1ARL

Library Publishing Services: New Opportunities for Research Libraries

Karla HahnARL Office of Scholarly Communication

ARL May Membership MeetingMay 21, 20082-3 pm

2ARL

ARL Member Survey

• September and October of 2007

• 80 members responded (response rate 65%)

3ARL

Follow-up interviews with program managers

• Semi-structured interviews

• 10 publishing program managers

• Cohort presented diverse program characteristics

• Especially programs reporting:

» explicit business planning » partnerships with university presses

4ARL

43%

21%

36%

Yes

No, but planning

No

Research Libraries Offering Publishing Services

5ARL

Types of Materials Libraries are Publishing

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

JournalsMonographs

Technical reports

Conference proceedings

Other

6ARL

Library-published journals frequently are:

• Electronic only

• Peer reviewed

• Open Access

• Previously published by another mechanism

• Humanities titles

7ARL

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Electronic Only Electronic and Print Electronic and Print onDemand

Journals inDevelopment

Established Journals

New Journals

8ARL

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

OpenJournalSystem(OJS)

DSpace Locallydevelopedsoftware

bepress DPubs Other

Software Used for Publishing Services

9ARL

The Basic Service Suite

• Hosting and application management

• Advice and consultation

• Workflow management

10ARL

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Libraryoperating

budget

Grantsupport

Endowmentfunds

Additionsto librarybudget

Revenuefrom sale

of productsor services

Chargeback tocampus

units

Royalties Other

Currently

In the Future

Funding Sources: Present and Future

11ARL

Other Publishing-related Services

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Digital repositoryservices

Digitizationservices

Copyrightadvisory

Other authoradvisory

Other, pleasedescribe:

Editing services

12ARL

31%

31%

38%

Yes

No, but exploring

No

Presence of campus or system presses

Partnerships with local university presses

Yes, our institution has itsown university press

Yes, our institution is part ofa system that supports auniversity pressNeither

13ARL

Partnerships other than university presses

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

No partners Overall % with atleast 1 partner

Yes, withInformation

Technology partners

Yes, withdepartment-level

partners

Yes, with college-level partners

14ARL

The publishing landscape

• New opportunities

• Growing gaps in traditional systems

15ARL

New opportunities

• New strategies for dissemination

• New kinds of works

• New tools for collaboration

• New awareness of copyright management

16ARL

Growing gaps in the traditional system

• Challenges of moving into electronic publishing

• Difficulty of moving out of print publishing

• Revenue-based publication models cannot meet the needs of many small fields

• Subscription models are working less and less well for smaller publishers over time.

17ARL

A common narrative for service development

• Campus demand

• Open source applications

• Synergies with other activities

18ARL

Service-based or content-based publishing?

At its core, a change in business models has the potential to fundamentally redefine the scholarly publishing industry by replacing the content-provider model that has traditionally defined scholarly publishers with a new service-provider model.

Redefining Scholarly Publishing as a Service Industry

Paul Peters 2007 JEP

19ARL

Library publishing services

• Service - based approach. Does not rely on content control

• Synergize with other investments libraries are making

• Leverage many opportunities for partnership

• Focus on necessary services for publishing

• Build on open source infrastructure

20ARL

State of service development

5.88%

52.94%

26.47%

14.71%

Experimental

In development

Integrated into thelibrary organizationOther

21ARL

Looking ahead

• Growth

• More titles

• Broader range of disciplines

• More sources of support

• More planned transition of established publications

22ARL

Key questions

• Support for broader information sharing

• Leveraging the evolving service suite

• Further application development

• Fostering new kinds of collaborations

• Longer term business planning

• Building university support

23ARL

The university perspective

• University publishing has been decentralized

• Investments are generally local

• Little expertise is built

• Little synergy with other activities

24ARL

University presses

• Largely outside the university infrastructure

• Focused publishing programs

• Revenue driven

• Tradition of competition rather than collaboration

• Slow to build expertise in digital scholarly communication

25ARL

Creating opportunities for university publishing

• Libraries have done a great deal with very modest investments

• Campus entities are turning to libraries for publishing services

• Libraries are open to partnerships and creative in constructing them

26ARL

What will, or should, the future scholarly communications system look like? First, every university that produces research should have a publishing strategy.

“University Publishing in a Digital Age”Ithaka Report, 2007

27ARL

The question is no longer whether libraries should offer publishing services, but what kinds of services libraries will offer.