Literature Review V1 June 2012
CHANGES IN THE SCHOLARLY COMMNUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENT
Much has been written about changes occurring in the scholarly communications environment. It is not within the scope of this project, or this literature review, to rehash existing work which looks at changes to business models, user needs and technologies that support scholarly communications. Rather, this section concentrates on some of the changes that might reasonably be understood to affect the viability of new business models for open access publishing in the humanities and social sciences.
The future of the book
The first important issue to consider is the future of the book itself. Economic pressures on library budgets, particularly from journal Big Deals, have reduced the money available for monograph purchases (Steele, 2008). Publishers have noticed the decline in sales, and according to some commentators, this is beginning to affect the types of publications that they make available. Steele (2008) notes the increased output by some publishers of what might be considered more ‘popular’ titles, aimed at a broad market; Willinsky (2009) takes this further and suggests that, because monographs remain a key way of communicating scholarly ideas within some fields, financial considerations are affecting what can be considered ‘scholarship’ within a discipline. Bazerman et al (2008) argue that researchers are responding to this perceived need to produce ‘popular’ books, saying that ‘at worst, scholars faced with tenure and promotion decision will set [those] ideas aside in favour of others that are more likely to find a market’. Thus, economic pressures are changing the nature of academic monographs.
Other considerations, too, affect the future of the book. The impact of technological changes on scholarly communications has been widely reported (e.g. RIN, 2010; Nicholas et al., 2010, Carpenter et al, 2011, Lawal, 2002, Proctor et al, 2010). New tools have made it much easier for researchers to fulfil some of the functions of publishers, particularly those relating to design and layout (Adema & Rutten, 2010). At the same time, as Brown et al. (2007) note, new methods of communication have widened the options for researchers who want to share their findings. Blogs, websites and wikis have been added to the journal and the book as a way of ensuring visibility for research outputs, and web-enabled technologies such as institutional repositories or pre-print servers allow researchers to share their published content more widely. In the context of publisher reticence to commit to monographs or series of monographs, declining print runs and low monograph sales, these options may appear very attractive to authors (Bazerman et al, 2008).
Books are unlikely to disappear completely in the face of these challengers, not least because web-based content is not, as yet, widely trusted by most researchers. But there is no guarantee that the format will remain the same. As Adema & Rutten (2010) point out, most publishers have not yet begun to experiment with the possibilities of electronic content: e-books are merely a PDF replication of print books, with no attempts to introduce the multimedia or user-generated content that is made possible by the web. But there are some exceptions: Bloomsbury Academic, for example, allows researchers to update and supplement their work with additional data or multimedia content (Adema, 2010). Meanwhile, in trade publishing experiments are being made with non-traditional forms of book publication, although at least one trade publisher which focused upon selling enhanced versions of e-books has gone bust (Alter, 2012).
Setting aside the possibility of enhanced e-books and focusing upon the more common PDF version of the print copy, it is clear that putting books into an electronic format is beginning to change the way that people read. Several studies have shown that researchers tend to ‘skim’ or ‘chunk’ electronic copies of books (Brown et al, 2007; Adema & Rutten, 2010). Researchers also make extensive use of the search functionality in electronic media to identify sections of text that are relevant to their interests (Bulger et al., 2010). Other commentators suggest that these new behaviours could eventually change the nature of scholarly communications: rather than being a linear thought process directed by the author, the monograph could become a multi-voice conversation with user-generated content as a core part of the text (Fish, 2012).
User needs
Adema & Rutten (2010), in a thorough survey of HSS user needs as they relate to monographs, identify four main user groups in the scholarly communications system. Scholars themselves are one obvious user group: they play several roles within the scholarly communications system including creating, certifying and consuming content. Publishers are a second user group: their job is to register work, and to help support quality and dissemination. Libraries are gatekeepers, deciding what work should be available to scholars within their institution and ensuring that it can be discovered and used. Finally, funders want research that they have supported to be published and maintained in the longer term. These user groups have six general needs: quality, accessibility and dissemination, efficiency and effectiveness, reputation and reward, economic viability, and trustworthiness.
Most user studies focus upon researchers. Humanities researchers are widely believed to be heavily reliant on books, although there are some indications that this may be changing (Bulger et al, 2010, Adema & Rutten, 2010). The same research suggests that users are beginning to engage with e-books, but still use print for some purposes. Adema & Rutten (2010) find that researchers use digital monographs, but not regularly; Bulger et al (2010) find that in fact a kind of hybrid activity is beginning to emerge where researchers will use both the print and the electronic versions of a single text for different purposes. This hybrid activity is not exclusive to HSS disciplines; in fact, it can also be observed in the physical sciences, which are generally considered much more advanced in terms of their engagement with new technologies (Meyer et al, 2011). Tenopir & Volentine (2012) find that researchers are much more likely to purchase or receive from a publisher their own copies of books than of journals, and that only 26% of researchers’ books come from the library, even though the library often holds the books that they need. They suggest a number of reasons for this, and single out for further study the library’s ability to provide electronic versions of content for publishers. However, they also find that 14% of the books obtained from the library would not be obtained from another source if the library was not available.
There is some debate as to what determines how researchers engage with new technologies. Nicholas et al. (2009) find that age, gender and discipline affect researcher uptake of e-books. Harley et al (2010), in line with other studies on researcher engagement with new technologies, find no evidence that young people are turning their backs on traditional publication methods. In fact, it is older, more established scholars who are more likely to take a risk on new technologies such as blogs, as they no longer need to prove their academic credentials with articles or books published under the auspices of a prestigious press. Collins et al (2012) suggest that the way researchers engage with new technologies is strongly affected by their training and their disciplinary behaviours, and that their habits around older information tools affect their engagement with newer ones.
Researcher attitudes to open access
In December 2011, the UK Government affirmed a commitment to open access to the results of publicly-funded research (BIS, 2011). The growth of interest in open access which prompted this move can also be seen in the amount of research undertaken in recent years to understand how academics feel about open access content. Awareness of open access appears to be growing, but varies by discipline, and awareness of open access publishers remains low (MacKenzie-Cummins, 2011). Researchers themselves have suggested that the issue is less relevant for HSS disciplines, as distinct from STM disciplines, because the publication cycle is longer and there is a less pressing need for research from the last six months (Adema & Rutten, 2010).
Academic support for open access appears to be strong. A study for RSS/UK CORR found that 63% of survey respondents were strongly in favour of open access, and only 2% were strongly against it. There is a feeling among some researchers that open access could actually enhance scholarship, allowing audiences outside academia to participate in scholarly debates. Furthermore, there are indications of resentment among some researchers towards the profits made by publishers, which might support a move towards more open business models (Adema & Rutten, 2010). That said, as will be explored in more detail later in this review, researchers retain some concerns about open access mechanisms, in particular anything that appears to threaten traditional quality assurance techniques such as peer review.
Changes to the ‘publishing’ function
As has been mentioned, changes in technology have made it easier for new market entrants to take on some of the functions that had previously been a crucial part of publishers’ roles. As Adema & Rutten (2010) point out, many libraries are starting to become content providers, as distinct from service providers, through their institutional repositories. But Koh (2011) makes an important distinction between the ‘publishing support service’ provided by libraries, and the full-blown publishing process undertaken by existing businesses. Library services which support publishing will not necessarily offer the copyediting, peer review, design and marketing that commercial publishers undertake. In many cases, a gap emerges between the author’s expectations and the library’s capabilities, and there is rarely funding available to underwrite external provision of the services needed to fill such a gap.
This said, there are interesting partnerships developing between libraries and university presses, in particular in Europe, the US and Australia (Steele, 2008). This is not necessarily a great leap for researchers in the humanities and social sciences: publishing in this sector has traditionally been dominated by university and society presses (Admea & Rutten, 2010). Such presses were themselves set up to showcase the work of their own scholars, so there is some precedent for new university-based services (Steele, 2008). But it remains to be seen whether researchers are ready to move to these less well-established models which involve the library as a key player.
HOW MIGHT POLICIES, PROCESSES AND MECHANISMS NEED TO CHANGE TO ENABLE OPEN ACCESS PUBLICATION OF MONOGRAPHS?
What is the most appropriate business model for open access monographs?
Adema (2010) makes the important distinction between business models – the way in which funding moves around the scholarly communications system in order to enable research results to be published – and publishing models –the roles played by different stakeholders towards that same end of publication. This section focuses on the former issue.
A number of models for open access publication of research outputs have been proposed, and some have begun to be tested. Publishers are not averse to experimentation, and have already begun to provide new ways of accessing content –such as big deals, pay-per-view, and bundling of e-books – that make more sense in a digital age (Adema & Rutten, 2010). The ‘Gold’ and Green’ routes to open access are relatively well understood, and have become reasonably well-established in some disciplines, albeit primarily in relation to journals (RIN, 2011). Other models have also been proposed, such as a global library consortium which underwrites the cost of producing scholarly monographs (Pinter, 2011) or a campus-based programme owned by the library service (Watkinson, 2011).Adema (2010) provides a useful survey of the main business models that have been tried for open access monograph publishing, and stresses that while they are all distinctive, they are also in many respects quite similar.
All these models must give serious thought to the question of long-term sustainability. Several authors have pointed out that this does not necessarily mean the same thing as ‘profits’, although it is often interpreted in this way. Indeed, Cockerill (2006) argues that high profits are not an indication of sustainability, but are rather a suggestion that markets are not working efficiently. All scholarly publishing systems involve some form of public funding, whether that is through university library payments for subscriptions, or through the time given by academics to write and peer review content for publication. A move to open access can, in many ways, be seen as nothing more than a re-alignment of how that funding is distributed (Cockerill, 2006; Friend, 2011). Friend also highlights a logical conclusion of this point; that a transition to open access requires ‘fluidity’ as universities cannot afford to pay library subscriptions and open access publication fees at the same time(Friend, 2011).
That said, a number of authors have suggested that a mixed funding model provides the most stability for publishing. Brown et al (2007) suggest that the nature of the content provided, and the interest of all stakeholders in the publishing process, will help determine which content should be made open access and which should remain behind a paywall. A recent survey found that researchers in bio-sciences are most likely to pay publication fees; the study’s author suggests that this is because open access publishing is relatively well-established within this discipline and familiarity with the model probably helps to break down researchers’ concerns about paying fees (MacKenzie-Cummins, 2011).Adema (2010), in her survey of open access business models, finds that in most cases only part of a press is made open access, and it is cross-subsidised by profits from other parts of the press. She also notes that some open access presses are able to profit from services that they offer to libraries, authors or other publishers – for example, consultancy, enhanced metadata, specialised platforms, enhanced multimedia publications – thereby providing another income stream that can support their open access activities. Finally, she suggests that partnerships between different bodies – libraries, university presses, academic departments, whole institutions and publishers – are a common tactic used by open access publishers to create a stable base for their work.
Studies have also noted some potential risks involved in moving to an open access business model, most of which relate to the role of publishing companies, rather than the newer models outlined above. As Waters (2008) notes, many publishers are not altruistic and a move on their part towards open access would be motivated by new commercial opportunities rather than a strong belief in the principles. There is a concern that publishers could end up harvesting, filtering and combining content from open access repositories and selling it back to institutions at an increased price. Adema & Rutten (2010) record concerns from researchers that, if publishers recoup the costs of publication before the book reaches the marketplace, their incentive to meet deadlines and to market and promote the book is significantly reduced, to the detriment of the author, and of scholarship in general.
Pricing
As Waltham (2006) identifies, for some presses it can be very difficult to differentiate between the costs for producing a print and an electronic book, which means it is hard to arrive at a ‘fair’ price for an open access book (which would be e-only). Furthermore, it is clear that the costs involved in producing content could vary significantly between publishers, and depending upon what kind of publication model (as distinct from business model) is pursued. Hilton and Wiley (2011), in a study involving a small religious publisher, find that the main cost involved in putting a book online was the time spent gathering files and creating code. Bazerman et al (2008) describe another experiment where a group of academics self-published an edited collection, and found that the only new cost to the researchers was copy-editing and about 8-10 hours of marketing time. It can be seen from this that finding a single appropriate price for an open access monograph could be quite a challenge.
The price of a book incorporates a number of factors, which must be allowed for in an open access system. Many of these go beyond the fixed costs required to create an electronic book. For example, Waltham (2006) stresses that most learned society presses plough their profits back into activities that support their disciplines; they and their parent societies are unlikely to accept an open access model which does not allow for this activity to continue. Adema & Rutten (2010) put forward the high costs involved in long-term preservation of electronic content. While some publishers have begun to invest in this kind of work, it becomes much more important when a printed version of record is no longer deposited in national copyright libraries, and represents a new cost for open access content. Anderson (2010) argues that online content continues to generate new costs even post-publication, and that this is a particular problem for open access publishers as they cannot cross-subsidise from other revenue streams. In his belief, this is why PLoS recently had to increase its article processing charges. Another new cost would be linked to administering and collecting open access fees, and there would be new costs associated with marketing presses to authors, as opposed to marketing books to libraries and retailers (Waltham, 2006). Some of these costs will be transitional and one-off, but others will endure, and will need to be reflected in the open access fees.