In "Open, Closed, or Cloven Access?," Moshe Y. Vardi, editor of Communications of the ACM, discusses the Association for Computing Machinery’s position on open access.

Here's an excerpt:

As for ACM's stand on the open-access issue, I'd describe it as "cloven," somewhere between open and closed. (In topology, a cloven set is one that is both open and closed.) ACM does charge a price for its publications, but this price is very reasonable. (If you do not believe me, ask your librarian.) ACM's modest publication revenues first go to cover ACM's publication costs that go beyond print costs to include the cost of online distribution and preservation, and then to support the rest of ACM activities. To me, this is a very important point. The "profits" do not go to some corporate owners; they are used to support the activities of the association, and the association is us, the readers, authors, reviewers, and editors of ACM publications. Furthermore, ACM operates as a democratic association. If you believe that ACM should change its publishing business model, then you should lobby for this position. . . .

Just remember, "free" is not a sound business model.

In "Saving Texts From Oblivion: Oxford U. Press on the Google Book Settlement," Tim Barton, President of Oxford University Press, discusses the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement.

In conclusion. he states:

So we at Oxford University Press support the settlement, even as we recognize its imperfections and want it made better. As Voltaire said, "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien," the perfect is the enemy of the good. Let us not waste an opportunity to create so much good. Let us work together to solve the imperfections of the settlement. Let us work together to give students, scholars, and readers access to the written wisdom of previous generations. Let us keep those minds alive.

The Association of Research Libraries has published Author Addenda, SPEC Kit 310. The table of contents and executive summary are freely available.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

This survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in February 2009. Respondents were asked to provide information on the use of author addenda at their institutions, which rights authors were encouraged to retain, and the methods by which libraries were conducting promotion and outreach efforts on the topic of author rights and addenda. Seventy libraries (57%) responded to the survey. Of those respondents, 35 (50%) indicated that authors at their institutions were using author addenda, and 33 libraries (47%) indicated that they “did not know.” Only two libraries indicated that authors at their institutions were not using author addenda.

The majority of respondents (77%) did not formally collect information on the use of author addenda on their campuses at the time of this survey. Evidence was gathered mostly in an informal way, either when an author contacted the library with a question related to copyright or an author addendum, or through anecdotal stories of success or failure in using an addendum. Fifty-two percent (36) of the responding libraries reported that an author addendum had been endorsed by administrators or a governing body at their institution or by their consortia, while 62% (43) responded that there had been no endorsements. There had been more endorsements at the consortial level than at the institutional level. Eight libraries (12%) reported that an institutional endorsement was under consideration at the time of the survey. A larger number of libraries (46 or 68%) reported that their institution or consortium had worked to promote the use of an author addendum by providing links to an author addendum and copyright information on library Web sites or making faculty presentations on author rights (particularly pertaining to the NIH Public Access Policy).

This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of sample addenda, brochures, handouts, and author rights Web sites and slides from presentations to faculty and library staff.

Depending on the news source, the Harvard University Press has cut either six or seven positions.

Read more about it at "Layoffs and Restructuring Hit Harvard U. Press" and "Reorg at Harvard University Press Eliminates Six Positions."

A survey presented at a recent Wiley-Blackwell Executive Seminar on "Journals Publishing: Policy and Practice in an Uncertain Market" shows that scholarly societies are surprisingly optimistic about the effect of the global downturn on their publishing operations.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Sixty percent of professional and scholarly societies believe that the global economic downturn might be a stimulus to introducing efficiencies within their organizations, while 57% think it might provide opportunities for launching new activities or services for their members, according to a new study presented at the Wiley-Blackwell Executive Seminar held at the Royal Society, London, on June 19th 2009.

The study, carried out by Wiley-Blackwell, the leading publisher for professional and scholarly societies, examined the potential impact of the economic downturn on its society publishing partners. Sixty-eight percent characterized the global economic downturn as moderately negative, while 17% stated that it will have minimal negative impact or may even be beneficial.

Asked to rank the expected impact of the economic downturn on each category of their organization’s revenues or assets, more than 75% of society officers believed that there would be a very or slightly negative impact on their membership dues and conference income, with the most concern expressed about endowments and investments. Thirty-two percent did not anticipate any change in income from publishing, forty-seven percent believed it could be slightly affected, while 17% percent felt this area may be very affected.

In terms of strategies to ride out the economic crunch, 41% said that they would consider downsizing while a further 41% said they would consider expanding. More than half (54%) felt that the way to navigate the recession was outsourcing some of their core activities, such as publishing. Two-thirds thought that their publishing needs would not change during the recession, while one-third thought they would. . . .

The survey, carried out by Wiley-Blackwell in Spring 2009, was completed by 47 officers from scholarly and professional societies ranging in size from less than 500 members to more than 25,000, and from a variety of subject disciplines. The majority of respondents were based in Europe and the United States.

The article "Is This the Future Bookstore?" includes a digital video that shows the detailed operation of the Espresso Book Machine. Be sure to stick around after the first overview of the paperback production process for the subsequent close-up view.

The Knowledge Exchange has released Open Access—What Are the Economic Benefits? A Comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

In June 2009 a study was completed that had been commissioned by Knowledge Exchange and written by Professor John Houghton, Victoria University, Australia. This report on the study was titled: "Open Access—What are the economic benefits? A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark." This report was based on the findings of studies in which John Houghton had modelled the costs and benefits of Open Access in three countries. These studies had been undertaken in the UK by JISC, in the Netherlands by SURF and in Denmark by DEFF.

In the three national studies the costs and benefits of scholarly communication were compared based on three different publication models. The modelling revealed that the greatest advantage would be offered by the Open Access model, which means that the research institution or the party financing the research pays for publication and the article is then freely accessible.

Adopting this model could lead to annual savings of around EUR 70 million in Denmark, EUR 133 million in The Netherlands and EUR 480 in the UK. The report concludes that the advantages would not just be in the long term; in the transitional phase too, more open access to research results would have positive effects. In this case the benefits would also outweigh the costs.

Elsevier has launched SciVal Spotlight.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

SciVal Spotlight uses an innovative visualization technique to produce customized maps that provide graphical views of an institution's performance over time and across scientific fields, focusing on specific topical areas. By pinpointing a university's topical strengths and identifying leading researchers and institutions in each area, the tool is designed to help academic decision-makers optimize funding allocations and enhance hiring and collaboration decisions.

Quantifying the overall size of each topical area, the tool allows institutions to understand the significance of their article and market shares and how they rank compared to competitors in those areas. It also assesses article and market growth or decline over the last five years, offering an average rate for each using a two year sliding scale. Additionally, it determines if an institution's work is building upon the most recent discoveries; providing a "state of the art quotient" by analyzing how recent the citations are within its published output.

"We recognized a need to change the way research is currently being measured, and designed the tool to provide a more holistic and integrated view of performance," explained Jay Katzen, Managing Director, Academic and Government Products. "By capturing the unique research fingerprint of each institution, we can help academic executives better understand their core strengths and potential weaknesses so they can develop and implement successful long-term research strategies."

Moving beyond the traditional method of measuring research output by journal count, SciVal Spotlight is based on a more detailed model of the current structure of science. The model, covering virtually all of the research being published across the globe, was developed using co-citation analysis of a comprehensive database that includes 6.1 million separate papers published between 2004 and 2008, and another two million of the highly-cited references from these papers.

Leveraging this new model of science, SciVal Spotlight identifies and focuses on the inter-related work being done within an institution which represents the unique topical areas or "distinctive competencies" in which it is a leader. It also offers an opportunity to better understand which institutions are true competitors by revealing those that compete within the same research competencies.

"The square peg, round hole nature of evaluating research performance based on the broad classifications of journals no longer captures the reality of today's multidisciplinary scientific landscape," explains Kevin Boyack, a senior development advisor for Elsevier. "SciVal Spotlight provides academic decision-makers with a more accurate picture of research productivity. It allows them to evaluate performance based on the breakthroughs they are trying to achieve, rather than the classification of the journals in which their researchers are publishing articles."

According to "Library Releasing New Publishing Tool," the Public Knowledge Project will launch its new Open Monograph Press during the Second International PKP Scholarly Publishing Conference on July 8-10.

Here's an excerpt from the Open Monograph Press home page:

Open Monograph Press, a new open source publishing product under development by the Public Knowledge Project, will establish an online workspace for publishing monographs, edited volumes, and scholarly editions, while keeping an archival record of the process (compatible with the Fedora repository). . . .

The plans for OMP also include the potential for users to set up a Social Networking Incubator and Workspace system, which would enable editors to create a workspace for authors who appear to have a potential monograph project in hand, giving the author a chance to develop ideas within an invited or more open community, before moving into a formal book proposal and submission process.

This will provide author and editor with a series of tools and spaces that will allow them to see if there is a book residing within the author's article-length work, by bringing together authors and collecting pieces for engagement and response by select communities of interest or potentially by anyone interested, at the author and editor's discretion (Access Scheduler).

Version 4 of the Google Book Search Bibliography is now available from Digital Scholarship.

This bibliography presents selected English-language articles and other works that are useful in understanding Google Book Search. It primarily focuses on the evolution of Google Book Search and the legal, library, and social issues associated with it. Where possible, links are provided to works that are freely available on the Internet, including e-prints in disciplinary archives and institutional repositories. Note that e-prints and published articles may not be identical.

Papers and presentations from EPUB 2009—Rethinking Electronic Publishing: Innovation in Communication Paradigms and Technologies are now available.

Here's a quick selection of papers:

• Connecting Readers with Open Access Resources: The CUFTS Free! Open Access Collections Group
• Development of Institutional Repositories in Chinese Universities and the Open Access Movement in China
• Overlay Publications: A Functional Overview of the Concept
• PEER: Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
• PLoS One: Background, Future Development, and Article-Level Metrics

John Wiley & Sons has announced fiscal year 2009 results and third quarter fiscal year 2009 results.

Read more about it at "Sales Down, as Professional/Trade Takes Hit at John Wiley" and "UPDATE:John Wiley 4Q Net Dn 16%;Fiscal Year View Below Street."