From: Peggy Glahn <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 11:24:53 -0500

Sue makes a compelling point about not wanting to ransom her own
content back to share with researchers and scholars.  While this
discussion string is about journals, a similar paradigm exists for
special collections.

If a library has a special collection of wide interest, the
traditional publishing model holds that a publisher will bear the cost
of digitizing and hosting that collection. In exchange, the publisher
owns the rights to the digital assets, not the library. The source
library may be able to use the content locally, but everyone else must
pay for access and often pay handsomely.

My organization, Reveal Digital, has developed a model that will
completely change the balance of control back to libraries. With our
model, digitized collections are open access. Source libraries retain
ownership of copyright-cleared digital assets. Libraries and possibly
foundations cover the costs through crowdfunding, which results in
overall lower expenditures on digital content than in traditional
models.

Knowledge Unlatched and Unglue.it have introduced similar models for
monographs. More will surely follow.  Assuming libraries embrace these
models, there are very real opportunities for libraries to restore the
balance to the system Sue rightly calls for.


Peggy Glahn
Program Director, Reveal Digital
e:[log in to unmask]
w:www.revealdigital.com


On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Sue Gardner <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:49:27 +0000
>
> Shirley,
>
> It is perplexing. Publishers are overreaching more and more. This seems to me to be an impetus, and serves as a signal to readers and librarians, to change the system radically in order for balance to be restored. We are the publishers' "customers" as well as their suppliers of content. It seems to me that we are in a good position to demand changes. What I want is not to have to ransom my own content back to share it with colleagues, students, and the public. After a publisher has reached a level of sustainability, I do not want to contribute to outsized, perpetual profits.
>
> Publishers confer value in that they create the so-called version-of-record, which is truly valuable (I do not ascribe to wholesale manuscript versioning). They administer peer-review, to varying degrees of quality, such as it is. But this clearly does not supersede the value we confer as authors. Also, if readers can't easily access the work, the whole system becomes ridiculous.
>
> APCs are the craziest part of all of this. The authors create the work AND pay to have it published? Makes no sense at all. There is so much room for corruption and distortion in this model that it seems like a caricature.
>
> Authors and readers, the intellectual players in the publishing stream, should be off to the side of the revenue stream for the most part. Government agencies, academic institutions, foundations, libraries, and publishers (in that order) should handle the financial side of things. Let authors and readers get on with the important work of knowledge exchange.
>
> Shirley, thanks for bringing up an important question.
>
> Sue Gardner
>
> Sue Ann Gardner, MLS
> Scholarly Communications Librarian
> Discovery and Resource Management
> University of Nebraska-Lincoln
> Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-4100 USA
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Shirley Ainsworth <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:06:18 -0600
>
> I guess many will have heard that Nature Communications has been
> transformed from a hybrid journal to fully OA from 20th October this
> year.
>
> However I must admit that I was somewhat surprised to find out that we
> are expected to renew our subscription to the journal for 2015 , and
> that the price is the same as for 2014.
>
> How does this work?
>
> Authors pay APCs from now on, libraries have to keep paying
> subscriptions, and to boot the pre-October 2014 (subscription) journal
> articles will never be free and will be subject to the dread Nature
> post-cancellation policy that has been discussed at some length on
> this list.
>
> Anyone else perplexed by this?
>
> Shirley
>
> --
> Shirley Ainsworth
> Bibliotecaria/Librarian
> Instituto de Biotecnologia, UNAM
> Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
> [log in to unmask]