Open access monographs

["Brunner, Marta" <martab AT library.ucla.edu>]

Thanks, Brian, for jumping in with the library perspective.  The point of view you offer accords for the most part with mine here at UCLA.  Our budgets are taking a huge hit over the next few years as the California state budget continues to tank.  From the perspective of a bibliographer "on the ground," I would also note that our library is currently much more interested in *purchasing* monographic content than *subscribing* to series or online collections simply because we do not want to lose access to that content if our collections budgets for this content continue to dry up.  Also, we are hesitant to spend money on anything that we already have in another form these days, so for me personally, selecting in the areas of literature and now also history, I would favor new monographs over re-publications, though my position on that may change over time.  Regarding Brian's important point about the packaging/interfaces/functionality that commercial vendors supply, the added value that OHP could supply which few commercial vendors are supplying these days is the open access part: knowing that scholars on our campuses could use this content freely for educational/scholarly purposes without needing to seek permissions, pay royalties, etc.

 

A thought on funding:  At the risk of repeating what some of you have undoubtedly already thought, I wanted to say that this open access monograph project/initiative seems ideal for Mellon funding.  Having spoken with Don Waters in my former capacity as a Council on Library and Information Resources postdoctoral fellow, I understand Mellon looking for the following:

-impact: scholarly projects that are going to make a tangible difference in higher ed

-user-driven projects/initiatives: where institutions and scholars say what their needs are

-scope: institutional collaboration is favored

-seed money: the project must incorporate plan for viability/sustainability after the Mellon funds run out

 

Marta

 

****************

Marta L. Brunner, Ph.D.
Librarian for U.S./U.K. Literature and Comparative Literature,

   U.S./U.K. History and the History of Technology

11360D Charles E. Young Research Library
UCLA - Box 951575
Los Angeles, California 90095-1575
Tel: 310-825-1249
Fax: 310-825-3777
martab AT library.ucla.edu
http://courseweb.lis.uiuc.edu/~m.brunner/portfolio.html
http://blogs.library.ucla.edu/literature/

---

From: ohp-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Brian Owen
Sent: Tue 7/1/2008 5:46 PM
To: ohp AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [OA-monographs] A Library Perspective

Let me attempt to provide a library perspective on the recent discussion threads, especially as they pertain to the redistribution of existing library budgets.  These budgets do appear to be substantial and it would seem to be a simple matter to redirect some small proportion to support alternative publishing ventures.  John pointed out the recent University of Calgary announcement of an open access publishing fund.  Many other libraries are also supporting similar ventures directly or indirectly.  However, it is often being done in a tentative or “pilot project” mode.   At the Janus Conference on Research Library Collections held at Cornell in late 2005, one of the draft proposals was:

 

“Research libraries will identify existing scholarly communication
efforts that model basic characteristics of a good disciplinary
repository. Working with key players in a chosen field, each library
will use these models to develop a repository that ensures access and
preservation to existing resources and jump starts new models of
scholarship. Key players may include scholarly societies, university
presses, foundations, inter-disciplinary institutes and think tanks, and
strong advocates on campus. Functionality will include aspects scholars
require, such as peer review. Libraries will assume the risk for success
and failure. The materials budget will serve as venture capital, with a
recommended minimum annual investment of $50,000.”

 

Sounds exactly like what is needed.  However, that recommendation did not make it to the final report – “The group believes there is not a clear direction at this time.”  Granted a few years have passed, but libraries still seem to be struggling with the best way to support open access publications and alternative publishing ventures.  Some observations:

 

1. Library collections budgets are not as substantial as they may appear.  Inflation, institutional cutbacks, and price hikes (although not as exorbitant as what was occurring through the ‘90s.) continue to take their toll on purchasing capacity.

 

2. Library collections budgets continue to struggle with the distribution between serials and monograph purchasing.  Typically, the share allocated for monographs is more likely to be reduced when cutbacks are required.

 

3. Non-print resources, electronic and other media, continue to grow and compete for some share of the collections budget.

 

4. Library purchasing consortia have been extremely successful during the past decade, especially for group purchases of electronic resources.  One downside is that an increasing share of library collections budgets is now committed to multi-year consortial purchases.  This often has the consequence of reducing local autonomy in making significant or timely collections budget changes.

 

In summary, as large as these budgets may appear, they do not have much room for new or discretionary allocations.  What book won’t be purchased, or which journal subscription will be cancelled to provide new purchasing capacity?  Any librarian who has participated in a serials cancellation project can tell you that there are many other stewards of library collections out there who do not take it kindly when a journal of importance to them ceases to be purchased by the library.

 

Despite the above observations, I do agree with the notion that what needs to be done is a redistribution of library collections budgets so that an appropriate component can be directed to support open access and other alternative publishing models.  I think there are two areas that require attention: competitive viability and payment (or redistribution) mechanisms.

 

Commercial vendors are offering more than high quality, peer-reviewed content.  They package and present it in ways that make it very attractive and easy for libraries to purchase it and for users to find what they are looking for.   The “big deal” purchases of many library consortia have been criticized, but they provide some powerful incentives – hundreds or thousands of titles brought together in a single, standard interface; powerful search and user-oriented functionality; one invoice and one vendor to deal with, etc.  Content aggregation (the notion of mixing “classics” and new publications is an intriguing way to create aggregation) in conjunction with powerful and functional user interfaces are the added value components that alternative publishing ventures should have no hesitation in emulating…and even charging for.  These are certainly priority development areas for OJS and other PKP software modules in the near future.

 

Payment mechanisms are challenging, largely because library consortia have become much more successful in dealing with the commercial vendors.  In many cases this was accomplished by emulating standard procurement practices such as the issuing of Requests for Proposals and developing model licenses.  Alternative publishing ventures, especially open access publications, do not fare well in these processes – “so what exactly is it that you’re selling?”

 

This may sound trite, but perhaps the best way to achieve that redistribution of library collections budgets is to provide the libraries with something they can purchase – aggregation and value-added services; and a subscription or equivalent way to pay for it.  The open source software world has seen the growth of many successful business models that are built on all of the value-added services that do not in any way diminish the fact the software is still readily and freely available for downloading and use by anyone.    

 

Memberships have diminished considerably during the past few decades, but many libraries used to purchase a “library” membership in learned societies or associations that provided them with the same publications as all other members.  These memberships were simply managed as a special type of subscription in the Serials Division.

 

_____
G.W. Brian Owen
Associate Univ. Libn. Processing & Systems
Simon Fraser University Library
8888 University Drive
Burnaby, B.C.  V5A 1S6
Tel: (778) 782-7095
Email: brian_owen AT sfu.ca