Don's Conference Notes--NASIG at 30: Building the Digital Future

Against the Grain, Dec 2015

By Donald T. Hawkins and Steve Oberg, Published on 09/01/15

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7152&context=atg

Don's Conference Notes--NASIG at 30: Building the Digital Future

Strasser C. (2014) Recommendations for the Role of Publishers in Access to Data. PLoS Biol 12(10): e1001975. doi:10.1371/journal. pbio.1001975 Don's Conference Notes--NASIG at 30: Building the Digital Future Donald T. Hawkins 0 Wheaton College 0 0 0 by Guest Columnist Steve Oberg, Assistant Professor, Electronic Resources and Serials, Wheaton College , Wheaton, IL , USA - Don’s Conference Notes NASIG at 30: Building the Digital Future Column Editor’s Note: Because of space limitations, this is an abridged version of Steve’s report on this conference. You can read the full article at http://www.against-the-grain. com/2015/09/v27-4-dons-conference-notes/. — DTH TNorth American Serials Interest he 30th anniversary meeting of the Group (NASIG) was held May 27-30, 2015 in Arlington, VA. One of the highlights of the meeting was a joint session on May 27 with the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP). Joint NASIG-SSP Session The joint session featured five speakers discussing information policy issues: open access (OA), grant funder submission and publication requirements, management and preservation of data sets, access for the print disabled, intellectual property, copyright law, and fair use. About 150 librarians, publishers, and vendors attended. “You can’t herd cats, but you can move the cat food!” was the most memorable quote from this all-day session. The session began with a publisher per spective by Jayne Marks, Vice President of Publishing, Wolters Kluwer, who noted that: • Print is not dead; • People do not want one format (e.g. print) or another (e.g. electronic), they want multiple formats; • Adoption of (and attitudes toward) OA vary across disciplines; • Publishers face enormous pressures on costs and revenues, while at the same time demand for content in multiple formats is increasing; • Publishers are not sure what is expected of them in the area of data management, especially in the healthcare market, because of regulatory issues. Marks feels that it important for publishers to listen, respond, be engaged, question, experiment, be user focused, and adapt. In the Q&A session that followed, audience members asked questions such as: • • • How do we better describe and champion OA? How do traditional publishers re spond to new publishers (some of whom may be predatory)? How sustainable is long-term pres ervation of journal content by publishers? (Marks noted that this issue is particularly worrisome in the case of OA content.) T. Scott Plutchak, Director, Digital Data Curation Strategy, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), offered a librarian’s view on information policy. Declaring that “data is the new bacon,” Plutchak asked his audience to think of how infrastructure, policy, and services can best be marshalled to manage research data. In his view, research data management is just as important and perhaps a more complex problem to solve than OA. He also pointed out that libraries are taking the lead in providing research data management guidance and highlighted the Journal of EScience Librarianship (http://escholarship.umassmed. edu/jeslib/) as an excellent, librarian-led venue for discussion and research on this topic. Caitlin Trasande, Head, Research Policy, Digital Science, and Nature Senior Strategy Editor, introduced us to a vendor perspective with a summary of Digital Science. She outlined the research lifecycle in an interesting, simplified way: track research, view funding, read about discoveries, plan experiments, conduct experiments, manage data, publish discoveries, share data, and measure attention. These concepts drive the services that Digital Science developed, for example, Altmetric (http:// www.digital-science.com/products/altmetric/), which addresses the need to measure attention, and ReadCube (http://www.digital-science. com/products/readcube/), a tool to read about discoveries. She defined research information management as “the capture, linking, and dissemination of information associated with the research lifecycle, usually with an institutional focus,” which is very challenging to do and to resource properly, and it was in this context that Trasande declared, “You can’t herd cats, but you can move the cat food!” A panel discussion on intellectual property and copyright moderated by October Ivins featured Peter Jaszi, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law, and Michael J. Remington, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP. Their subject was “The Importance of Constructive Cooperation in the Copyright Policy Process,” and their wide-ranging discussion addressed international first sale; fair use, licensing, and mass digitization; the implications of the Georgia State University (GSU) decision1; library exceptions (possible revisions of Section 108); and accessibility and copyright. Both panelists discussed the Kirtsaeng case (Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.2) extensively, noting surprise that there has been no legislation yet as a result. They also believe that the circuit court ruling in the GSU case solves nothing because it is too provisional and causes copyright owners to incur enormous transaction costs. They suggested that the ultimate solution should be a best practices approach like that published by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) for course reserves. Regarding the future of Section 108 (Photocopying by Libraries and Archives), panelists felt that it does not really have a great deal of relevance anymore because of today’s realities. And they noted that Section 107 (Fair Use) explicitly cannot be contravened as noted in the language for Section 108. The session concluded with a recap mod erated by Bob Boissy, Manager, Account Development & Strategic Alliances at Springer, posing questions to the panelists: What constitutes an author’s “best effort” in finding orphan works? Remington: It’s unclear. Some best practices have been issues, but in the photo industry, there has been no litigation when they were followed, which is very good news. What is the real goal of an institution’s data curation effort? How will it advance the mission of the institution? Plutchak: At the most basic level, the goal is compliance with funding mandates. More generally, though, we believe curation is a social good, and we get involved because of all the things we care about. Is the OA world starting now a softer, kinder, gentler world? Marks: Do you care about your business model when you are looking for content? The mission of an editor is to get good content. OA journals can compete with other journals, and they are all competing for the work of the same author. Every editor wants the best for their journal, so competition will not be weakened by OA. Are universities worried about filling out their freshman class? Are institutions marketing themselves? Trasande: Many universities have an opportunity to have deep roots with their host city. With the advent of MOOCs, universities need to demonstrate “why us?” or “why here?” There is a very good opportunity for smaller universities, but it requires selling themselves. Is all the data produced by faculty members preservable? What do the federal mandates require us to do? What are we obligating ourselves to do? Plutchak: It is an insoluble problem! Federal mandates require that grantees have a data management plan that will describe what data they are collecting, where it will be stored, and how it might be shared later. None of that obligates the library to be the manager. What happens during a regulatory review when two big publishers merge? Remington: They hire antitrust lawyers! continued on page 73 Don’s Conference Notes from page 72 Jaszi: There are concerns about the preservation of the competitive environment. How do libraries, publishers, and the academic community work together on the issue of digital preservation? Marks: We store everything in one place once and then everybody can access it. Jaszi: Libraries are likely to take the lead in the active digitization of unique special collections. Plutchak: No single entity can figure out how to preserve digital data over centuries. What needs do the different components have? Nobody is thinking about what happens when somebody goes to an article 20 years from now and clicks on a link. Will the data be in a format they can read? What is the status of international ILL? Jaszi: A structural legal problem interferes: the laws of nations regarding the limitations of copyright can be radically different. As long as countries have different legal standards, there will be problems. Has the reward system changed in a context of shrinking resources and how we expect people to publish? Plutchak: There are some glimmers of change and an increasing interest in altmetrics. The notion that we are looking at other ways to measure impact is useful. Trasande: More professors are practicing applied research at major universities. Altmetrics have become more mainstream, and there is a general desire to measure what the impact of scholarship means. Plutchak: We have spent just over 300 years in developing the scholarly publishing world, and we have been trying to reform it for about 30 years. It is a long process and patience is a virtue! In closing, Ivins noted that SSP and NASIG have many good things in common, including a desire to provide a neutral place for discussing mutual problems and issues among all parties. Somewhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide Stephen Rhind-Tutt, President and co-founder of Alexander Street Press (ASP), began the second day of the NASIG conference in his vision session entitled, “Somewhere to Run to, Nowhere to Hide,” in which he shared his insights into the future. Although his perspective comes from primary sources, including streaming video and audio, he had many interesting and relevant observations about serials and academic publishing. In his research preparing for this talk, he found the following predictions about the Web in 2020, which he believes will contain: • 90% of works published prior to 1923, • The majority of works published to 2020, • • More than one trillion photos, and More than 30 million audio files. He shared results of a review of NASIG’s Website, in particular the topics covered in past conferences. Noting that topics covered 25 years ago are remarkably similar to what we’re doing now, Rhind-Tutt highlighted the fact that they focus on fears of publishers as well as fears of librarians: everyone fears being made redundant. His advice is to focus on what the user wants, and he referenced Karen Schneider’s blog post on Free Range Librarian entitled “The User Is Not Broken: A Meme Masquerading as a Manifesto” (http:// freerangelibrarian.com/2006/06/03/the-useris-not-broken-a-meme-masquerading-as-amanifesto). “We need this more now than ever,” he said. We are transitioning from data, to information, to knowledge, and finally, wisdom. He believes we should focus on function rather than form. For video, the underlying purpose is not simply to watch the video but rather to get the needed information it contains. Declaring that “the future is clear enough to act on,” he believes, for example, that information will indeed eventually be free, i.e. OA. There is no way for the commercial sector to avoid giving customers what they want, and they want free. He also stressed the vital importance of interlinking of content and felt that too few people recognize how important the work of linking technologies really is and will continue to be. Linking speeds research and learning, lowers costs, maximizes usage, and increases functionality. He encouraged everyone to think about content at the atomic level, rather than thinking of it in a linear or packaged fashion (articles, rather than journal issues). Finally, Rhind-Tutt described what ASP is doing in light of these predictions. For example, they are developing an “Open Music Library” that will be fully OA, because they believe that interactions with music academics will be infinitely richer because of this openness, as compared to what they could get if their product was behind a paywall. He also mentioned Digital Science as an impressive pioneer and a company to watch, because “the process we are all engaged in is discovery.” Slides from all presentations are available on NASIG’s Slideshare site: http://www.slideshare.net/NASIG/tag/nasig2015. The 2016 NASIG conference will be in Albuquerque, NM on June 9-12. Steve Oberg is Assistant Professor, Electronic Resources and Serials at Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL. A past president of NASIG, Steve has written and presented extensively on technology, electronic resources, and serials issues for the past 25 years. He also teaches courses on technical services, e-resources, and serials management at the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Science as well as Dominican University’s Graduate School of Library and Information Science. He has worked in a wide variety of settings including a large academic research library, library systems vendor, liberal arts college libraries, and a Fortune 100 healthcare company. His M.S.L.I.S. and undergraduate degrees are from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Connect with him on Twitter (@TechSvcsLib), his blog (Family Man Librarian – http://familymanlibrarian.blogspot. com), or via his Flipboard magazine, Family Man Librarian Daily (http://flip.it/JBYzc). Endnotes 1. The case was about fair use of electronic documents in the university’s e-reserve system. (See http://libguides.law.gsu.edu/ gsucopyrightcase) 2. A Supreme Court decision in favor of Kirtsaeng, in which the Court held that the first-sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works imported from other countries. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtsaeng_v._ John_Wiley_%26_Sons,_Inc.. The New Big Picture: Connecting Diverse Perspectives—The 2015 SSP Meeting Column Editor’s Note: Because of space limitations, this is an abridged version of my report on this conference. You can read the full article which includes descriptions of additional sessions at http://www.against-the-grain.com/2015/09/v27-4-dons-conference-notes/. — DTH The Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) met in Arlington, VA on May 27-29, 2015 for its 37th annual meeting, which drew a near-record attendance of 910. Its theme was “The New Big Picture: Connecting Diverse Perspectives.” The meeting featured the traditional mix of plenary keynote and concurrent sessions, a vibrant exhibit hall, as well as a new event: a joint session with attendees at the NASIG (formerly known as the North American Serials Interest Group) meeting, which took place concurrently with SSP at a nearby hotel. (See the previous article by guest columnist Steve Oberg.) Among the interesting features of the meeting were several large and engaging posters drawn on the spot by Greg Gersch, a freelance artist, like the one shown on the following page. continued on page 74 Photo reproduced with the permission of Greg Gersch. The keynote address “Rethinking Book Publishing in the Digital Age” by Charles Watkinson, Associate University Librarian for Publishing at the Charles Watkinson U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan and Director of the University of Michigan Press, was one of the highlights of the meeting. He began by noting that a previous SSP keynote address had coined the terms “pubrarians” and “liblishers” to describe the intersection of librarians and publishers as producers of content, and John Thomson, author of Books in the Digital Age (Polity, 2005), said in his book that publishing is a complex industry that is structured into fields, each with its own distinct properties. Watkinson illustrated this concept with this diagram and said that we live in small fields distinguished by market type or competition. Fields of Publishing Most of the time we graze in the middle of our own field, but by doing so, our outlook will be narrow, causing us to miss some of the most interesting things happening at the junctions or edges of the fields. The “edge effect” is important in sharing innovation across fields. For example, monographs and journals share an edge, and there is an amazing persistence of format between them. Revenues from monographs have been gradually declining over the past ten years, which has put a lot of pressure on sustainability. Approaching the academic monograph from the “edge” of journal publishing might stimulate new thinking. For example, new literature sources such as samplers or summaries of longer works may look like books (for example, Palgrave’s Pivot – http:// www.palgrave.com/page/about-us-palgravepivot/) or MIT Press’s BITS – https://mitpress. mit.edu/BITS/index.html), but they have different content and require publishers to increase the speed of publication. Although monographs have long been recognized as a field of scholarly publishing, the emphasis has traditionally been on journals. Now, new technologies are being applied to book publishing, and the book field is receiving a new emphasis. There are now many more sales channels than previously, and open access (OA) business models for books are raising questions like these: • Are there aspects of using a book that require a different approach to design choices? • How much should the book processing charge be? • Where should the money come from? • How much of the charge should be allocated to authors? Watkinson urged the audience to look across the edges and see what your neighbors are doing; it is well worthwhile. The second day keynote was structured as a conversation with Ken Auletta, a writer for The New Yorker and well-known author of Googled: T h e E n d o f t h e Ken Auletta World as We Know It (Penguin, 2009) and other books. He made the following points: • The publishing industry is going through a disruption similar to that of the TV industry when cable platforms emerged. • The digital edition of The New Yorker has not affected authors’ writing. Articles are still edited and fact checked with great care, and we still need curators and intelligent agents to sort out the news that interests us. • Even though digital publishing has increased, the print is being protected. Profits from newspapers and magazines still come from the print editions. For example, the average reader of the printed New York Times spends up to 35 minutes a day reading it, but the average online reader does not spend that much reading time in a month. • The average age of The New Yorker readers has been significantly lowered by introducing photos and digital articles appealing to younger readers. • Google has become both a technology and media company, especially since they bought media organizations like YouTube and Zagat. Jennifer Lawton, former CEO of MakerBot Industries, spoke on “Reflections on Leadership and Success,” in which she said that it is important to know who you Jennifer Lawton are, what makes you happy, and what you want to do. MakerBot was a failure-driven company; after a failure, learn and go on to the next level of achievement. Closing Plenary: Lessons Learned in the Past Five Years The following panel of society publishing professionals was asked to discuss their recent successes and failures. Brandon Nordin, American Chemical Society; Nancy Rodnan, Endocrine Society; Angela Cochran, American Society of Civil Engineers; Stephen Welch, American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST); Robert Harington, American Mathematical Society; and Kenneth Heideman, American Meteorological Society. Here are some of the accomplishments they are most proud of and issues that were solved and worked particularly well: • Welch: The app for the iOS and Android platforms. • Harington: Developed Math Jacks (http://www.jackmathsolutions. com/), which is a major repository of open-source information funded by a professional society as well as a book, Really Big Numbers, for children, which recently won an award from the Children’s Book Council. • Nordin: Managing the print-to-digital transition. In 2006, the electronic version of ACS’s journals was declared the version of record, and since 2008, all journals are electronic only (except in the Asian market, for which printing was outsourced to a local printer). • Rodnan: Working with people: assessing staff, figuring out technology needs, and hiring the proper people to meet them. • Heideman: Decreasing production time of journals while maintaining quality. Consolidation of editorial assistants from 37 to 8. • Cochran: Engaging with editors, asking their opinions, attending editorial board meetings, and creating an annual editors’ workshop. Here are some things that did not go well and the lessons learned from those experiences: • Cochran: The amount of time to get an article published was long, so moving to electronic submission and reporting helped to shorten the time. But the human issues were continued on page 75 Don’s Conference Notes from page 74 • • • • • not addressed initially, which caused problems with the editors who had to change their workflows. Heideman: When data was being transferred to a new server, the process crashed. Lack of backups resulted in a loss of about 6 months of data, affecting 1,500 papers. Rodnan: “If you build it, they will come” does not always happen! It is important to assess ideas and make sure they will be relevant to customers. Recognize the amount of time, effort, and maintenance that is required in developing new systems. Nordin: Understand how to control and value the ecosystem of text and data mining. Failing to recognize market trends led to several wasted years; it is necessary to take decisive action even if it is painful. Harington: You need to have the experience of trying things, even if it means failing. Cultivate wonderful relationships with librarians. Attempting to sell eBooks to individuals through Google Play was a major failure. Welch: Declining to become a content provider for the UpToDate medical decision support system (http://www.uptodate.com/home) was a failure because that system became very widely used. It is important to discern market reactions to products. Another failure was an attempt to sell eBooks through the e-journal platform. Concurrent Sessions Open Access Monographs from the Perspective of Publishers and Librarians — Institutional repositories have not performed as expected, so the focus is now on monographs. Palgrave Macmillan was one of the first pub lishers to offer OA books and hybrid chapters. Authors are charged an Access Publishing Charge (APC) of $12,000 to $17,000, and all online editions of the book are OA. The decision to publish the book as OA is left up to the author. OA has been positively received; usage of OA books is significantly higher than non-OA books, but OA has had a negative effect on print sales. Lessons learned: • It is important to clearly state license terms in the book. • OA titles must be easily found and available on a variety of platforms. • Funders and authors should be encouraged to share and review their books as widely as possible. • Funding, permissions (especially for cover designs), and production workflows are challenges. Luminos (http://www.luminosoa.org/), part of the University of California’s OpenPress program, now has 12 titles committed to OA. The same standards for selection, review, approval, production, and marketing are used for both OA and printed books. OA is an important author’s choice. The baseline publication costs are about $15,000; authors’ institutions are expected to contribute $7,500; libraries and the UC Press subsidize the remaining costs. Luminos does not replace the traditional monograph program; it extends it. Publishers Communication Group (PCG, http://www.pcgplus.com/) did a large market survey of several hundred librarians from the U.S., UK, and Western Europe and found that OA books are treated similarly to journals. Librarians hear about OA monographs by word of mouth, emails from publishers, or industry newsletters. It was interesting to see that library funding for OA monograph publishing frequently comes from new sources and not from existing budgets. Librarians are embracing OA monographs, but no consensus on their exact role has emerged. The Evaluation Gap: Using Altmetrics to Meet Changing Researcher Needs — The “Evaluation Gap” refers to the difference between using traditional metrics such as citation counts and Impact Factors (IFs) and alternative metrics (“altmetrics”) in the evaluation of scientific research output. Terri Teleen, Editorial Operations and Communications Director at John Wiley, reviewed a pilot project on six journals in which an “Altmetric Badge” (a visual representation developed by Altmetric, LLP, http://www. altmetric.com/, showing how much and what kind of attention an article has received — see below) was displayed for each article in the journals. Altmetric Badge Example 67% of readers said that the displayed article metrics were helpful to them, and about 50% said they would be more likely to submit a paper to a journal that supported article-level metrics like blog posts, tweets, Facebook posts, and mentions in national news media. The results of the survey were positive, so Wiley has begun displaying altmetric badges on all articles. Wiley is also helping authors promote their works; 59% of them see themselves as primarily responsible for promoting their published research. A partnership with Kudos (https://www.growkudos.com/) is available to help them explain, enrich, and share articles for greater impact. ORCID (http://orcid.org/) and ReadCube (https://www.readcube.com/) make it easier for researchers to discover, access, and interact with published work. Wiley has created a self-promotion kit for authors; almost all of them said they would be likely to use it. Cassidy Sugimoto, Assistant Professor at Indiana University, said that the best criteria we currently have for evaluating science are promotion and tenure documents, which are usually based on citation counts and IFs, but they suffer from the limitation of measuring only a person’s publication record. Article-level metrics capture many other types of data and are beginning to be used by scientists in reputation-management systems. Some academic librarians have begun to support altmetrics by teaching their users how to use them to promote their research. Colleen Willis, Senior Librarian at the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), agreed with Sugimoto and said that metrics are like breadcrumbs because they consist of data that inform a publisher’s staff what happened to the products that they have produced. The NAS library has created a class called “Motivational Metrics” which teaches authors and staff what the numbers mean and provides some examples of their use. Jill Rodgers, Journals Marketing Manager at MIT Press, wondered how a publisher can determine how users are engaging with its content. Altmetrics are not a replacement for citation counts and IFs; they augment them by measuring numbers of views, discussions, shares, and recommendations. The BATCHES service developed by MIT Press (https://www.facebook.com/mitpress/ posts/10152418198014894) consists of collections of reader-selected articles on a single topic bundled for downloading to the Kindle e-reader. They have been well received by the market; sales of BATCHES are two to four times higher than sales of single issues of journals. Where to Find Growth in a Crowded Market — Michael Clarke, President of Clarke and Company, a management consulting firm, said that the three engines of growth in the scholarly publishing industry from 2000 to 2015 are: 1. Site licenses used to establish journal sales in institutions, 2. The Big Deal of packages of jour nals, and 3. Global expansion, especially in China, India, and the Middle East. Selling new products and services appears to be the major avenue for growth; here are some promising approaches: • • • Re-establish an individual (“end user”) market. There will not be an awakening of a market for personal subscriptions to journals. Develop new business models. Tap into revenues not from the library. Use the “freemium” business model (http://www.freemium.org/), in which a core product is given away to entice users to pay for value-added services such as à la carte options, traffic referrals, targeted ads, and analytics. Mergers and acquisitions are common growth strategies and are not limited to large commercial associations. continued on page 76 Don’s Conference Notes from page 75 for products: what the market will bear, gross margin target, and most significant digit pricing (i.e., $29.99 instead of $30). Here are some questions to consider in OA pricing decisions: • What kind of business is scholarly communication? • Is it different from other kinds of publishing because of the players or the economy? • Is OA publishing different from scholarly communication? • What do we mean by transparency? • What products and services are being considered? Kennison suggested that a “buyer beware” strategy may apply to OA. Peter Binfield, Founder of PeerJ (https:// peerj.com/), a low-cost open article publishing system similar to PLoS, noted that OA customers typically buy articles, not journals. So he wondered if we need journals at all. The marketplace is tied up with the concept of journal as a brand. In a fully OA world, publishers and libraries would be freed from many of their inefficiencies of the systems they currently maintain. The dark side of the OA publishing model is that we assume the quality of every article is equal, which is not true. We also see predatory journals. Binifeld suggested that removing the gatekeeping role of peer review in favor of the PLoS ONE model is to publish all submitted articles after a technical review to ensure that the data supports the research conclusions. Does Data Fit Into Traditional Publication? Should It? — Mark Hahnel, CEO of Figshare and Jennifer Lin, PLoS Senior Product Manager, debated what the role of publishers should be and how data can be made available. PLoS was one of the first publishers to establish an open data policy and to require authors to make their data available for publication; Figshare is a vendor of technology that helps publishers store and visualize data without encumbering their existing operations. The debate addressed the following four is sues from the viewpoints of data technologists and publishers: Here are some of the points discussed in the debate: Business Opportunities — Only publishers have the infrastructure resources and money to handle data. They see opportunities because data represents a new revenue stream. The other side contends that publishers do not see business opportunities with data. Legacy platforms are for sharing articles and are not suitable for data. Data is a new frontier and has different characteristics than articles do. Who is going to pay for processing it? Some emerging companies are developing services for publishers which can be integrated into the services they currently offer. It is important to have skills to properly manage data, and many publishers are developing their own tools. Data Characteristics — Data is a “second-class citizen” that is only important for writing research articles, but it should be treated as a new first-class object. However, research articles represent the result of years of work in the laboratory. By the time an article is published, nobody cares about the underlying data. Many people see data as the currency of research, and all they want to do is to publish an article and put the data somewhere. Some publishers have the capability to give authors a print “wrapper” for the data, which gives authors two articles with double the impact and two APCs, resulting in more revenue for the publishers. The Publisher’s Role — Academics think that the article is king, but funders are now saying that the data must also be published. There is no peer review of data, so articles are published without the data being checked, and the data becomes an afterthought. Metadata surrounding the data are important. The raw data is not valuable without the metadata. Publishers can provide some of those services. Trust — Even if publishers can manage the data, should they? Data belongs in academies. There is a concern that publishers will take the data and sell it back again. continued on page 77 2 R 2 2 3 Critical Reviews of Web Products for Information Professionals O 0 4 ISV 8CO -79282 comparative reviews...reports from D ,re - “The Charleston Advisor serves up timely editorials and columns, v 03 thsteandfailoenle dan.d..ciomnptaerartivve ireeviwewss,anwdprietsshreleiansesd,amuosngtry A n 3 n D ax p olthaer yfeaeturress. .P.ro.doucped ibynfoilksownith imepedccaiblte olibrrariyaanlds . . . e : to • F publishing credentials ...[t]his is a title you should consider...” s e • comparative reviews...reports from le nu 6 — Magazines for Libraries, eleventh edition, edited by r ve 07 the field...CihnerytlLearGuvarideia wwithsconswultinigtehditorisBnilldKautz asntdry a A -9 h n 2 Linda Sternberg Katz (Bowker, 2002). e 8 p l a y e r s . . . o p i n i o n e d i t o r i a l s . . . C rr -2 e a 3 h W 03 T ts : a e o E no t 0 h e 81 P b 6 i r c s b u S Name____________________________________________ Title ________________________________________ Organization __________________________________________________________________________________ Phone ____________________________________________ Fax ________________________________________ ✓ ❏ Yes! Enter My Subscription For One Year. ❏ Yes, I am Interested in being a Reviewer. • Over 750 reviews now available • Web edition and database provided with all subscriptions • Unlimited IP filtered or name/password access • Full backfile included • Comparative reviews of aggregators featured • Leading opinions in every issue Some people think that academics cannot be trusted to store the data persistently; others think that publishers cannot either. Should libraries be the disseminators of all this content? Data is a new area; maybe there is a role for institutions to play. The bigger question is: What is the role of publishers with respect to data? There is no right answer, but there are things publishers can do, and there are conversations going on outside of publishers with research data managers and funders. In the Q&A period, I pointed out that an example of a publisher disseminating data is found in the American Chemical Society’s Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data (http://pubs.acs. org/journal/jceaax?&), which has been in existence for about 60 years. According to its Website, “The Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data is a monthly journal devoted to the publication of data obtained from both experiment and computation, which are viewed as complementary.” Clearly, the journal has been successful in its mission, as evidenced by its long existence. Jennifer Lin concluded the session with a list of recommendations for publishers to increase access to data1: 1. Establish and enforce a mandatory data availability policy. 2. Contribute to establishing community standards for data management and sharing. 3. Contribute to establishing community standards for data preservation in trusted repositories. 4. Provide formal channels to share data. 5. Work with repositories to streamline data submission. 6. Require appropriate citations to all data associated with a publication. 7. Develop and report indicators that will sup port data as a first-class scholarly output. 8. Incentivize data sharing by promoting the value of data sharing. Donald T. Hawkins is an information industry freelance writer based in Pennsylvania. In addition to blogging and writing about conferences for Against the Grain, he blogs the Computers in Libraries and Internet Librarian conferences for Information Today, Inc. (ITI) and maintains the Conference Calendar on the ITI Website (http://www.infotoday.com/calendar. asp). He recently contributed a chapter to the book Special Libraries: A Survival Guide (ABC-Clio, 2013) and is the Editor of Personal Archiving, (Information Today, 2013). He holds a Ph.D. degree from the University of California, Berkeley and has worked in the online information industry for over 40 years. Rumors from page 69 Venues. For the first time, we will be having the main Conference venue at the Gaillard Center which is between Calhoun and George Streets, about four blocks west of the Francis Marion. The Gaillard Center has a Performance Hall which seats 1,800 people and six breakout rooms for Concurrent Sessions. Check out http://www.gaillardcenter.com/about/. Sessions will still be held at the Em bassy Suites, the Francis Marion, and the Marriott Courtyard as well. Shuttles will be available to take you from place to place. Some important details! REGISTRATION will be at the Francis Marion Hotel. The Charleston Seminars on Monday and Tuesday will be in the Francis Marion. The Vendor Showcase will be at theFrancis Marion. Preconferences will be held at the Francis Marion, the Marriott Courtyard, The Embassy Suites, and the Gaillard Center. Plenaries and Neapolitans will be held at the Gaillard Center. Concurrent Sessions will be held at the Gaillard Center, the Francis Marion, the Marriott Courtyard, and the Embassy Suites. 2015 will be a great year! See you all here soon! User data can bring growth through direct sales to consumers and from packaging and selling metadata. Direct sales to consumers (D2C) are probably best suited for books. Monetizing metadata is an interesting approach because it is a way to approach new customers, but it requires a huge scale. Anonymity is essential, and a rigorously enforced privacy policy is necessary to prevent challenges. David Lamb , President of Lamb Group LLC, looked at the outlook for mergers and acquisitions (M&As) in scholarly publishing. The market is a worldwide industry that is financially consistent, attractive, and comparable across products. There is plenty of scope for acquisitions because over 2,000 journal publishers in the market have the potential for growth by combining with others. A variety of participants in the market creates a very healthy environment for M&As because: $1.3 billion in assets, How Much Does It Cost ? Vs. What Are You Getting For Or Doing With the Money?: The OA Business Model - Robert Kiley , Head, Digital Services at the Wellcome Trust Library presented an analysis of the Trust's OA spending in 2013 and 2014 and noted that there has been a 20% increase in Trust-funded articles published as OA . APCs have remained static . About 24 % of the research was published in fully OA journals; the remainder was published in hybrid journals. The average APCs of hybrid journals is 64% higher than that of fully OA journals. 40% of the Trust's APC spending goes to Elsevier and Wiley. Rebecca Kennison, one of the Principals at K|N Consultants (http://knconsultants .org/ about/), listed three main pricing strategies $ 295 .00 for libraries $ 495 .00 for all others Don's Conference Notes from page 76


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7152&context=atg

Donald T. Hawkins, Steve Oberg. Don's Conference Notes--NASIG at 30: Building the Digital Future, Against the Grain, 2015,