This document summarizes an event discussing transformations in scholarly publishing and communications. The event included panels on publisher perspectives, and the roles of libraries in content creation. Speakers addressed open access models, infrastructure for distribution, and new metrics for evaluating impact. Challenges discussed involved raising awareness of open access, overcoming barriers, and aligning incentives with open scholarship. Strategies proposed engaging issues early in the research process, providing infrastructure through libraries, and changing reward structures to encourage open models.
1. Ideas & Insights Series
Forging New Paths in Publishing &
Scholarly Communications
May 24th, 2012
2. Agenda
11:00 am – 12:15 pm
Opening & Keynote: Progress, Pressures and Prospects
12:15 pm – 2:00 pm
Transformations: A Trio of Publisher Perspectives
2:30 pm – 3:45 pm
New Roles, New Responsibilities: Libraries and Content
Creation
3. Speakers
• Heather Joseph, SPARC
• Patrick Alexander, Pennsylvania State University
Press
• Keith Seitter, American Meteorological Society
• Jennifer Lin, Public Library of Science
• William Kane, Wake Forest University
• October Ivins, IvinseContent Solutions
4. Agenda
11:00 am – 12:15 pm
Opening & Keynote: Progress, Pressures and Prospects
12:15 pm – 2:00 pm
Transformations: A Trio of Publisher Perspectives
Patrick Alexander, The Pennsylvania State University Press
Keith Seitter, American Meteorological Society
Jennifer Lin, Public Library of Science
2:00 pm – 2:30 pm
Break
2:30 pm – 3:45 pm
New Roles, New Responsibilities: Libraries and Content Creation
5. Our Mission:
Expand the distribution of the results of
research and scholarship in a way that
leverages digital networked technology,
reduces financial pressures on libraries,
and creates a more open system of
scholarly communication.
15. “By open access, we mean its free
availability on the public
internet, permitting any users to
read, download, copy, distribute, prin
t, search or link to the full text of
these articles, crawl them for
indexing, pass them as data to
software or use them for any other
lawful purpose…”
- The Budapest Open Access Initiative – February 14, 2002
15 www.arl.org/sparc
17. Opportunities to Advance OA
• Infrastructure
• Legal Constructs
• Policy Framework
• Culture Change
17 www.arl.org/sparc
18. OA Papers Published 2000-2010
18000
16000
BMC
Number of papers
14000
12000 PLoS
10000
8000 Hindawi
6000
Copernicus
4000
2000 Springer Open
0 Choice
Oxford Open
2005
2010
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Some data courtesy of Mark Patterson (PLoS), from Patterson: ‘Open Access Publishers: Breaking
even and growing fast, ‘ delivered at APE 2011: http://river-valley.tv/open-access-publishers-
breaking-even-and-growing-fast/
23. Ongoing Challenges
• Researcher awareness of OA not high enough
• Perceived barriers still in place:
• Disciplinary differences
• New forms of scholarship not yet trusted
• Uncertainty over sustainability
• Deep reliance on current impact measures
24. Strategies to Consider
• Consider OA issues at the beginning, not the
end, of research process
• Faculty control the destiny of their scholarly
output
• Library plays crucial role in
providing/enabling infrastructure,
educational resources to amplify impact of
faculty work
25. Strategies to Consider
• Incentive and reward structures need to be
aligned with goal of open
• Must be a priority at highest level of
administration
• Need to “model new behaviors” in
evaluation, promotion and tenure process
• Need more mechanisms to encourage
thinking beyond single impact factor
26. Agenda
11:00 am – 12:15 pm
Opening & Keynote: Progress, Pressures and Prospects
12:15 pm – 2:00 pm
Transformations: A Trio of Publisher Perspectives
Patrick Alexander, The Pennsylvania State University Press
Keith Seitter, American Meteorological Society
Jennifer Lin, Public Library of Science
2:00 pm – 2:30 pm
Break
2:30 pm – 3:45 pm
New Roles, New Responsibilities: Libraries and Content Creation
27. Why does my monograph cost
$100.00?
COSTS INCOME
$75.00 selling price
$7,500 to create and print 300
copies $100.00 list price
30 free copies |250 qty sold
$1,000 Marketing, exhibits
$18,750, revenue generated
$7,500 overhead
$1,500, cost of 20 returns___
(salaries, benefits, utilities, r
total income: $17,250
ent, office
Result: profit of $1,250
supplies, phones, computers
, etc.) ________________ If I publish 50 titles we make
total costs: $16,000 $862,500, or $62,500 profit 7.5%.
total costs 50 titles $800,000
31. AMS and open access
BAMS articles open since
they went online in 1997
• All journal content online older than two years is open
• “Open Choice” option recently added
Open access institutional repositories can post PDF of
articles six months after publication (but only the final
definitive published version, not an earlier version of
the manuscript).
Recently published content only available with subscription
32. Journal Excess Income
The AMS journals generate about 10% excess
income that is used for other programs that serve
the community and the public at large.
• Member services not covered by dues
• Outreach to public
• K–12 Education
• AMS Policy Program
• History programs
• Scholarship and Fellowship admin
33. Discussion Points
The AMS journal program represents a very traditional
model, but there are increasing pressures to move toward a pure
open access model.
• Broad access becomes automatic
• Changes the financial model
– Waiving author charges for developing world harder
without subscription revenue
– May jeopardize other community programs done by AMS if
revenue is reduced
• Changes the dynamic controlling scholarly quality
34. Open Access = Share research
freely and openly online
• Everyone can
read, store and
index your paper
• Easy to find – all in
PubMed Central
35. Effective discovery, navigation, and
management of content is crucial
Researchers need new approaches
to the:
• structuring
• presentation
• use
• evaluation of research
literature.
We need post-publication tools to
manage research content.
At PLoS, this challenge represents
the next frontier for OA.
36. PLoS Article-Level Metrics:
A systematic encoding of measures
that speak to the value and reliability
of information.
It forms the foundation for literature-
derived intelligence that reveal new
discoveries and support complex
decisions throughout all stages of the
research process.
37. We can capture the broad ecosystem of
channels used in research dissemination
today: • article“usage,”
• scholarly and nonscholarly citations,
• blog and news coverage,
• social network sharing
• research community input
Research Dissemination IS Research
Impact
Publication Dissemination
ALMs
Collectively as a suite, Article-Level Metrics aims to
measure research impact in a transparent and
comprehensive manner.
38. PLoS ALMs Overall Initiative
• Collect data at the research article level beyond usage
and citations, measures which might provide insight
into “impact” across the dissemination domains
• Present these data on the article & within search
• Develop ALM data toolset
• Provide an extensible, open platform which allows
others to use the same tool, and also allows us to
apply the tool to 3rd party content
• Reach out to publishers, decision makers, funding
bodies, governance organizations to promote adoption
of article level metrics
39. Agenda
11:00 am – 12:15 pm
Opening & Keynote: Progress, Pressures and Prospects
12:15 pm – 2:00 pm
Transformations: A Trio of Publisher Perspectives
2:00 pm – 2:30 pm
Break
2:30 pm – 3:45 pm
New Roles, New Responsibilities: Libraries and Content Creation
William Kane, Wake Forest University
October Ivins, IvinseContent Solutions
41. Wouldn’t it be nice…
…if WFU had its own digital publishing platform?
• e-textbooks?
• e-coursepacks?
• including syllabi?
• e-commerce?
• the Press:
• could convert books/poems into ebooks/epoems?
• the Library:
• could re-purpose/-distribute WakeSpace/Institutional Repository
• special collections
• public domain content
• Admissions, Athletics, CER, students, etc.
• could <gasp>monetize content
42. Final Research Report (March 2012)
Free download available from
http://wp.sparc.arl.org/lps
42
43. “Library-based publishing is defined as „the
organized production and dissemination of
scholarly works in any format as a service provided
by the library.‟ An institutional repository might be
part of a library publishing program if it is involved
in some way in the production process (e.g., peer
reviewing). Repositories that only house works for
dissemination (e.g., collections of post-prints) are
not considered part of library publishing. Simply
digitizing or otherwise reformatting works would
not be considered publishing.”
__ ARL Research Library Publishing Services, 2008
43
44. Develop Best Practices for
Library Publishing
Develop meaningful impact metrics for library publishing services
Establish editorial quality and performance criteria
Promote sustainability best practices
Develop return-on-investment justifications for funding library publishing
programs
44
45. Collaborate to Create
Community-based Resources
Create a shared repository of policies, tools, and templates
Develop centrally hosted software solutions for publishing platforms
Share service models and revenue approaches
Promote collaborations and partnerships
45
46. Formalize Skills & Training
Create formal and informal training venues
Articulate the particular value delivered by library publishing programs
Establish dedicated library publishing
46
47. Review the report for more in depth ideas
Assemble a team to make a plan
Assess what publishing services already in place on campus
Do you have access to a University Press?
Set goals for your program
Identify staffing resources
Determine what types of publications you will support
Conduct interviews with faculty or student publication candidates
47
48. Review the report for more in depth ideas
Consider hosted OJS or Digital Commons
Create a sustainability plan
Develop your MOUs and related documents
Start with a pilot project
Plan an evaluation process and timeline
Participate in the SPARC LPS forum to share results and seek advice
Participate in CE programs
48
49. This topic & LYRASIS …
• Infrastructure support
• Business model development & testing
• Digitization & Digital Preservation
• Education & Training
• Facilitate information sharing, partnerships
• Facilitate other aspects of LPS strategic agenda?
50. Ideas & Insights Series
Forging New Paths in Publishing &
Scholarly Communications
May 24th, 2012
Hinweis der Redaktion
Significant barriers in place to to doing this.
Even the best funded libraries can not keep pace with rising costs. We’ve got a real access gap – leaving researchers NOT affiliated with insts with deep pockets out in the cold.
We’re used to a system that forces us into “workarounds” when we think we absolutely have to have an article. Not optimal access. Not even “good enough” access.
We’ve gotten very creative in circumventing these barriers…
We’re still operating under the quid pro quo of copyright established in a paper based world.Even if we can get to to paper, it’s not enough any more for us to simply be able to print it and read it. We need to do more. To treat it like the treasure trove of digital data that it is, and we need to rebalance the traditional copyright transaction to reflect this.
Call for a new way forward that addresses all of these issues…
Funders and academic institutions alike (>200) have made Open Access a priority by adopting policies that make it the default mode for their faculty and researchers.
And on an even larger scale, we see increasing trend in organizations who fund science on a national level explicitly recognize the centrality of open sharing scientific information to leveraging their investments in research and achieving their core goals.
While we certainly come along way, there are still significant challenges ahead of us –
Given the audience, it is redundant to say that data is important. But perhaps it is less redundant to say that data is important to PLoS as a publisher, and even less to say that data is integral to our publishing work.PLoS started as a grass roots movement of scientists whose aim is to make the world’s research freely and openly available to all.Now what next?
Innovative metrics that collects real-time expert judgment to help systems know what information is reliable and good. We can use them to weight the value of information from different sources.Article-Level Metrics (ALMs) at PLoS are not just about citations and usage. The concept refers to a whole range of measures which might provide insight into “impact” or “reach”ALMs are not simply about “impact,” they are also used for discovery and filteringWe are providing metrics at the article-level, for every article, in every one of our titlesWe were the first publisher to provide this range of data, but others are now following
So what are these measurements of research value? As I mentioned before, traditional impact measurement based on the journal falls far short.PLoS, as a publisher, is keenly aware that the entire process of dissemination lies at the heart of the scientific enterprise itself. How do you measure the transmission of information?In fact, the answer is quite simple from a technologist’s perspective. You can measure the flow of research by the distance it travels. You can tracks its movements by the places it goes. We have created a diverse set of metrics based on this theory. We capture these channels, measure them as indicators of impact, and make them the basis of research assessment. Collectively as a suite, Article-Level Metrics measures research impact in a transparentandcomprehensivemanner.It is comprised of the following categories:Article Usage, Community Input on the PLoS site, Citations - Scholarly and non-scholarly literature, Media Coverage, Blog Coverage, and Social/Behavioral Mining. New research has shown that, where traditional measurements used to evaluate research at the journal level is weak and endemically misused, these ALMs can provide valuable indicators for research impact, not least by providing more rapid indicators. They provide much-needed new checks and balances, greater speed of feedback, and superior relationship mapping and influence tracking. Given the need for more granular, article-level rating and recommendation systems, the literature shows that the potential of peer review and recommendation systems is greatly enhanced by various new media and crowdsourcing tools. Different types of web services such as social bookmarking, social collection management, social news/recommendations, publisher-hosted comment spaces, data repositories, and social video all provide insights into the various types of impact that are possible. They can provide a form of "soft peer review” that assists researchers in the assessment of research articles on their own merits and establishes scholars' authority, augments peer review, broadens the scope of the IF, and filters articles. Furthermore, they are a transparent way of mapping and analyzing personal relationships between scientists, making them "more quantifiable than ever before” and allowing researchers "to estimate which scholarly articles and journals are truly central to the flow of information”. By using these web services to collect alt-metrics on research, we can also cross-validate different types of metrics against each other, providing a useful set of checks and balances. Alt-metrics have also been shown to provide a valuable service lacking in IF: a real-time indicator of impact for research. Finally, post-publication input is now possible through the type of crowdsourced recommendations enabled by new media alt-metrics tools. This innovative mode of peer review can be applied to research much more quickly than traditional peer review through an analysis of collective intelligence.