Re: Roundtable Press Release (Access to Research Results)

[Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>]

This is an important step forward inasmuch as it is the first 
time in recent memory that people from these different groups 
have actually been able to agree about where we need to go in 
shaping the future of scholarly communication.

There are two dissenters, one from PLoS who wants everyone to 
rush ahead directly into full OA even though the ground has not 
yet been laid, financially, for that to be able to happen across 
the board, even in science let alone in the humanities and social 
sciences, and the other from Elsevier who favors the approach the 
AAP has long supported, viz., separating the reports of research 
that government agencies can rightly demand for posting publicly 
from the journal articles derived from them that incorporate the 
value added by private-sector publishers.

Although this document primarily focuses on STM journal 
publishing as it relates to government-funded research in the 
U.S., it does not limit itself to that, and its recommendations 
have far broader implications.

The report favors the "Version of Record" for posting on public 
sites so as to avert the problems that arise from having multiple 
versions of articles in existence.  I strongly favor that 
approach as well, but it obviously has major repercussions for 
humanities journals publishers like my press depending on the 
length of the embargo period imposed.

At one point it is admitted that while an embargo period ranging 
from zero (for OA journals) to 12 months may work for most 
scientific disciplines, a longer period may be needed for other 
areas, like the humanities. The report does not suggest how long 
such am embargo might need to be, so I pose that question to this 
list.

Here is the way I would phrase the challenge and the threat: what 
period of time would be long enough for humanities journals not 
to jeopardize library subscriptions to journals published by 
university presses, and in particular to Project Muse on which so 
many of us smaller presses vitally depend? Since humanities 
research does not usually have such time sensitivity as much of 
scientific literature does, would libraries be tempted to drop 
their subscriptions to Project Muse if they could get all the 
journals in it via OA within 6 months?  a year? 18 months? two 
years?

The threat for smaller presses like Penn State is that if Project 
Muse collapses, so does our entire journals program, since we 
have come to rely on Muse for approximately 2/3rds of our revenue 
and have no in-house capability to publish journals 
electronically otherwise. We would at best be in a position of 
selling them to other, larger presses, either non-profit or 
commercial, which would increase consolidation in the field 
further and/or lead to higher subscription prices for those 
journals.

I realize that the answer to my question may depend on what type 
of library yours is.  A large ARL research library might not 
think about dropping Project Muse unless the embargo period were 
very short, say, six months, whereas a smaller liberal arts 
college might find it could wait a year to get the journal 
content free.

I'm also wondering if there would be any significant difference 
here between humanities and social science journal literature. 
Probably, as a very broad generalization, the latter is more 
time-sensitive than the former.

If any librarians care to speculate about this question, either 
directly on this list or in reply to me privately, please 
identify what type of library you represent.

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press


>Joe Esposito sends this comment:  "This is likely to be of
>interest to members of this list, a report from the Association
>of American Universities on scholarly communications.  Here is
>the shortened link:  http://bit.ly/71v0X5 - That will take you to
>the home page.  You need to download the PDF, which doesn't seem
>to have its own URL.
>
>************************************
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS CONTACTS:
>January 12, 2010
>
>Barry Toiv
>Association of American Universities
>barry_toiv@aau.edu
>
>Jason Bardi
>American Institute of Physics
>jbardi@aip.org
>
>EXPERT PANEL CALLS ON U.S. RESEARCH AGENCIES TO DEVELOP POLICIES
>FOR PROVIDING FREE PUBLIC ACCESS TO FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH
>RESULTS
>
>Policies Should Protect Peer-Reviewed Publications While Ensuring
>Rapid Access
>
>An expert panel of librarians, library scientists, publishers,
>and university academic leaders today called on federal agencies
>that fund research to develop and implement policies that ensure
>free public access to the results of the research they fund 'as
>soon as possible after those results have been published in a
>peer-reviewed journal.'
>
>The Scholarly Publishing Roundtable was convened last summer by
>the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology, in
>collaboration with the White House Office of Science and
>Technology Policy (OSTP).  Policymakers asked the group to
>examine the current state of scholarly publishing and seek
>consensus recommendations for expanding public access to
>scholarly journal articles.
>
>The various communities represented in the Roundtable have been
>working to develop recommendations that would improve public
>access without curtailing the ability of the scientific
>publishing industry to publish peer-reviewed scientific articles.
>
>The Roundtable's recommendations, endorsed in full by the
>overwhelming majority of the panel (12 out of 14 members), 'seek
>to balance the need for and potential of increased access to
>scholarly articles with the need to preserve the essential
>functions of the scholarly publishing enterprise,' according to
>the report.
>
>'I want to commend the members of the Roundtable for reaching
>broad agreement on some very difficult issues,' said John Vaughn,
>executive vice president of the Association of American
>Universities, who chaired the group. 'Our system of scientific
>publishing is an indispensible part of the scientific enterprise
>here and internationally. These recommendations ensure that we
>can maintain that system as it evolves and also ensure full and
>free public access to the results of research paid for by the
>American taxpayer.'
>
>The Roundtable identified a set of principles viewed as essential
>to a robust scholarly publishing system, including the need to
>preserve peer review, the necessity of adaptable publishing
>business models, the benefits of broader public access, the
>importance of archiving, and the interoperability of online
>content.
>
>In addition, the group affirmed the high value of the 'version of
>record' for published articles and of all stakeholders'
>contributions to sustaining the best possible system of scholarly
>publishing during a time of tremendous change and innovation.
>
>To implement its core recommendation for public access, the
>Roundtable recommended the following:
>
>*Agencies should work in full and open consultation with all
>stakeholders, as well as with OSTP, to develop their public
>access policies.
>
>*Agencies should establish specific embargo periods between
>publication and public access.
>
>*Policies should be guided by the need to foster
>interoperability.
>
>*Every effort should be made to have the Version of Record as the
>version to which free access is provided.
>
>*Government agencies should extend the reach of their public
>access policies through voluntary collaborations with
>non-governmental stakeholders.
>
>*Policies should foster innovation in the research and
>educational use of scholarly publications.
>
>*Government public access policies should address the need to
>resolve the challenges of long-term digital preservation.
>
>*OSTP should establish a public access advisory committee to
>facilitate communication among government and nongovernment
>stakeholders.
>
>In issuing its report, the Roundtable urged all interested
>parties to move forward, beyond 'the too-often acrimonious' past
>debate over access issues towards a collaborative framework
>wherein federal funding agencies can build 'an interdependent
>system of scholarly publishing that expands public access and
>enhances the broad, intelligent use of the results of federally
>funded research.'
>
>The report, as well as a list of Roundtable members, member
>biographies, and the House Science and Technology Committee's
>charge to the group, can be found at
>
>http://www.aau.edu/policy/scholarly_publishing_roundtable.aspx?id=6894
>
>For more information, contact:
>
>John Vaughn (Chair)
>Executive Vice President
>Association of American Universities
>202-408-7500
>john_vaughn@aau.edu
>
>Paul N. Courant
>University Librarian and Dean of Libraries
>University of Michigan
>(734) 764-9356
>pnc@umich.edu
>
>Fred Dylla
>Executive Director and CEO
>American Institute of Physics
>(301) 209-3131
>dylla@aip.org
>
>James J. O'Donnell
>Professor of Classics
>Provost
>Georgetown University
>202-687-2015
>provost@georgetown.edu
>
>Ann Okerson
>Associate University Librarian
>Yale University
>203-432-1764
>ann.okerson@yale.edu
>
>Crispin Taylor
>Executive Director
>American Society of Plant Biologists
>301-296-0900
>ctaylor@aspb.org
>
>
>#####


-- 
Sanford G. Thatcher
Executive Editor for Social Sciences and Humanities
Penn State University Press
8201 Edgewater Drive
Frisco, TX  75034-5514
e-mail: sgt3@psu.edu
Phone: (214) 705-9010
http://www.psupress.org

"If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865)

"The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people
who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853)