Open Access News

How long does it take first-time submitters to self-archive a work through the Internet? How do librarians and publishers feel about the concept of a national site license for a collection of journal titles? These questions about our current scholarly communication system are addressed in recent reports commissioned in the United Kingdom....It is perhaps beyond obvious that librarians and publishers have different opinions about the success and viability of possible new business models for journal publishing. The Rightscom study commissioned by JISC both documents the gap in perspective and looks at reactions to a set of potential new business models. The business models considered range from a national site license to several pay-per-view options to several models that create open access....It is no surprise to find that the librarians interviewed emphasized the need for wide access to a broad base of resources. Both pay-per-view, particularly user-based pay-per-view, and bundled models were not attractive to librarians. In contrast, publishers emphasized that declines in profitability were unacceptable and that greater overall levels of investment in journal collections were needed to accommodate growing volumes of scholarly output. Libraries and publishers tended to view each other as excessively wedded to print publishing. Publishers reported they were neutral on open access....The report findings underscore that all business models involve trade-offs. Clear dissatisfaction with the status quo was documented as well. Given the fundamental differences in objectives and concerns between publishers and librarians and the diversity of benefits obtained by different institutions within higher education, the findings highlight the complexity of identifying viable new models for journal publishing....

Turning from the world of buying and selling journal subscriptions to look at authors, a fascinating study on author responses to open access was commissioned by JISC and reported by Key Perspectives, Ltd. Using data collected late in 2004, the report is based on survey responses from almost 1,300 authors from around the globe....The study examined awareness of the ability to self-archive works and the attitudes and experiences of those authors who had archived works. Respondents also reported on their choice of open access journals to publish articles....Nearly half of the respondents reported having archived a work. Self-archiving was defined quite broadly to include both posting a work to a Web site and depositing a work in a repository that complies with the Open Archives Initiative (OAI). While Web posting was quite common, repository deposit was substantial. In many categories, deposit of refereed works had doubled since an earlier survey in January of 2004. These findings document that institutional and disciplinary repositories have made remarkable headway in changing scholars’ behavior in a surprisingly short period of time....Anxious to examine how onerous authors find self-archiving to be, the authors of the study gathered data on author perceptions of the ease of deposit and the amount of time required. Reassuringly, 54% of respondents described their first self-archiving experience as easy or very easy; however, 20% reported some level of difficulty....Since it seems that most authors have little actual difficulty depositing works, the question arises “Why don’t more authors take advantage of self-deposit of their works?” The most common objective respondents cited for undertaking their publishing activities was to communicate their research results to their peers, an objective consonant with self-archiving. The answer to the question “Why not?” appears to be unawareness of the availability of self-archiving mechanisms. Of those who had not used self-archiving, 71% reported being unaware of the option. Lack of awareness of this option varied by discipline but ranged from 86% in the medical sciences to 40% in library and information sciences....Perhaps the most interesting question asked by the survey was how authors would respond to mandated deposit of works into OAI-compliant repositories instituted by employers or funding agencies. Nearly 80% of respondents indicated they would comply with such a mandate willingly while less than 7% indicated that they would not comply.