DigitalKoans

A digital video of Christine L. Borgman's "Role of Libraries in E-Science" presentation at EAHIL 2008 is available. Her presentation slides are also available.

The U.S. Department of Educations's National Center for Education Statistics has released Academic Libraries: 2006 First Look.

Here's a description from the announcement:

The Academic Libraries: 2006 First Look summarizes services, staff, collections, and expenditures of academic libraries in 2- and 4-year, degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The nation's 3,600 academic libraries held 1.0 billion books; serial backfiles; and other paper materials, including government documents at the end of FY 2006, and there were 144.1 million circulation transactions from their general collections. During the same time period, academic libraries' expenditures totaled $6.2 billion.

Here's an excerpt from the "Selected Findings":

Services

• During Fiscal year (FY) 2006, there were 144.1 million circulation transactions from academic libraries' general collection (table 1).
• Academic libraries loaned 10.8 million documents to other libraries, and borrowed 10.3 million documents from other libraries in FY 2006 (table 1). In addition to the interlibrary loans, academic libraries received 1.2 million documents from commercial services in FY 2006.
• During a typical week in the fall of 2006, of the 3,600 academic libraries in the United States, 31 were open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (table 2).
• During a typical week in the fall of 2006, approximately 1.1 million academic library reference transactions were conducted, including computer searches (table 3).

Collections

• At the end of FY 2006, there were 221 academic libraries that held 1 million or more books, serial backfiles, and other paper materials, including government documents (table 4).
• The nation's 3,600 academic libraries held 1.0 billion books; serial backfiles; and other paper materials, including government documents at the end of FY 2006 (table 5).
• In FY 2006, academic libraries added 22.2 million books, serial backfiles, and other paper materials, including government documents (table 6).

Staff

• Academic libraries report 93,600 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff working in academic libraries during the fall of 2006 (table 7).
• Academic libraries reported 26,500 FTE librarians in during the fall of 2006 (table 7). Librarians accounted for 28 percent of the total number of FTE staff working in academic libraries during the fall of 2006.

Expenditures

• Academic libraries' expenditures totaled $6.2 billion during FY 2006 (table 8).
• During FY 2006, academic libraries spent $3.1 billion on salaries and wages, representing 50 percent of total library expenditures (table 9).
• Academic libraries spent $2.4 billion on information resources during FY 2006 (table 9).
• Academic libraries spent $94 million for electronic books, serials backfiles, and other materials in FY 2006 (table 10). Expenditures for electronic current serial subscriptions were $692 million.
• During FY 2006, academic libraries spent $106.3 million for bibliographic utilities, networks, and consortia (table 11).

ALA's Association College & Research Libraries has made available a new ACRL Publications Agreements FAQ, which covers serials, book chapters, book editors, and podcasts.

The FAQ's statement about Creative Commons licenses and serials is of special interest:

We didn’t want to require our authors to publish their works using a Creative Commons license, but you are welcome to attach the CC license of your choosing to your work after it is published by ACRL. Visit the Creative Commons website (http://creativecommons.org/) to learn more about their licensing options.

This is welcome news, and ACRL is to be applauded for supporting the use of Creative Commons licenses.

It is very helpful to have a concise and clear explanation of ACRL's copyright and other publication policies regarding serials, and the information about book chapters, book editors, and podcasts is very helpful as well. It would be highly desirable for other ALA divisions to follow ACRL's lead in this matter.

Note that ACRL's copyright forms are on the ACRL Forms page.

In a forthcoming "Early View" editorial in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology ("JASIST Open Access"), Donald H. Kraft announces that JASIST will permit self-archiving "on the Contributor's personal Web site or in the Contributor's institution's/employer's institutional repository or archive" (institutional intranets are also permitted). This excludes disciplinary archives, such as dLIST and E-LIS, which are global in nature.

Such self-archiving can occur for both preprints and postprints. The author cannot "update the submission version [version submitted for consideration that has not undergone peer review] or replace it with the published Contribution." However, the author can "update the preprint [accepted version that has undergone peer review] with any corrections."

JASIST is the research journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, which "counts among its membership some 4,000 information specialists from such fields as computer science, linguistics, management, librarianship, engineering, law, medicine, chemistry, and education; individuals who share a common interest in improving the ways society stores, retrieves, analyzes, manages, archives and disseminates information, coming together for mutual benefit."

I follow the energy markets closely, and recently there have been predictions of $250 a barrel oil in 2009 and $400 a barrel oil in 2018.

What does this have to do with ALA? Nothing, if ALA functioned effectively as a virtual organization that wasn't dependent on physical travel. Everything, if it is not.

Already we see airlines consolidating, cutting routes, and raising ticket and auxiliary prices. That's with oil at about $136 a barrel. Imagine if it were $250 a barrel or $400 a barrel. Impossible? Unlikely? Maybe, but in early 2007 it was $60 a barrel, and predictions of $100 a barrel met with incredulity.

We can hope that oil prices stabilize or decline, but it may be prudent to plan for what to do if they do not.

Would ALA function well if its committee members were increasingly unable to attend meetings? Would the organization's current awareness and personal networking functions that physical conferences support work if general members were increasingly unable to attend them?

Ask yourself this: If you never attended ALA conferences, how would the organization look to you? Would you feel that you could meaningfully participate in it? Would you feel that it had added value as an important source of current information, personal networking, and professional development?

Perhaps. In recent years, ALA has make progress in creating a more useful digital presence with efforts like virtual committee members, blogs, wikis, and other tools. This is commendable progress; however, much remains to be done. Do virtual committee members interact with physical committee members in real-time meetings? Is there meaningful non-conference committee digital interaction? Are conference presentations and committee meeting sessions available to ALA members in MP3 and digital video formats? Are blogs open to all potential member authors through self-initiated registration procedures? Are wikis dynamic information exchange mechanisms or primarily dull descriptive tools for disseminating information about ALA and its divisions? Is social network software provided to connect members with each other, committee members, and ALA officers? Is there is a true sense of a vibrant digital community?

Although its not perfect, the EDUCAUSE CONNECT community points in the direction of what could be.

Of course, energy markets are volatile, prices could drop, and all could be well for a while, but there is little to suggest at the current time that the long-term prospects for cheap energy are good. Thinking the unthinkable about reinventing ALA as a digital community might not be a bad idea as a contingency plan, and it might not be a bad idea in any case.

Peter Suber has commented on my "On ALA, CLA, and Open Access" posting:

PS: For background, see Charles' previous report on OA for ALA publications (July 2006). In my comment at the time, I pointed out some of the ALA's public statements in support of OA: "(1) the ALA Washington office has a page on OA, (2) the ALA Council adopted a resolution in support of FRPAA at its June 2006 annual meeting, and (3) the ALA has signed on to several public statements in support of OA, most recently a July 12 letter in support of FRPAA and a May 31 letter in support of the EC report on OA."

Of course, I had reviewed Peter's prior comment before writing the new post. Here's a further analysis:

• The Washington Office open access page has not been updated since November 7, 2006. Given the rapid development of the open access field, this page appears to be moribund.
• The FRPAA resolution is a single-issue, focused statement. It is not a broad statement of principle, such as the CDA and IFLA statements. Moreover, FRPAA would have a minor effect on ALA's journal publishing operations if passed because it is: "A bill to provide for Federal agencies to develop public access policies relating to research conducted by employees of that agency or from funds administered by that agency." The ALA journals in question do not heavily publish such federally funded research.
• The "Letter Encouraging Hearings on the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006" is a joint statement with other library associations, not a sole statement by ALA itself. My comments excluded "statements by ALA divisions or joint statements."
• The "Comments on the European Commission's 'Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets in Europe'" letter is by the Information Access Alliance, and, therefore is a joint letter, not a sole statement by ALA itself.

A good summary of other ALA joint statements, along with those of ACRL, can be found at "ACRL Taking Action."

Here's more information on ALA's "green" and "gold" policies.

Let's assume that both ALA copyright agreements are in effect for all journals. The Copyright Assignment Agreement explicitly supports limited self-archiving ("The right to use and distribute the Work on the Author’s Web site"). The Copyright Assignment Agreement further says that the author has: "The right to use and distribute the Work internally at the Author’s place of employment, and for promotional and any other non-commercial purposes." While "any other non-commercial purposes" seems to permit broad self-archiving, the specification of the "distribute the Work internally at the Author's place of employment" right seems to imply that the right to distribute the work outside of the author's place of employment is in question, which would mean that self-archiving in digital repositories could be done only in the author's institutional repository and only if access to the work was limited to institutional users. Moreover, if broad self-archiving is permitted, why single out the right to self-archive on the author's Web site? I find the wording ambiguous, and I would not recommend that anyone who wants to self-archive use this license. If its intent is to allow broad self-archiving, this should be spelled out. The Copyright License Agreement supports all types of self archiving ("Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name, and the Author reserves all other rights"). Consequently, we can say that ALA supports "green" self-archiving, but this may be very weak under the Copyright Assignment Agreement.

Without further information, it is not possible to say that any of ALA's major journals are "gold," although Public Libraries and School Library Media Research might be. If this were true, ALA's Public Library Association and its American Association of School Librarians divisions would be ALA's gold journal publishers, with the Association of College & Research Libraries division nearly being one.

The Canadian Library Association recently issued a new, strongly worded open access statement ("Position Statement on Open Access for Canadian Libraries"). Peter Suber commented on this statement, saying "Many organizations have called on their governments to mandate OA for publicly-funded research, but the CLA is first I've seen to regard embargo periods as a temporary compromise, justified only to help publishers adapt during a transition period."

The American Library Association is a member of the Alliance for Taxpayer Access and the Open Access Working Group, and. as such, has signed a variety of targeted statements about free access to government-funded research. The most active ALA Division in terms of open access support is the Association of College and Research Libraries, which has a number of activities geared towards promoting it.

Such statements and activities are praiseworthy, but the question remains: What kind of open access to these associations provide to their own journals?

CLA appears to embargo the current issue of Feliciter. If so, CLA cannot be said to be providing full free access to the journal; however, as embargoes go, it is a generous one.

Since it publishes more journals, the situation for ALA is more complex, and it is summarized below in a discussion of its major journals.

Given that several journals are far behind in listing back issues, some have no listed 2008 issues, and one has no back issues whatsoever, it is difficult to make definitive statements about their open access policies. It is possible that this confusion arises from difficulties in the timely maintenance of ALA journal Websites. What can be said is that, as of today, those missing digital issues are not accessible to anyone from the ALA site.

One thing is clear: it would be very helpful if ALA journals would clearly and prominently state their open access policies. Although it will not be discussed here in any detail, several journals have conflicting or unclear copyright agreement policies. It is assumed that ALA offers its two copyright agreements (Copyright Assignment Agreement and Copyright License Agreement.) for all journals, but this cannot be verified from all journal Websites.

While it is not uniform, ALA is making progress towards providing more free journal content; however, it cannot be said that ALA fully supports free access to all of its major journals. Moreover, to my knowledge, ALA itself has never made an open access position statement that is similar to CLA's and those of other library organizations, such as IFLA's (this excludes any statements by ALA divisions or joint statements). As the open access movement nears the decade point, it would seem desirable for it to unambiguously do so.

ALA is a major voice in the library community, and, if its open access efforts are to be taken seriously by publishers and scholars, it should state whether it supports green access (self-archiving), gold access (open access journals), or both. If it wants to support gold access, it should first reform its own journal publishing business model. If not, it would be helpful for it to clarify and make consistent the terms of its embargo access at an organizational vs. a divisional level.

A series of postings on the JISC Libraries of the Future Weblog document two debates: Revolution or Evolution: The JISC National E Textbook Debate and From eLib to the Library of the Future.

Here are the postings in chronological order:

• Join the Debate
• The E-Textbook Debate: Live Now
• Library of the Future Debate: Live Now
• Challenges for the Digital Librarian
• JISC Conference—Closing Keynote Speech, Angela Beesley
• JISC Conference—Summary and Close, Dr Malcolm Read