Share Plot

& in common

Posts Tagged ‘open access

Communication or Competition: Reading “Open Access: Toward the Internet of the Mind”

leave a comment »

Jean-Claude Guédon, one of the original attendees and signatories of the “Budapest Open Access Initiative” (BOAI) (2002), has written a moral history of the open access movement and a vision for the future of scholarly communication. In “Open Access: Toward the Internet of the Mind,” he provides a narrative of how open access (OA) has evolved (for better and for worse) and calls for an increase in support for cooperative, nonprofit solutions.

Guédon’s narrative revolves around international inequities in scholarly publishing and the damage that these inequities do to the health of communities around the world … and, by association, to all of us. The strength of this approach is that it makes the global exchange of knowledge everyone’s problem. Likewise, it reveals how a system that sort of, sometimes works for the wealthy, is a system that shuts out and excludes other voices. Like most entrenched systems of privilege, it can leave many of its beneficiaries blind, indifferent, or resigned to injustice. On the other hand, the difficulty of building a narrative around global issues is that local responses to the global problem can be hard to imagine. Guédon calls for broad, state-based and organization-based collaboration to build technologies and funding mechanisms to make scholarly communication open for everyone — free to readers, free to authors … which is to say: subsidized by universities, research funders, and governments. Ultimately, one might follow the money back to taxpayers … or, perhaps, “consumers” (a.k.a., students).

For an example of how this cooperative approach might work, Guédon uses OpenAIRE (https://www.openaire.eu/), a European Union supported archival and publishing network. For motivation, he calls all of us to focus on the value of communication (and community) above that of competition (and individualism). Citing William D. Garvey, he insists that the essence of the scientific enterprise is communication … not competition. Thus, authors would communicate with each other the results of their (peer reviewed) scholarship on a distributed, subsidized network such as OpenAIRE.

In his account, the reputation economy is the primary barrier to the global adoption of a shared infrastructure for scholarly communication. As long as individual countries, universities, libraries, journals, and authors rely on reputational rankings (especially the journal impact factor), the nonprofit, cooperative approach will be undermined. In a competition for individual reputations, authors will seek to publish in the existing “top ranked” venues … putting their best work there … and universities will continue to purchase these (if not pay-walled, high publishing fee) titles. In the reputation economy the rich get richer. Right now, comparatively, the “Global North” is rich and the for-profit publishing companies are very rich.

Guédon’s global narrative and account of OA at the crux of a conflict between communication and competition might leave some readers in the United States at a loss for what to do. Even if many U.S. authors might agree that communication is the goal of science, most have been fully co-opted by the competition for reputation. Likewise, the U.S. struggles to adopt non-profit solutions to providing healthcare for its citizens. It’s hard to imagine (particularly in the current political climate) a “big government” or cooperative, nonprofit solution to scholarly publishing. Arguably, many of the U.S. faculty members that edit, write, and review for for-profit publishers (mostly for free) have established (false) allegiances with these brands. When I talk to authors, many worry more about how OA will affect their publisher or their society … even when the journal is owned by one of the big five, for-profit publishers … than they do about how these publishers are draining the budgets of their employers.

So, what is it that Guédon would have a lone U.S. author to do? What is it that he’d want a U.S. academic librarian to do?

I agree with Guédon that scholarship grows best on a foundation of cooperative communication. All the same, I’m fairly certain that more than half of the people living in the United States would rather just let the rich get richer. And, in a political climate in which accusations against the “academic elites” stirs a large political base (e.g., from Wayne LaPierre (see Beckett)), I don’t expect to see much of an increase in public funding for a (non-profit) scholarly publishing infrastructure. On the other hand, if everyone rolls over in a fit of resignation … the world becomes a very dull place.

For my part, I’ll strive to fight the reputation economy. Particularly, reputation competitions based on proxies for quality — especially the journal impact factor. That means finding ways to help authors find more socially responsible, more humane, and more accurate ways of describing the value and importance of the work that they do. In the long run, these more humane approaches to “metrics” will not only alleviate global inequities in scholarship, but will support the health of the humanities (see, for example, HuMetrics), the social sciences, and, of course, libraries. (Librarians, stop offering to help people find journal impact factors … you’re feeding the monopolies and killing your own job.)

I’ll also strive to build systems, workflows, and communities that value the communication in “scholarly communication.” That means working for and on nonprofit open access projects. Not only will that be where I’ll be writing, reviewing, and editing … but that’ll be what I’m advocating for on my campus and in my communities of scholarship. I do not control a large university library budget and I’m just one small voice supporting the reallocation of funds away from for-profit publishing, but my time is valuable and I plan to spend it well.

References

Beckett, L. (2017, May 1). “I agree 100%”: NRA members back Wayne LaPierre attack on “leftist zealots.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/01/nra-wayne-lapierre-guns-leftist-zealots

Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002, February 14). Read the Budapest Open Access Initiative. http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read

Garvey, W. D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: facilitating information exchange among librarians, scientists, engineers, and students. Pergamon Press.

Guédon, J.-C. (2017, February 23). Open Access: Toward the Internet of the Mind. http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/open-access-toward-the-internet-of-the-mind

Mangiafico, P. (2016, May 31). HuMetrics: Building Humane Metrics for the Humanities. https://trianglesci.org/2016/05/31/humetrics-building-humane-metrics-for-the-humanities/

Advertisements

Written by Jere

June 19, 2017 at 2:18 pm

Dear Authors, Don’t Feed the Beast

leave a comment »

If you’re reading this, you probably already know that scholarly publishing is broken. Yes, it “works” for some people, some of the time. If you’re a for-profit publisher you’re probably raking in a 30-40% profit margin (Taylor). I doubt you think that’s a “broken” model. But if you’re an employee of a university, it’s broken and you’re broke … even if you don’t know it. Your university cannot afford to subscribe to the journal literature that your faculty and students want to read–in many cases, your university cannot afford to subscribe to the literature that your faculty and students write. You’re so broke that there’s really no way to crawl out of the hole you’re in–go ahead, raise tuition again, underpay a bunch of adjuncts, force your STM faculty to bring in their salaries in grants, and stop hiring people to teach classes in the humanities. Do it if you want to, but that’s not going to help. Why? Because:

  • Journal prices rise annually by 6-7%–a similar increase is expected for 2016 (Bosch & Henderson).
  • The average price to subscribe to a single journal will top $2,000 in this year.
  • The average price for journal subscriptions in the sciences is absurd. The average price for journals in Chemistry and Physics in 2015 was $4,276.00 USD.
  • What does that really mean? If our gasoline prices had increased over the years at the same rate, we’d now be paying more than $30.00 per gallon. Would you even bother to own a car in that world? (Odell).
  • For-profit publishers have increased their monopoly control on the journal literature you write and read. More than 50% of all articles published are owned by just five companies–70% if you’re in the Social Sciences. (Larivière, Haustein, & Mongeon)
  • Authors do not get royalties for journal articles & they generally do not own copyrights for their work published in journals–which explains, in part, that 40% profit margin.
  • Even so, some subscription journals charge authors page, color, and submission fees. The Journal for Clinical Dentistry, for example, charges authors $800.00 USD per page and then hides the article from all but subscribers. Perhaps that was the only way to publish a glossy print mag for dentists in the 1980s, but JCD is currently ignoring the existence of the Internet & living in a fantasy world where people still read print journals. (JCD)
  • Electronic distribution be-damned, page charges continue to burden university budgets. One institution found that they were paying another 15%-18% on top of the price of subscriptions for page charges in pay-walled journals (Gray).
  • Never missing an opportunity to double-bill and price-gouge their customers, many subscription journal publishers offer authors a choice to make their article open access … for a fee, of course. Libraries call these “Hybrid Open Access” journals, but it should be called predatory publishing.
  • The same big, for-profit publishers charge a typical fee of $3,000 per article if authors want to take advantage of the OA “option”–in 2014 the average Hybrid-OA fee was estimated to be $2,727 USD (Bjork & Solomon). That’s more than the university is probably paying for a subscription. Is it any wonder that the funders are threatening to turn off the tap? (Matthews).
  • Meanwhile, readers want access to your article. Information inequities are so bad that some researchers have a stark choice–starve (go without the literature they need to do research, make good public policy, and treat patients) or break the law (use a pirated copy they found with #icanhazpdf, ResearchGate, or SciHub) (Gardner & Gardner; Murphy)
  • Is it any wonder, then, that by one estimate, the average journal article has fewer than 10 readers? (Biswas & Kirchherr).

So, dear scholarly authors, why do you do it? Why do you give your labor away to publishers that make good profits on your work at the expense of your employers, tax payers, and students? Why do you give your articles to companies that hold your work for ransom? Why do you feed the beast?

You have options. They’re not as hard as you think. Look for best journal for your readers and for the future of your profession. Don’t believe the myths. Look for the evidence. P&T is not the problem you think it is. Self-archive your peer-reviewed manuscripts in an institutional repository, like IUPUI ScholarWorks, for free. Choose a trusted, affordable OA journal. Think before you submit.

Don’t feed the beast.

References

Biswas, A., & Kirchherr, J. (2015, April 9). Citations are not enough: Academic promotion panels must take into account a scholar’s presence in popular media. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/04/09/academic-promotion-scholars-popular-media/

Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2014). Developing an effective market for open access article processing charges. Retrieved from http://www.fnr.lu/en/content/download/11999/65286/version/1/file/Open+Access+Final+Report_130314.pdf

Bosch, S., & Henderson, K. (2015, April 23). Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On | Periodicals Price Survey 2015. Library Journal, 140(7), 35. http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2015/04/publishing/whole-lotta-shakin-goin-on-periodicals-price-survey-2015/

Gardner, C. C., & Gardner, G. J. (2016). Fast and Furious (at Publishers): The Motivations behind Crowdsourced Research Sharing. College & Research Libraries, crl16–840. http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2016/02/25/crl16-840.short

Gray, A. (2015). Considering Non-Open Access Publication Charges in the “Total Cost of Publication.” Publications, 3(4), 248–262. http://doi.org/10.3390/publications3040248

The Journal of Clinical Dentistry – Information for Authors. (2015, May 28). Retrieved March 26, 2016, from https://web.archive.org/web/20150528200811/http://www.jclindent.com/Information.html

Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127502. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Matthews, D. (2016, March 24). Wellcome criticises publishers over open access. Times Higher Education (THE). Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/wellcome-criticises-publishers-over-open-access

Murphy, K. (2016, March 12). Should All Research Papers Be Free? The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/should-all-research-papers-be-free.html

Odell, J. D. (2016). The Lewis Journals-to-Gas-Price Inflation Index, Chemistry and Physics 2015.https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3081787.v1

Taylor, M. (2012, January 13). The obscene profits of commercial scholarly publishers. Retrieved from http://svpow.com/2012/01/13/the-obscene-profits-of-commercial-scholarly-publishers/

Written by Jere

March 26, 2016 at 11:34 am

How Many Repositories Do We Need?

leave a comment »

Last month Kathleen Fitzpatrick announced the launch of a new open access repository for the humanities, CORE. I love repositories and I love open access; so, I’m happy to see it. As a new repository, CORE has the advantage of an existing collection of users, members of MLA Commons–an academic social network that hopes to grow into a larger network for the humanities. MLA Commons/CORE is not the first academic social network to enter the repository space, but it’s the right direction for repository development. Even so, it’s a reactionary development and it’s about a decade too late.

Academia.edu and ResearchGate (RG) have proven that scholarly authors want academic social networking–these authors might poo-poo the notion in department meetings, but when they return to their desks they succumb to barrage of promotional emails from RG and Academia.edu and create profiles on the sites. Now that the sites have active users, luring a portion of them into uploading a few articles or book chapters (copyright be-damned), is not so hard. In this context, the work of uploading an article is akin to posting a nice family photo to Facebook or posting your latest promotion on LinkedIn. It’s not a challenge to the predatory pricing of commercial publishing; it’s not an altruistic commitment to sharing knowledge with a world of readers; it is, rather, a moment for celebrating professional accomplishments.

I wish that library-supported institutional repositories (IRs) had invested more effort in facilitating social networking, but libraries have a long history for quiet spaces and shushing. Libraries like metadata and preservation; social networks are full of chatter. Metadata and preservation are good things, but they do not attract active users–people interested in building an online connections.

So, should IRs scramble to build social-networking features into their software platforms? Probably not–the market-share is elsewhere and one’s academic social network is much broader than the members of a single institution. It would make more sense for IRs to work seamlessly with the social-networking platform of choice. I know that there are some efforts to make this happen, but they are limited by the technical specifications of the many IR software systems and social-networking platforms. If we could start over, would it have been advantageous to pool resources to develop a universal IR system? One that would be exposed, so to speak, to easy ingest in the social-networking tool of choice? Or if not building the one IR to rule them all, why not adopt technical standards that would make it easier for other sites to use our IRs? Wasn’t that part of the point of all that careful metadata people have been creating? And what about the OAI-PMH?

I think the IR software development game is in a world where less is more–competing platforms, new tools for uploading and managing content, dueling disciplinary sites … these are all developments for people that are focused on the wrong customer, the repository manager. These well-intended efforts–efforts that, as a repository manager, I encourage–are ignored by most authors. For most authors, the IR is just another website and kind of an ugly one at that. IRs were designed, like many libraries, on the assumption that content is king–it is not. People, also known as “users,” rule the Internet. IRs do not collect users, but social networks do! So, a social network that moonlights as a repository (even a poor repository), is likely to outperform most IRs. Less would be more: fewer ways to run a repository; fewer teams of people developing new tools; more collaboration across all existing repository platforms; more effort on non-profit, open source systems that focus on people first and content second.

The IR is a powerful tool for increasing open access to scholarship–as such, I’m proud to use it. But, it just might turn out that the social network is the real engine of open access–and if it is, now what?

Written by Jere

November 13, 2015 at 4:58 pm

Support “Academic Freedom” – Let the World Read Your Peer-reviewed, Taxpayer-subsidized Article

leave a comment »

Now and then one needs to vent. In two days I’ve twice encountered the same objection to supporting open access publishing. In short, the objection goes: OA is bad for academic freedom. (Society publishers in the UK recently provided a well-written example of this logic.) As arguments go, I think it shares something in common with the notion that campaign finance reform is an assault on free speech. Opponents of OA latch on to a cherished virtue of the academy and contort it to take aim at the very thing that would give (by retaining copyright) the scholar more freedom with how they share and use their work.

First, retaining your rights and depositing your article in an open repository, seems to me to be a very deliberate act of academic freedom. On the other hand, giving your copyrights away to a publisher that then restricts what you can and cannot do with your work is very much the opposite. Some kind of self-inflicted (or, at best, hapless) loss of academic freedom.

While the first is misaligned, the second, the idea that source of funds to support article processing fees will create undue influence over what is and is not published, is naive. Yes, money is the root of all evil, but doesn’t financial influence drive the direction of research already? Should the NIH stop funding health research? Should universities give up their endowed chairs and the philanthropy that supports them? Money is everywhere, without it much of the scholarly enterprise would shrivel up and die. In fact, money is already a powerful influence in the “traditional” academic publishing market.

Hiding from the inevitable shift to open access publishing because one fears corruption, doesn’t solve anything. It doesn’t correct the corruption that is already a part of the system and it doesn’t protect a new model from that same undue influence. For those that worry about how funds for article processing fees will be managed and distributed, this is the time to get creative. Be a part of the solution.

Written by Jere

January 31, 2013 at 9:39 pm

Moving the Beast: Open Access and the Market

leave a comment »

With Open Access Week approaching, I have been flipping through articles and dreaming of solutions to the economic troubles facing academic libraries. Needless to say, I believe in the cause–information should be widely accessible; knowledge should be “free.” This assertion, however, does not help us answer the question of who is going to pay the bills.

Along these lines, at the end of an article reporting the results of a large survey of editors (n=998) using Open Journal Systems, Edgar and Willinsky make a rousing gesture toward a radical change in the market. After noting that “$8 billion [is] devoted annually for science, technology, and medicine journals alone,” the authors conclude:

Such an investment may appear better directed toward underwriting, for the benefit of humankind, universal access to the scholarly literature. Were the academic community willing, there is enough money on the table … to make this a reality in the years ahead (Edgar, B. D., & Willinsky, J. (2010). A Survey of Scholarly Journals Using Open Journal Systems. Scholarly and Research Communication, 1(2). p. 18. Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/src/index.php/src/article/view/24)

Well then, let’s do it. Or, to be less to the point, what would it take for the academic community to be willing to make this change in how it pays for scholarly communication? Why do universities subscribe to over-priced titles from commercial publishers? I have always assumed (and I would be gladly corrected) it’s a matter of reputation–in large part, it’s keeping-up-with-the-Joneses at the research university level. True, expensive journals do (often?) publish important research and scholars do need access to this research, but why do we need an expensive journal for this job–why not an open access journal? When people stop using expensive titles (to read, to publish, to evaluate faculty productivity), universities will be free to spend their money elsewhere. This sounds like a long term, economic and cultural revolution–perhaps it’s coming, but I expect a lot of disgruntled faculty on the way. See, for example, how dropping an expensive point-of-need, clinical reference tool quickly produces outraged patrons in the medical library. Imagine this battle waged title by title or bundle by bundle!

If change is coming, and I hope it is, it’s time for libraries to get prepared. In my opinion, libraries have a long way to go if they want to compete a publishers. Institutional repositories and open-source journal software have come a long way in recent years and are now trusted tools. But imagine what we could do with a little more support! Perhaps small chunks of the subscription budget could be redirected (without too much screaming from faculty) to develop prototypes to compete with commercial publishing platforms. The money would support better marketing (if it makes you feel better, call it “advocacy” or “outreach”) and slicker interfaces. If reputation is a key driver of faculty adoption, we need scholarly communication services which fit the bill.

Written by Jere

October 10, 2012 at 5:57 pm

Bioethics Journals: 88% Obscure

leave a comment »

A Twitter friend, “orgmonkey“, recently sent me a link to a post on the openness of ethics journals. Jim Till, of Be openly accessible or be obscure, examines the open access policies and the frequency of “free full text” (FFT) publication in leading bioethics journals. In “Assessing medical ethics journals”, Till uses three, free, online tools to build his lists of highly ranked ethics journals: eigenFACTOR.org, Journal-Ranking.com, and SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Thereby avoiding the standard (but not “open”) tool for this sort of research—Thomson Reuters’ Citation Indexes and Journal Citation Reports. Till’s method identified seven, top-ranked titles, publishing a total of 1,472 articles in two years, and providing FFT (as indicated by PubMed) to 181 articles. (Note, however, that 178 of these FFT articles were published in one journal, BMJ’s Journal of Medical Ethics.) Which means that Till’s “leading” bioethics journals are about 12% open (181/1472) – or, to borrow a term from the title of Till’s blog, 88% (1291/1472) “obscure”. In contrast, a similar analysis by Till of immunology journals found that the three top-ranked titles of the field were about 41% open (274/672)—see: “Assessing immunology journals”, 16 April 2008.

If Till’s analysis is correct and bioethics journals are comparatively “obscure”, his post opens the door to three questions:

1. Why are bioethics journals “obscure”?
2. Should ethicists, editors, readers and publishers do anything about this obscurity?
3. If so, what should or could be done to encourage an increase in open access publication of ethics literature?

I have a few ideas on the first question, an opinion on the second, and (thus far) not much to offer on the third. However, if I find the time to share, rest assured that my thoughts here are always “open” and hopefully “accessible”.

Written by Jere

June 28, 2008 at 12:06 am

Posted in Ethics

Tagged with ,