If publishers have their way, libraries’ digital options will see major cuts | The Hill

“To many, controlled digital lending might sound obscure and disconnected from their own lives, and to be honest, I can see why. After all, controlled digital lending is based on the finer points of well-established U.S. copyright law — loaning books to people — it’s not something a lot of library patrons pay attention to. Moreover, when it’s working seamlessly, it’s a bit like one of those apps that runs unobtrusively in the background of your computer’s operating system. Patrons only notice it when it slows or stops working.  

If a pending lawsuit by major American book publishers challenging its legal limits succeeds, controlled digital lending’s absence might be a lot more noticeable to a lot more people. It will be harder to borrow digital books and other materials from the growing number of libraries that practice controlled digital lending or some form of it.

Combine that with other efforts by book publishers to curb access to digital content and there are troubling consequences for how an information-based society like ours continues to drive economic, social and political progress….”

Plan S Journal Comparison Service: open for publishers to register and deposit price and service data | Plan S

cOAlition S is excited to release today the Journal Comparison Service (JCS), a secure, free and long-anticipated digital service, that aims to shed light on publishing fees and services.

Starting from today, publishers can register with the JCS publisher portal. After signing a service agreement, publishers can share information, at journal level, highlighting the services they provide and the prices they charge in line with one of the Plan S approved price and service transparency frameworks. These data are then made available to librarians via a secure online system.  Examples of data that will be made available through the service include information about the publication frequency, the peer review process, times from submission to acceptance, the range of list prices for APCs, subscription prices, and how the price is allocated over a defined set of services.

 

Agreement will allow UC articles to be published open access

An agreement with the UC system and the American Chemical Society, or ACS, will allow every UC-authored article in the ACS to be published open access.

Open access means that these researchers’ works will be available to more people and have a greater impact, particularly in lower-income countries, according to Jeff MacKie-Mason, UC Berkeley librarian.

MacKie-Mason noted that this has been a long-term goal of the UC Academic Senate and UC libraries. He added this will also include a lower cost of publication for the researchers.

SCOAP3 reaches 50’000 articles milestone – SCOAP3

The Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3)—the world’s largest disciplinary open access initiative—has reached the milestone of over 50’000 research articles published. Through partnerships with 11 leading journals, SCOAP3 has effectively transitioned the vast majority of research articles in the discipline to perpetual OA since 2014. These research papers include vital contributions from research organizations and institutions across the world: including the last paper published by Stephen Hawking and colleagues on Black Hole Entropy and a seminal paper from the CMS and ATLAS collaborations on the measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates, among the many thousands of others.

Why does open access make publishing more complicated?

“Open-access publishing is going mainstream. This is sometimes a requirement, but it is also perceived as complex. That’s understandable, considering that OA comes in so many definitions and shades; gold, green, platinum and diamond journals and more shape a moving landscape where different stakeholders push their own agenda.

For researchers, navigating this landscape requires consideration of costs, funding, licences and copyright issues. All these aspects are relatively new compared with the traditional subscription-based system, where researchers would not worry about subscription costs any more than libraries would care about the details of the reviewing process. Redistribution of tasks along the publishing process forces universities and institutions to reorganise their support system. Who can and who should help? And how to do so? …”

 

Inequities of Article Processing Charges: How the Oligopoly of Academic Publishers Profits from Open Access | Zenodo

“Since the early 2010s, more than half of peer-reviewed journal articles have been published by the so-called oligopoly of academic publishers: Elsevier, SAGE, Springer-Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley. These companies make immense profits from publishing scholarly journals, traditionally through subscriptions from academic libraries, the reader pays model. With more and more libraries cancelling so-called ‘Big Deals’, these publishers have expanded their revenues by making authors pay article processing charges (APCs) for open access (OA) publishing. The author-pays model creates inequities and barriers that exclude many from publishing, such as underrepresented groups or researchers from less-resourced countries. This presentation demonstrates the growth of gold and hybrid OA articles published in oligopoly journals indexed in the Web of Science and provides evidence of the amount of APCs paid in Canada and globally. It highlights the inequities of the author-pays model and discusses alternative routes to OA.”

Inequities of Article Processing Charges: How the Oligopoly of Academic Publishers Profits from Open Access – SPARC

“Since the early 2010s, more than half of peer-reviewed journal articles have been published by the so-called oligopoly of academic publishers: Elsevier, SAGE, Springer-Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley. These companies make immense profits from publishing scholarly journals, traditionally through subscriptions from academic libraries, the reader pays model. With more and more libraries cancelling so-called ‘Big Deals’, these publishers have expanded their revenues by making authors pay article processing charges (APCs) for open access (OA) publishing. The author-pays model creates inequities and barriers that exclude many from publishing, such as underrepresented groups or researchers from less-resourced countries. This presentation demonstrates the growth of gold and hybrid OA articles published in oligopoly journals indexed in the Web of Science and provides evidence of the amount of APCs paid in Canada and globally. It highlights the inequities of the author-pays model and discusses alternative routes to OA.”

How does the growth of a particular publisher’s open access content factor into the relative value of a Big Deal? Part 2: The Findings – Delta Think

“Some final thoughts: (1) Overall usage was a stronger influence on the change in value than the small changes in the proportion of hybrid OA article usage. (2) Despite the range of research activity levels across our institutions, there wasn’t much difference in the proportion of the open versus controlled usage across the site-licensed institutions for either publisher. (3) COVID likely affected these trends, but precisely how was unclear. Did lockdown increase the usage or limit it? Did it affect our two publishers differently? We have no ‘non-COVID’ control unfortunately. (4) If the impact of transformative agreements on the rate of hybrid OA article output influenced these trends, the impact was quite small. Still, with more libraries negotiating transformative agreements, growth in the proportion of OA articles should accelerate. As long as usage in publisher packages continues to grow, cost per controlled use will increase more quickly than cost per use. This new cost per controlled use metric should help libraries track the return on investment from their journal package subscription payments as a growing proportion of underlying articles are free to read.”

Publisher Scoring System Wiki

“This system has gone through several revisions. Below are links to the current version, previous versions, and related files.

In brief, journal publishers earn points in this scoring system by engaging in practices that demonstrate partnership with libraries, educators, and researchers. Library Partnership (LP) certification is calculated using a method similar to the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification for architectural and building projects. In LEED certification, architectural projects “earn points for various green building strategies across several categories. Based on the number of points achieved, a project earns one of four LEED rating levels: Certified, Silver, Gold or Platinum” (https://www.usgbc.org/). Where LEED certification assesses a building project’s practices in “credit categories” such as water efficiency or indoor air quality, LP certification assesses a publisher’s practices in four categories: Access, Rights, Community, and Discoverability.

A publisher’s partnership score reflects an overall achievement of credits. This score places them in one of four levels or tiers, Tier 1 (highest partnership practices) through Tier 4 (lowest partnership practices)….”

Arning et al. (2022) Open Access Transformation for Books: The Role of Institutional Presses and Publishing Services | Zenodo

Arning, Ursula, Bargheer, Margo, Meinecke, Isabella, Schobert, Dagmar, & Tobias, Regine. (2022). Open Access Transformation for Books: The Role of Institutional Presses and Publishing Services. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6346271

This position paper highlights important aspects for the Open Access transformation of books. The five authors are all experts in the field of institutional publication infrastructures. They show current fields of action and scope for research institutions in the field of non-commercial infrastructures for OA books.

 

What Do Library-Publisher Relations Look Like in 2022?

 

In order to gain greater insight into the state of library-publisher relations today, we asked Executive Director of AUPresses, Peter Berkery, and Executive Director of the Association of Research Libraries, Mary Lee Kennedy, to share their thoughts about how relations between the two communities have changed. Their answers ultimately reveal more similarities than differences. They note current sites of collaborations (particularly around open access) and common areas of tension (around financial sustainability). While there has been a refiguring of what publishing means, both groups have a heightened dedication to a just and equitable scholarly environment. We hope these interviews can continue the dialogue that librarians and publishers are having across and within our communities.

Wiley Signs Declaration on Research Assessment, Deepens Commitment to Responsible Research Assessment | John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

“Global research and education leader Wiley today announced it has signed the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which is a world-wide initiative designed to improve the ways in which the outputs of scholarly research are evaluated. 

As the publisher of nearly 2,000 academic journals, Wiley will deliver more ways to assess and recognize research outputs, which in turn supports healthy scholarship and allows more researchers to thrive in their careers. To this end, Wiley will roll out a broad range of journal and article metrics across its journal portfolio with the aim of providing a holistic, well-rounded view of the value and impact of any author’s research. This includes metrics that measure levels of impact beyond citation value, including usage, re-use, reproducibility, peer review assessment, geographic reach, and public recognition via references in media outlets….”

The Public Knowledge Project’s Open Monograph Press

While much progress has been made by academic libraries, societies, and groups of scholars in supporting the publication of independent journals, giving rise to the Open Access Diamond Journal phenomenon (no charge for authors or readers), the same is not true of books.1  Scholarly books would appear to require a publishing house to produce such works.  Well, in that regard, Open Monograph Press (OMP) offers a publishing house in a box.  Only there is no box.  And the house is virtual, but within it one can see the scholarly book through to publication.

Alternative Publishing Platforms

Research findings have traditionally been published as peer-reviewed academic articles, monographs and edited collection, proceedings, or theses, with academic publishing companies being the main venue for the publication of findings. In order for research organisations to make research findings available to their researchers and students, they have to subscribe to journals and monographs agreements. One of the issues with this process of publication and discoverability of academic content is that it has become increasingly costly to research organisations and has tied them to big deal agreements with a limited number of publishersundefined.

More recently, changes in the scholarly communications landscape have fomented the emergence of other forms of communication and dissemination of research findings. For example: preprint repositories, data journals, scholarly blogs and websites, innovations of the peer review process, and micropublicationsundefined. These are innovative forms of publication that seek to remove the barriers, constraints and costs imposed by legacy academic publishing companies.