How Do We Ensure “Read” Institutions Can Still Contribute to a “Publish”-oriented OA Ecosystem?
One of the few benefits of the subscription business model is scholars at all institutions (in theory!) *read* scholarly content. Therefore, a business model based on access for institutions does not exclude any scholarly institutional customers. But, not every institution *publishes* scholarly content and, thus far, most Open Access (OA) business models are based upon the service costs of *getting published*. How, then, can we more equitably spread the costs of OA (from which everyone at least benefits even if not everyone publishes) to include all institutions, including those that mainly or solely read content? Speakers will discuss: the roles “read” institutions can and/or should play in an open paradigm how to manage the perennial “free rider” issues (if that is indeed a thing…) the risks associated with losing “read” institutions, and their $$$, from the business model ecosystem the responsibilities of “read” institutions to the OA ecosystem how the speakers and their organizations are proposing to tackle this issue from their various vantage points Speakers will bring both publisher and library perspectives, and this session will represent the cutting edge of OA business model experimentation beyond the APC. Jill Grogg is a Strategist with the Content & Scholarly Communication Initiatives team at LYRASIS. Previously, she was electronic resources coorindator at The University of Alabama Libraries for over a decade. Jason S. Price, Director of Licensing Services, SCELC Lev Rickards, AUL for Collections & Scholarly Communication, Santa Clara University Sara Rouhi, Director, Strategic Partnerships, PLOS Open accessl new business models beyond APCs; metrics; open science; library/publisher partnerships; improv comedy ;) Courtney Young, University Librarian, Colgate University
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
More from NASIG
More from NASIG (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
How Do We Ensure “Read” Institutions Can Still Contribute to a “Publish”-oriented OA Ecosystem?
- 1. How Do We Ensure “Read” Institutions Can Still Contribute to a “Publish”-oriented OA Ecosystem? View in presentation-mode to see animation.
- 2. Jason S. Price Director of Licensing Services, SCELC Library Consortium Jill Grogg Strategist, Content & Schol Comm Initiatives, LYRASIS Courtney Young University Librarian, Colgate University Tw: @librarycourtney Lev Rickards AUL for Collections & Scholarly Communication, Santa Clara University Tw: @mollusc Sara Rouhi Director, Strategic Partnerships, PLOS Tw: @RouhiRoo Today’s speakers
- 3. General thoughts about consortia ● Homogeneous and heterogeneous groups - challenges and opportunities ○ “Research-intensive” (publish) and “teaching-focused” (read) institutions ● All stakeholders currently fund the scholarly communication ecosystem, whether publish or read ● How can we find commonalities across stakeholders for an Open Access landscape?
- 4. LYRASIS 2020 Open Content Survey Report ● Open Access (OA) Scholarship, Open Data, and Open Educational Resources ● Policy creation and adherence ● No uniform financial model has emerged ● Advocating for open content
- 6. Excerpted from: Open Just and Sustainable Project (Mann, 2020) https://inspire.redlands.edu/working/3/ So what do our libraries want us to do?
- 7. What SCELC is doing: Within our community 1) Ongoing discussions that surface disagreement ○ Surveys & Cross-cutting task forces 2) Reconsidering & Renegotiating ○ Avoiding multi-year renewals unless they are transformative ○ “Flat renewals” and cost reductions ○ Both/And: cost savings & OA support 3) Repositioning & Restructuring ○ Mission|Vision|Values & Strategic Plan Beyond our community 1) Working with other California consortia to consider complementary transformative renewals 2) Working with other “Read”-leaning consortia to develop solutions ○ e.g. 4 consortia reviewing the VIVA Sustainable Journal Pricing Model 3) Evaluating Unsub/Unpaywall Journals which provides valuable data libraries need in the context of their big deals
- 8. Why PLOS and libraries? Tw: @RouhiRoo
- 9. Collective action, flat fees, and bundled APCs Tw: @RouhiRoo
- 10. PLOS take on what “Read” means Tw: @RouhiRoo
- 11. Santa Clara University and the OA ecosystem ● Mid-sized Jesuit university committed to open access and transforming scholarly communication ● Fund and staff an institutional repository ● Direct one half of one percent of our acquisitions budget to support transformative open access initiatives. Tw: @mollusc
- 12. How we use our Open Access fund ● Fairly easy to support open monograph initiatives ○ Lever Press ○ Luminos ○ Knowledge Unlatched ● What about journals? ○ Five-year agreement with Brill to flip a journal ○ Annual Reviews Subscribe to Open ○ We have avoided APC deposit accounts out of concerns about equity ○ We are searching for other business models to support open journals Tw: @mollusc
- 13. How does your organization define “read”? What is the role of a “Read” org in transformative agreements? Will “Read” orgs and their money actually leave the publishing ecosystem? What challenges does your “Read” org currently face? How Do We Ensure “Read” Institutions Can Still Contribute to a “Publish”-oriented OA Ecosystem? Q&A Discussion @nasig #nasig20
Editor's Notes
- SCELC is California-based Consortium of libraries serving small to mid-size institutions. Our group of “Read” Institutions represents one to two-thirds of the traditional big deal spend by California institutions on these three major publishers content. This isn’t a problem in and of itself… as we represent the majority of institutions, most of whom are getting good value for their subscription dollars. [CLICK] The issue is, that these “Read” institutions author (very approximately) only 15-20% of the articles published by California authors in those publishers journals [CLICK] So, our institutions are currently paying 2 to 3 times more than they would pay in a fully-transformed, pay-to-publish world. [CLICK] Can we expect the “rest of California”, research & publish focused institutions or their authors to fund that gap overnight? Surely not, if they are going to come anywhere close to their cost neutral objectives. This is certainly not a surprise to the big deal publishers, but it was news to us. Read institutions have a lot of skin in the game, and significantly more open publishing from the advancing pay to publish model poses a major threat to a huge portion of big deal publisher revenue. Lest I leave you with the impression that this dynamic only exists between consortia, I want to confirm that the same dynamic exists WITHIN our consortium and others that include both read and publish libraries. So, given this gap what role can read institutions play?