RE: Library Roles Changing, Open Access Not Compelling

[Kevin Guthrie <Kevin.Guthrie@ithaka.org>]

While there is no doubt that surveys are imperfect vehicles for 
understanding behaviors and attitudes, our work at Ithaka S+R 
suggests they can be of significant value.  It is undeniable that 
when dealing with a group like faculty at 4-year institutions, 
which is large and diverse and for which no reliable census 
exists, sample bias and non-response bias will be at play, as 
they are in any survey based on a sample.

Nonetheless, our view is that these can be managed through 
methodology and through care when analyzing data and drawing 
conclusions.  Moreover, we believe strongly that a well executed, 
replicable study of a large group of faculty is far superior to 
simply assuming that our views and judgments are universally (or 
even widely) held or to relying only on far less rigorous, 
non-representative techniques such as qualitative research.

So it is not surprising that we don't agree with Joe's assertions 
that "people don't know what they think" and "we shouldn't ask 
them."  At the same time, we acknowledge that people cannot 
always evaluate specific new ideas or what they would be likely 
to use.  The greater the difference between what is known and 
understood and what is being proposed, the harder it is for most 
people to project future interest and usage.  At the same time, 
it is certainly true that people understand what is fundamentally 
important to them, what they need and want, what they are 
concerned about, and what problems they would like to solve.

The results for this survey are intended to provide inputs to 
help libraries, publishers, societies, and others interested in 
scholarly communications get further inputs about how these 
faculty perceive and use electronic resources.  And having this 
information, when added to other inputs they get and experience 
they have, will help them develop more effective strategies to 
respond to the changing landscape.  It is business/strategic 
research, not academic research. It is NOT intended to be a 
definitive statement on what is working or not working much less 
on what will ultimately succeed or fail, either in general or for 
specific issues such as open access.

It is with the above described understanding that faculty in this 
study were asked how important a variety of factors are when 
deciding where to publish their work.  That appears to be the 
question at issue in this thread.  Specifically, faculty were 
asked:  "When it comes to influencing your decisions about 
journals in which to publish an article of yours, how important 
to you is each of the following characteristics of an academic 
journal?" When phrased like this, whether a journal was an open 
access journal was less likely to be rated "very important" than 
were a number of other items including:

1)"The current issues of the journal are circulated widely, and 
are well read by scholars in your field" (86% rating very 
important)

2)"The journal permits scholars to publish articles for free, 
without paying page or article charges" (71%)

3)"Measures have been taken to ensure the protection and 
safeguarding of the journal's content for the long term"(65%)

4)"The journal is highly selective; only a small percentage of 
submitted articles are published"(53%)

5)"The journal is accessible to readers not only in developed 
nations, but also in developing nations" (47%).

By comparison the proportion rating "The journal makes its 
articles freely available on the Internet, so there is no cost to 
purchase or read" very important was (40%), giving it a ranking 
of 6 among the 6 items examined.  Moreover, the proportion rating 
open access as very important does not appear to be growing; in 
fact, a higher proportion rated open access "very important" in 
2003 than in 2009.

I would guess that this does not surprise anyone.  These faculty, 
like most people, seem to be motivated by the things that have 
the greatest impact on them.  In this case they are most likely 
interested in ensuring that their research is widely read by 
scholars, that they will be recognized for doing great work, and 
that this recognition will yield rewards for them in their 
career.

In the context of the remarkably successful PLOS journals, these 
data suggest that success has more to do with their audience, 
their editorial boards, and the quality of the articles published 
in these journals than it does whether the journal is open 
access.  The way that this would be helpful to me if I were 
starting an open access journal is that I would spend more of my 
resources on the development of the editorial board and 
communication about who ultimately serves on it than I would in 
marketing the fact that this was an open access alternative. 
This is just an example to illustrate how our research findings 
might be used to help inform decisions or at least suggest 
directions for further analysis.

This approach also applies to the survey results related to the 
valued roles of the library and other topics.  I encourage 
readers to take the results and evaluate them against your own 
experience.  Evaluate them against data you collect from your own 
important constituents. And mix them together to inform your 
strategy.  Our objective in sharing these findings is to 
contribute to the collective understanding of the challenging 
issues facing all of us during this dynamic time.  We hope that 
it will prove to be helpful.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:52 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Library Roles Changing, Open Access Not Compelling

Joe

I think you got it right when you posted at the same time as I
asked my question.  There is often a mis-match between what
people say they do in surveys and what they do in real life.  My
alarm bells ring when a survey posts a result that contradicts
actual behaviour.  I'm a little surprised that the alarm bells
didn't ring for the report's authors.  (I'm less surprised that
they were mute for Scholarly Kitchen as the survey results fit
well with the blog's anti-OA bias.)

But your second answer is way off the mark.  The idea that PLoS
One is not OA as recognised by members of the OA community is
just too odd to argue against.  It is.  And the idea that OA is
ill-defined is just as odd.  But actually, I needn't have used
PLoS One as an example.  I could have used any of the PLoS
journals, or BMC, or Hindawi, or Nucleic Acids Research, etc.
etc.  Or, as Michael points out, any number of subscription-based
journals that charge author fees.

David


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Joseph Esposito
Sent: Mon 19/04/2010 23:56
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Library Roles Changing, Open Access Not Compelling

David,

I don't think there is a simple answer, but part of it is that
PLoS One is not an Open Access service as envisioned by many
members of the OA community.  PLoS One does not have the same
kind of editorial review that the flagship PLoS journals do.  It
does seem to me that authors are supportive of online posting
(PloS One does more than that, of course), and the growth of
openly available material everywhere points to that.  But just
don't call it Open Access, whatever that is.

Here again, I reiterate:  people don't know what they think.  We
shouldn't ask them.

Joe Esposito

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:37 PM, David Prosser wrote:

> Interestingly, while apparently authors have no interest in
> paying to publish in oa journals, PLoS One has become one of
> the world's largest journals after a launch only about 4 years
> ago.
>
> Is there a simple answer to that paradox?
>
> David