Issues in Scholarly Communication is a newsletter produced by Paula Kaufman, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries, for the Illinois community. Entries from 2001-2005 newsletter are available.
« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »
The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) the largest private funder of biomedical research in the U.S. has announced several new policies that strongly demonstrate it's support for open access:
This agreement with Springer is much better than the earlier agreement HMMI made with Elsevier whereby HMMI agreed to pay for delayed access ("green access") to articles that their authors publish in Elsevier journals rather than the immediate access ("gold access") offered through Springer's Open Choice program.
Posted by Katie Newman at 2:10 PM
With thanks to Peter Suber's Open Access News and the Harvard Crimson ...
Harvard Faculty Council recommends an OA policy
Alexandria Hiatt, Profs Might Make Their Articles Free: Faculty Council proposes ‘open access’ for journal articles, Harvard Crimson, September 27, 2007.
Excerpt:
The Faculty Council, the 18-member governing body of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), advanced a measure yesterday that would make articles written by Harvard professors in scholarly journals available online at no cost.
The proposal would create a system of “open access” whereby the authors could make their work available either on a personal or university Web site for free, according to Weary Professor of German and Comparative Literature Judith L. Ryan, who serves on the council.
Professors would have the option to opt out of the new system, Ryan said.
“The problem this is supposed to address is the increasing monopoly that has developed on the part of scholarly journals, who are now making it increasingly difficult for people to access the material they publish,” she said.
“Libraries everywhere are paying huge amounts to scholarly journals,” she added, “and that means the amount of money they can spend on other purchases is increasingly squeezed.”
The program has been spearheaded by Welch Professor of Computer Science Stuart M. Shieber. According to Ryan, Shieber has appeared before the council three times in the past year and a half and has worked closely with the University Office of General Counsel to address any possible legal issues....
The proposal will now come before the full faculty for a vote. Ryan said she expected it to be addressed at a Faculty meeting this term.
The measure will immediately take effect if passed, according to Ryan, and the publishers will have little recourse.
“It is pretty certain that other universities would follow,” she said, “And that is crucial because it would put pressure on big publishers.”
Local perspective --
University of Illinois' Provost Linda Katehi has strongly urged faculty to retain the rights to use their own articles and to make them as widely accessible as possible. The University Senate concurred, passing a resolution that urges faculty to modify the copyright agreement forms they sign when submitting their papers for publication, using an addendum created for use by CIC members.
From Katehi's 7/10/07 note to the faculty:
"It [the Addendum] supports authors rights to use their own published work in teaching and research, to post a publication on a personal website, or to deposit it in a repository maintained by their institution or a professional association. IDEALS (www.ideals.uiuc.edu) is the University of Illinois institutional repository."
Katehi goes on to say:
"It is our responsibility as scholars to ensure that our work is available as widely as possible to maximize its scholarly impact, accessibility, and educational use. I encourage you to use the Addendum and to deposit your research and scholarship in IDEALS, which provides reliable and persistent access to its holdings."
Posted by Katie Newman at 1:51 PM
Yesterday, the New York Times suspended its "Times Select" fee-paid service, choosing instead to make everything, including its archives, free to all readers. See http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/ts/ for more information.
This is a significant event in the evolution of online newspapers and newspaper services. Could it be a harbinger of things to come? Last night, NPR's "All Things Considered" ran a story on the Times' change of heart (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14537587) in which it focused on the Times' (and others') new ad-based revenue models that are being used instead of the traditional subscription/ad models. The story also reported that Rupert Murdoch is considering a similar open access model for the Wall Street journal after he takes over its ownership.
Posted by P. Kaufman at 8:24 AM
In a Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry editorial (Volume 55 (10): 981-982, 2007) Kevin A. Roth, Editor-in-Chief, Denis G. Baskin, Executive Editor recently announced a plan by which they hope to keep their society's journal afloat. After acknowledging the slow erosion of institutional print subscriptions, they've taken the bold move of going to a "Print on Demand" model. The journal will no longer be published and distributed in print. In addition to online subscriptions,
"the JHC will continue to be available in hard copy for those institutions or individuals who prefer to have the gorgeous print issue available or simply have limited access to the online version of the JHC. There will be no diminution in the quality of the print journal...Authors may benefit from reduced costs, because digital printing will eliminate traditional color printing costs, which can be considerable."
They go on to discuss the issues that many scholarly society publishers are facing these days as they struggle to remain afloat. Interestingly, they are not considering going "open access", though it can be noted that they are OA after a 12 month embargo. (See other Highwire titles that have similar embargo periods.)
Posted by Katie Newman at 1:16 PM
Lehigh University (Bethlehem PA) is offering a totally free online biology course, Bioscience in the 21st Century. It is described as:
A multidisciplinary survey course in which several theme-based topics in bioscience and their social/ethical considerations will be explored. ...
A major goal of the course will be to communicate the importance of a systems-driven, multidisciplinary approach in bioscience. Several contemporary issues (e.g., obesity, infectious diseases, cancer, stem cell biology, advances in cell biology and medicine, genome-based medicine, neurophysiology-related topics, bioinformatics, interfaces between organic chemistry and biology, advances in engineered biomedical systems, advances in bioimaging, social/ethical considerations) will be discussed.
Lectures will be presented by faculty from different disciplines in order to highlight cross-disciplinary perspectives on fundamental problems and potential solutions in bioscience. This course is envisioned as the initial tool for shaping an intellectual approach to bioscience that routinely values interconnections among disciplines and reduces/eliminates the tendency to compartmentalize learning “by subject.”
A second goal of the course is to provide scientific literacy for non-majors and the public. Students who are not formally registered for the course are encouraged to attend lectures based on their interests. Course materials including the syllabus, course materials, and all lectures are available on the web with full access for the entire Lehigh community and interested members of the public.
Lecturers will include Lehigh University professors from a variety of departments, as well as special guests. Check for weekly postings of lectures, and class resources.
This virtual classroom opportunity is funded through a grant from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The grant recognizes Lehigh’s innovative approach to preparing students to address emerging issues in modern biology and biomedical research.
Posted by Katie Newman at 2:14 PM
Project of Publishers' Association Is Criticized by Some of Its Members and Open-Access Advocates
The Association of American Publishers has landed in hot water with university presses and research librarians, as well as open-access advocates, thanks to a new undertaking that is billed as an attempt to "safeguard the scientific and medical peer-review process and educate the public about the risks of proposed government interference with the scholarly communication process."
That effort, known as the Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine, or PRISM, is the latest twist in a continuing public-relations war between the association and the open-access camp.
In January, the association created a ruckus by hiring Eric Dezenhall, a high-powered media consultant described by the journal Nature as a "pit bull" (The Chronicle, January 26). Mr. Dezenhall's advice to the publishers' association, says Nature, included a suggestion that it focus on messages such as "Public access equals government censorship."
That advice echoes throughout PRISM's Web site in language like this: "Policies are being proposed that threaten to introduce undue government intervention in science and scholarly publishing, putting at risk the integrity of scientific research."
The site, announced late last month, decries "bureaucratic meddling," and warns that the peer-review process will be undermined "by compromising the viability of nonprofit and commercial journals that manage and fund it."
PRISM arrives as the U.S. Senate prepares to consider a spending bill for the National Institutes of Health that would require research supported by the agency to be made publicly available, as part of the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central, no later than 12 months after its publication . The House of Representatives has already approved such a measure in its bill.
Fault Found With Message
Reactions to PRISM have been widespread and vigorous, with some commentators calling for a boycott of the association. The news provoked one university-press director, Mike Rossner of Rockefeller University Press, to make a public request that a disclaimer be placed on the PRISM Web site "indicating that the views presented on the site do not necessarily represent those of all members of the AAP." Mr. Rossner continued, "We at the Rockefeller University Press strongly disagree with the spin that has been placed on the issue of open access by PRISM."
The Association of Research Libraries sent its members a talking-points memo, dated September 4, that deals with some of the arguments made on the PRISM site. The librarians' group wrote that PRISM "repeatedly conflates policies regarding access to federally funded research with hypothesized dire consequences ultimately resulting in the loss of any effective system of scholarly publishing. Many commentators agree that inaccuracies abound in the initiative's rhetoric."
One of those commentators, Tom Wilson, took his own advice that "academics should resign from editorial boards of journals published by the supporters of PRISM": He posted an open letter on the Information Research Weblog announcing his resignation from the editorial board of the International Journal of Information Management. Mr. Wilson, a professor emeritus of information technology at the University of Sheffield, in England, was founding editor of that journal. He is also publisher and editor in chief of Information Research, an online, open-access scholarly journal.
Brian D. Crawford, chairman of the executive council of the AAP's professional and scholarly publishing division, acknowledged that the strength of the negative reaction had taken his group by surprise. "We did not expect to have encountered the sort of criticism that we have seen thus far," Mr. Crawford told The Chronicle. "We were truly hoping to establish this as a way to have a very productive dialogue on what are important and nuanced issues."
A task force composed of members of the executive council put PRISM together. It had been in the works about a year, according to Mr. Crawford. (Representatives of three academic presses -- those of the University of Chicago, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Columbia University -- sit on the council.) The press association's general membership was not consulted during that process. "We sought the input of the executive council that's representative of our membership," Mr. Crawford said.
He added that the association was "using the announcement of the initiative itself as the initial means to engage in the outreach and recruitment of individual publishers."
It is not clear how many publishers have responded positively to that call.
Mr. Crawford also confirmed that Mr. Dezenhall, the PR maven, was still consulting for the publishers' group, although he would not say whether the consultant had been directly involved in formulating PRISM.
Disclaimer Considered
Mr. Crawford defended his group against charges that it is anti-open access. "We're definitely not saying that open access equals faulty science," he said. "What we're saying is, It's important for publishers to have the flexibility to introduce and experiment with whatever business model they wish to, without government intervention."
Because of the criticisms, however, the publishers' group is taking "under advisement" the idea of adding a disclaimer, as Mr. Rossner suggested. It's also possible that the association will decide to revise the language on the PRISM Web site in response to the concerns of university presses and libraries.
Peter Suber, a professor of philosophy at Earlham College and one of the leaders of the open-access movement, has been closely tracking responses to PRISM on his Open Access News blog. In an interview, he confirmed that the reaction to PRISM had spread beyond the open-access community.
"In the past couple of years, there have been a couple of events that have mobilized newcomers" to the open-access debate, he said. "The hiring of Eric Dezenhall in January was one such event. PRISM is another."
Asked what effect PRISM is likely to have, Mr. Suber noted that the publishers' group has the resources to back it up on Capitol Hill. "The message is no threat at all," he said. "The message is a laughingstock. But the lobbying behind the message might be effective."
Posted by Katie Newman at 10:43 AM
Many web sites are supported by ad revenue -- e.g., google, yahoo -- delivering eyeballs to relevant ads. The sci-tech publisher Elsevier, perhaps looking to the future when more articles are Open Access, is taking the novel approach of delivering registered eyeballs to ads from pharmaceutical companies in exchange for "open access" to some of it's higher costing journals.
As reported on the OA Librarian Blog...
Monetized Open Access? Elsevier's Move Into Ad Profits
With its revenues flat and business models changing, Reed Elsevier has made a bold move into offering free journal content via a web portal in oncology called www.OncologySTAT.com - the site provides free access to current journals from Elsevier's expensive journal titles, paying for it using ads. While Web adverts are nothing new, this combination of open access and ads is new.
www.OncologySTAT.com asks health workers (including librarians) to register and, in exchange, provides immediate access to current cancer-related content from Reed Elsevier's gold standards such as The Lancet and Surgical Oncology. Elsevier wants to sign up 150,000 professional users in the first year to attract advertising from pharmaceutical companies. Is this a new publishing model?
Even though Elsevier posted profits of billions in 2006, it obviously is aware of the impact of open access on the industry and the search enterprise. This move into providing free oncology content using ads might be a viable business model, and may mean a move away from its traditional expensive subscriptions-based model. Time will tell.
--- Note added later: ---
After registering for access, users get a note informing them that they'll have access to:
- Search and download current articles from 100+ Elsevier cancer related journals.
- Literature scans from the top 20 cancer related journals (JCO, JNCI, CA, Blood, NEJM, JAMA, etc.)
- Daily medical and regulatory news from Elsevier Global Medical News Group and FDC Reports' "The Pink Sheet Daily."
- 25+ Cancer Type Spotlights (Breast, Lung, Prostate, etc)
- Professional Drug Monograph and Interactions Database; patient handouts
- Chemotherapy Regimens (The Elsevier Guide to Oncology Drugs & Regimens, 2006 edition)
- Coverage of all major cancer conferences and meetings
- Plus MEDLINE, expert interviews, blogs, videos, and more
--
Posted by Katie Newman at 1:39 PM
As reported in Open Access News...
SPARC has released a letter to its members about PRISM, September 6, 2007. It was written by Heather Joseph, SPARC’s Executive Director.
Excerpt:
I'm writing to bring to your attention the recent launch of an anti-open access lobbying effort. The initiative, called PRISM – the Partnership for Research Integrity in Science and Medicine”, was launched with development support from the Association of American Publishers and specifically targets efforts to expand public access to federally funded research results – including the National Institute of Health’s Public Access Policy.
The messaging on the PRISM Web site, which is aimed at key policy makers, directly corresponds to the PR campaign reportedly undertaken by the AAP earlier this year. As Nature reported in January, AAP publishers met with PR “pit bull” Eric Dezenhall to develop a campaign against the “free-information movement” that focuses on simple messages, such as “public access equals government censorship,” and suggested that “the publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review”. News of this proposed campaign met with immediate and heavy criticism in the academic community.
The new PRISM Web site closely tracks with the recommended PR strategy, highlighting messages that include:
* Public access/open access will destroy the peer review system
* Public access equals government censorship
* The government is trying to expropriate publishers’ intellectual property
This campaign is clearly focused on the preservation of the status quo in scholarly publishing, (along with the attendant revenues), and not on ensuring that scientific research results are distributed and used as widely as possible. The launch of this initiative provides a timely opportunity for engaging faculty members, researchers, students and administrators in dialogue on important issues in scholarly communications.
To assist in this conversation, the Association of Research Libraries has prepared a series of talking points that explicitly address each of the PRISM messages listed above....
The reaction to the launch of PRISM by the academic research community has been immediate and quite strong. Of particular note are reactions by these important constituencies:
1) Some publishers have called for the AAP to post a disclaimer on the PRISM Web site, indicating that PRISM does *not* represent their views on the issues of open access and public access. (See open letter from Mike Rossner, Executive Director of Rockefeller University Press.)
2) Some journal editors have also expressed displeasure with the initiative. For example, Tom Wilson, Editor (and Founder) of the International Journal of Information Management, resigned from that editorial board in protest of Elsevier's involvement with PRISM.
Others, including Peter Murray Rust of the University of Cambridge (UK), have written to publishers with which they are affiliated as author or editor and asked them to take action to publicly disassociate themselves with PRISM.
3) Researchers are also questioning how their choices may result in unwanted association with PRISM. Some are calling for colleagues to register displeasure over publishers’ involvement with PRISM by reconsidering submitting work, reviewing, or editing for publishers who support the coalition (See ). Others are going even further, calling for a boycott of those publishers....
PRISM developments will be of interest to many on campus – including those who follow open access and anyone who is involved with PRISM publishers as an author, editor, or subscriber. Please feel free to share this information. To stay abreast of related news, visit the SPARC Web site or Peter Suber’s Open Access News blog....
Posted by Katie Newman at 5:06 PM
The University of California's Office of Scholarly Communication has just released a new report that is the result of a faculty survey designed to help UC understand trends in scholarly publishing. Perhaps not surprisingly, the survey shows a gap between attitudes and behaviors. Although UC faculty widely express concerns about the need for changes in the current systems of scholarly communication, they largely conform to conventional behavior. Faculty consistently identify the obstacle to change as the existing reward systems of tenure, promotion, and grant-making, which favor traditional publishing forms and venues.
UC faculty appear to be under-informed on a range of issues and initiatives designed to foster innovation in scholarly communication, including some that emanate from their own governance structure and from UC's programs and services. And although they tend to agree that management of copyright is an important factor in the evolution of scholarly publishing, fewer than half of the respondents report that it is an important factor in their own scholarly publishing, and even fewer take action to retain copyright rights.
The report reaches two counter-intuitive conclusions: that the arts and humanities disciplines may be the most fertile disciplines for university-sponsored initiatives in scholarly communication and that senior faculty may be the most fertile targets for innovation in scholarly communication.
Posted by P. Kaufman at 7:43 AM
University LibraryFor comments on this page contact: Kaite Newman
