After consultation and protests, Cambridge University Press is planning to limit job cuts in its printing division to 60 positions.
Read more about it at "Cambridge University Press: Dons Step in as Digital Age Threatens Jobs at World's Oldest Publisher" and "Cambridge University Press Plans Scores of Job Cuts."
Consumer Watchdog has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that challenges the terms of the Google Book Search Copyright Class Action Settlement.
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
The proposed settlement announced last year creates the nonprofit Book Rights Registry to manage book digital rights issues. Here are the deal’s two most troubling aspects, Consumer Watchdog said:
—A "most favored nation" clause guarantees Google the same terms that any future competitor might be offered. Under the most favored nation clause the registry would be prevented from offering more advantageous terms to, for example, Yahoo! or Microsoft, even if it thought better terms would be necessary to enable either to enter into the digital books business and provide competition to Google. It is inappropriate for the resolution of a class action lawsuit to effectively create an "anti-compete" clause, which precludes smaller competitors from entering a market. Given the dominance of Google over the digital book market, it would no doubt take more advantageous terms to allow another smaller competitor to enter the market.
—The settlement provides a mechanism for Google to deal with "orphan works." Orphan works are works under copyright, but with the rights holders unknown or not found. The danger of using such works is that a rights holder will emerge after the book has been exploited and demand substantial infringement penalties. The proposed settlement protects Google from such potentially damaging exposure, but provides no protection for others. This effectively is a barrier for competitors to enter the digital book business.
The most favored nation provision should be eliminated to remove barriers of entry and the orphan works provision should be extended to cover all who digitize books, Consumer Watchdog said.
In "Reflections on University Press Publishing," a former University of Toronto Press executive examines the current state of university presses.
Here's an excerpt:
As the revenue from sales of books decreases, there has been a corresponding increase in the need for subventions. The average monetary loss from publication of a scholarly book is in the range of $10,000-$12,000—defined as the shortfall between anticipated revenue and all costs, including all fixed and variable costs. In Canada, the usual subvention for an academic book (provided by the Aid to Scholarly Publications Program) is $8000. Thus there is a need for $2000-$4000 in additional subvention for each book published. Some scholarly publishers are able to find this money from within their own operation—usually from private endowments. Frequently, publishers are asking authors to subsidize their own books—either from research funds or, in some cases, from their own pockets. In some cases, publishers are forced to ask authors to provide books in camera ready form—effectively becoming their own typesetters—to subsidize this cost.
Co-Action Publishing, Datapage and T Marketing have launched OpenAccessSolutions.com, a publishing support service for small open access publishers.
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
OpenAccessSolutions.com addresses the needs of a growing segment within Open Access scholarly publishing. The Open Access journals market is growing quickly, and currently represents approximately 9% of the refereed journals listed in Ulrich's Periodical Directory. A number of these journals are operated by single editorial teams, societies or university presses. OpenAccessSolutions.com allows these publishers to combine independence with behind-the-scenes professional support on virtually any aspect of journal development and the publishing process.
"We recognize that many scholars and societies wish to remain independent of a publishing house as they transition a current subscription journal to Open Access or launch a new journal," stated Caroline Sutton from Co-Action Publishing, adding "By teaming up with Datapage and T Marketing, we are able to offer these publishers access to the same professional skill and know-how that large publishers take advantage of everyday in a format that is scalable to their needs."
Nisha Rahul, Operations Manager for Datapage, further commented, "Datapage has been providing typesetting and pre-press services to publishers worldwide since 1987. Our ultimate aim is to make ourselves "easier to do business with". Through OpenAccessSolutions.com we make publishing easier for small publishers by providing seamless solutions from several vendors, allowing each publisher to create an optimal service package.
T Marketing Founder Natasha White shared her thoughts on the launch, stating, "After having worked at some of the world's largest publishers, I am now working daily with smaller businesses. Like Datapage and Co-Action Publishing, T Marketing welcomes the opportunity to work together with small-scale scholarly publishers to augment the skills and competencies of their in-house teams."
With support from the Swedish Library Association, the Directory of Open Access Journals and the e-Depot of the National Library of the Netherlands will preserve open access journals.
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
Long-term preservation of scholarly publications is of major importance for the research community. New formats of scholarly publications, new business models and new ways of dissemination are constantly being developed. To secure permanent access to scientific output for the future, focussed on the preservation of articles published in open access journals, a cooperation between Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ—www.doaj.org), developed and operated by Lund University Libraries and the e-Depot of the National Library of the Netherlands (www.kb.nl/e-Depot) has been initiated.
The composition of the DOAJ collection (currently 4000 journals) is characterized by a very large number of publishers (2.000+), each publishing a very small number of journals on different platforms, in different formats and in more than 50 different languages. Many of these publishers are—with a number of exceptions—fragile when it comes to financial, technical and administrative sustainability.
At present DOAJ and KB carry out a pilot project aimed at setting up a workflow for processing open access journals listed with DOAJ. In the pilot a limited number of open access journals will be subject to long term preservation. These activities will be scaled up shortly and long term archiving of the journals listed in the DOAJ at KB’s e-Depot will become an integral part of the service provided by the DOAJ.
The Association of American Publishers has released 2008 book sales figures for the U.S. Sales totaled $24.3 billion, down 2.8% from 2007.
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
Trade sales of adult and juvenile books fell 5.2 percent from 2007 to $8.1 billion, CAGR fell to 2.1 percent. Growth was found in paperbound books for children and adults, with growth rates of 6.4% and 3.6% respectively. Sales in the hardcover fell 12.4% in children's hardcover and 13% in adult hardcover. . . .
Educational titles had a mixed year. Sales in the Elementary (El-Hi) category, those books produced for K-12 education, fell 4.4% to $6.1 billion in 2008, CAGR for this category was 0.8%. The Higher Education category, which includes sales of college textbooks, fared better. Total sales reached $3.8 billion this year up 2.7% on 2007. This brought the CAGR for college textbooks to 3.8%. . . .
Audio book sales for 2008 totaled $172 million, down 21% on the prior year, CAGR for this category is still healthy at 3.1%. E-books continue to grow significantly, sales reached $113 million in 2008, up 68.4%
In "U of New Mexico Press Downsizes," Rachel Deahl reports that the University of New Mexico Press is cutting jobs, and it may outsource warehouse/customer service operations to cope with a 20% sales decline.
Read more about it at “Most. Revealing. Press Release. Ever“; “UNM Press Announces Reorganization“; and “UNM Press to Fire Three Employees.”
According to “Harvard Press Sales Down,” Mary Kate Maco, Publicity Director at Harvard University Press, believes that sales at the press may have “declined similarly to the national average of 10 percent calculated by the American Association of University Presses.”
The Research Information Network has released Paying for Open Access Publication Charges: Guidance for Higher Education and Research Institutions, Publishers and Authors
Here's an excerpt:
This document provides advice and guidance on the arrangements for paying open access publication fees: that is, fees levied by some journals for the publication of scholarly articles so that they can be made available free of charge to readers, immediately upon publication. The guidance is directed to UK HEIs and other research institutions, to research funders, to publishers, and to authors. It is the practical outcome from a working group established by UUK and the RIN. It presents the advice from representatives of the library, publishing and research administrator communities on the practical issues to be addressed in establishing coordinated and strategic approaches to the payment of publication fees.
The Research Information Network has released Scholarly Books and Journals at Risk: Responding to the Challenges of a Changing Economy
Here's an excerpt from the announcement:
The current economic difficulties across the globe bring serious risks to scholarly books and journals. In the UK, the recent dramatic fall in the value of sterling has seriously damaged university library purchasing budgets.
This briefing note aims to inform and motivate all key stakeholders—universities, funding bodies, researchers, librarians, and publishers—to work together to find creative, practical and sustainable solutions to this serious (and unforeseen) challenge to the vitality of the UK’s research base.
As university presses struggle with increasing financial challenges, the University of Michigan Press is merging with the University Library and it will emphasize an innovative new model of digital monograph publication.
OAPEN (Open Access Publishing in European Networks) has launched a newsletter, sending the first issue out as a message on the SPARC-OAForum list.
Here's an excerpt:
First meeting of the Scientific Board
The OAPEN project has installed two external bodies (External stakeholder Group and Scientific Board) to ensure that the needs of scholars, publishers, funders and universities are met by the project's findings and developments. The Scientific Board of OAPEN consists of several international renowned scholars known for their expertise in publishing. Among them are scholars promoting Open Access such as Jean Claude Guédon (University of Montreal) or Gerhard Lauer (University of Göttingen), publishers and editors making electronic publishing come true like Charles Henry (Rice University Press) or Siggi Jöttkandt (Open Humanities Press), but also representatives from funders and university associations like Sarah Porter (JISC) and Sijbolt Noorda (EUA).
The first meeting constituted the Scientific Board as an active part of OAPEN. The board members will serve as a consulting and inspiring body for OAPEN during the funding period and hopefully beyond. Conclusions from the first board meeting were for instance to account for widespread conservative publishing attitudes among HSS scholars and at the same time the need to promote new modes of publishing such as more fluid media forms. The board members emphasised the importance of publisher-organised quality control and Open Access experiments for the mentioned fields and encouraged the project partners to conduct OAPEN as planned
.
Wolters Kluwer's 2008 Annual Report is now available.
Seeking Alpha has published a transcript of the Reed Elsevier Group's 2008 earnings call.
Here's an excerpt:
[Sir Crispin Davis] Turning now to the individual businesses, Elsevier had a good year, good overall results and the internals I think are genuinely encouraging. Renewals went up again to 98%, and if you think about this, this is extraordinary, that among our 6000 customers across over 150 countries in the word that we can get 98% renewal rate in these times.
Usage rose up again well about to 20% in terms of actual downloads, average subscription contract more that 3 years, and the present round of renewals is going very well. For example, one of our more challenging clients, California Digital Library, we signed a five-year contract with them recently. . . .
Again, underlying this is a lot of encouraging data in terms of the quality of our content and publications. The last two years we've seen citation rates rise up. We've seen impact factors rise up. For example, Sale this year for the first time overtook Nature and Science in terms of impact factors. Article submissions were up 4% to 5%, usage up over 20%, renewals running at a very high rate. So, as well as the sort of financial performance numbers, I think the underlying performance metrics in Elsevier both on science and health look strong.
Jonathan Miller has published "'Publishers Did Not Take the Bait': A Forgotten Precursor to the NIH Public Access Policy" in the latest issue of College & Research Libraries (access is restricted under the journal's embargo policy).
Here's an excerpt:
This article compares the recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy (2005-07) with the United States Office of Education policy on copyright in funded research (1965-70). The two policies and the differing technological and political contexts of the periods are compared and contrasted. The author concludes that a more nuanced approach to copyright, the digital information environment, and the support of an energized user community auger well for the success of the NIH policy, but that it is still too soon to tell.
The American Enterprise Institute has released Professors on the Production Line, Students on Their Own by Mark Bauerlein.
Here's an excerpt:
Mark Bauerlein, a professor of English at Emory University and former director of the Office of Research and Analysis at the National Endowment for the Arts, examines the pressure on humanities professors to "publish publish publish" and explains why the abundance of research offers diminishing returns. He laments the consequences for undergraduate education and student engagement and suggests that students, faculty, and the broader society would be well-served if we revisited this aged and problematic compact. . . .
Read more about it at "Unread Monographs, Uninspired Undergrads."
Almost half of the University of Missouri Press' staff (7 out of 18) will be laid off.
Read more about it at "Univ. of MO Press Laying Off Nearly Half of Its Staff."
In "The Orphan Monopoly," Peter Brantley, Executive Director for the Digital Library Federation, examines issues related to orphan works and the Google Book Search Copyright Class Action Settlement.
Here's an excerpt:
There is a lot to ponder: This is arguably a massive re-writing of copyright for books without any legislative input; Marybeth Peters (MBP), the U.S. Registrar of Copyrights, observed that the settlement essentially proposes a private agreement for compulsory licensing between a large class of IP holders and world’s largest search engine. The potential scope and policy ramifications are significant. MBP mentioned that there might be treaty implications under international conventions. And despite that, one of the most shocking of her statements was that the Copyright Office has not received a single inquiry from any of the 535 elected representatives of the people of the United States. Not. One.
Bo-Christer Björk, Annikki Roos and Mari Lauri have published "Scientific Journal Publishing: Yearly Volume and Open Access Availability" in the latest issue of Information Research.
Here's an excerpt from the abstract:
Results. We estimate that in 2006 the total number of articles published was approximately 1,350,000. Of this number 4.6% became immediately openly available and an additional 3.5% after an embargo period of, typically, one year. Furthermore, usable copies of 11.3% could be found in subject-specific or institutional repositories or on the home pages of the authors.
In "Orphan Works Legislation and the Google Settlement," Paul Courant discusses the possibility of legislation that would extend the treatment of orphan works in the Google Book Search Copyright Class Action Settlement to anyone.
Here's an excerpt:
But there is an obvious solution, one that was endorsed at the Columbia meeting by counsel for the Authors Guild, the AAP, and Google: Congress could pass a law, giving access to the same sort of scheme that Google and the BRR have under the Google Settlement to anyone. And they could pass some other law that makes it possible for people to responsibly use orphaned works, while preserving interests for the missing "parents" should they materialize. Jack Bernard and Susan Kornfield have proposed just such an architecture to "foster" these orphans. Google has also made a proposal that would be a huge improvement.
A new report from the Publishing Research Consortium, Journal Authors' Rights: Perception and Reality, says that less than 10% of publishers permit self-archiving of the publisher PDF file in any repository and less than 50% permit deposit of the submitted and the accepted article version in a disciplinary archive.
Here's an excerpt:
However, when it comes to self-archiving, although 80% or more allow self- archiving to a personal or departmental website, over 60% to an institutional repository, and over 40% to a subject repository, in most cases this is only permitted for the submitted and/or accepted version; use of the final, published version for self-archiving is very much more restricted.
In "Google & Books: An Exchange," Paul N. Courant, Ann Kjellberg, J. D. McClatchy, Edward Mendelson, Margo Viscusi, Tappan Wilder et al. have commented on Robert Darnton's "Google & the Future of Books," and Darnton has replied.
Here's an excerpt:
[Darnton] Monopolies tend to charge monopoly prices. I agree that the parallel between the pricing of digital and periodical materials isn't perfect, but it is instructive. If the readers of a library become so attached to Google's database that they cannot do without it, the library will find it extremely difficult to resist stiff increases in the price for subscribing to it. As happened when the publishers of periodicals forced up their prices, the library may feel compelled to cover the increased cost by buying fewer books. Exorbitant pricing for Google's service could produce the same effect as the skyrocketing of periodical prices: reduced acquisitions of monographs, a further decline in monograph publishing by university presses, and fewer opportunities for young scholars to publish their research and get ahead in their careers.
The Senate spending bill, which has been reported by the Washington Post and others as having passed, includes an NIH open access provision.
Here's an excerpt from "In 2009 Appropriations Bill, NIH Public Access Mandate Would Become Permanent":
In the section funding the NIH, section 217, pertaining to public access, reads:
"The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require in the current fiscal year and thereafter [emphasis added] that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version 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: provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law."
In his "Congress Makes NIH Policy Permanent (but for Conyers Bill) post," Peter Suber points out that because of the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act the NIH Public Access policy is still in danger.
Lawrence Lessig has replied to Rep. John Conyers' "A Reply to Larry Lessig," which was written in response to "Is John Conyers Shilling for Special Interests?" by Lawrence Lessig and Michael Eisen.
Here's an excerpt:
Supporting citizens' funding of the nation's elections—as Mr. Conyers has—is an important first step. That one change, I believe, would do more than any other to restore trustworthiness in Congress.
But that's not all you could do, Mr. Conyers. You have it within your power to remove any doubt about the reasons you have for sponsoring the legislation you sponsor: Stop accepting contributions from the interests your committee regulates. This was the principle of at least some committee chairmen in the past. It is practically unheard of today. But you could set an important example for others, and for America, about how an uncorrupted system of government might work. And you could do so without any risk to your own position—because the product of your forty years of extraordinary work for the citizens of Michigan means that they'll return you to office whether or not you spend one dime on a reelection. Indeed, if you did this, I'd promise to come to Michigan and hand out leaflets for your campaign.
Until you do this, Mr. Conyers, don't lecture me about "crossing a line." For I intend to cross this line as often as I can, the outrage and scorn of Members of Congress notwithstanding. This is no time to play nice. And yours is just the first in a series of many such stories to follow—targeting Republicans as well as Democrats, people who we agree with on substance as well as those we don't, always focusing on bad bills that make sense only if you follow the money.
Because of an "unfavorable $35 million foreign exchange impact," John Wiley & Sons' fiscal year 2009 third quarter Scientific, Technical, Medical, and Scholarly (STMS) revenue was down 13% to $202 million; however, on a "currency neutral basis," revenue grew 2%. (Wiley's fiscal year runs from May 1 to April 30.)
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
Journal subscription revenue was on par with prior year, as revenue from new journals was partially offset by the aforementioned processing delays and lower backfile sales. STMS book sales improved in markets outside the US. Publishing areas that exhibited significant growth include the life sciences, professional, and the social sciences and humanities.
The journal subscription renewal delays were related to the consolidation of Wiley and Blackwell fulfillment systems and licensing practices, which is the last significant integration project and one of the most complex undertakings in the overall process. While the problems that caused the delays were substantially resolved by the end of the quarter, some of the processing backlog remained. Approximately $7 million of revenue on yet-to-be processed customer journal licenses will be earned in the fourth quarter. The delays also affected cash collections through January. . . .
For the first nine months of fiscal year 2009, global STMS revenue was flat with prior year at $696 million, but advanced 6%, excluding unfavorable foreign exchange. Contributing to the year-over-year growth was a $17 million acquisition accounting adjustment related to the Blackwell acquisition that reduced revenue in the comparable prior year period, as well as increased journal revenue. All regions exhibited growth. Direct contribution to profit for the first nine months rose 4% to $277 million, or 10% excluding unfavorable foreign exchange. The increase reflects higher journal subscription revenue and prudent expense management, partially offset by editorial costs associated with new journals and the aforementioned delay in journal subscription renewals.
Wiley's FY 2008 results are summarized in its "John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Reports Record Revenue and Earnings in Fiscal Year 2008" press release.
