Compact for OA Publishing Equity:

Cornell, Harvard, Dartmouth, MIT and UC Berkeley have all signed up to this compact:

We the undersigned universities recognize the crucial value of the services provided by scholarly publishers, the desirability of open access to the scholarly literature, and the need for a stable source of funding for publishers who choose to provide open access to their journals’ contents. Those universities and funding agencies receiving the benefits of publisher services should recognize their collective and individual responsibility for that funding, and this recognition should be ongoing and public so that publishers can rely on it as a condition for their continuing operation.

Therefore, each of the undersigned universities commits to the timely establishment of durable mechanisms for underwriting reasonable publication charges for articles written by its faculty and published in fee-based open-access journals and for which other institutions would not be expected to provide funds. We encourage other universities and research funding agencies to join us in this commitment, to provide a sufficient and sustainable funding basis for open-access publication of the scholarly literature.”

Progress toward OA in the social sciences and humanities: “

Tracey Caldwell, OA in the humanities badlands, Information World Review, June 4, 2008. Excerpt:

The field of social sciences and humanities (SSH)…faces a…crisis in publishing [similar to that in the STM fields]. In STM, this crisis has been one of the drivers for open access, but this has not been the case in SSH so far.

The dearth of funding in the SSH sector has been one the main reasons it has lagged behind in getting research online and embracing open access. There is not a lot of money around to finance author-pays models of open access (OA), although there has also been an absence of drive on the part of researchers towards open access, backed by a cultural resistance in some disciplines to any sharing of research at all.

But recently, there has been a dawning of understanding among researchers that OA can bring benefits much broader than simple speed and ease of access to research.

At the same time, publishers facing demands for open access have started to make their concerns known, citing the long tail of access to research in this sector that would threaten their business model. Compared with the STM sector, there is a much higher proportion of journal articles accessed for the first time over a year after publication in SSH….

The launch of the Open Humanities Press (OHP), an international OA publishing collective in critical and cultural theory, at the end of April is one sign of the growing realisation of the need for OA in humanities….

The EU has put its weight behind moves to hasten OA in SSH through the so-called Action 32 of the STM-based COST (Co-operation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) European programme. Action 32 aims to create a digital infrastructure for collaborative humanities research on the web….

[Jonathan Gray of the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF)] believes the first step to OA in the SSH sector is to provide better access to research that is already in the public domain….

Many researchers in this sector simply do not know how to go about making their research open access. A survey by RIN showed that only 14% of arts and humanities researchers (compared with 30% in the physical sciences and 36% in the life sciences) think they are familiar with the options for making their research outputs open access.

[David Green, global journals publishing director for Taylor & Francis] believes it is too early to tell what the true impact of OA would be on the SSH sector.

‘One of the big American medical journals found a one-time drop of around 5-10% of subscriptions when it made its back archive free to access after a couple of years. We saw something similar, if less marked, with two of our journals when they introduced their 12- and 24-month embargo postprint policies. Renewals since have been good. This seems a common experience: a small loss in the first year after introducing some form of OA, followed by a large increase in usage.’

So would it hold more widely in SSH? ‘Hard to say, but we would remain concerned that SSH material has a much longer half-life and much longer usage tail than STM….

[Michael Jubb, director of the Research Information Network (RIN)] is part of a concerted effort to guide institutions towards centralised arrangements to pay publishing fees. He says: ‘I see no sign at all that research councils have much enthusiasm for meeting the costs of publishing. I am chairing a meeting on payment of publication fees and the practicalities of how institutions might take a more strategic approach to payment for publication….

The idea of providing a quality assurance layer to open access articles deposited in institutional repositories [sometimes called 'overlay journals'] may be of especial interest to the fragmented and cash-strapped social sciences and humanities communities….

(Via Open Access News.)

The Open Humanities Press will launch next Monday. From today’s announcement:

On May 12, 2008, the Open Humanities Press (OHP) will launch with 7 of the leading Open Access journals in critical and cultural theory. A non-profit, international grass-roots initiative, OHP marks a watershed in the growing embrace of Open Access in the humanities.

‘OHP is a bold and timely venture’ said J. Hillis Miller, Distinguished Professor of English at the University of California, Irvine, a long-time supporter of the Open Access movement and OHP board member. ‘It is designed to make peer-reviewed scholarly and critical works in a number of humanistic disciplines and cross-disciplines available free online. Initially primarily concerned with journals, OHP may ultimately also include book-length writings. This project is an admirable response to the current crisis in scholarly publishing and to the rapid shift from print media to electronic media. This shift, and OHP’s response to it, are facets of what has been called ‘critical climate change.’’

‘The future of scholarly publishing lies in Open Access’ agreed Jonathan Culler, Class of 1916 Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Cornell University and fellow member of OHP’s editorial advisory board. ‘Scholars in the future should give careful consideration to the where they publish, since their goal should be to make the products of their research as widely available as possible, to people throughout the world. Open Humanities Press is a most welcome initiative that will help us move in this direction.’ …

(Via Open Access News.)

The University of Stirling has become the first academic institution in the UK to oblige staff to make all their published research available online.

Clare Allan said:

The University now requires all published journal articles to be deposited by authors, as soon as possible after they are accepted for publication, and in compliance with the publishers’ copyright agreements. 

(Via Open Access News.)

Library Journal’s Periodical Price Survey 2007 is now available. Overall price rises for 2008 renewals are expected to be in the range of 7 to 9%. There is also an interesting analysis of the impact of Open Access and Institutional Repositories.

Information World Review reports on a recent study conducted by the Publishing Research Consortium in which 400 librarians worldwide were surveyed:

Librarians are likely to cancel journal subscriptions in favour of free access to peer-reviewed research via open access repositories … The study found that librarians are sensitive to the embargo period: with a 24-month embargo, just over 50% prefer the paid-for version of a journal article.

Chris Beckett, director of Scholarly Information Strategies said: “The sooner publishers develop alternatives to enable OA, the better.”

According to ALPSP’s whitepaper entitled How Is Scholarly Communication Changing as a Result of the Web? (Brighton: ALPSP, 2006):

Institutions will drop print as the format
they acquire within the next 5 years.
Publishers need to be prepared for this with
a thorough and detailed understanding of
their print-specific, online-specific and
shared print- and online-related costs and
revenues.

My recollections of predictions of the demise of print go back more than ten years. The infrastructure for provision and preservation of online literature is, of course, much stronger now, but I wonder if all institutions are really ready to break with their ingrained collection-development habits.

Information World Review notes that a report by Key Perspectives ‘vindicates JISC’s Open Access funding’:

Funding for publishers willing to trial open access (OA) publishing has allayed concerns about the OA business model, according to JISC …

An interesting article appears in Issue 224 of Information World Review. Snippets follow:

[Ian] Banbery believes it is inevitable that print will eventually disappear, particularly in STM publishing, but the picture has been muddied by the issue of VAT in Europe. “In the US, there is a much larger move to the online world,” says Banbery. It’s a move he sees as inexorable, particularly given the pressure on most university libraries over the amount of physical storage space they have available, but he does acknowledge that there is still some hesitation about getting rid of paper completely.

As CUP continues its drive to expand its journals business, it faces a number of challenges. Like all STM publishers, the CUP faces a degree of uncertainty over the issues of open access and repositories. But it is already responding to these issues and plans to launch 10 journals in the next year on the hybrid publishing model, as well as looking to find more backing for open access

Like other houses, CUP is digitising its back files and making journals available online. Technology is also making it possible to move towards a more economic way of producing information. “In the end, we will probably see journals move towards print-on-demand,” points out Banbery.

The RCUK has announced an Analysis of data on scholarly journals publishing. It would appear that the results of this study of the journal publishing aspects of the scholarly communications process and its costs will be analysed before RCUK release the long-awaited final version of its policy on Open Access:

This study got off the ground in mid-April 2006 and should conclude by the middle of summer.’ It is being undertaken on behalf of the three joint funders by Electronic Publishing Services Ltd (EPS), in association with Loughborough University Department of Information Science.’ The aim is to assist in UK domestic policy-making, by reviewing information about scholarly journal publishing, assessing the data available about the process and the reliability of that data. The main purpose of the study is to gain more reliable information about the operation of the journal publishing aspects of the scholarly communications process and its costs.’ The study focuses specifically on journal publishing, but it should be viewed in the context of a projected body of work involving all key stakeholders in the context of the scholarly communications framework.’ This is likely to include related but separate studies of other aspects of scholarly communications, including for instance the development, funding and viability of digital repositories.

The key objective of the project is to provide the three sponsors of the study, and other stakeholders in the scholarly journals industry, with an accurate review of reliable and objective information about the journals publishing process….

Scholarly journal publishing is a key component of the spectrum of functions and activities that form part of the scholarly communications process.’ This has been the focus of much interest lately, in particular because of the considerable interest generated by recent debates on open access.’ Although this level of debate has provided a welcome opportunity to consider challenges relating to the dissemination of research outputs, it has also been characterised by a degree of mutual suspicion and misunderstanding stemming from the often conflicting positions of the different actors and stakeholders with an interest in these issues. There has also been tension over the quality and completeness of the information and data that the different stakeholders have used in support of their respective positions.’ As a result of these tensions and suspicions, it has been difficult to achieve a consensus on how best to exploit the potential of new technology for enhancing the scholarly communications process and its cost-effectiveness.’ This has had implications for the development of public policy, as evidenced by the debates surrounding the Wellcome Trust’s policy on open access, and the delay in agreeing a definitive RCUK position statement.

In this context, there is a clear need for objective information that all stakeholders can agree upon as a means of defining and achieving common goals in scholarly communications.’ The DTI-sponsored Research Communications Forum has provided a useful arena for the exchange of information and views.’ The recently-created scholarly communications group facilitated by the RIN will work collaboratively to identify key issues in scholarly communications and gaps in our understanding, and to develop a better, evidence-based understanding of these issues – for instance, the development, funding and viability of digital repositories – as a basis for informing public policy.’ This group includes representatives of all the key stakeholders (notably the Research Councils, the library community, publishers, the RIN and key Government Departments such as the DTI and OST).’ The current study, focused on scholarly journal publishing – which has been the focus of some of the more lively debate – will be timely contribution to the development of understanding in the field of scholarly communications as a whole.

(Via Open Access News.)