14th North Carolina Serials Conference: Serials Services in the Eye of the Information Storm
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/07419050510613792 |
| Date | 01 June 2005 |
| Published date | 01 June 2005 |
| Pages | 9-12 |
| Author | Barbara A. Gushrowski,Cynthia E. Saylor,Susan F. Whitt |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science |
14th North Carolina Serials Conference:
Serials Services in the Eye of the Information
Storm
Barbara A. Gushrowski, Cynthia E. Saylor and Susan F. Whitt
LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 5 2005, pp. 9-12, #Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0741-9058, DOI 10.1108/07419050510613792 9
The 14th North Carolina Serials
Conference, held April 14-15, 2005 in
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was
attended by nearly 100 librarians,
vendors, and publishers as participants
and presenters.
Opening keynote and panel
discussion
Probably no issue better exemplifies
the stormy nature of serials
management than Open Access (OA).
The opening keynote session and panel
discussion that followed focused on the
major points of contention about OA:
benefits, quality, and cost.
T. Scott Plutchak, Lister Hill
Library, University of Alabama at
Birmingham and Rick Anderson,
University Libraries, University of
Nevada-Reno provided opposing
viewpoints about OA as a model for
scholarly publication. In this discussion
an OA journal is defined as one that is
deposited in a public archive, available
from a public archive, and reusable.
Plutchak outlined the benefits
ascribed to the OA model: increased
access to the scientific literature by
researchers; improved access to the
medical literature for healthcare
professionals, especially in rural areas;
and control by the academy of their
work. Quality concerns surround OA
journals. New journals are expected to
have low impact and low prestige. The
best interest of OA journal editors and
publishers is to publish the highest
quality articles in order to attract high
quality authors. The ability to become
prestigious is easier in the OA model.
And as journals continue to compete for
authors, OA journals with their lower
per article charges may become the
preferred outlet for authors.
So, who pays? Plutchak contends
that often taxpayers have already paid
for the research, and grant funds often
cover the cost of publication. The cost
of publishing and distribution in the OA
model is shifted from the subscribers to
the authors and funding agencies or the
author's institution. Traditional
publishing follows this model; the
benefit of the OA model is a 5-10
percent cost reduction due to the
elimination of managing access.
Anderson agrees that open access to
the scientific and medical literature is a
good public benefit, but is concerned that
the OA model is not sustainable. Real
author disincentives to publish in these
journals exist. The cost of publishing is
passed on to the author, the OA journals
are low-impact and low-prestige, and,
citing the Berlin, Barcelona, and
Bethesda statements, many OA journals
require an author to relinquish copyrights.
Additionally, these statements request
that an author self-archive their work, but
there is no guarantee that authors will do
this. Uneven distribution, dissemination,
and access problems that OA journals
claim to solve may actually arise.
Anderson reasoned that while
taxpayers may have funded the
research, they have not funded the
publication and distribution of research
results. Since subscription revenues pay
for this and consumers pay subscription
costs, the subscription model is fair.
Until OA journals have built the
prestige required to become sustaining,
additional revenue streams may be
needed for survival.
James N. Siedow, Duke University,
joined Plutchak and Anderson for the
panel discussion. Siedow presented his
perspective as the editor of a scholarly
journal. He expressed uncertainty about
the future of small society presses. How
can they compete and stay viable and
solvent in the OA environment? In the
subscription model, societies often rely
on subscription fees to fund other
activities such as continuing education
and conferences. Page charges are
common in academic journals and were
instituted to keep costs of subscriptions
down. If the subscription model folds,
will universities be able to pay? For
example, in 2004, 4,200 publications
came out of Duke University with 3,200
of those originating at Duke.
Siedow also pointed out that new
journals arise as a result of finding a niche
and usually come from the academic
setting not commercial publishers.
Special interest journals fill a need and
usually succeed quickly, but OA journals
are not niche publications and may take
time to reach the high quality, high
impact status they desire. Finally, will the
public really benefit from highly
technical and complex articles found in
the scientific and medical literature?
Clearly, OA will remain a topic of
great interest and debate for many years
to come, evident by the many questions
and comments from the audience.
Round table discussions
Concerns about archiving in the
digital leased environment include: what
to archive and why, purchasing the
publisher's archi ves versus archi ving
locally; and the progressive shift of
library missionstoward preservation and
the publishers as archivists. Problems
seen are rights management, legal
agreements in leasing digital materials,
rapid changes in technology, copyright
and ownership of collections, and
extreme stability with continuous
accessibility. The open source software,
Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe
(LOCKSS), provides a simple and
inexpensive option for collecting,
storing, preserving, and providingaccess
to locally-ownedcontent.
The discussion over print serials and
how to upgrade the quality of
To continue reading
Request your trial