ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 2 4 1 C&RL News ■ January 2001 SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION Ivy Anderson, Gail McMillan & Ann Schaffner, editors From crisis to reform University of Kansas Libraries sponsor campus dialogue by Jeffrey Bullington and Richard Fyffe I n March 2000, the Association o f Research Libraries (ARL), the Association o f Ameri­ can Universities (AAU), and the Merrill Cen­ ter for Advanced Studies at the University o f Kansas (KU) sponsored an invitational m eet­ ing in Tem pe, Arizona, for academ ic admin­ istrators, library directors, and teaching fac­ ulty to s eek n ew ways to address rising jour­ nal costs and other dysfunctions o f the cur­ rent scholarly publishing model. T h e d o cu m en t that resulted from that meeting, now know n as the “Tem pe Prin­ ciples for Emerging Systems o f Scholarly Com­ munication,” recom m ends new scholarly, ad­ ministrative, and library collection develop­ ment practices that are intended to control costs and broad en access to scholarly litera­ ture. The Tem pe Principles have b e e n endorsed by the ARL, the AAU, and the academ ic o f­ ficers o f the National A ssociation o f State Universities & Land Grant Colleges; but they will prod uce real change only if scholarly authors, university administrators, and librar­ ians incorporate them into their scholarly and administrative practices and decision-making. The Principles and their endorsers therefore call upon individual campus com munities to begin local discussions on how to accom ­ plish ch an g e.1 Purpose of the seminar In response to this call, on November 8, 2000, the provost and the dean o f libraries at KU jointly sponsored a campus dialogue on the Tem pe Principles. O ne hundred fifty KU fac­ ulty m em bers, graduate students, librarians, and colleagu es from nearby co lleg es and universities m et in Lawrence to collectively reflect on our present situation and future possibilities. T h e m eeting culm inated w ith a set o f small-group discussions on specific principles in the Tem pe docum ent, facilitated by KU subject bibliographers.2 Roster of presenters P r e s e n t a t i o n s b y KU P r o v o s t D a v id Shulenburger and ARL’s Office o f Scholarly Com m unications’ Mary Case set the stage by d escrib in g the sch o larly com m u n icatio n s problem , som e possible rem edies, and the goals o f the Tem pe Principles. A panel then presented several p ersp ec­ tives on the Tem pe Principles. Panelists in­ cluded: M abel Rice, university distinguished professor o f Speech, Language, and Hearing, KU, director o f the KU Merrill Center, and a participant in the con feren ce at Tem pe; Vic­ tor Bailey, professor o f History, KU; Jam es R. Coffman, provost o f Kansas State University; A b o u t th e a u th o rs Jeffrey Bullington is reference librarian and bibliographer, e-mail: jbullington@ukans.edu, and Richard Fyffe is assistant dean o f libraries for scholarly communication at the University o f Kansas; e-mail: rfyffe@ukans.edu mailto:jbullington@ukans.edu mailto:rfyffe@ukans.edu C&RL News ■ January 2001 / 25 Editors' introduction In a recent column ( “Create Change,” June 2000), Ray English and Lee Hardesty called upon academic librarians to promote increased awareness and dialogue about scholarly communication issues at their parent institutions. The University o f Kansas (KU) is one institution that is already well known for its efforts in this area through the activities of provost David Shulenberger and the sup­ port of the BioOne initiative. So when the editors learned last spring that colleague Richard Fyffe had been appointed assistant dean of libraries for scholarly communica­ tion at KU, we contacted him for a possible contribution to our column. The naming of this new position at KU seemed designed to further these goals. In fact, we learned that KLT was about to host a campus workshop on the Tempe Prin­ ciples, a document meant to guide academic institutions in the quest for a more sustain­ able scholarly information system. Fyffe and colleague Jeffrey Builington here share learn­ ings from that session and offer suggestions to other institutions that may be planning simi­ lar local initiatives.— Ivy A n d erson , G α il McMillan, a n d A n n S ch affn er Jim Williams, Dean o f Libraries at the Uni­ versity of Colorado, Boulder, and current chair of the Big 12 Plus Libraries Consortium; and Richard Fyffe, KU’s assistant dean o f libraries for scholarly communication. The panel was followed by a presenta­ tion on a discipline-based alternative to the current publishing model. Heather Joseph, BioOne president and chief operating officer, spoke on “BioOne: Building a Unique Online Publishing Collaboration." Themes of the presentations The seminar opened with the premise that our current situation is fundamentally a crisis of access, not of cost. Scholarly knowledge is a public good: it is the product of social collaborations funded directly or indirecdy by the public. A larger community than indi­ vidual publishers therefore ultimately owns it. The current unsustainable costs to univer­ sities of the acquisition o f scholarly knowl­ edge are a fundamental threat to broad ac­ cess to that knowledge. At present, universities give away their in­ tellectual property to private firms and schol­ arly societies, which have found that they can sell it back at prices that will produce large profits and/or support the cost o f other activities. The Tempe Principles recognize the current crisis as a systematic or ecological one that must be addressed from several standpoints at once. Mary Case pointed out that the crisis is global in scope and daunting in proportion. Nevertheless, there is a remarkable range of efforts to devise new models of scholarly com­ munication. These efforts are focusing on cre­ ating competition, supporting not-for-profit publishers, distributing peer-reviewed works for free, developing and linking e-print ar­ chives, building acceptance o f electronic monographs, and creating new models of scholarly community. Furthermore, these efforts are building new kinds of partnerships between libraries and scholarly societies (e.g., the American Chemical Society’s Organic Letters), libraries and individual editors {E co n o m ics Bulletin, a partnership o f the editor and the University of Illinois Library), and scholars, libraries, and university presses (Project Euclid, a collabo­ ration between Cornell University Libraries and the Duke University Press). Efforts to revitalize the scholarly mono­ graph, whose sales have been hit hard by A b o u t th e e d ito r s Ivy Anderson is coordinator for Digital Acquisitions at Harvard University, e-mail: ivy_anderson@harvard.edu; Gail McMillan is director, of Digital Library and Archives a t Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, e-mail: gailmac@vtedu; Ann Schaffner has been an academic librarian for more than 20 years and is currently a full time M BA student a t Simmons College, e-mail: ann.schaffner@simmons.edu mailto:ivy_anderson@harvard.edu mailto:gailmac@vt.edu mailto:ann.schaffner@simmons.edu 26 / C&RL News ■ January 2001 library bu d get reallocation s requ ired to m eet rising journal costs, in clu d e G u ten b erg -e, a p ro ject o f the A m erican H istorical A ssocia­ tion, and the A m erican C ou ncil o f Learned So cieties’ History E -B o o k P roject. T h e k e y role o f partn ersh ips in address­ ing the crisis is esp ecia lly evid en t in th e case o f B io O n e , w h o s e foun d ers rep resen t a c o l­ laboration o f profit an d n ot-for-profit institu­ tions: th e A m erican Institute fo r B io lo g ical S cie n c e s, a n u m b rella o rg an izatio n fo r 70 scientific societies; the B ig T w elv e Plus Li­ brary Consortium ; SPARC (th e Sch olarly P ub­ lishing an d A cad em ic R eso u rce C oalition); Allen P ress, a com m ercial printer; an d the KU. A lthough B io O n e w as fo u n d ed b e fo re th e T em p e P rin cip les w e re form ulated , its B oard has u sed the P rinciples to guide the p ro je c t’s d evelopm ent. Sch olars w ere rem ind ed b y R ice that their various roles— as con su m ers o f sch o larsh ip , as p ro d u cers, as evalu ators, an d as m em ­ b ers o f p ro fessio n a l org an ization s— are sig­ n ifican tly in tertw in ed w ith sev e ra l o f the T em p e P rin cip les, particularly th o s e having to d o w ith c o st-co n tro l, e le c tro n ic c a p a b il­ ity, an d th e p ro c e ss o f sch o larly rev iew and evalu ation. As con su m ers, sch olars w an t easy, timely, and system atic a c c e s s to all available infor­ m ation. High costs are a barrier to fulfilling this n eed . As prod u cers, they w ant to p u b ­ lish in journals w ith high scholarly im pact and to s ee their w o rk dissem inated in a tim ely way. H ow ever, although scholarly pu blish­ ing d ep en ds o n a robust infrastructure o f p eer review and evalu ation to m aintain th e intel­ lectual standards o f th e d isciplines, review and evalu ation o f scholarly m anuscripts tend to receiv e little credit in the p rom otion and tenu re system . N ew incen tives and reco g n i­ tion s n e e d to b e d ev elo p ed to assu re the vi­ tality o f this role. Finally, as m em b ers o f p ro fessio n al orga­ nizations scholars are w ell p ositioned to over­ s e e the transition to n e w form s o f scholarly pu blishing. A k ey asp ect o f m an aging this transition is d eterm ining th e p ro p er relation ­ ship b e tw e e n the so c ie ty ’s bu d get fo r p u bli­ cations and its o th er activities. Sem inar participants w ere also rem ind ed that high c o s t is n o t th e only barrier to intel­ lectual access. In the digital environm ent, new legislation an d rulings are restricting th e a p ­ p lica tio n o f fair-u se a c c e s s to c op y rig h ted w ork s. As Jim W illiam s p o in ted out, just tw o w e e k s p reviously the Librarian o f C ongress ruled that the fair-use doctrin e c a n b e ap ­ p lied to just tw o narrow ex c e p tio n s to th e an ticircu m v en tio n p ro v isio n o f th e D igital Millennium Copyright Act. T h e U niform Com ­ p u ter Inform ation T ransactions A ct (UCITA) will likew ise affect the p ractice o f high er edu­ catio n in a digital environm en t. T h e a c ce s si­ bility o f scholarly literature w ill co n tin u e to b e in flu en ced b y fo rces outside the academ y, and it is critical that faculty an d adm inistra­ tors en g ag e, as citizens, in b ro ad er p olitical a n d le g i s l a t iv e e f f o r t s to a r t i c u la te th e acad em y ’s values. T h e co st o f the scholarly com m u n ication s crisis is significant, b u t so, to o , are th e costs o f p ro p o sed solutions. E lectron ic d issem in a­ tio n an d u se o f scholarly literature im p ose large costs o n universities, an d it is critical that w e s e e k opp ortu nities to leverag e our investm en t in com p u ter and n etw ork infra­ structure to assure the greatest return in sch ol­ arly an d ed u cation al productivity. C o n cern w as exp ressed , m oreover, that w ith their n e w fo cu s o n sch olarly com m u n i­ catio n as a collab o rativ e p ro cess, individual re se a rch libraries will lo se a d istinctiveness traditionally derived from the un iqu e c o lle c ­ tion s th ey built. T h e in ternational scholarly com m u nity has b e e n en rich ed b y this diver­ sity o f collectin g interest and responsibility. E lectron ic form ats are n o t n ecessarily o p ti­ m al for all scholarly p u rposes. Finally, w e w ere rem ind ed that, in a digi­ tal environm en t, a c ce s s to the scholarly lit­ eratu re w ill b e c o n tro lle d n o t ju st b y the ow n ers o f intellectu al property, b u t also by the o w n ers o f the c o d e (softw are) that rep re­ sen ts that literature in digital form . U se of non-p roprietary softw are and o p e n standards w ill b e essen tial to th e lon g-term availability o f o u r n etw o rk ed intellectu al heritage. T h e m e s f r o m t h e g r o u p d is c u s s io n s Participants in the sem in ar w ere invited to jo in o n e o f fo u r d iscu ssion groups to further e x p lo re th e T e m p e P rinciples an d h o w they c ou ld b e in corp o rated into a cad em ic prac­ tice at KU. W hat ap p ears b e lo w is a synthe­ sis o f som e o f the com m en ts cap tu red from th ese sessions. Full transcripts are accessible o n the sem in ar W e b page. C&RL News ■ Ja nuary 2001 / 27 • Systems o f scholarly publication cur­ rently emphasize the journal as the primary unit, and publication within a certain journal connotes quality and prestige. We tend to focus on “journals” and secondarily on “ar­ ticles.” We need to think o f the “article” as the truly important p iece and the level at which “quality” is measured. • Competition is almost an oxym oron in the scholarly com munication environment. Each article, monograph, w ork is unique. • Rethinking and re-fashioning scholarly communications practices will be closely in­ tertwined with changes in the prom otion and tenure and related review processes, to en ­ courage use o f alternative models and to re­ ward participation in the peer-review manu­ script evaluation process. This will require clear support from campus administration. Other evaluative systems, such as accredita­ tion bodies and grant agencies, will also need to examine their processes and expectations. • Libraries and campus administrations could do more to ensure that producers o f scholarly communications (researchers and writers) are more fully aware o f copyright law and what copyright entails, and to edu­ cate scholarly authors regarding journal sub­ scription costs, licensing terms, and oppor­ tunities for negotiating more favorable terms in copyright transfer. • Producers o f scholarly com munications could consider signing the o p en letter d e­ scribed at (http://www.publiclibraryofscience. org), wherein individuals agree to submit works for publication only to journals with more reasonable, less restrictive copyright and access policies. • Campuses or scholarly societies/com- munities could consider creating electronic venues for their communities, wherein m em­ bers could post works in progress and other kinds of scholarly work for initial review, idea- sharing, and long-term preservation. This would be analogous to the preprint server, but would be managed as a campus service incorporating all fields o f study and endeavor of that campus. • Emphasis on electronic formats as pri­ mary or preferred will continue to b e a chal­ lenging issue. The acceptance o f electronic formats varies across disciplines and from campus to campus. Electronic formats raise serious questions regarding ease-of-use and C o n ce rn w a s e x p re sse d , m oreover, t h a t w ith th e ir n e w fo c u s on sc h o la rly c o m m u n ic a tio n a s a c o lla b o ra tiv e p ro cess, in d iv id u a l re se a rch lib ra rie s w ill lo se a d is tin c tiv e n e s s t r a d itio n a lly d e riv e d fro m th e u n iq u e co lle c tio n s th e y b u ilt. long-term preservation. Will the content be encoded in a format that will migrate as tech­ nologies develop? Should a multiplicity o f formats— print and electronic— b e encour­ aged to maintain a kind o f “biodiversity”? As may b e evident from these com ments, sem inar participants did not emerge from the discussions with distinctly focused visions o f the future or how to get there. Rather, w e initiated a conversation, clarified som e ques­ tions, and raised other questions. T he work ahead will b e to continue these discussions, engage a greater part o f our community, and start to define focu sed attainable responses. Lo ok in g ah e ad Organizers o f the KU sem inar and other par­ ticipants will review the results o f the small- group discussions and other feedback to iden­ tify next steps for the KU community, and plans for a spring sem inar are already taking shape. W e en co u rag e o th er cam pu ses to undertake similar discussions, and offer the following organizational suggestions (som e o f them conceived in retrospect): • Enlist the active involvement o f chief academ ic officers, w ho are best positioned to authorize and encourage changes that may affect fundamental academ ic practices and policies. Maintain their visibility throughout discussion. • Hold discussions in a university space— not the library— reinforce the idea that this is an issue for the whole university, especially the teaching faculty, to address and help to resolve. • E ngage m ultiple disciplines sim ulta­ neously and involve faculty in the planning process. Enlist faculty as leaders or facilitators o f group discussions. The effects o f the schol­ http://www.publiclibraryofscience 2 8 / C&RLNews ■ January 2001 arly communications crisis are different in each discipline, but they are intertwined. The dia­ log is enriched by the opportunity for faculty from different disciplines to assess the con ­ sequences o f proposed actions and solutions from their own perspectives. The Tem pe Principles recognize that high costs and restrictive licenses are symptoms o f a d eeper crisis in the scholarly com muni­ cations system. Any on e library or any one university working in isolation cannot resolve this crisis. Even so, discussions leading to collective determ ination to alter scholarly practice must begin at local levels, particu­ larly am ong colleges and universities that em ploy most working scholars and set the standards for prom otion and tenure. Librar­ ies cannot b e the prim ary, arena in which those changes are enacted; it is vital that teach­ ing faculty and researchers assume responsi­ bility for resolving this crisis. However, li­ braries and librarians can act as an important institutional catalyst by initiating and spon­ soring campus discussion. Notes 1. The Tem pe Principles are available on the ARL W eb site at http://www.arl.org/ scomm/tem p e. html 2. Sem in ar m aterials are p o s te d at http://www2.lib.ukans.edu/scholcomm/tempe/ tempe.htm. ■ ( “R es o u rce s . . . ” c o n t in u e d f r o m p a g e 1 4 ) • SAS. Software from the SAS Institute. A ccess: http://www.sas.com/. • R ice V irtu al Lab in S tatistics. This site offers som e nice reviews o f statistical con­ cepts. It includes HyperStat, an online text­ book, and simulations that demonstrate how s o m e sta tistic s e q u a tio n s w o rk . A c c e s s : http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/rvls.html. Note 1. At the time this review was written, data from the 2000 census w ere not avail­ able. ■ http://www.arl.org/ http://www2.lib.ukans.edu/scholcomrn/tempe/ http://www.sas.com/ http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/rvls.html mailto:custserv@archival.com http://wwvv.archival.com C&RL News ■ J a n u ary 2001 / 29 INTERNATIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THEATRE Multi-volume, ongoing, annotated index to theatre-related articles, dissertations and books; over 58,000 classed entries with 260,000 subject references, and 70,000 geographical-chronological references to 126 countries. Author index, taxonomy o f theatre and list o f theatre journals. “Essential” - Research Guide, Bobst Library, New York Univ. “Invaluable to theatre research” - Louis A. Rachow, ITI. IBT 1998 Forthcoming Theatre Research Data Center Brooklyn College, 2900 Bedford Avenue Brooklyn ‚ N Y 11210 USA. Tel (718) 951-5998 Fax (718) 951-4606 E-Mail; rxwbc@cunyvm.cuny.edu INTERNATIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THEATRE mailto:rxwbc@cunyvm.cuny.edu