Category: Publishing

Digital Book Publishing in the AAUP: Community Survey Report: Spring 2011

The Association of American University Presses has released Digital Book Publishing in the AAUP Community: Survey Report: Spring 2011.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Unsurprisingly, the 2011 results shows that every press is pursuing at least two digital publishing strategies, and almost all are expanding into many more. However, resource constraints continue to slow the development of healthy experimental models or delay the implementation of necessary digitization and workflow projects. Confirming the findings and recommendations of the recent AAUP report "Sustaining Scholarly Publishing," this digital pulse-taking indicates that finding new models to support scholarly publishing and strengthening the digital backbone of AAUP members are the top priorities in digital book publishing for the community.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |

Hindawi Sells 12 Open Access Journals to Springer

Hindawi has sold 12 open access journals to Springer Science+Business Media.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

In a move that will expand its open access offering, Springer Science+Business Media (Springer) has acquired twelve journals from Hindawi Publishing Corporation in an asset deal. The journals include seven titles published in cooperation with the European Association for Signal Processing, four mathematics journals and one in medicine. . . .

The takeover of the twelve journals is scheduled for the end of March 2011. Hindawi will continue to publish approximately 200 other open access journals.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |

"Just Google It!—The Google Book Search Settlement: A Law and Economics Analysis"

Frank Müller-Langer and Marc Scheufen have self-archived "Just Google It!—The Google Book Search Settlement: A Law and Economics Analysis" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

Our law and economics analysis of the Book Search Project suggests that—from a copyright perspective—the proposed settlement may be beneficial to right holders, consumers, and Google. For instance, it may provide a solution to the still unsolved dilemma of orphan works. From a competition policy perspective, we stress the important aspect that Google’s pricing algorithm for orphan and unclaimed works effectively replicates a competitive Nash-Bertrand market outcome under post-settlement, third-party oversight.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Reviews of Digital Scholarship Publications |Google Books Bibliography |

Pamela Samuelson: "Legislative Alternatives to the Google Book Settlement"

Pamela Samuelson has self-archived "Legislative Alternatives to the Google Book Settlement" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

In the aftermath of Judge Chin's rejection of the proposed Google Book settlement, it is time to consider legislative alternatives. This article explores a number of component parts of a legislative package that might accomplish many of the good things that the proposed settlement promised without the downsides that would have attended judicial approval of it. It gives particular attention to the idea of an extended collective licensing regime as a way to make out-of-print but in-copyright books more widely available to the public. But it also considers several other measures, such as one aimed at allowing orphan works to be made available and some new privileges that would allow digitization for preservation purposes and nonconsumptive research uses of a digital library of books from the collections of major research libraries.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Google Books Bibliography |

"Google Book Search in the Gridlock Economy"

Douglas Lichtman has self-archived "Google Book Search in the Gridlock Economy" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

Michael Heller's The Gridlock Economy popularizes a concept that Heller has developed over nearly two decades of influential academic writing: the notion that, when it comes to property rights, too many rights-endowed cooks really can spoil the broth. I was asked in this conference to apply Heller's insight to the Google Book Search project, and the request at first seemed natural. Heller himself suggested that Google Book Search might be an apt poster child for the gridlock phenomenon; Google likewise can often be heard to complain, in Heller-esque tones, that the only way to build a comprehensive search engine for books is to take the books without asking. This Essay, however, questions the example and offers a refinement on Heller's theory. Gridlock, I argue, is not simply a catch-all for situations where a large number of permissions are in play. It is more narrowly a reference to situations where a large number of permissions are in play, and those permissions intertwine.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography |

Open Access: Journal Tendering for Societies: A Brief Guide

The Association for Learning Technology has released Journal Tendering for Societies: A Brief Guide.

Here's an excerpt:

Hundreds of societies publish journals in collaboration with publishers. Some may be considering how and whether to renegotiate or go out to tender. Some may be considering whether they can/should/wish to change the business model of the journal (e.g. by a move to Open Access). Other societies may be considering using an external publisher for the first time. This guide, based on our experience, is written for all of these. . . .

In mid October 2010 we issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a new publisher. We had interest from six publishers who asked questions about our intentions. We then received four proposals: one which offered an Open Access model only, one which offered both Open Access and conventional publishing as discrete alternatives, and two which offered approaches that included an Open Access component. Three of the proposals were from big publishers. After evaluating the proposals, ALT's Trustees decided in December 2010 to make the journal, which has been renamed Research in Learning Technology, a fully Open Access journal with effect from 1st January 2012.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |

A Guide For the Perplexed Part IV: The Rejection of the Google Books Settlement

The Library Copyright Alliance has released A Guide For the Perplexed Part IV: The Rejection of the Google Books Settlement.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

This guide is the latest in a series prepared by LCA legal counsel Jonathan Band to help inform the library community about this landmark legal dispute.

In the Guide Part IV, Band explains why the Court rejected the proposed class action settlement, which would have allowed Google to engage in a wide variety of activities using scanned books.

As stated in the Guide, "The court concluded that the settlement was unfair because a substantial number of class members [i.e., authors and publishers] voiced significant concerns with the settlement.… However, the validity of the objections seemed less important to the court than the fact that many class members raised them."

As for the impact of the decision on libraries, Band writes that while it is too early to say what the parties will do next, "it appears that both the challenges and the opportunities presented to libraries by the settlement when it was announced in the fall of 2008 are growing narrower and more distant."

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography |

Author’s Guild et al. v. Google Inc. Ruling: Amended Settlement Agreement Denied

Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York has denied the Amended Settlement Agreement for the Author's Guild et al. v. Google Inc. case.

Here's an excerpt from the ruling:

Before the Court is plaintiffs' motion pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for final approval of the proposed settlement of this class action on the terms set forth in the Amended Settlement Agreement (the "ASA"). The question presented is whether the ASA is fair, adequate, and reasonable. I conclude that it is not.

While the digitization of books and the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many, the ASA would simply go too far. It would permit this class action—which was brought against defendant Google Inc. ("Google") to challenge its scanning of books and display of "snippets" for on-line searching—to implement a forward-looking business arrangement that would grant Google significant rights to exploit entire books, without permission of the copyright owners. Indeed, the ASA would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case.

Accordingly, and for the reasons more fully discussed below, the motion for final approval of the ASA is denied. The accompanying motion for attorneys' fees and costs is denied, without prejudice.

Read more about it at "After Rejection, a Rocky Road for Google Settlement"; "GBS March Madness: Paths Forward for the Google Books Settlement"; "Google Books Settlement: Copyright, Congress, and Information Monopolies"; "Google Settlement Is Rejected"; "Inside Judge Chin's Opinion"; "Please Refine Your Search Terms"; and "Publishers Remain Committed to Expanding Online Access to Books and Upholding Copyright Despite Court Decision."

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |

"The Costs and Potential Benefits of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models"

John W. Houghton has published "The Costs and Potential Benefits of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models" in the latest issue of Information Research.

Here's an excerpt:

The costs and benefits associated with alternative scholarly publishing models demonstrate that research and research communication are major activities and the costs involved are substantial. Our preliminary analysis of the potential benefits of more open access to research findings suggests that returns to research are also substantial and that different scholarly publishing models might make a material difference to the returns realised as well as the costs faced. It seems likely from this preliminary analysis that more open access could have substantial net benefits in the longer term and, while net benefits may be lower during a transitional period they would be likely to be positive for both open access journal publishing and self-archiving alternatives.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography |

College & Research Libraries Becomes Immediate Open Access Journal

Joseph J. Branin, Editor of College & Research Libraries, has announced in the journal's current issue that C&RL will "lift its six-month embargo on recently published online articles and become a fully open access journal."

The announcement is an major step for the Association of College & Research Libraries, bringing its open access advocacy positions and its publication practices into alignment.

Librarians were pioneers in publishing scholarly "gold" open access journals. The first library open access journal was the The Public-Access Computer Systems Review, established in 1989 with the first issue published in 1990. It was soon followed by LIBRES (1991), Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship (1991), and MC Journal— Journal of Academic Librarianship (1993).

However, over twenty years later, most scholarly library journals still restrict access to their published PDF and/or HTML articles, although most permit self-archiving of author eprints (they may restrict where the eprints can be self-archived).

There are some fine exceptions: Ariadne, Code4Lib Journal, D-Lib Magazine, Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, the International Journal of Digital Curation, the Journal of Digital Information, the Journal of Electronic Publishing, the Journal of the Medical Library Association, Law Library Journal, and LIBER Quarterly come quickly to mind (117 open access library journals are listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals). However, scholarly library journals from most major commercial publishers and library association publishers remain restricted access.

Consequently, ACRL's decision to go "gold open access" is an important and welcome one. Hopefully, it will encourage other divisions of the American Library Association to follow suit, providing open access to their journals without embargo periods or other access restrictions.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

On January 10, 2011, the ACRL Board of Directors unanimously passed the following resolution:

Whereas ACRL supports open scholarship and access to scholarly work;

Whereas ACRL publishes C&RL, the premier journal for academic librarians; Whereas ACRL has made successive changes to increase access to the research found in C&RL;

Whereas ACRL member groups support making C&RL an open access journal;

Be it resolved, that ACRL provide open access to the electronic version of College & Research Libraries journal as of April 2011; and,

Be it further resolved, that ACRL, through this action, continues to play a leading role in advocating for new models of scholarly communication in all of the disciplines.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Reviews of Digital Scholarship Publications | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography |

Sustaining Scholarly Publishing: New Business Models for University Presses

The Association of American University Presses has released Sustaining Scholarly Publishing: New Business Models for University Presses.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Within the scholarly communications ecosystem, scholarly publishers are a keystone species. University presses—as well as academic societies, research institutions, and other scholarly publishers—strive to fulfill the mission of making public the fruits of scholarly research as effectively as possible within that ecosystem. While that mission has remained constant, in recent years the landscape in which it is carried out has altered dramatically.

"Sustaining Scholarly Publishing" explores many current scholarly publishing experiments and initiatives, defines characteristics of effective business models and the challenges of transitioning from a traditional sales-based model, and presents several recommendations for sustaining high-quality scholarly publishing throughout this time of change. The AAUP report was prepared by the Task Force on Economic Models for Scholarly Publishing, chaired by Lynne Withey, now-retired director of the University of California Press. . . .

Among the report's recommendations:

  • Active and open sharing of lessons learned by participants in existing digital publishing projects should be an ongoing process.
  • The support of foundations, libraries, and university administrations in providing funds to work toward the digital future has been, and will remain, crucial.
  • Open access is a principle to be embraced, if publishing costs can be supported by the larger scholarly enterprise. University presses, and nonprofit publishers generally, should be fully engaged in these discussions.
  • Proposals and plans for new business models should explicitly address the potential impact of the new model on other parts of a press's programs, as well as explicitly address the requirements, both operational and financial, for making the transition to a new model.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Reviews of Digital Scholarship Publications |

Author-Pays Open Access Option Using CC-By License Now Available for Many Physical Review Journals

Authors who publish in many Physical Review journals now have the option to pay an article-processing fee in order to have their articles published as open access articles under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (CC-By License). Two Physical Review journals (Physical Review Special Topics—Accelerators and Beams and Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research) have been fully converted to open access under the CC-By License. The APS announced a new open access journal in January, Physical Review X.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The new article-processing charges, which will cover all costs and provide a sustainable funding model, have been set at $1700 for papers in the Physical Review and $2700 for those in Physical Review Letters. The resulting open access articles will appear alongside and mixed in with subscription-funded articles, converting these journals into "hybrid" open access journals.

"The most selective of our journals must have higher article-processing charges for their open access articles," said Gene Sprouse, APS Editor in Chief. "Physical Review accepts about 60% of articles submitted and Physical Review Letters roughly 25%, so the costs are higher than in less selective journals."

Revenue from the article-processing charges will decrease the need for subscription income and help to keep the APS subscription price-per-article among the lowest of any physics journals. "We'd like to reduce the pressure on library subscriptions, while opening access more widely. Article-processing charges are a means to accomplish both," said Joseph Serene, APS Treasurer/Publisher.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

Digital Technology Innovation in Scholarly Communication and University Engagement

The Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing has released Digital Technology Innovation in Scholarly Communication and University Engagement.

Here's an excerpt:

Beginning in the 1990s, a substantial number of innovation projects in scholarly communication began to emerge worldwide. Researchers began to adopt digital technologies for purposes of communication with colleagues and a variety of scholarly journals began making content available online. Digital humanists and scholars across the social science disciplines also began to expand their involvement with emerging technologies in their research and teaching activities. Building on these developments, researchers interested in knowledge mobilization and university engagement also began to augment their efforts with digital technologies. Finally, a certain level of experimentation with the electronic publication of monographs began to appear. The key players in these developments were private sector foundations (for example, the Wellcome Trust and the Andrew Mellon Foundation); innovation-oriented scholars; systems and head librarians; journal editors and publishers; university presses; and SSHRC with its support for scholarly communication and later, knowledge mobilization. Canada has earned worldwide attention for its general level of digital innovation in scholarly and research communication and particularly for innovation in journal publishing, where Open Journal Systems, Érudit and Synergies stand out as significant projects, combined with consortium buying of online content through the Canadian Research Knowledge Network. These and other leading achievements call for purpose-built policy and programs, which have lagged behind innovation. Such policy and programs need to be designed to provide stable funding for innovation-oriented constructivist social scientific and humanist inquiry and university engagement initiatives that have national and international long-term promise. Tied into the post-secondary education system, such investments would enormously increase the visibility and public value of Canadian social science and humanities research, multiplying the social benefit of this work through the development of digital technologies.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

Wiley Open Access Launched

John Wiley & Sons has launched Wiley Open Access.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Wiley Open Access will provide authors wishing to publish their research outcomes in an open access journal with a range of new high quality publications which meet the requirements of funding organizations and institutions where these apply. . . .

The new journals are being launched in collaboration with a group of international professional and scholarly societies with which Wiley currently partners.  Each journal will appoint an Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board responsible for ensuring that all articles are rigorously peer-reviewed, and each journal will be offered with the full functionality of Wiley Online Library.

The new Wiley Open Access journal Brain and Behavior will publish open access research across neurology, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology.  Brain and Behavior’s newly appointed Editor-in-Chief, Andrei V. Alexandrov, Professor of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, comments:

"With the launch of Brain and Behavior, the Editorial Board and I, along with the support of many international societies, will offer the research community a high quality peer-reviewed journal that meets the needs of those authors who wish to publish their work in an open access environment. I am delighted to be working with Wiley to deliver this important new service."

Professor Allen Moore, University of Exeter and newly appointed Editor-in-Chief of Ecology and Evolution comments:

"I am excited to be involved with this new open access journals initiative.  Ecology and Evolution will deliver rapid decisions and fast publication of research in all areas of ecology, evolution and conservation science.  By working in collaboration with leading societies to deliver open access to all, this new journal offers authors an ideal place to publish their work quickly to the broadest possible audience." . . .

Wiley Open Access journals will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.  A publication fee will be payable by authors on acceptance of their articles.  Wiley will introduce a range of new payment schemes to enable academic and research institutions, funders, societies, and corporations to actively support their researchers and members who wish to publish in Wiley Open Access journals. 

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

"Highlights from the SOAP Project Survey. What Scientists Think about Open Access Publishing"

Suenje Dallmeier-Tiessen et al. have self-archived "Highlights from the SOAP Project Survey. What Scientists Think about Open Access Publishing" in arXiv.org.

Here's an excerpt:

The SOAP (Study of Open Access Publishing) project has run a large-scale survey of the attitudes of researchers on, and the experiences with, open access publishing. Around forty thousands answers were collected across disciplines and around the world, showing an overwhelming support for the idea of open access, while highlighting funding and (perceived) quality as the main barriers to publishing in open access journals. This article serves as an introduction to the survey and presents this and other highlights from a preliminary analysis of the survey responses. To allow a maximal re-use of the information collected by this survey, the data are hereby released under a CC0 waiver, so to allow libraries, publishers, funding agencies and academics to further analyse risks and opportunities, drivers and barriers, in the transition to open access publishing.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |

Presentations from the Marketplace: Open Access and the Changing State of Scholarly Publishing Meeting

Presentations from the Marketplace: Open Access and the Changing State of Scholarly Publishing meeting on 1/8/11 are now available.

Here's an excerpt from the meeting announcement:

This forum will paint a picture of the rapidly changing – and maturing – open-access publishing sphere, illustrate the growing range of options and approaches that are emerging, and help the library community to make sense of what it all means for you and your campus. Guest presenters will include:

  • Caroline Sutton, President of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and Publisher and Co-Founder, Co-Action Publishing
  • Wim van der Stelt, Executive Vice President of Corporate Strategy for Springer
  • Catriona McCallum, Senior Editor for PLoS Biology and Consulting Editor for PLoS ONE

| Digital Scholarship |

America COMPETES Act Establishes Interagency Public Access Committee

The signing of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 by President Obama establishes a new Interagency Public Access Committee. The International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM) has issued a press release that "applauds the efforts of US legislators in crafting the charter of the Interagency Public Access Committee."

Here's an excerpt from the Act:

SEC. 103. INTERAGENCY PUBLIC ACCESS COMMITTEE.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director shall establish a working group under the National Science and Technology Council with

the responsibility to coordinate Federal science agency research and policies related to the dissemination and long-term stewardship of the results of unclassified research, including digital data and peer-reviewed scholarly publications, supported wholly, or in part, by funding from the Federal science agencies.

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The working group shall—

(1) identify the specific objectives and public interests that need to be addressed by any policies coordinated under (a);

(2) take into account inherent variability among Federal science agencies and scientific disciplines in the nature of research, types of data, and dissemination models;

(3) coordinate the development or designation of standards for research data, the structure of full text and metadata, navigation tools, and other applications to maximize interoperability across Federal science agencies, across science and engineering disciplines, and between research data and scholarly publications, taking into account existing consensus standards, including international standards;

(4) coordinate Federal science agency programs and activities that support research and education on tools and systems required to ensure preservation and stewardship of all forms of digital research data, including scholarly publications;

(5) work with international science and technology counterparts to maximize interoperability between United States based unclassified research databases and international databases and repositories;

(6) solicit input and recommendations from, and collaborate with, non-Federal stakeholders, including the public, universities, nonprofit and for-profit publishers, libraries, federally funded and non federally funded research scientists, and other organizations and institutions with a stake in long term preservation and access to the results of federally funded research;

(7) establish priorities for coordinating the development of any Federal science agency policies related to public access to the results of federally funded research to maximize the benefits of such policies with respect to their potential economic or other impact on the science and engineering enterprise and the stakeholders thereof;

(8) take into consideration the distinction between scholarly publications and digital data;

(9) take into consideration the role that scientific publishers play in the peer review process in ensuring the integrity of the record of scientific research, including the investments and added value that they make; and

(10) examine Federal agency practices and procedures for providing research reports to the agencies charged with locating and preserving unclassified research.

(c) PATENT OR COPYRIGHT LAW.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to undermine any right under the provisions of title 17 or 35, United States Code.

(d) APPLICATION WITH EXISTING LAW.—Nothing defined in section

(b) shall be construed to affect existing law with respect to Federal science agencies’ policies related to public access.

(e) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit a report to Congress describing—

(1) the specific objectives and public interest identified under (b)(1);

(2) any priorities established under subsection (b)(7);

(3) the impact the policies described under (a) have had on the science and engineering enterprise and the stakeholders, including the financial impact on research budgets;

(4) the status of any Federal science agency policies related to public access to the results of federally funded research; and

(5) how any policies developed or being developed by Federal science agencies, as described in subsection (a), incorporate input from the non-Federal stakeholders described in subsection (b)(6).

(f) FEDERAL SCIENCE AGENCY DEFINED.—For the purposes of this section, the term ‘‘Federal science agency’’ means any Federal agency with an annual extramural research expenditure of over $100,000,000.

| Digital Scholarship |

Submission Fees—A Tool in the Transition to Open Access?

The Knowledge Exchange has released Submission Fees—A Tool in the Transition to Open Access?

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

The general conclusion of the report bearing the title "Submission Fees—A Tool in the Transition to Open Access?," written by Mark Ware, is that there are benefits to publishers in certain cases to switch to a model in which an author pays a fee when submitting an article. Especially journals with a high rejection rate might be interested in combining submission fees with article processing charges in order to make the transition to open access easier. In certain disciplines, notably economic and finance journals and in some areas of the experimental life sciences, submission fees are already common.

| Digital Scholarship |

"2010: E-Book Buyer’s Guide to E-Book Privacy"

The EFF has released the "2010: E-Book Buyer's Guide to E-Book Privacy."

Here's an excerpt:

The guide is simply a review of privacy policies, to the extent we've been able to find them, plus additional information we received directly from Adobe and the Internet Archive. We haven't been able to do independent testing to verify how these e-book providers work in practice. Also, in discussing whether individuals are linked to their reading we have only addressed direct ways (i.e. Amazon or Google directly keeps that information in your account information) as opposed to indirect ways that require action from third parties like the ability to use your IP address gathered by logs to subpoena your ISP for your name).

| Digital Scholarship |

New York Law School Law Review Publishes Special Issue about Google Books Lawsuit and Settlement

The New York Law School Law Review has published a special issue containing papers from the NYU Law School's October 2009 D Is for Digitize conference on the Google Books lawsuit and settlement.

Here are the papers:

  • "D Is for Digitize: An Introduction," James Grimmelmann
  • "Google Book Settlement and the Fair Use Counterfactual," Matthew Sag
  • "Fulfulling the Copyright Social Justice Promise: Digitized Textual Information," Lateef Mtima & Steven D. Jamar
  • "Orphan Works and the Google Book Search Settlement: An International Perspective," Bernard Lang
  • "H Is for Harmonization: The Google Book Search Settlement and Orphan Works Legislation in the European Union," Katharina de la Durantaye
  • "Continued DOJ Oversight of the Google Book Search Settlement: Defending Our Public Values and Protecting Competition," Christopher A. Suarez
  • "Digitial + Library: Mass Book Digitization as Collection Inquiry," Mary Murrell
  • "The Why in DIY Book Scanning," Daniel Reetz

| Digital Scholarship |

Partnering to Publish: Innovative Roles for Societies, Institutions, Presses, and Libraries Presentations

ARL has released presentations from its Partnering to Publish: Innovative Roles for Societies, Institutions, Presses, and Libraries meeting.

Here's an excerpt:

The Partnering to Publish seminar, jointly sponsored by the Society for Scholarly Publishing and the Association of Research Libraries on November 10, 2010, provided an occasion to learn about current partnerships between librarians and publishers in an environment where traditional roles are changing and to explore new opportunities for cost-effective and innovative joint ventures.

| Digital Scholarship |

RLUK Wants Serials Price Reductions to Avoid Cuts That Would "Fatally Compromise" Research

Research Libraries UK has issued a press release about needed serials price reductions.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

At its recent conference, RLUK announced it would not support future journal big deals unless they showed real price reductions. With a cut to the teaching grant and research budgets flat at best, RLUK members believe that unless this happens they will be forced to cancel significant numbers of subscriptions which will fatally compromise the UK's capacity for research.

For the past several years JISC Collections have negotiated with the publishers on behalf of UKHE. RLUK is so worried about the current situation that it has instructed JISC Collections to secure contracts which will not only rescind the unreasonable price rises of the last three years, but also offer affordable deals for the future. If reasonable deals cannot be struck RLUK libraries will be forced to provide information resources to their researchers and students in other ways.

"The capacity of UK universities to continue to pay such large year-on-year increases for access to scholarly journals is not infinite," said Professor Michael Arthur, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leeds and Chair of the Russell Group of Universities. "To ensure the continued vitality of the UK's world-beating research base we need to reassess the costs of electronic access and find a new balance between the value added by publishers and the charges they make. We realise that finding such a balance may not be easy, but if we fail to address the problem now there will be serious long-term consequences for research and teaching in the UK."

"The UK Higher Education sector now spends almost £200m per year on access to journals and databases," explained David Prosser, RLUK's Executive Director. "This is 10% of the total QR funding the sector receives and increases above inflation each year. We understand the value publishers add to the publication process, but publishers must also understand that they cannot continue to increase prices at a time when budgets are so tight. We do not wish to cancel big deals, but we shall have no alternative unless the largest publishers substantially reduce their prices."

"Some RLUK members now pay over £1m a year to access journals from the largest publisher," said Phil Sykes, Chair of RLUK and Librarian at Liverpool University. "With annual journal price inflation running at double the rate of RPI since 2000, it has distorted the acquisition policies of libraries, with an ever-increasing proportion of budgets being spent on electronic big deals. This leads to diminishing funds for monographs, textbooks, and journals from smaller publishers, which cannot but damage scholarship and teaching in UKHE."

| Digital Scholarship |

E-Only Scholarly Journals: Overcoming the Barriers

The Research Information Network has released E-Only Scholarly Journals: Overcoming the Barriers.

Here's an excerpt:

This study is prompted by a concern from publishers and librarians that the retention of both printed and e-journal formats adds unnecessary costs throughout the supply chain from publisher to library to user. In view of the many advantages of electronic journals, this report sets out to understand the barriers to a move to e-only provision of scholarly journals in the UK, and to investigate what various players within the scholarly communications system could do in order to encourage such a move.

This study involved a thorough literature review, gathering and analysing information provided by publishers and librarians, and interviews with a range of publishers, librarians and academics. The results are presented in this report, along with some recommendations for action.

| Digital Scholarship |

Emerald Group Publishing Limited’s Use of the Attributor Anti-Piracy Service

In "Thanks but No Thanks Emerald," Kristin Eschenfelder reproduces and discusses a letter that she received from the Emerald Group Publishing Limited. In short, this letter says that Emerald is expanding it's use of Attributor to detect copyright violations from "cyberlockers" to "the full breadth of the internet," and it requests the URLs for her personal, institutional, and corporate websites so that they can be excluded from Attributor searches and its "legally-binding takedown notices."

Will this expanded use of Attributor affect self-archiving of articles from Emerald journals?

Emerald's publication policies are detailed in its Authors' Charter and its Review Copyright Assignment Form. Emerald requires that authors assign their article copyrights to Emerald as a condition of publication.

The Authors' Charter states that (I have added italics in certain places in the below quotes):

Authors are not required to seek Emerald's permission to re-use their own work. As an author with Emerald you can use your paper in part or in full, including figures and tables if you want to do so in a book, in another article written for us or another publisher, on your website, or any other use, without asking us first.

It further states that:

It does NOT, in any way, restrict your right or academic freedom to contribute to the wider distribution and readership of your work. This includes the right to: . . . .

2. Reproduce your own version of your article, including peer review/editorial changes, in another journal, as content in a book of which you are the author, in a thesis, dissertation or in any other record of study, in print or electronic format as required by your university or for your own career development.

3. Deposit an electronic copy of your own final version of your article, pre- or post-print, on your own or institutional website. The electronic copy cannot be deposited at the stage of acceptance by the Editor.

Authors are requested to cite the original publication source of their work and link to the published version — but are NOT required to seek Emerald's permission with regard to the personal re-use of their work as described above. Emerald never charges its authors for re-use of any of their own published works. Emerald does not allow systematic archiving of works by third parties into an institutional or subject repository.

The Review Copyright Assignment Form says:

This assignment of copyright to Emerald Group Publishing Limited is done so on the understanding that permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited is not required for me/us to reproduce, republish or distribute copies of the Work in whole or in part.

Given the above, it would appear that the author can: (1) self-archive an article on his or her personal website, (2) self-archive an article in his or her institutional repository, and (3) self-archive an article in a subject archive (the restriction is for “systematic archiving of works by third parties,” not self-archiving). Institutional repository staff or subject repository staff cannot archive articles for authors.

If this is not correct, it would be helpful to hear from Emerald what its interpretation of these documents is.

Unlike the RIAA and the MPAA, scholarly journal publishers have a limited primary customer base—academic libraries. Moreover, academic librarians are authors as well as customers, and, for some publishers, they are a significant subset of their authors. The endless serials crisis has already seriously strained relations between academic librarians and publishers. Hopefully, scholarly journal publishers will be sensible and sensitive to customer concerns in their attempts to cope with difficult digital copyright issues.

[See Emerald's reply in the comments.]