Emerald have some author workshop tutorials on video somewhere but I found this on YouTube - might be worthlooking at too.

Eileen Breen and Gillian Crawford, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK

It is the ALA ACRL’s  belief that scholars are losing access to the body of knowledge because of the policies and practices used in the current model of scholarly communication.  Change is needed to regain control of the process.  It was asserted that bringing control back into the academy would improve access.  The pre-conference sought to help attendees become conversant with the issues, and provide tools to use back in their universities for creating this change.

The pre-conference urged librarians to help create change by:

·         Lobbying for antitrust action re. publisher mergers

·         Setting up alternatives to the current publishing system/model. The ACRL are currently in discussions about open access for their own publication.

·         Fighting the current publishing system/model.

Their premis was one of potential ‘monopoly’ by certain publishers.  Elsevier’s profits were likened to those of Microsoft.

‘Tension comes from conflicting goals  - in most markets, the buyer and the seller have choices, however in this market, the article cannot be replaced by another, it’s unique’.

Publishing

The pre-conference did not consider the possibility of increased access having been brought about by commercial publishers’ investment in e-publishing technology.  Nor did it discuss the marketing and distribution services provided by the publishing industry.  The constantly increasing amount of scholarship was cited as the reason why publishing moved out of the academy in the first place (in the post-war period) into the hands of a dedicated industry.  There was no acknowledgement made that the publishing capacity required to meet demand might be a barrier to taking publishing back into the academy.

The history and latest developments in serials and book pricing, mergers and acquisitions was outlined. Evidence was presented of a positive correlation between changes of ownership and higher pricing.   This pricing forces libraries to make collection decisions, which cause scholars to have limited access to the body of knowledge.  ARL cancellation data were presented as evidence of this loss of access.  Even the largest US research library now only holds 70% coverage of the 100 top scientific journals.  No historical figures were given to indicate when the largest US research library had and then lost this total coverage of the 100 top scientific journals.

The “big deal” was heavily criticised.  It was argued that there is a disconnect between journal value (measured by ISI citation) and cost (price per page).  Also that it has a limiting effect on the diversity of collections when combined with rising prices.

These economic pressures faced by academic institutions are having a knock-on effect on university presses.  They are no longer being subsidised and, as such, are under severe stress.

Alternative models

Open access models were put forward as an alternative to the current situation.  Where the author pays, fees can range from approximately $500 to $1500 per article. The reaction to this charging structure was positive and it was agreed to be more manageable than the current situation.  The pricing does seem to be higher than some journal annual subscriptions, however.

There were three ways in which fees could be collected:

1.       Author pays a fee  per article  (outlined above)

2.       The Institution pays a membership fee to the open access repository – then all their faculty members can publish without paying an additional fee

3.       The Institution pays a lesser joining fee and the individual academics pay per article

Ability to pay was also discussed and it was suggested that if the author/institution was not able to pay fees, that they would be waived or reduced.   These authors wonder how a business (even  if it is not for profit) can be based on the level of uncertainty of potential income which this scenario suggests.

Librarians were provided with the knowledge and tools to engage faculty and administrators on scholarly communications issues because they, as well as librarians, also have power in the system. These tools have been designed to position librarians so they can talk to faculty from the base of faculty’s concerns.   Open access journals, open archives and repositories were detailed as being alternatives to the current publishing system/model which librarians should persuade their faculty to support.  Berkeley is one institution that has formed a committee on scholarly communication – and the librarian talked of their difficulty in engaging faculty.

Librarians were urged to educate their faculty about copyright, i.e. do not assign it to publishers because they can limit access to your work via licence terms such as no electronic ILL, no provision for local preservation/archiving of the information libraries subscribe to.  The growing trend of universities to assert their right to ownership of the work of their staff so authors are not in a position to assign copyright to publishers, was outlined.   Legislative initiatives such as the Digital Media Consumer Rights act and the “Sabo Bill” were also described.

Librarians were urged to stimulate discussion on their campuses of the crisis in scholarly communication, which limits access to their work via:

·         Payment barrier of subscription prices

·         The exclusivity of Big Deals, i.e. removes some of librarians’ collection choice

·         Publishers leasing rather than selling a copy of authors’ work

·         Restrictive licencing e.g. in relation to electronic ILL

·         Restrictive copyright policies

·         DMCA which is seen as restricting fair use

at

·         Institutional public events

·         Department/disciplinary discussions

·         Personal interaction.

Phrases such as ‘forcing change’ and incentivising faculty to take action were used.  The following literature was handed out:

·         Actions which faculty with tenure can take

·         Actions which librarians can take

·         ACRL’s “Principles and strategies for the reform of scholarly communication”

·         A reading list (electronic and traditional resources)

·         Preconference delegate list (52 people including the 5 presenters).

·         ALA’s 2004 copyright agenda

·         Leaflets: “A  guide to creating community controlled science journals – declaring independence”, by SPARC.

“Create: new systems of scholarly communication”, by ARL

“Open access”, by SPARC

“Actions which faculty can take” include:

·         If you are an editor or EABmember of a subscription based journal, examine the business practices of that journal, e.g. pricing, licencing, copyright and lobby for scholarship-friendly policies.   Include your librarian when meeting with the publisher’s representative. Consider relinquishing editorial positions with journals which are not scholarship-friendly, telling the publisher why and announcing your decision on the listserves

·         Then consider creating an alternative or open access journal

·         Consider declining offers to review for unreasonably expensive journals.  Notify the journal of your reason and communicate it on the listserves. 

·         Modify any author contract you sign with a publisher to ensure that you retain your rights to use your work as you see fit, including posting to an institution or disciplinary repository

·         Submit papers to quality journals which have reasonable pricing practices, where possible open access ones.  Notify unreasonably expensive journals of  your decision to submit elsewhere and communicate it on the listserves

·         Deposit preprints and postprints in repositories

·         Write for open access journals

·         Encourage acceptance of electronic and alternative publications in tenure and promotion decisions

·         Support the library’s cancellation of expensive, low-uses titles or its decision to reject aggregated e-journal licence agreements

“Actions which librarians can take” (as well as encouraging all the above by their organisation’s faculty), include:

·         Consider rejecting bundled or aggregated licence agreements that are unreasonably priced (or that lack reasonable access provisions) and issue a public statement explaining why

·         Consider same for unreasonably expensive journals

·         Negotiate with vendors for full access rights for walk-in patrons and the right to use content for electronic ILL and e-reserves

Peter Suber’s article   - ‘Permissions Crisis’ College and Research Library News, was referenced as useful for further reading.  This article discusses the legal and technological barriers of large journal electronic licence agreements.  It suggests that these squeeze out smaller publishers and remove the ability of the librarian to select content, resulting in a smaller number of bigger publishers controlling research material.

This was seen as linked to Anti-trust issues relating to mergers  - the ultimate result being scholars losing access to research.

Another useful reference is  “The academic publishing industry: a story of merger and acquisition” http://www.niulib.niu.edu/publishers/ where the history of 12 large publishers is charted:

Blackwell Publishing                                          Reed Elsevier Group

Bertelsmann AG                                                   Springer Science + Business Media

Candover and Cinven                                         Taylor and Francis Group

John Wiley and Sons Inc                                     The Thomsen Corporation

McGraw Hill Inc                                                    Wolters Kluwer NV

Pearson Plc                                                           Verlasggsgrupe Georg

Thank you for your interest in blogging conference reports at Library Hi Tech News (LHTN).

LHTN is published in print, and online through the Emerald fulltext database at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/info/journals/lhtn/lhtn.jsp (10 times per year). Permanence is achieved if your conference report gets selected by the editors for inclusion in one of these ten issues per year which are fully archived.

LHTN publishes indepth reports of conferences, both internationally known and less known. The emphasis is on high tech and its use especially - but not exclusively - in the library and information services field.

Our readers love going to conferences. Unfortunately, economics and time limitations prevent them from going to as many as they would like. They're counting on you to tell them what they missed.

But they want to know more than just who spoke and the titles of their presentations. What did the speakers say? Include quotes and anecdotes. How did the audience respond? If any questions from the audience generated significant answers, discuss them also. Include any relevant Web addresses our readers can consult for further information.

And feel free to evaluate, but positively. "This was horrible" doesn't make it. "The presentation failed in these specific ways...." does, especially if you can add reasoned suggestions.