I have been attending a lot about "Open Access" lately. Between attending Open Science: Driving Forces and Practical Realities and Eileen Joy's Freedom, Responsibility, E-Publishing, and Building New Cultural-Intellectual Publics, my brain in still processing Green Open Access, Gold Open Access, Open Science, Open Data, Self Archiving, et al.
Open Science forum two things stood out to me. Dr. John King, from the University of Michigan, made the observation that tenure would end. He didn't know when. He didn't favor it. He was seeing signs that it was ending, a increasing percentage of professors and teachers were holding non tenure track positions. In the afternoon session, The Future of Open Science, one of the state roadblocks is no one wants to pay for Open Science. Everyone likes the idea of freely available peer reviewed papers, but no one is willing to pay for it. Each organization looks to someone else to provide the infrastructure. Publishers don't want to reduce profits for Open Science. Schools see Open Science as an added cost. Agencies don't think they can sell the costs to the public.
The marginal cost of information is extremely low.1 Many would insist information should be free. It is not. It is like a free lunch. Even if you're not paying for it someone is. Usually they expect something in return. People who create and disseminate information need to have access to broadcast information. That costs something. They like to eat. That costs something. There needs to freedom to broadcast information and appropriate limits to protect information that could be harmful to others. Enforcement and protection cost money. Sometimes these costs are born by a publisher. Sometimes they are born by the author, sometimes they are born by someone else, usually a government, or an advertiser.
I see a potentially bad scenario: a young researcher is trying to get tenure. The requirements are publication and citation. A paper is accepted at a high impact open access journal. The researcher can choose to pay to have the article open and more likely to be cited, or behind a pay wall. The University does not pay publishing fees for non-tenure researchers. We have a classic catch-22 - if you're tenured you are printed in open journals and cited. In order to be tenured you need to be cited. In order to be cited you need to be in an open access journal. In order to be open in an open access journal you need to pay, but the University doesn't pay publication costs for non-tenured researchers. The problem has an eerie resemblance to payola schemes.
There are a host of things to keep this from happening, not the least of which is funding agencies my allow portions of a grant to go to publication costs. Right now, most publishers wave the price for open if the research can't pay. It will be interesting to see where this all goes.
1 I would like to see someone actually sit down and figure out the cost of a page of internet information. Not how much does it cost me the user, but how much did it cost. You know, it takes three hours to type and edit one page of 500 words on a computer, assuming a wage of $X per hour, prorated cost of computer equipement/cell phone/tablet, cost of internet connection, server costs to host for a year, etc. what does information actually cost?
Friday, November 22, 2013
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Deer in the Headlights at Postdam
Thirty years ago, I woke up early, got into my little red truck and started down US 30 to get to a job. I needed to be there at 5:30 to be ready for the day's round of testing and would be traveling rural roads. Somewhere, in Norwin, I spotted a doe running across the freeway. I didn't spot the buck following her. He saw me and froze.
Jenica Rogers gave the opening remarks at yesterday's session of the Charleston Conference. She likened librarians to the deer in the headlight, unable to move out of the way of the oncoming danger. In her analogy the danger is the ever increasing abusive nature of publisher "deals" for electronic subscriptions and price increases that exceed inflation.
I collided with the deer. The front end of my truck was pushed into the engine. The buck died. The truck died. I didn't work that day. I didn't get paid, and I spent time and a lot of money getting the truck moving again.
My concern is academic publishing could be like music publishing with the advent of the xerox copier. Musicians upset with the price of sheet music circumvented copyright. Publishers increase prices in an attempt to regain lost revenue. A vicious cycle of price increases and copying ensued leaving fewer music publishers and less available sheet music. Academic publishers are consolidating into relatively large for profit corporations. Technology and changes in laws and regulations are potentially creating environments that are hostile to some business models.
I believe the on-coming lights are a rapidly moving train. The train is the changing information environment. To avoid the on-coming train, libraries and publishers will need to work together to get out of the way. The current apparent hostilities between academic libraries and some publishers could be analogous to labor relations that exacerbated situations like the decline of the steel industry and the collapse of the American automotive industry. Generally, labor and owners lost. Replicating this experience in academic publishing could result in a situation where we all lose.
I would propose a detente of sorts. Both sides would need to make concessions. Publishers need to avoid killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Libraries have budgets, increasing prices, especially subscription prices make this a zero sum game. Solving for this quarter's profits will ultimately end with subscription cuts as libraries look for other ways to provide access to information sources. Librarians will, as Jenica Rogers did, say no when terms become too onerous. Discontinuing packages, requiring long term contracts, and tiered pricing all put pressure on budgets that may result in the hard decision coming sooner rather than later.
Publishers need to look long and hard at the services they provide. It is important to do those services well and to highlight subscriptions are for those services. As long as academic institutions provide the content for free, it is important to make sure the editorial, archiving, and indexing services are truly top notch and justify the cost. High impact factor is not a justification for price. High editorial standards with rapid publication and good findability are.
Librarians need to lose the hostility. Remembering past transgressions doesn't improve the situation today. If you don't like a publisher, don't do business with them. For some academic uses journals are fungible. Often, a researcher needs an article not the article. Librarians should recognize the publishers are providing services. Publishers should be paid for providing those services. Information is not free, it takes human effort to create and distribute.
I believe publishers and libraries need each other. We need good relations. We need fair pricing. We need a long view to stay ahead of changes. If we don't we may all be looking for a new profession.
Jenica Rogers gave the opening remarks at yesterday's session of the Charleston Conference. She likened librarians to the deer in the headlight, unable to move out of the way of the oncoming danger. In her analogy the danger is the ever increasing abusive nature of publisher "deals" for electronic subscriptions and price increases that exceed inflation.
I collided with the deer. The front end of my truck was pushed into the engine. The buck died. The truck died. I didn't work that day. I didn't get paid, and I spent time and a lot of money getting the truck moving again.
My concern is academic publishing could be like music publishing with the advent of the xerox copier. Musicians upset with the price of sheet music circumvented copyright. Publishers increase prices in an attempt to regain lost revenue. A vicious cycle of price increases and copying ensued leaving fewer music publishers and less available sheet music. Academic publishers are consolidating into relatively large for profit corporations. Technology and changes in laws and regulations are potentially creating environments that are hostile to some business models.
I believe the on-coming lights are a rapidly moving train. The train is the changing information environment. To avoid the on-coming train, libraries and publishers will need to work together to get out of the way. The current apparent hostilities between academic libraries and some publishers could be analogous to labor relations that exacerbated situations like the decline of the steel industry and the collapse of the American automotive industry. Generally, labor and owners lost. Replicating this experience in academic publishing could result in a situation where we all lose.
I would propose a detente of sorts. Both sides would need to make concessions. Publishers need to avoid killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Libraries have budgets, increasing prices, especially subscription prices make this a zero sum game. Solving for this quarter's profits will ultimately end with subscription cuts as libraries look for other ways to provide access to information sources. Librarians will, as Jenica Rogers did, say no when terms become too onerous. Discontinuing packages, requiring long term contracts, and tiered pricing all put pressure on budgets that may result in the hard decision coming sooner rather than later.
Publishers need to look long and hard at the services they provide. It is important to do those services well and to highlight subscriptions are for those services. As long as academic institutions provide the content for free, it is important to make sure the editorial, archiving, and indexing services are truly top notch and justify the cost. High impact factor is not a justification for price. High editorial standards with rapid publication and good findability are.
Librarians need to lose the hostility. Remembering past transgressions doesn't improve the situation today. If you don't like a publisher, don't do business with them. For some academic uses journals are fungible. Often, a researcher needs an article not the article. Librarians should recognize the publishers are providing services. Publishers should be paid for providing those services. Information is not free, it takes human effort to create and distribute.
I believe publishers and libraries need each other. We need good relations. We need fair pricing. We need a long view to stay ahead of changes. If we don't we may all be looking for a new profession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)