Crisis? What Crisis?
Understanding the “Crisis in Scholarly Communication”
John Barnett, University of Pittsburgh
Tom Reinsfelder, Penn State Mont Alto
October 21, 2013 1
Defining the Crisis

The Library Perspective
◦ Growth rate of scholarly output
 More government funding for research
 More scholarship
 More Journals
◦ Increases in subscriptions rates
◦ An Unsustainable Environment
 No library can afford all the journals it needs
2
Growth in scholarly publishing

≈50 million research articles published 1665-2009

≈1.35 million scientific journal articles published per year
(2006 est.)

Average number of science articles per journal increased
from 185 to 273 from 1990 to 2009

Number of scientific articles indexed by ISI was
<600,000 in 1990 & >1 million in 2009 – a rise of 72%
Sources: Jinha, (2010), Bjork, et al. (2009), & Jump (2010).
3
What do serial subscriptions cost?
Columbia University
◦ 111,774 titles
◦ $14,870,587
◦ $133 per title avg
Penn State
Median
◦ 61,566 titles
◦ $7,192,136
◦ $117 per title avg
Georgia Tech
◦ 67,202 titles
◦ $12,527,142
◦ $186 per title avg
◦ 12,369 titles
◦ $4,470,959
◦ $361 per title avg
Source: 2010/11 Association of Research Statistics
4
5
Concentration of ownership
6

“Reed Elsevier (RUK) is the world's largest
publisher of academic journals, with more than
1,200 scholarly titles.

The publishing division operates at a 36%
profit margin - an outstanding margin for any
business”
thestreet.com - 5/30/12
7
Reaching a Breaking Point

Libraries are forced to make some difficult
decisions
◦ ACS Journals cancelled by SUNY Pottsdam
(2012)
◦ Univ of CA system threatened to drop
Nature journals (2010)
8
One possible solution . . .
Open Access Week
October 21-27, 2013
openaccessweek.org
9
Open access literature is digital, online, free
of charge, and free of most copyright and
licensing restrictions.
Peter Suber, Open Access. MIT Press. 2012
10
Open Access is Compatible with…





Peer review
Promotion and tenure criteria
Copyright law
Revenue and profits
Any genre or format
Open Access does not …



Mean low quality
Violate copyright
Reduce author choice or academic freedom
11
Maintaining Peer Review & Quality

Just as with traditional journals,
Open Access journal quality varies widely

Some are simply looking to profit from
author fees

Must watch Out for “Predatory OA
Publishers”
12
scholarlyoa.com/publishers
13
In the news: OA “sting” operation

Bohannon, J. (2013, Oct.).
Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science 342(6154).

Submitted fake/poorly conceived science
manuscripts to 304 OA journals

157 journals accepted paper, many “with no sign of
peer review”

Criticized for no control group of non-OA journals
14
Reinsfelder (2012). Open access publishing
practices in a complex environment.
Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication
15
What influence do library directors perceive each
stakeholder group as holding in the transition
toward open access?
Librarians
Faculty Researchers
Academic Administrators
Publishers
.7056
.3792
.1881
-.3684
Source: Reinsfelder & Anderson (2013)
16
Scholarly Publishing
Each key stakeholder group relies on the
others.
 Let’s look at scholarly publishing from the
perspective of:

◦
◦
◦
◦
Librarians
Authors
Publishers
Administrators
17
Librarians





Access providers & preservers of knowledge
Want greater access & lower costs
Some are very involved, while others remain
less aware of scholarly publishing issues
Must constantly evolve and adapt (new services)
Depend on services of publishers
◦ Some examples of new initiatives:
 Library as Publisher (repositories/journals/digital collections)
 Initiatives to raise awareness about:
 Open access
 Authors rights / copyright
18
Academic Authors
Producers of scholarly knowledge
 Not in it for financial gain

◦ Rewarded by exposure / recognition
Interested in journal prestige/quality
 Prefer to access journals electronically
 Increasingly aware of pricing issues & new
publishing opportunities, but overall
awareness is still low
 Many do not perceive a need for change

19
What are Authors Doing?






Publishing articles in OA journals
Serving as editors/reviewers for OA journals
Self Archiving (making their non-OA articles
available in repositories)
Adopting OA Policies
Producing scholarly work in non-traditional
formats (images, audio, data)
Applying Creative Commons licenses to
works
20
Faculty Adopted Open Access Policies
Institution-wide polices
College or departmental policies
Bucknell University
Duke University
Emory University
Lafayette College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Oberlin College
Princeton University
Rollins College
Trinity University
University of California, San Francisco
University of Hawaii-Manoa
University of Kansas
University of Massachusetts Medical School
University of North Texas
Utah State University
Source: http://roarmap.eprints.org
Arizona State University Libraries
Brigham Young University: Department of Instructional
Psychology and Technology; University Library
Columbia University: Lamont -Doherty Earth
Observatory; University Libraries
Gustavus Adolphus College Library
Harvard University: Business School, Divinity School, Law
School, Graduate School of Design, Graduate School of
Education, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, John F. Kennedy
School of Government
Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
(IUPUI) Library
Miami University of Ohio, Libraries
Oregon State University: Library Faculty
Stanford University: School of Education
University of Northern Colorado Library Faculty
University of Oregon: Department of Romance
Languages; Library Faculty
University of Puerto Rico School Of Law
Wake Forest University: Z. Smith Reynolds Library
Faculty
21
Faculty OA Policy Features

University is granted non-exclusive right to post online for
open access all scholarly work written by the researcher.

Faculty members retain the copyright to these articles and
can turn copyright over to a third party, such as a publisher.

Faculty are discouraged from signing publishing contracts
that forbid open access posting but usually receive an
exception from the policy if needed.

A single institutional repository service is designated as the
official distribution site for the faculty works.

Green OA – refers to faculty sharing their work online (preor post-print). An alternative to Gold OA (oa journals)
22
What about Students?
Student Journals
 Electronic theses and dissertations
(including honors theses)
 Portfolios
 Joint research with faculty

23
Publishers
(distributors)
 Motivated to produce revenue and/or profit
 Need a sustainable business model
 Very aware of current publishing environment,
including OA
 Experimentation with new services & business
models
 New relationships with authors & librarians
 Many traditional (subscription-based) publishers
offer hybrid OA options (author pays)
 Some OA journals charge a fee
24
Administrators
(funders, policy makers)
 Want to share knowledge produced at their
institution & raise institution’s reputation/status
 Not opposed to new forms of scholarship, as long
as quality is maintained
 Feel librarians must compete for resources along
with others on campus
 Have a general awareness of issues facing libraries,
but library problems are often not the top priority
 Can support more open scholarly publishing by
 Providing policy support
 Offering $$ for OA initiatives
 publication fees / repositories / staff
25
Open Access Funds for Researchers
Help pay author publishing charges for
peer-reviewed OA journals
Some institutions with OA funds:
University of Calgary
University of California, Berkeley
Columbia University
Cornell University
Dartmouth University
Duke University
University of Florida
Grand Valley State University
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Michigan State University
University of Michigan
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Ontario Genomics Institute
University of Oregon
University of Ottawa
Simon Fraser University
University of Pittsburgh
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Texas A&M University
University of Toronto
Tufts University
University of Utah
Wake Forest University
University of Wisconsin
26
Federal Policies & Laws
 National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy
(2008)
“all investigators funded by the NIH submit ...to the National Library of
Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed
manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available
no later than 12 months after the official date of publication”

Fair Access to Science & Technology Research Act
H.R. 708 (Introduced Feb. 2013)
would require federal agencies with annual extramural research budgets of $100
million or more to provide the public with online access to research manuscripts
stemming from funded research no later than six months after publication in a
peer-reviewed journal.
27
White House Directive
Mandating OA – Feb 22, 2013
• Directs federal agencies to develop OA policies within the next 6 months.
• Covers the same agencies covered in FASTR and about a dozen more.
• Takes effect immediately.
28
White House Directive Mandating OA – Feb 22, 2013
“The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) hereby
directs each Federal agency with over $100 million in annual
conduct of research and development expenditures to develop a
plan to support increased public access to the results of research
funded by the Federal Government.
This includes any results published in peer-reviewed scholarly
publications that are based on research that directly arises from
Federal funds”
29
State Legislation

Illinois
“Open Access to Research Articles Act”
Passed August 9, 2013

“By January 1, 2014, each public university shall establish an Open
Access to Research Task Force.”

“The task force shall review current practices and design a proposed
policy regarding open access to research articles, based on criteria that
are specific to each public university's needs.”
30

On or before January 1, 2015, each task force shall adopt a
report setting forth its findings and recommendations.These
recommendations shall include a detailed description of any
open access policy the task force recommends that the
public university or State adopt, as well as, in the case of the
public university, a plan for implementation.
31
Discussion

What can we do?
◦ As individuals?
◦ At our institutions?
◦ Collectively within our state or region?
32
OA Week at Pitt
Library kickoff event in early-mid
October
 1-3 programs related to OA/scholarly
communication featuring outside speakers

◦
◦
◦
◦
Copyright
OA policies
Altmetrics
Journal publishing
33
Cookies and Swag
34
Recommended
Reading
“Open Access should be required
reading for everyone involved in
the publishing cycle – from
authors to publishers…and
general readers.
Everyone who reads this volume
will gain a better understanding
and appreciation of OA”
(Choice Reviews, Feb 2013)
35
The Real Crisis…
We have the ability to provide greater
access to scholarly work, but much of what
academics produce remains available only
to subscribers, due primarily to author
unawareness or apathy.
36
Key References

Beall, J. (2013). Beall’s list: Potential, possible, or probable, predatory open-access scholarly
publishers. http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers

Bjork, B., Roos, A., and Lauri, M. (2009). Scientific journal publishing:Yearly volume and
open access availability. Information Research 14(1), paper 391.
http://InformationR.net/ir/14-1/paper391.html

Bohannon, J. (2013, Oct.). Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science 342(6154). 60-65.
doi: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60

Howard, J. (2010, June 8). U. of California tries just saying no to rising journal costs.
Chronicle of Higher Education. https://chronicle.com/article/U-of-California-TriesJust/65823/

Jinha, A. (2010). Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in
existence. Learned Publishing 23(2), 258-263. doi:10.1087/20100308

Jump, P. (2010). The expanding universe of scientific authorship. Times Higher Education
Supplement (8 July 2010), 10.

Kyrillidou, M., Morris, S., & Roebuck, G. (2012) ARL Statistics 2010-2011.Washington:
Association of Research Libraries. http://publications.arl.org/ARL-Statistics-2010-2011
37
Key References (cont.)

OA Journal Funds. (2013). http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_funds

Reinsfelder. (2012). Open access publishing practices in a complex environment.
Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication. , 1(1):eP1029. doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1029

Reinsfelder,T.L, & Anderson, J. A. (2013). “Observations and Perceptions of Academic
Administrator Influence on Open Access Initiatives.” Journal of Academic Librarianship
(2013). doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.014 https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/files/r781wj485

Rogers, J. (2012).Walking away from the American Chemical Society.
http://www.attemptingelegance.com/?p=1765

Suber, P. (2012). Open access. MIT Press. http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access

Tenopir, C., & King, D.E. (2000).Towards electronic journals: Realities for scientists, librarians, and
publishers. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association.

University of California at Berkeley (2008). Hot Topics: Publisher Mergers.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/scholarlycommunication/publisher_mergers.html
38
Other Resources
• Creative Commons
•
Flexible licensing for authors
• Open Access Week
•
•
www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo
Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving
• SPARC
•
•
www.righttoresearch.org
Open Publishing Guide for Students
• SHERPA RoMEO
•
www.openaccessweek.org
A Very Brief Introduction to Open Access
What Faculty/Librarians, Research Funders/Universities &
Administrators can do to promote Open Access
• Right to Research
•
creativecommons.org
sparc.arl.org
Guides on OA publishing, institutional repositories
Open Access Explained video
39