Paying for publication: issues and challenges for research support services

Payment for publication is an increasingly prevalent component of the scholarly publishing landscape, and librarians have a professional requirement to be aware of the current situation. This paper explores this phenomenon, including an analysis of what is being charged for publication. Comparisons between the different types of open access publishing, in fully open access and in hybrid journals, show the considerably higher costs of hybrid open access. Despite this discrepancy there remain issues with the discoverability of some hybrid open access articles. Payment for publication is changing the funding base for scholarly publication therefore broadening the administrative areas responsible for management of the system. New relationships between players across the sector need to be developed and fostered. To participate in this changing landscape librarians need a knowledge of the source of institutional and government funds for article processing charges and these funding bodies' approaches to funding hybrid. New offerings from publishers, such as membership schemes and mega journals further complicate the situation, not helped by challenges in obtaining data about what is being spent in this area. This increasingly complex situation potentially expands the role of libraries within institutions into the future, which is preferable to becoming irrelevant

Those who don’t look don’t find: Disciplinary considerations in repository advocacy

*Purpose of this paper: By describing some of the often ignored aspects of repository advocacy, such as disciplinary differences and how these might affect the adoption of a particular institutional repository, this paper aims to offer practical guidance to repository managers and those responsible for open access and repository policy. *Design/methodology/approach: The argument uses examples from an empirical study of 43 in-depth interviews of academic staff in three disciplines, Chemistry, Computer Science and Sociology, at two Australian universities. The interviewees discussed their interaction with the literature as an author, a reader and a reviewer. *Findings: Disciplines are markedly different from one another, in terms of their subject matter, the speed of publication, information seeking behaviour and social norms. These all have bearing on the likelihood a given group will adopt deposit into an institutional repository as part of their regular work practice. *Practical implications: It is important to decide the purpose of the institutional repository before embarking on an advocacy program. By mapping empirical findings against both diffusion of innovations theory and writings on disciplinary differences, this paper shows that repository advocacy addressing the university academic population as a single unit is unlikely to be successful. Rather, advocacy and implementation of a repository must consider the information seeking behaviour and social norms of each discipline in question. *What is original/value of paper: The consideration of disciplinary differences in relation to repository advocacy has only begun to be explored in the literature

Developing policies to support open access at your university

Why are policies useful? Policies supporting OA indicate it is a priority for the institution. This paper lists a few issues to consider when preparing policies: 1. Find out how policies and the executive committee structure works. 2. Developing policies takes a long time and involves many aspects of the university community. 3. Do you need an executive member to champion you? 4. Do you have a mandate or are you encouraging? The paper also provides some useful links

Open access publishing: a solution to the serials crisis?

The steep rise in subscriptions costs to scientific publications and the potential of the internet have resulted in an argument that all scientific research results should be available for free. This article examines how such a system would work. A description of the business models of open access journals is included and contrasted with the recent rise in institutional repositories

Repositories, research and reporting: the conflict between institutional and disciplinary needs

In Australia, research reporting is considered a way to increase awareness of and support for opening up accessibility to research outputs. This paper explores the fundamental differences between disciplines, which extend beyond publishing outputs. Most crucially, the information-seeking behaviour of a disciplinary cohort will determine the likelihood of individuals voluntarily embracing repositories. There is an inherent conflict between the needs of the institution and those of academics’ ‘invisible colleges’, as institutional repositories exist to serve the institution and funding bodies, rather than the individual

The Journal is dead, long live the Journal

PURPOSE To argue the traditional scholarly journal system is outdated and in need of revamp, and new internet technologies provide opportunities for change unavailable until now. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH The four functions of the scholarly journal; registration, awareness, certification and archiving are discussed in turn and alternative ways of undertaking those functions are explored. Barriers to change and ways to overcome these barriers are addressed. FINDINGS The functions of registration and certification are already met with an open peer review system in place for some high profile journals. Recently developed searching and browsing facilities give academics access to a greater proportion of scholarly literature, providing a more efficient awareness function than traditional journals. The function of archiving is not being adequately addressed by commercial publishers, and the steps being taken by institutional repositories to that end are more sustainable. The fundamental tenet of science as part of the public domain is being eroded by commercial gain, and a move away from the traditional scholarly system can reverse that trend. Barriers to change are; the publisher’s commercial imperative to maintain the status quo, the academy’s reluctance to change, and the reward system. However, recently both publishers and academics have demonstrated a willingness to try new systems. The barrier of institutional reliance on metrics poses the greatest threat to change. ORIGINALITY/VALUE This paper builds on an historical background of arguments dating back to 1926, but uses up-to-date examples of ways publishers are moving towards change. The paper will inspire debate in the scholarly community

Build it and they will come? Support for open access in Australia

This paper takes a critical look at the Australian open access landscape and analyses the issues with existing mandates and infrastructure through the lens of achieving open access via placing work in institutional repositories. Beginning with an explanation of the funding arrangements for universities in Australia, this paper describes the existing policy structure, the funding for physical infrastructure, how Australian theses are shared and the approach to the management of data as a research output. The second half of this paper takes an analytical view of the policies and repository infrastructure in Australia. This will demonstrate that beyond the basic provision of the tools for open access many issues affect the success or otherwise of an open access program. It will conclude by exploring areas which could be improved to allow Australia to take full advantage of the infrastructure in place to increase open access uptake in the country

The peer review paradox - An Australian case study

This paper discusses the results of a series of 42 interviews with Chemists, Computer Scientists and Sociologists conducted in 2006-2007 at two Australian universities. All academics perform peer review with later career researcher usually taking a greater load. The amount and type of review undertaken differs between disciplines. In general, review of journal articles and conference papers is unpaid work although reviewing books (a much larger task) often results in at least an offer of a free book from the publishers. Reviewing of grant proposals and theses does attract an honorarium, but these are insignificant amounts. Most interviewees indicated that reviewing is part of what is expected in academia, and that it offers the benefit of early access to new research results. The competing requirements of an academic’s peer group and the institution at which they work has meant a sharp increase in the number of papers published over the past decade. This in turn has made finding referees difficult, and the fact the work goes unrecognised by the performance measurement process adds to the problem. The claim of certain conferences that their papers are refereed is met with some cynicism, even in Computer Science, which normally uses conferences as its main channel of peer reviewed communication. Overall these findings open the question of whether the amount of effort expended in peer review is justified