to look at the Directory of Open Access Journals' statistics by country. Here we see that 406 OA journals are published in the UK, just under 10% of the total number of OA journals listed in DOAJ. The long list of countries publishing OA journals illustrates the global diversity of the movement.
Similarly, the global diversity of the open access repository (green) movement can be easily seen by a search of OpenDOAR "by country". Open access repositories are spread throughout Africa, Australia, North, South, and Central America, as well as Europe.
A global analysis of cost savings from a full switch to open access is likely to show far greater savings for the UK (and every other country) than a unilateral shift. My own macro-level estimate of library savings from a full shift to open access at top-quality PLoS rates is about 2.5 billion USD, or about 56% of current expenditures, as reported in my presentation, Freedom for Scholarship in the Internet Age. This is a conservative estimate in many respects.
This letter understates the current extent of open access. Bjork et al., based on 2006 data, reported that 4.6% of the world's scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles were published open access, with more made freely available by publishers after a delay period, resulting in over 8% of articles made freely available by publishers within a year of publication. Factoring in green self-archiving, the total of freely available fulltext after 2 years was close to 20%. Since 2006, open access has continued to grow dramatically, as I report regularly in my series, The Dramatic Growth of Open Access.
Please note that my focus on this one bullet point does not imply my agreement with the remainder of the letter; rather I thought it important to highlight this particular issue.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
DOAJ Media and Communication list: open data / open knowledge
This DOAJ Media and Communication list for research purposes is released as open data, or more accurately ~
Friday, April 16, 2010
International Communication Association on Open Access
Update April 24: I just realized that the ICA's Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication is open access (on the Wiley site).
Quotable from Wolfgang Donsbach, Finance Committee Report, International Communication Association 2007 Annual Report (downloadable from the ICA website):
"Publications...yield a surplus of between $500,000 - $600,000 because expenses for the editors' offices stay far below the income." (The ICA journals are published by Wiley Blackwell). Note that this is just the surplus returned to ICA; the profits retained by Wiley Blackwell are another matter.
According to Donsbach, "ICA's budget requires a close look at developments in the business of academic publications." The remainder of the paragraph talks about open access and federal funding agency policies.
Comment: ICA should definitely have a close look at its budget. According to my rough calculations, if the 541 articles published in ICA's 5 journals in 2009 had all been published as OA using the average PLoS article processing fee of $1,600, the total expenditure would have been about $132,000. In other words, ICA's entire publication program could be open access at top quality for less than a quarter of the present surplus.
Members of the International Communication Association should demand change. If we are wondering why our libraries cannot afford all of the books and journals that we would like to have in our libraries - this is why.
The ICA Mission, from the ICA website, is:
The International Communication Association aims to advance the scholarly study of human communication by encouraging and facilitating excellence in academic research worldwide. The purposes of the Association are (1) to provide an international forum to enable the development, conduct, and critical evaluation of communication research; (2) to sustain a program of high quality scholarly publication and knowledge exchange; (3) to facilitate inclusiveness and debate among scholars from diverse national and cultural backgrounds and from multi-disciplinary perspectives on communication-related issues; and (4) to promote a wider public interest in, and visibility of, the theories, methods, findings and applications generated by research in communication and allied fields.
There is nothing in this mission statement about profiteering from publication - or about purchasing real estate in Washington, DC, another prominent feature in the Financial Report. Every single element of the ICA mission would be advanced by open access.
Methodological note: to calculate the PLoS average article processing fee, I counted all the articles in each of the PLoS journals for several months, multiplied by the APF for each journal, then divided by the total number of articles, earlier this year. Since the lowest-cost PLoS One is the fastest-growing of the PLoS journals, I would anticipate that the average APF will decrease over time.
Quotable from Wolfgang Donsbach, Finance Committee Report, International Communication Association 2007 Annual Report (downloadable from the ICA website):
"Publications...yield a surplus of between $500,000 - $600,000 because expenses for the editors' offices stay far below the income." (The ICA journals are published by Wiley Blackwell). Note that this is just the surplus returned to ICA; the profits retained by Wiley Blackwell are another matter.
According to Donsbach, "ICA's budget requires a close look at developments in the business of academic publications." The remainder of the paragraph talks about open access and federal funding agency policies.
Comment: ICA should definitely have a close look at its budget. According to my rough calculations, if the 541 articles published in ICA's 5 journals in 2009 had all been published as OA using the average PLoS article processing fee of $1,600, the total expenditure would have been about $132,000. In other words, ICA's entire publication program could be open access at top quality for less than a quarter of the present surplus.
Members of the International Communication Association should demand change. If we are wondering why our libraries cannot afford all of the books and journals that we would like to have in our libraries - this is why.
The ICA Mission, from the ICA website, is:
The International Communication Association aims to advance the scholarly study of human communication by encouraging and facilitating excellence in academic research worldwide. The purposes of the Association are (1) to provide an international forum to enable the development, conduct, and critical evaluation of communication research; (2) to sustain a program of high quality scholarly publication and knowledge exchange; (3) to facilitate inclusiveness and debate among scholars from diverse national and cultural backgrounds and from multi-disciplinary perspectives on communication-related issues; and (4) to promote a wider public interest in, and visibility of, the theories, methods, findings and applications generated by research in communication and allied fields.
There is nothing in this mission statement about profiteering from publication - or about purchasing real estate in Washington, DC, another prominent feature in the Financial Report. Every single element of the ICA mission would be advanced by open access.
Methodological note: to calculate the PLoS average article processing fee, I counted all the articles in each of the PLoS journals for several months, multiplied by the APF for each journal, then divided by the total number of articles, earlier this year. Since the lowest-cost PLoS One is the fastest-growing of the PLoS journals, I would anticipate that the average APF will decrease over time.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Another reason why the world needs librarians
There are people out there - including people with PhDs, and judges - who do not understand that internet linking is basically a form of citation. It is ridiculous to think that people should ask permission to link to someone's work on the web, or that the linker is somehow responsible to what they have linked to.
There is a huge learning curve for many people here, and isn't it grand that we have librarians like Devon Greyson on Social Justice Librarian to begin the task of overcoming the curve? This is just one small example of the tremendous need for information literacy. Librarians, I think we will have our work cut out for us, for some time to come.
There is a huge learning curve for many people here, and isn't it grand that we have librarians like Devon Greyson on Social Justice Librarian to begin the task of overcoming the curve? This is just one small example of the tremendous need for information literacy. Librarians, I think we will have our work cut out for us, for some time to come.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
WorldCat rights and responsibilites for the OCLC Cooperative: comments
OCLC has released a next draft of their WorldCat rights and responsibilities for the OCLC Cooperative. Following are my comments.
First, kudos to OCLC for a more transparent process and providing the opportunity to comment. That said, while this draft is an improvement over the first one, it is nevertheless going in the wrong direction altogether. Library bibliographic records belong in the public domain.
Most elements of a library bibliographic record are simply facts. Since I am an author, for example, WorldCat contains my name, the title of my works, as well as publication details - the name of my publisher, date, and place of publication. OCLC does not own my name, or the titles of my works, and it is not appropriate to brand bibliographic records for my works with either OCLC or WorldCat.
WorldCat also contains subject headings for my work. This is the creative work of librarians; however, if attribution makes sense, it is the cataloguer who should sign the work, not WorldCat.
What I have described above is the relatively simple situation of straightforward library catalogue records. The situation becomes much more complex as libraries, and WorldCat, increasingly add other resources. For example, when records from the local institutional repository are added, they will often include metadata that is contributed by the author, and an abstract. Again, if attribution is important, then what should happen is that the person who contributed this work should be cited - not OCLC.
For example, at times I have, as an E-LIS editor, served as an editor for an entire conference, adding in all of the metadata, and not infrequently reading the works and writing abstracts when these were not supplied. I have also occasionally translated abstracts into english from other languages. This is substantive work - much more substantive work than the automated technical gathering of metadata involved in WorldCat. If it makes no sense to attribute my contributions (and I agree that it does not), then how could it make sense to credit WorldCat for relatively trivial sharing of my work?
This is a very important point. Libraries and library associations are very appropriately involved as experts in evolving public policy consultations. We need to be able to effectively advocate for the concept that those who gather and redistribute content gain no intellectual property rights, moral or otherwise, in the process. This is a part of the key battles taking place right now for public space in the realm of knowledge; what is potentially at stake is the whole of the public domain in electronic form. We should take care that do not ourselves develop policies that could be used as examples, to work against the interests of libraries and the public.
Finally, this policy appears to me to suggest that WorldCat is a global resource. From where I sit, a few minutes north of the border, it is not. OCLC is largely a U.S. organization, albeit with important partnerships outside the U.S. Have a look at the Record Use Policy Council membership to see what I mean. Of the 12 members on the Council, 10 are based in the U.S.A. This would be a representative international council only if about 90% of the world's population was based in the U.S.
In many parts of the world, libraries are few and far between, and they have little money. (This is true of many parts of the U.S., too). A library with little money could go a long way with free access to bibliographic materials for freely accessible materials. Many of the records in WorldCat were created by national libraries or public universities, with a mandate to serve the public good. It is a disservice to unnecessarily restrict these records. When the material is freely available, it is a disservice to the authors and those who make the works freely available to restrict access to the bibliographic records.
I question this statement: "As a union of union catalogs, WorldCat enables routing of requests on behalf of not just OCLC member libraries, but any organizations (e.g., Google) or end users who want to interact with participating WorldCat libraries." What does this mean? Can I, as a member of the public, or of any organization Google a book held by an OCLC library and have it sent directly to me? I suspect this is not what is meant, but that is how this statement reads to me.
In summary: my recommendation to the OCLC Record Use Policy Council is to scrap this draft policy, and start fresh with a vision of what a worldwide library catalogue should look like in a world with an internet that is as open as it possibly can be. From my perspective, this means library records that are freely and openly available for use and re-use, as part of a robust and growing public domain. If this is inconsistent with OCLC's current business model - then it is timely for OCLC for rethink their business model.
First, kudos to OCLC for a more transparent process and providing the opportunity to comment. That said, while this draft is an improvement over the first one, it is nevertheless going in the wrong direction altogether. Library bibliographic records belong in the public domain.
Most elements of a library bibliographic record are simply facts. Since I am an author, for example, WorldCat contains my name, the title of my works, as well as publication details - the name of my publisher, date, and place of publication. OCLC does not own my name, or the titles of my works, and it is not appropriate to brand bibliographic records for my works with either OCLC or WorldCat.
WorldCat also contains subject headings for my work. This is the creative work of librarians; however, if attribution makes sense, it is the cataloguer who should sign the work, not WorldCat.
What I have described above is the relatively simple situation of straightforward library catalogue records. The situation becomes much more complex as libraries, and WorldCat, increasingly add other resources. For example, when records from the local institutional repository are added, they will often include metadata that is contributed by the author, and an abstract. Again, if attribution is important, then what should happen is that the person who contributed this work should be cited - not OCLC.
For example, at times I have, as an E-LIS editor, served as an editor for an entire conference, adding in all of the metadata, and not infrequently reading the works and writing abstracts when these were not supplied. I have also occasionally translated abstracts into english from other languages. This is substantive work - much more substantive work than the automated technical gathering of metadata involved in WorldCat. If it makes no sense to attribute my contributions (and I agree that it does not), then how could it make sense to credit WorldCat for relatively trivial sharing of my work?
This is a very important point. Libraries and library associations are very appropriately involved as experts in evolving public policy consultations. We need to be able to effectively advocate for the concept that those who gather and redistribute content gain no intellectual property rights, moral or otherwise, in the process. This is a part of the key battles taking place right now for public space in the realm of knowledge; what is potentially at stake is the whole of the public domain in electronic form. We should take care that do not ourselves develop policies that could be used as examples, to work against the interests of libraries and the public.
Finally, this policy appears to me to suggest that WorldCat is a global resource. From where I sit, a few minutes north of the border, it is not. OCLC is largely a U.S. organization, albeit with important partnerships outside the U.S. Have a look at the Record Use Policy Council membership to see what I mean. Of the 12 members on the Council, 10 are based in the U.S.A. This would be a representative international council only if about 90% of the world's population was based in the U.S.
In many parts of the world, libraries are few and far between, and they have little money. (This is true of many parts of the U.S., too). A library with little money could go a long way with free access to bibliographic materials for freely accessible materials. Many of the records in WorldCat were created by national libraries or public universities, with a mandate to serve the public good. It is a disservice to unnecessarily restrict these records. When the material is freely available, it is a disservice to the authors and those who make the works freely available to restrict access to the bibliographic records.
I question this statement: "As a union of union catalogs, WorldCat enables routing of requests on behalf of not just OCLC member libraries, but any organizations (e.g., Google) or end users who want to interact with participating WorldCat libraries." What does this mean? Can I, as a member of the public, or of any organization Google a book held by an OCLC library and have it sent directly to me? I suspect this is not what is meant, but that is how this statement reads to me.
In summary: my recommendation to the OCLC Record Use Policy Council is to scrap this draft policy, and start fresh with a vision of what a worldwide library catalogue should look like in a world with an internet that is as open as it possibly can be. From my perspective, this means library records that are freely and openly available for use and re-use, as part of a robust and growing public domain. If this is inconsistent with OCLC's current business model - then it is timely for OCLC for rethink their business model.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Ithaka Faculty Survey 2009: can a mail-based survey capture faculty leadership in adopting new models of scholarly communication?
Ithaka has just released their Faculty Survey 2009. In brief, results suggest that faculty are ready for the shift from print to electronic for journals for new issues, but are concerned about preservation. Results also indicate a growing appreciation for the library's role as buyer and archiving, with a decreasing appreciation of the library's role as gatekeeper. Teaching and research support are valued, particularly for faculty who are "more of a teacher".
Following is a brief methodological critique. In summary, a mail-based survey like this likely understates faculty comfort with, and interest in, new online communication channels; usage of repositories is likely under-reported, based on answers to another question from this survey; and the 2006 survey data, which might yield the answer to the problem with the repositories question, is unfortunately locked up. Hopefully, the 2009 dataset will be released as open data.
Critique
This is a mail-based survey, with a response rate of 8.6%. There are several indications of low findings on areas relating to new technologies, most significantly including limited use of new online communication channels, and a conclusion that faculty are not likely to lead in transformation of scholarly communication. It would be interesting to see whether the same results would have been found with a web-based survey. That is to say, faculty whose primary means of communication is new online channels might be less likely to return a mail-based survey.
Some of the findings with respect to usage of open access archives (which the report refers to as institutional and disciplinary repositories) are inconsistent. For example, only about 10% of faculty in any discipline report making use of such repositories. However, over 30% of faculty in physics, math, and economics, report that they continue to use preprints and working papers, even after the published version is available. Since these preprints and working papers are in the repositories, it is clear that usage of repositories is underreported.
It would be very helpful to be able to view the actual question. However, while Ithaka has deposited the data from the 2006 survey, it is not freely accessible. Perhaps the 2009 data will be made openly accessible?
Ithaka study citation: Schonfeld, R. C., & Housewright, R. (2010). Faculty survey 2009: Key strategic insights for libraries, publishers, and societiesIthaka. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/faculty-survey-2009
Following is a brief methodological critique. In summary, a mail-based survey like this likely understates faculty comfort with, and interest in, new online communication channels; usage of repositories is likely under-reported, based on answers to another question from this survey; and the 2006 survey data, which might yield the answer to the problem with the repositories question, is unfortunately locked up. Hopefully, the 2009 dataset will be released as open data.
Critique
This is a mail-based survey, with a response rate of 8.6%. There are several indications of low findings on areas relating to new technologies, most significantly including limited use of new online communication channels, and a conclusion that faculty are not likely to lead in transformation of scholarly communication. It would be interesting to see whether the same results would have been found with a web-based survey. That is to say, faculty whose primary means of communication is new online channels might be less likely to return a mail-based survey.
Some of the findings with respect to usage of open access archives (which the report refers to as institutional and disciplinary repositories) are inconsistent. For example, only about 10% of faculty in any discipline report making use of such repositories. However, over 30% of faculty in physics, math, and economics, report that they continue to use preprints and working papers, even after the published version is available. Since these preprints and working papers are in the repositories, it is clear that usage of repositories is underreported.
It would be very helpful to be able to view the actual question. However, while Ithaka has deposited the data from the 2006 survey, it is not freely accessible. Perhaps the 2009 data will be made openly accessible?
Ithaka study citation: Schonfeld, R. C., & Housewright, R. (2010). Faculty survey 2009: Key strategic insights for libraries, publishers, and societiesIthaka. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/faculty-survey-2009
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Dramatic Growth of Open Access: March 31, 2010 Edition
The March 31, 2010 issue of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access is now available. Highlights: DOAJ is now at 4,863 journals, having added a net total of 864 journals in the past year for a DOAJ growth rate of over 2 titles per day. The Bielefeld Academic Search Engine now searches over 23 million documents; this is an increase of over 1.2 million in the last quarter, or over 13,000 documents per day. There are now more than 200 open access mandate policies listed in ROARMAP, with strong growth in every category. Compliance with the U.S. National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy is 62% - still not 100%, but definitely getting closer. In the past year,120 more journals began contributing all content as open access to PubMedCentral. There are now more than 5,000 journals around the world using Open Journal Systems (OJS).
Some of the journals whose authors showed very low compliance rates last December are now showing improved compliance rates. Since it is the authors, not the journals, that the policy applies to, this is a very indirect measure of the likely helpfulness (or not) of the journal with respect to facilitating author compliance with the policy. The compliance rate with the requirement policy dating from 2008 for authors of Elsevier's Addictive Behaviors and American Heart Journal is about 50%, as with Wiley-Blackwell's Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. Authors of Taylor & Francis' AIDS Care is at 26% compliance, American Journal of Bioethics 44%. To repeat, this is compliance with the new firm requirement policy, not the voluntary policy which has been in effect since 2004.
This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access series.
With this issue, the explanatory notes have been separated from the main spreadsheet, to facilitate updating of the google docs editions. These are my working notes; developing a more readable version is on my to-do list. Questions about methodology are always welcome, at hgmorris at sfu dot ca
For full data and explanatory notes:
Some of the journals whose authors showed very low compliance rates last December are now showing improved compliance rates. Since it is the authors, not the journals, that the policy applies to, this is a very indirect measure of the likely helpfulness (or not) of the journal with respect to facilitating author compliance with the policy. The compliance rate with the requirement policy dating from 2008 for authors of Elsevier's Addictive Behaviors and American Heart Journal is about 50%, as with Wiley-Blackwell's Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. Authors of Taylor & Francis' AIDS Care is at 26% compliance, American Journal of Bioethics 44%. To repeat, this is compliance with the new firm requirement policy, not the voluntary policy which has been in effect since 2004.
This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access series.
With this issue, the explanatory notes have been separated from the main spreadsheet, to facilitate updating of the google docs editions. These are my working notes; developing a more readable version is on my to-do list. Questions about methodology are always welcome, at hgmorris at sfu dot ca
For full data and explanatory notes:
Google docs for viewing:
Showing growthFull data edition
Explanatory notes
To download spreadsheets - Dramatic Growth of Open Access Dataverse (thanks to Harvard)
DGOA Dataverse
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
New homepage
Please visit my new homepage at the SFU School of Communication! The SFU page will function as my homepage (and CV, when I get around to this). At this point in time, my thought is that the SFU will be the more formal academic site, while IJPE will continue to be the place for most of my commentary.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
U.S. systemic savings from a full shift to OA: $3.4 billion
Donald King presents some interesting data in this month's D-Lib Magazine.
Based on King's data, my calculations for U.S. systemic annual savings from a full switch to open access via article processing fees can be conservatively estimated at $3.4 billion per year.
Synopsis:
King argues for an open access system via article processing fees, fully paid by the federal government. It is noteworthy that King's estimate is that this would cost, in a worst-case scenario, an increase of less than 1% of what the U.S. federal government spends on research grants right now. King acknowledges the unlikelihood of this scenario. Average cost-per-article of $1,500 and $2,500 U.S. scenarios are employed; the additional cost for 100% funding of articles would be $427 million (at $1,500 per article) or $712 million (at $2,500 per article). King estimates that academic and special libraries could, together, save an estimate $4.1 billion per year.
Comment:
While this particular scenario is unlikely, this analysis is a most welcome addition to the growing body of literature illustrating the substantial cost savings possible with a full shift to open access.
It is not clear whether King has factored in the existing page charges paid by U.S. federal funding agencies as a portion of grants; it seems reasonable to assume that these costs would disappear.
One reason this is a very conservative estimate is because the vast majority of OA publishers do not charge article processing fees; these journals may well have more efficient business models and/or alternative sources of revenue.
With respect to the model - federal government funding - as King points out, the money is there, in academic library budgets - along with expertise in negotiating and scholarly communication. The best bet for academic libraries to ensure that the savings go to emerging library priorities such as building and preserving digital collections, is to take the lead in the shifting economics from subscriptions to open access. This scenario is far more likely, and better for the libraries.
Full citation to King's article: King, D. W. (2010). An approach to open access author payment. D-Lib Magazine, 16(3/4) Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march10/king/03king.html.
This post is part of the Transitioning to Open Access series.
Based on King's data, my calculations for U.S. systemic annual savings from a full switch to open access via article processing fees can be conservatively estimated at $3.4 billion per year.
Synopsis:
King argues for an open access system via article processing fees, fully paid by the federal government. It is noteworthy that King's estimate is that this would cost, in a worst-case scenario, an increase of less than 1% of what the U.S. federal government spends on research grants right now. King acknowledges the unlikelihood of this scenario. Average cost-per-article of $1,500 and $2,500 U.S. scenarios are employed; the additional cost for 100% funding of articles would be $427 million (at $1,500 per article) or $712 million (at $2,500 per article). King estimates that academic and special libraries could, together, save an estimate $4.1 billion per year.
Comment:
While this particular scenario is unlikely, this analysis is a most welcome addition to the growing body of literature illustrating the substantial cost savings possible with a full shift to open access.
It is not clear whether King has factored in the existing page charges paid by U.S. federal funding agencies as a portion of grants; it seems reasonable to assume that these costs would disappear.
One reason this is a very conservative estimate is because the vast majority of OA publishers do not charge article processing fees; these journals may well have more efficient business models and/or alternative sources of revenue.
With respect to the model - federal government funding - as King points out, the money is there, in academic library budgets - along with expertise in negotiating and scholarly communication. The best bet for academic libraries to ensure that the savings go to emerging library priorities such as building and preserving digital collections, is to take the lead in the shifting economics from subscriptions to open access. This scenario is far more likely, and better for the libraries.
Full citation to King's article: King, D. W. (2010). An approach to open access author payment. D-Lib Magazine, 16(3/4) Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march10/king/03king.html.
This post is part of the Transitioning to Open Access series.
Monday, March 08, 2010
ACTA: end the secrecy. Democracy now!
Update March 28: Major library associations are calling for transparency in ACTA, including the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA), and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the Association of College and Research Librarians (ACRL) and the American Library Association (ALA)
Update March 11: as reported by Michael Geist, the European Parliament has "today overwhelming approved a resolution on ACTA calling for transparency and raising concerns about substantive elements in the treaty such as the prospect of three strikes and personal border searches".
Further issues raised in the final text:
* the European Parliament "deplores the calculated choice of the parties not to negotiate through well-established international bodies, such as WIPO and WTO, which have established frameworks for public information and consultation"
* It says "further ACTA negotiations should include a larger number of developing and emerging countries, with a view to reaching a possible multilateral level of negotiation"
* provides that "any agreement must include the stipulation that the closing-off of an individual’s Internet access shall be subject to prior examination by a court"
* warns that "ACTA provisions, notably measures aimed at strengthening powers for cross-border inspection and seizure of goods, should not affect global access to legitimate, affordable and safe medicinal products – including innovative and generic products – on the pretext of combating counterfeiting"
Hear, hear!
thanks, European Parliament!!
Thanks to Michael Geist for keeping us posted on leaks from the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
Under discussion: international intellectual property laws, such as anti-circumvention measures, notice and notice versus notice and takedown - see Geist for as much as we've been able to figure out so far. Until recently, these kinds of discussion were a matter of national law-making, for most of us under democratic principles.
Today, these discussions are held in secret, with no opportunity for democratic participation.
Have we - all of us in the so-called free world, that is - lost the franchise?
ACTA - and all of the countries involved in these discussions: END THE SECRECY! Let's have DEMOCRACY - NOW!!
A huge thanks to whoever is responsible for the leaks.
Update March 11: as reported by Michael Geist, the European Parliament has "today overwhelming approved a resolution on ACTA calling for transparency and raising concerns about substantive elements in the treaty such as the prospect of three strikes and personal border searches".
Further issues raised in the final text:
* the European Parliament "deplores the calculated choice of the parties not to negotiate through well-established international bodies, such as WIPO and WTO, which have established frameworks for public information and consultation"
* It says "further ACTA negotiations should include a larger number of developing and emerging countries, with a view to reaching a possible multilateral level of negotiation"
* provides that "any agreement must include the stipulation that the closing-off of an individual’s Internet access shall be subject to prior examination by a court"
* warns that "ACTA provisions, notably measures aimed at strengthening powers for cross-border inspection and seizure of goods, should not affect global access to legitimate, affordable and safe medicinal products – including innovative and generic products – on the pretext of combating counterfeiting"
Hear, hear!
thanks, European Parliament!!
Thanks to Michael Geist for keeping us posted on leaks from the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
Under discussion: international intellectual property laws, such as anti-circumvention measures, notice and notice versus notice and takedown - see Geist for as much as we've been able to figure out so far. Until recently, these kinds of discussion were a matter of national law-making, for most of us under democratic principles.
Today, these discussions are held in secret, with no opportunity for democratic participation.
Have we - all of us in the so-called free world, that is - lost the franchise?
ACTA - and all of the countries involved in these discussions: END THE SECRECY! Let's have DEMOCRACY - NOW!!
A huge thanks to whoever is responsible for the leaks.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Freedom for scholarship in the internet age: OCULA spotlight
My powerpoint and detailed notes for my OCULA spotlight speech at the Ontario Library Association Superconference last week, Freedom for scholarship in the internet age, is available for viewing or downloading from here.
In brief, this speech begins with some thoughts on the purpose of scholarship. This question should frame any discussion of scholarly communication. While there are millions of researchers and at least as many research questions, it can be useful to think about a question like addressing global warming when evaluating potential change in scholarly communication. Note that it is important to remember that there can be a signficant gap in time (sometimes centuries) between when a concept is introduced, and when it is understood.
From the scholar's perspective, publisher-added digital rights management (DRM) is seen as a hindrance to scholarship - not a value add. Libre open access - free to re-use as well as to read - is only a small fraction of open access right now, but it is predicted that libre OA will be increasingly sought by scholars who experience its benefits.
Dealing with the sheer volume of information presently available (and still expanding exponentially) is one of the key challenges for scholars, librarians, and publishers alike. Three strategies for addressing this challenge are discussed. Reading less or filtering is seen as tempting, but not a good idea when examined against the purpose of scholarship. For example, if we find the volume of information coming from China overwhelming, it might be tempted to skip reading it; but if Chinese scholars are doing research that could help us to figure out a clean energy breakthrough, this isn't such a good idea. Writing less is a strategy that has more potential. Some of the pressure to write in quantity in academia may actually be counterproductive. Collaborating is a strategy well worth pursuing. To understand why, first picture the physics article with a thousand authors. Then picture another discipline, where a thousand authors each write one article.
Current tenure and promotion procedures do not reward collaboration. While there is much to be said for tradition in academia, there are times when tradition needs to be reexamined for the benefit of scholarship; and this is one of these times. Changing tenure and promotion procedures is not easy, nor is it the mandate of librarians; but I would argue that the good work librarians have done in the area of scholarly communication have opened a window for scholars to begin these broader discussions.
The window of opportunity is briefly discussed, from the identification of the serials crisis to the campaign to create change, to the exciting changes we see all around us - over 4,700 journals in DOAJ, more than 1,500 repositories in OpenDOAR, over 150 open access mandate policies, more than 22 million free publications through BASE.
What is really amazing about all this change is that it has taken place with virtually no resources. Evidence that there is more than sufficient funds, from academic library subscription budgets alone, to not only fund a fully open access scholarly publishing system, but save lots of money at the same time, is presented (a John Houghton slide on cost implications for a switch to OA for the UK Higher Education, and two of my slides on a global shift to OA by academic libraries).
The reasons why savings and not just status quo costs are needed are mentioned briefly, e.g. the need to move into support for open data and e-science, and address preservation of electronic information.
Next steps for libraries are presented, including keeping up the good work in building and filling repositories, hosting open access journals, and education on scholarly communication and open access. Consider setting up an open access author's fund, or transforming licensing language to reflect a shift in purchase (from subscription to subscription / full OA for our authors), and other means of economic support for open access.
Many thanks to OCULA and especially to OCULA President Nathalie Soini for the invitation to speak at OLA. I hope to find time to elaborate on some of the topics from this speech in more depth at a later date.
In brief, this speech begins with some thoughts on the purpose of scholarship. This question should frame any discussion of scholarly communication. While there are millions of researchers and at least as many research questions, it can be useful to think about a question like addressing global warming when evaluating potential change in scholarly communication. Note that it is important to remember that there can be a signficant gap in time (sometimes centuries) between when a concept is introduced, and when it is understood.
From the scholar's perspective, publisher-added digital rights management (DRM) is seen as a hindrance to scholarship - not a value add. Libre open access - free to re-use as well as to read - is only a small fraction of open access right now, but it is predicted that libre OA will be increasingly sought by scholars who experience its benefits.
Dealing with the sheer volume of information presently available (and still expanding exponentially) is one of the key challenges for scholars, librarians, and publishers alike. Three strategies for addressing this challenge are discussed. Reading less or filtering is seen as tempting, but not a good idea when examined against the purpose of scholarship. For example, if we find the volume of information coming from China overwhelming, it might be tempted to skip reading it; but if Chinese scholars are doing research that could help us to figure out a clean energy breakthrough, this isn't such a good idea. Writing less is a strategy that has more potential. Some of the pressure to write in quantity in academia may actually be counterproductive. Collaborating is a strategy well worth pursuing. To understand why, first picture the physics article with a thousand authors. Then picture another discipline, where a thousand authors each write one article.
Current tenure and promotion procedures do not reward collaboration. While there is much to be said for tradition in academia, there are times when tradition needs to be reexamined for the benefit of scholarship; and this is one of these times. Changing tenure and promotion procedures is not easy, nor is it the mandate of librarians; but I would argue that the good work librarians have done in the area of scholarly communication have opened a window for scholars to begin these broader discussions.
The window of opportunity is briefly discussed, from the identification of the serials crisis to the campaign to create change, to the exciting changes we see all around us - over 4,700 journals in DOAJ, more than 1,500 repositories in OpenDOAR, over 150 open access mandate policies, more than 22 million free publications through BASE.
What is really amazing about all this change is that it has taken place with virtually no resources. Evidence that there is more than sufficient funds, from academic library subscription budgets alone, to not only fund a fully open access scholarly publishing system, but save lots of money at the same time, is presented (a John Houghton slide on cost implications for a switch to OA for the UK Higher Education, and two of my slides on a global shift to OA by academic libraries).
The reasons why savings and not just status quo costs are needed are mentioned briefly, e.g. the need to move into support for open data and e-science, and address preservation of electronic information.
Next steps for libraries are presented, including keeping up the good work in building and filling repositories, hosting open access journals, and education on scholarly communication and open access. Consider setting up an open access author's fund, or transforming licensing language to reflect a shift in purchase (from subscription to subscription / full OA for our authors), and other means of economic support for open access.
Many thanks to OCULA and especially to OCULA President Nathalie Soini for the invitation to speak at OLA. I hope to find time to elaborate on some of the topics from this speech in more depth at a later date.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Google Books: what if authors of new books want in?
One aspect of the Google Books Settlement that concerns me is: what about authors (and publishers) of new books? For example, my book, Scholarly Communication for Librarians, was published in 2009, just months after the date covered by the Google Books Settlement.
This means if Google Books goes ahead, authors who published just a few months before me will have a tremendous advantage in terms of exposure, unless they have opted out.
Also, while copyrighted books must be limited in terms of geographic exposure, what about the growing trend towards open access monographs, which I expect to take off in the very near future with the anticipated release of Open Monographs Press? Already, I have a book chapter in a forthcoming book on Free Knowledge edited by Daryl Hepting. Since this book will be OA, there will be no need to limit access; it should be available to anyone, anywhere. If the Google Books service includes a convenient print-on-demand option, I want in! Royalties, even small ones, would be nice, but if Google makes some money on this service, this is well deserved, in my opinion.
This means if Google Books goes ahead, authors who published just a few months before me will have a tremendous advantage in terms of exposure, unless they have opted out.
Also, while copyrighted books must be limited in terms of geographic exposure, what about the growing trend towards open access monographs, which I expect to take off in the very near future with the anticipated release of Open Monographs Press? Already, I have a book chapter in a forthcoming book on Free Knowledge edited by Daryl Hepting. Since this book will be OA, there will be no need to limit access; it should be available to anyone, anywhere. If the Google Books service includes a convenient print-on-demand option, I want in! Royalties, even small ones, would be nice, but if Google makes some money on this service, this is well deserved, in my opinion.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
New Open Access Fund at SFU Library
Kudos to Simon Fraser University & Library for this great news about a new Open Access Fund! Note that there is a link to the full SFU Library Open Access Strategy at the bottom of the page. The SFU Library OA Strategy includes both green and gold, with an institutional repository in place and plans for further development, hosting of more than 200 journals using Open Journal Systems (OJS), and serving as one of partners of the Public Knowledge Project which has developed OJS, Open Conference Systems, with Open Monographs Press coming soon.
Excerpt from the New Open Access Fund announcement:
At its January 2010 meeting, the Senate Library Committee adopted sweeping recommendations that will make SFU one of only three Canadian universities to embrace Open Access (OA) publishing. “We’re going to put our money where our mouth is,” says Bird. OA Journals are scholarly peer-reviewed journals freely available on the web without subscription fees, but they are often supported through Article Processing Charges (APCs) levied to authors. Fees range from a few hundred to several thousand dollars per accepted paper. Prominent examples are BioMed Central, Public Library of Science, and Hindawi.
Thanks to Gwen Bird.
This post is part of the Canadian Leadership in the Open Access Movement series.
Excerpt from the New Open Access Fund announcement:
At its January 2010 meeting, the Senate Library Committee adopted sweeping recommendations that will make SFU one of only three Canadian universities to embrace Open Access (OA) publishing. “We’re going to put our money where our mouth is,” says Bird. OA Journals are scholarly peer-reviewed journals freely available on the web without subscription fees, but they are often supported through Article Processing Charges (APCs) levied to authors. Fees range from a few hundred to several thousand dollars per accepted paper. Prominent examples are BioMed Central, Public Library of Science, and Hindawi.
Thanks to Gwen Bird.
This post is part of the Canadian Leadership in the Open Access Movement series.
Friday, February 12, 2010
The scholar's copy
There has been much useful discussion on this list about scholars
as authors, and rightly so. Today, I would like to introduce a
view of what we scholars need nowadays as readers.
Increasingly, my reading is onscreen. The copy of an article or
book that works best for me is the one that I can download to my
desktop, and mark up as I please with highlighting and
commentary. I want to be able to re-copy to multiple folders if
this suits how I work. If I am using the same article for two
different projects, for example, I may want two copies with
different highlighting reflecting the most salient points to each
particular project. This ideal is a copy that I can search,
along with everything else on my computer, either for keywords or
key phrases in the text, or for my own notes. I can share a copy
freely with colleagues or students, with or without my notes,
either privately, or openly, on the web. I may want to create a
new version before sending, with customized notes to fit the
needs of my fellow researcher or student.
My access to my ideal scholar's copy is not dependent on whether
or not my library can afford a subscription, or whether I
continue at the institution with the subscription. If I submit
an article for publication, I can keep copies of the works that I
referenced.
This is true of journal articles, reports of all kinds, and
e-books, too.
This is one of the reasons why we need libre open access. So
far, only a small percentage of OA is clearly libre OA.
However, once scholars like me begin to experience the
difference, my prediction is that demand for libre OA will grow,
while demand for digital rights management (DRM)-ridden works
will decrease.
It would be most useful if search services would permit limiting
to libre OA (e.g. CC-licensed works).
Heather Morrison, MLIS
PhD Student
Simon Fraser University School of Communication
hgmorris at sfu dot ca
This message was first posted to the Liblicense discussion list.
as authors, and rightly so. Today, I would like to introduce a
view of what we scholars need nowadays as readers.
Increasingly, my reading is onscreen. The copy of an article or
book that works best for me is the one that I can download to my
desktop, and mark up as I please with highlighting and
commentary. I want to be able to re-copy to multiple folders if
this suits how I work. If I am using the same article for two
different projects, for example, I may want two copies with
different highlighting reflecting the most salient points to each
particular project. This ideal is a copy that I can search,
along with everything else on my computer, either for keywords or
key phrases in the text, or for my own notes. I can share a copy
freely with colleagues or students, with or without my notes,
either privately, or openly, on the web. I may want to create a
new version before sending, with customized notes to fit the
needs of my fellow researcher or student.
My access to my ideal scholar's copy is not dependent on whether
or not my library can afford a subscription, or whether I
continue at the institution with the subscription. If I submit
an article for publication, I can keep copies of the works that I
referenced.
This is true of journal articles, reports of all kinds, and
e-books, too.
This is one of the reasons why we need libre open access. So
far, only a small percentage of OA is clearly libre OA.
However, once scholars like me begin to experience the
difference, my prediction is that demand for libre OA will grow,
while demand for digital rights management (DRM)-ridden works
will decrease.
It would be most useful if search services would permit limiting
to libre OA (e.g. CC-licensed works).
Heather Morrison, MLIS
PhD Student
Simon Fraser University School of Communication
hgmorris at sfu dot ca
This message was first posted to the Liblicense discussion list.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Notes for dramatic growth of open access
Jim Till presents a method on how to track compliance with the CIHR policy on Be openly accessible or be obscure.
The Public Knowledge Project has released a map and data indicating that over 5,000 journals, around the world, are using Open Journals Systems.
OJS journals by continent, for future reference:
Asia 678
Europe 961
Africa 429
Oceania 96
North America 1,343
South America 1,537
This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access series.
The Public Knowledge Project has released a map and data indicating that over 5,000 journals, around the world, are using Open Journals Systems.
OJS journals by continent, for future reference:
Asia 678
Europe 961
Africa 429
Oceania 96
North America 1,343
South America 1,537
This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)