Kurt Paulus on ALPSP International Conference: Making change happen

2012 ALPSP Awards winners

This is the fourth and final post in a series of reflections on the 2012 ALPSP International Conference by Kurt Paulus, former Operations Director at the Institute of Physics, and long time supporter of ALPSP. Our thanks go to Kurt for capturing the sessions. If this whets your appetite, book for the 2013 conference now.

Making change happen

References to what publishers might do to ride the crest of the wave of change have been scattered throughout the conference, so there is no lack of ideas. Indeed, as Stephen Pinfield noted in the final panel discussion, there is more experimentation now than ever before with technologies, services and business models, as publishers are overcoming their fears of the uncertainties  change brings with it. Anita de Waard put it this way:

• Experiment all over the place.
• Support scientists working at the forefront of information handling and networking.
• Join fora where scientists, publishers and librarians cooperate.
• Form partnerships and alliances where you cannot manage on your own.

But don’t expect your cherished organizational structures to survive the change process. All publishing roles will have to adapt. Close interaction with your customers and users may be hindered by the still prevalent functional set-up of many organizations. Skills – technological, analytical, social – will need to be reinforced. IT professionals will have to become more business aware and outward facing, and the concept of the IT department may disappear. All this requires complete reorientation of organizations.

“Work on your business as well as in your business.” Arend Welmers

Lost? Help is at hand from company doctor Arend Welmers of Quantum90 who gave the second keynote presentation with some simple messages:

• A common disease in organizations is functional thinking. Your role in your organization is not your job title.
• The job you may not be doing is helping your company to progress and make more money. You are hired to make the company successful.
• All organizations, whether for profit or not, are competing in a marketplace.
• ‘Employee engagement’ is just consultants’ eyewash. Employees must learn to behave as if they own their company and are individually responsible for making it succeed.

Arend’s recipe is called ‘Open book management’, where everyone is involved in running the company and has access to all information about company information, especially financial, presented in such a way that they know which levers they have to pull to improve performance and so that they can see the results. And if they are successful, why not let them share in the success by moving towards shared ownership?
Arend is a challenging and enthusiastic speaker, so much so that he was able to devote less time than he would have liked to his case study, the Springfield Remanufacturing Corporation, where the crux of his message is. In discussion it emerged that he had been working with the American Institute of Physics for a couple of years, and that might have been a better case study for this conference. The testimonial from Fred Dylla, CEO of American Institute of Physics, was complimentary!

Endnote

The winners of the ALPSP awards are given on the ALPSP website, but it is worth noting that the ALPSP Award for Contribution to Scholarly Publishing 2012 went not to an individual but to an organization, CrossRef, with the following citation (abbreviated):

“The Council of ALPSP was delighted to make this award to CrossRef, the independent not-for-profit organization set up and run by publishers to facilitate the linking between scholarly publications using the Digital Object Identifier. Launched in 2000, this system grew rapidly to hold 3 million DOIs in just a year and now holds metadata for 55.5 million conference proceeding articles, book chapters and journal articles right back to the first articles published in Philosophical Transactions in 1665. With over 4,000 participating publishers, CrossRef’s reach is international and it is very well regarded not just amongst publishers, but also the literary community and researchers.”

This happily reinforces one of the conference messages, that unity is strength and collaboration helps overcome weaknesses.

Kurt Paulus, 2012
Booking for the 2013 conference is open.

Kurt Paulus on ALPSP International Conference. Data, data, data!

This is the third in a series of reflections on the 2012 ALPSP International Conference by Kurt Paulus, former Operations Director at the Institute of Physics, and long time supporter of ALPSP. Our thanks go to Kurt for capturing the sessions. If this whets your appetite, book now to secure your place at the 2013 conference.

Data, data, data

Though not an explicit theme of the conference, speaker after speaker emphasized the need for scholarly publishers to be on top of the information they have, or should have, about the behaviours of their users and customers. Mark Ware enjoined us to use extreme analytics to make sense of the customer and user data we have, indispensable for business-to-business companies but equally important fort the rest of us. Tom Taylor, talking about global consortia and library markets, suggested that consortia deals continue to be healthy and renewed provided we understand the local factors across the world that influence decisions: investment or retrenchment in education and research, general economic climate, open or closed consortia, political stability or lack of it and, of course, direct customer contact and service.

Matt Rampone in the mobile session urged publishers to invest in analysis of their readers. Forcefully, Charlie Rapple encouraged them to get to know their audiences, articulate questions they want answered before doing market research: what are the users actually doing, what devices do they use, what are their problems: evidence-based strategy formulation!

And, as Tracy Gardner of Simon Inger Consulting reminded everyone, there is the fourth scholarly publishing survey, currently in progress, that will be required reading when it comes out.

Open access

The Budapest Open Archives Initiative is 10 years old. Pressure from researchers, funding bodies and governments on publishers to open up access to their information has been intense and has even spilled over into the daily press. Although open access journals are not new, progress has been slow as publishers struggle with the new business models required to make sense of them. The green OA model – author deposit in institutional or other repositories after an embargo period – has been most in evidence, with funding agencies increasingly mandating this. The main argument here then is over the embargo period, ranging from 6 to 18 months.

This is the model chosen by the World Bank for its publications, a relatively small part of the work of the world’s largest development agency, so the business impact of open access is not too severe. For Springer, one of the largest STM publishers, the situation is quite different. Nevertheless, Springer has been moving gradually towards green open access, as Wim van der Stelt explained, helped by the acquisition of BioMed Central in 2008. Springer Open has 100 journals across all subject areas, has 405 members in 46 countries, includes books, and 15% of Springer articles are now open access. The embargo period is 12 months. Price adjustments are made even for selected hybrid journals depending on their OA content. Prices may go up as well as down and they “do make money”.

“Don’t forget: Open Access is just a business model, so keep up with your traditional services.” Wim van der Stelt

Wim advised doubters to be courageous and provide hybrid options, transfer subscription journals to open access, start sister journals and sponsored journals and launch fully open access new journals; also be creative with financial models for society journals, for example reducing or forgiving charges to members for one or more of their papers.

Gold Open Access – fully open access from publication, with authors paying a publication charge – has been slower to get off the ground although there are some early gold OA journals that are now quite well established. Three things have helped to accelerate development. Firstly there has been a gradual increase in the publication charge to a level that now makes business sense. Secondly, some funding agencies have agreed to pay the charge out of research grants. Finally, governments have slowly begun to shift policies, most notably the British government which accepted the recommendations of the Finch report, supporting gold OA, earlier this year, The European Union - green with six month embargo or gold without agreement on funding - has yet to be as bold, and things are not moving very rapidly in the USA either.

Whatever the outcome, the social sciences will move at different speed than the physical ones because of different funding arrangements.  The transition will also bring new administrative issues for author publication charges by institutions as the system migrates, particularly with authors from different institutions.

Freemium: a new business model?

Disruptive as the open access model may appear, as yet it has not yet led to fundamental change in the economics of scholarly publishing. As Mary Waltham pointed out, E-Biomed which morphed into PubMed Central was launched in 1999 to fierce opposition from publishers. Yet progress towards full open access has been quite slow and, as Thomas Taylor reminded us, the subscription based consortia model continues to be strong. At the same time, Cameron Neylon cautioned, in the long term there isn’t much money in controlling access to content, but there is a lot of money in tools and platforms to enable access. This is an opportunity for publishers to produce premium services.

How this might work was illustrated by Xavier Cazin of Immateriél, drawing on actual e-book sales experiences in France. Immateriél  has found that public domain books often sell at a price, OECD books sell at £11.99 through a bookshop even though they are free from the OECD website and discount offers bring in extra revenue even though the content value does not change. What customers are willing to pay for is ease of access: easy from where I am, readable on my current device, easy navigation through content. They are also prepared to pay for reading rewards: rich and well designed environment, content and curation appropriate to my current needs and sharing functionalities. The two combine to give ‘reading comfort’ which relates directly to the price people are prepared to pay. It follows that there is a job to do for publishers: find out exactly, for your content and your customers, what you need to do to produce products and services that provide this reading comfort.

The model of free+premium = freemium is a combination of a large, addressable audience whose needs we identify through analytics, to whom we offer free versions with a clear value but also premium offers with added value.

Kurt Paulus, 2012
Book now for the 2013 conference.

Kurt Paulus on ALPSP International Conference. Key changes, challenges and opportunities

This is the second in a series of reflections on the 2012 ALPSP International Conference by Kurt Paulus, former Operations Director at the Institute of Physics, and long time supporter of ALPSP. Our thanks go to Kurt for capturing the sessions. If this whets your appetite, book by Friday 9 August to avoid the late booking fee.

Key changes, challenges and opportunities

Change is all around us yet the constants traditionally underpinning scholarly publishing largely remain in place: quality control, trusted brands, citability, even mainstream business models like the big deal. Perhaps reassured by that, we can afford to be less fearful when confronting the many changes that are coming our way. There is pressure from governments to review copyright legislation. Governments and funding agencies want to see much more open access than we have been willing to entertain until recently. Technical changes, not necessarily designed with publishers’ needs in mind, are racing ahead and we are forced to go with the flow.


We sometimes forget that our customers also face change. Librarians confront technical and resource constraints and increasingly have to demonstrate how they add value. Authors and readers suffer severe time constraints and have to change their workflows to be most effective. Both need our help. Change is now a constant yet publishers’ reactions can be coloured by fear of it, causing them to cling to outdated models and overlook the undoubted opportunities that change brings with it. ‘Disruptive technologies’ can have a positive impact.

Mobile

Mobile technologies and social networking techniques are ubiquitous and all around us. The growth of consumer-focused mobile technologies such as tablets and smart phones did not initially alert us to the benefits that this might bring to scholarly publishing. Researchers are also consumers, however, and increasingly demand access to their information wherever they might be.

“The scholarly article in 140 characters? No!” Plenary 2 title

While publishers may have been slow off the mark, mobile access is increasing and ‘Apps’ are springing up apace.  Matt Rampone of HighWire gave an overview: in the UK in August this year, over 13% of total online use was via mobile – smartphones, tablets and also e-readers. iOS is the dominant operating system with Android coming up fast. PDF is the format of choice for readers. Average time spent on a site is about 50s (a little longer for a selection of Apps). Mobile usage has a doubling time of 12 months! Rampone’s advice:

• Invest in mobile.
• Invest in analytics (know your readers).
• Create good experiences.

It is fairly clear that publishing on mobile platforms does not yet require a rebirth of the scholarly article but is essential if publishers are to keep pace with readers’ changing behaviours and does give the opportunity to organize and present content in new ways. We mustn’t forget, Tom Reding of BBC Worldwide reminded us, that we are in the business of insight, not journals. The carrot for embracing change is that mobile users are more willing to pay for additional services than desktop users.

Mark Ware’s presentation based on a series of case studies carried out for Outsell confirmed that publishing to mobile platforms is increasingly settling in with STM publishers, starting with the medical and healthcare areas but spreading more widely. The publishers involved included BMJ, Elsevier, Nature, OUP, Wiley-Blackwell and others. Beyond the technical and presentational issues are business ones such as authentication of a user who wants to access a website from a mobile device from within their institution or while on the move. The solutions for RSC Mobile and Oxford Journals Mobile are slightly different for example, and no doubt evolving in response to reader reaction.

Discoverability

There is a data deluge in scholarly publishing, suggested Sophia Ananiadou, chairing one session: information overload, but is that the right metaphor? The deluge is a feature of a system where increased research funding leads to increased publishable output and, even with the most rigorous peer review, to  a growing mountain of stored information. How do we retrieve the stuff we need to progress research further?

“The problem is not information overload, nor filter failure; it is discovery deficit.” Cameron Neylon following Clay Shirky

The issue is not a new one but the scale is, according to Harry Kaplanian, who took us back to card catalogues and OPACs before moving on to more contemporary techniques of finding and retrieving information. We have since moved on to web search, standard references, author generated key words, metadata, A&I services and aggregators to make searches more exhaustive and reliable. A lot is being learned and there is an increasing convergence. Publishers need to be prepared to serve a variety of reader types looking for information through a number of different ‘discovery channels’ (Simon Inger), and need to be on top of their user statistics so that they can better serve their readers and also share their user data with librarians to support their case (value added again).

Oxford University Press has its own Director of the Discoverability Programme, Robert Faber, charged with increasing discoverability of all OUP content across subject areas. This includes among others:

• Free content outside the paywall – abstracts, keywords etc
• Improved MARC programmes
• Enhanced linking between products and services
• New mobile sites for Oxford Journals
• Optimized search engines
• New approaches to library discovery services
• Analytic tools for tracking user behaviour.

At the top of the tree is the Oxford index, a standardized description of every item of content in one place, an evolving Oxford interface and a way to create links and relationships between content elements.

We are beginning to move towards text and data mining, from a single publisher’s output towards the whole growing corpus of accumulated information, i.e. from looking for a single needle in one haystack to finding a collection of compatible needles in a whole field of haystacks. Anita de Waard, Director of Disruptive Technologies at Elsevier set the scene by talking about working with biologists on how scientists read, how computers read and how they might come together to discover relevant and reliable information rather than just isolated research papers. She sees an evolving future of research communication where researchers compile data, add metadata, overlay the whole thing with workflow tools, then create papers from this material in Google.doc accessible to editors and reviewers, all in the ‘cloud’. Publishers? – we provide the tools!

John McNaught from the National Centre for Text Mining illustrated some of the techniques for adding more value to discovery: natural language searching, searching for acronyms, checking for language nuances, looking for associations, all designed to peel away layer upon layer of increasing complexity to turn unstructured text into structured content linked to other knowledge.

“The value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of connected members.” Metcalfe’s law

Networking and the semantic web continue to be buzzwords. Information is dispersed in many different places. To make sense of it we need structure and context, a resource description framework that identifies objects and connects them, and the appropriate vocabulary. Knowledge networks – associated communities that work on specific topics, linking to move on to a different level – are the next level up from networks of individual papers and reports, according to Stefan Decker.

So what’s the problem?

All this is fascinating work going on at the moment in academic or similar institutions. So will all our problems be solved soon? Not in a hurry, according to Cameron Neylon of PLoS, unless publishers change their ways. The majority of publishers behave as broadcasters of information and are still not thinking of networks of people and tools. The tools publishers have provided are not adequate, and often licences prohibit text mining of material to which the reader already has access. This is an opportunity for publishers to produce premium services. The hardware tools – mobile devices – are already available and are powerful.

“Publishers are too focused on controlling access.” Cameron Neylon

The bottom line for all these speakers is open access, that is having metadata and full text freely accessible with licensing arrangements that permit text mining, if the dream of improved discoverability for researchers is to be achieved. If there is a straw in the wind pointing to how publishers policies may develop it is the recent agreement by ALPSP, STM and the Pharma Documentation Ring (PDR) on a new clause for the PDR Model Licence:

“Text and Data Mining (TDM): download, extract and index information from the Publisher’s Content to which the Subscriber has access under this Subscription Agreement. Where required, mount, load and integrate the results on a server used for the Subscriber’s text mining system and evaluate and interpret the TDM Output for access and use by Authorized Users. The Subscriber shall ensure compliance with Publisher's Usage policies, including security and technical access requirements. Text and data mining may be undertaken on either locally loaded Publisher Content or as mutually agreed.”

Similar sentiments, though in the context of mobile delivery, were expressed by Charlie Rapple later in the conference. Getting quite used to trying to shake audiences out of complacency, Charlie claimed that our users are not happy with us: we have not evolved products and services in line with how they have evolved. New ways of creating, evaluating, curating and distributing information are all around us. We need to win our users back or we will go out of business: if we don’t, someone else will take over!

“Our audience and their needs should direct our strategy.” Charlie Rapple

Critically this means starting with the audience rather than content or devices on which content is delivered. Find out what users need; look into and understand their workflows; deconstruct our content and integrate it with these workflows, making it interactive, relevant and ‘friction-free’.

Kurt Paulus, 2012
Book by Friday 9 August to avoid the late booking fee.

Kurt Paulus on ALPSP International Conference. Isn't change fun?

This is the first in a series of four reflections on the 2012 ALPSP International Conference by Kurt Paulus, now retired, formerly Operations Director at the Institute of Physics, and long time supporter of ALPSP. Our thanks go to Kurt for capturing the sessions. If this whets your appetite for the 2013 conference, book by Friday 9 August to avoid the late booking fee.

“Isn’t change fun?” Toby Green 

Toby Green, the ALPSP Chair, summarized the three key themes of the conference as “New, Change and Open”. Another formulation might be “Change and how to cope”. In uncertain times it is helpful to have some experienced guides, and Mary Waltham and Mark Ware were volunteered for these roles.

After a wide ranging review of scholarly publishing since ALPSP was formed 40 years ago, Mary pointed to some emerging factors which will strongly influence the next 40, or even the next 10:

• The geographical distribution of scholarly research and publishing is changing rapidly: in chemistry, China’s output has already overtaken the USA and other ‘developing’  countries are snapping at their heels.
• Technology has enabled the big deal and allowed the deployment of metrics that have assisted both publishers and customers to make better informed decisions and have facilitated access to information from developing countries. Technical solutions to remaining problems are never far away.
• “Publishers behaving badly”: publishers have been their own worst enemies in ploughing their own furrow, e.g. over journal pricing, and not taking care to keep their library customers on board by communication and engagement and by not helping them to make a better funding case.
• There are some underlying factors that have not changed: the continuing need for validation through peer review, the desire to find information quickly and accurately, the specific needs of authors for help with their professional work and for peer recognition often provided by scholarly publishing. In Fred Dylla’s words: authors will still give their first born to get their papers into Nature or Science.

“By 2020, all services will be digital, mobile, customizable, intelligent, interoperable with multiple revenue streams.” Mark Ware

Mark Ware has engineered many surveys of the developing publishing scene for employers and clients over the years and shared his views of some of the economic and technological factors that will drive scholarly publishing in the coming years:

• We are told that 25% of waking hours are spent on mobile devices: think about it!
• Understanding your users through ‘extreme analytics’ is crucial.
• Mergers and acquisitions are becoming smaller and more focused, possibly threatening smaller niche publishers.
• Aggregation, e.g. of different journals or books and journals leads to more value added products but also a need for  more user aware curation.
• Sales growth will be based on value added rather than just number of articles in the database.
• An in-depth understanding of user workflows  will be critical to the ability to add value.
• Change and competition will force us to move from product centric to service focused behaviour.
• Open (access, data, standards, platforms) will be the watchword.

Kurt Paulus, 2012
Booking for the 2013 conference is open.

What do the US Open and ALPSP Annual Conference have in common?

This September will see a hive of scholarly publishers converge on The Belfry, 'the spiritual home of The Ryder Cup', for the ALPSP International Conference. Once again, the ALPSP Ringgold Golf Tournament will take place on the final afternoon.

If you love golf AND scholarly publishing, it seems appropriate to highlight two major events this week: the US Open kicks off today and the ALPSP conference early bird rate ends tomorrow. Make sure you take advantage of both.

Richard Fidczuk from SAGE Publications wrote a summary of last year's tournament:

"The now traditional ALSP Ringgold Golf Tournament took place on the Belfry Derby course after the conference finished, on Thursday afternoon. After worries that the weather would be like Wednesday afternoon, when it was hard to hear the conference speakers as the rain was so heavy on the roof of the hall, Thursday afternoon proved to be a beautifully sunny autumn day. There were thirteen participants in four teams, of all standards – and I do mean all, from handicaps as low as 6 to a clutch of high-handicappers , some of whom had only played golf a handful of times. And truly international, with players from The US, South Africa, and the Netherlands, as well as the UK. The Stableford scoring format, which gives players extra shots depending on their handicap, meant that everyone, regardless of ability, had a chance to score points for their team.

It was a closely fought contest, with two teams tying for first place at the end of the 18 holes, and after a tense count back process to decide the winner, the team comprised of Arend Welmers (Quantum90), Mark Carden (Metapress) and Phil Roberts (IET) came out on top. The individual winner was Chris Fell (CUP), who despite his rather ordinary putting (he won’t mind my saying that – I hope!) scored a total of 33 points to win. All winners received a magnificent trophy which cost, literally, pounds.

Thanks to Laura Cox from Ringgold for sponsoring the event again and providing refreshments at the 19th hole; and for Lesley at ALPSP for organizing with the conference venue. We will of course be playing again this year and will be looking for more participants (of all standards)."

Further information on the conference programme is available on the website.
Book your place at the early bird rate until Friday 14 June.

ALPSP Conference Day 2: The scholarly article in 140 characters? Are you a denial-o-saur?

Leon Heward-Mills introduces the session

Digital technology, particularly mobile, is changing the way we access and read information - perhaps even in the way we use different parts of our brains - for problem solving rather than 'deep-reading'. The Scholarly Article in 140 Characters session explored implications of this for consumers, publishers and the research community.

Matt Rampone from HighWire Press kicked off with a summary of mobile trends, data and the impact on STM publishing from their own user data. The information comes from 12 months of data from a wide range of publishers they work with and provides a snapshot of an aggregate study.

Mobile usage as a percentage of total online usage in the US is 10.58% and in the UK is 13.16% at August 2012 and based on smart phones, tablets, eReaders, with iPad 85% of tablet market share. Site use by page views can be broken down as:

• 82% content
• 9% home page
• 4% search
• 3% current issue
• 2% ahead of print.

The visits by operating system are split by 69% by iOS, 30% by Android, and 1% by BlackBerry. Mobile website usage trends are going up. People are finding the sites and coming back. Where smaller publishers - who publish once a month - have mobile apps, they found that users were coming back showing real engagement with a mobile platform. The median time for mobile website browsing is 90 seconds.

People spend more time reading with a tablet. With a smart phone they spend less time reading, perhaps because it is not as comfortable a reading environment? PDFs are more lately starting to trend downwards and - unsurprisingly - they are non-existent on the smart phone.

Matt's key recommendations:

1. invest in mobile (mobile optimised websites first)
2. invest in analytics
3. focus on creating good experiences: more tools and better end experience.

Charlie Rapple from TBI Communications - who wins the prize for best slide of the conference - provided a wake-up call for those who won't rethink their content strategy in light of new digital technologies. Content still tends to be long form, text based and not very dynamic. As an industry we've got into the mindset of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Slide of the conference: denial-o-saurs

But are users happy? What they want is changing, but we’re not really recognising and responding to this. One reason is that we haven’t evolved our product or service to the extent to which they have evolved. The risk is that we will lose market share to disruptor players. Does that mean that as an industry we are denial-o-saurs?

We need to consider how long we can win the battle of mind share. We need to win our users back and get better at meeting user needs by reconnecting, re-engaging, and rebuilding relationships with readers and stakeholders. The transition to online wasn't a revolution, but mobile and social may well be. So let's go back to basic principles - the audience and their need - to direct strategy and rethink core value proposition. We need to make better use of mobile technology.

Howard Rheingold in his book Smart Mobs claimed that mobile technology is “not just a way to do old things while moving... a way to do things that couldn’t be done before.”

We should think about what we can gain from deconstructing the article in terms of information and workflow. There is potential to meet reader/customer needs in the right place, at the right time with interactive, relevant and friction-free content. Charlie has a simple equation to work to:

right information + right place + right time = value

What she wants - and is starting - to see is user experience being less passive with a better sense of how it is contributing to their work and therefore the value. Mobile is really contributing to this. For publishers, the key is to get close enough to users to understand and get to know audiences. It doesn't have to be difficult or expensive: you can do desk research, analyse data - you don't need a huge budget. Having a crack in-house is better than not doing anything. An initial bit of work will help you really articulate the questions you need answers to.

You can combine general information from desk research with more focused research you do yourself. Take the general information (e.g. smart phone take-up) with own (user analysis of device type) and also ask really specific questions (e.g. problems that preclude smart phone use: security, confidentiality, connectivity?) Then compare the reality of what is happening with your site and your users to compare perception versus actual behaviour. Consider user observation and it is useful to probe and explore in more detail initial findings of your survey.

Citing an example from one of TBI's recent clients, one interesting finding from this approach was that as much use of professional information happens outside work while commuting or at home. This had implications for the structure and presentation of content with unexpected insights and inspiration. For example, expect the previously unexpected: medics can now use mobiles in the air in the US. This resulted in a medical app being used to save a life on a plane.

Nick Bilton in his latest book I Live in the Future & Here’s How it Works suggests we need to make time and space to make innovation happen. Another contemporary theorist, Steven Johnson talks about the “collision of slow hunches”. It's about focusing your efforts, setting and prioritising objectives, as well as embracing and planning for change. Move away from thinking about content to thinking about customers and it will have an impact on every department.

Rapple's vision comprises a roadmap:

1. audience research and segmentation
2. brainstorm problems and solutions
3. prioritise audiences and objectives
4. prepare staff and processes for change.

Despite having to follow the awesome denial-o-saurs, Tom Reding from BBC Worldwide charmed and informed the audience in equal measure with multi-media highlights from key BBC brands (Top Gear and Doctor Who anyone?) as well as some fabulous merchandise giveaways. His was a view from outside of the scholarly publishing industry, one that could provide fresh insight or some new ideas.

BBC Worldwide drives revenue to go back into creative sector and BBC.com has over 50 million users a month. Digital is important because it’s about the money. New revenue streams are driven through new digital channels, new production and cost savings. Digital also opens up new markets. It gives them a closer relationship with audience and engages fans across platforms. But one of the biggest reasons they focus on digital is to stay relevant.

Their teenage audience watch their content exclusively online so they need to unlock that content and seek new value. Areas to consider are:

• the business of free
• getting closer to your users
• new partnerships
• gamification and serious games (new trend)

In one of the more interesting comparisons of the day Redin observed that the cross-platform chunked up and down content for Top Gear isn't too disimilar to what you can do with an article. He advised us to step away from our content. We’re in the business of insight NOT journals. Remember that mobile users are more willing to pay for services than desktop users as they value convenience and immediacy.

A move to digital means more than re-versioning. Sweat your assets, distribute as far as you can, but get to the core of your offer which is insight. Explore new media platforms. Think about the business of free: with marginal cost of production and market factors pushing to ‘free’ can you adopt the free + premium = freemium model? If you scrutinise your sales, you’ll likely find you make your money from 10-20% of your audience. For BBC Worldwide, the rest get it free. It's a classic Pareto Principle model. So consider if freemium will work for you.

He suggested that with a large adddressable audience (250k knowledge workers) and a free version with clear value (the abstract), a premium offer with added value using user analytics (build or partner) and an optimised conversion funnel (build or partner) can demonstrate your confidence in your product.

If 13% of paying users are providing 51% of revenue, create products that cater to this audience and allows them to spend their money. Closing insights included:

• dig deep beneath the Google analytics as they are a free and powerful way to inform your marketing budget
• measure results and iterate
• try things out e.g. work with companies such as Semantico, Mendeley etc
• content still remains king - make the best content and you will get the best users
• look at gamification: take a gaming approach and apply it to none-game situations e.g. FoldIt - Solve Puzzles for Science.

Redin closed with a charming illustration of how gamification and playfulness can inspire mission-type behaviour. The Bottle Bank Arcade form The Fun Theory. It's pretty inspiring stuff.

ALPSP Conference Day 2: Apportunity Knocks - advice from Semantico's Rob Virkar-Yates

Rob Virkar-Yates shares Semantico wisdom

Rob Virkar-Yates provided advice on mobile digital strategy from an industry supplier perspective for delegates at last week's ALPSP conference.

He questioned whether apps are the VHS or Betamax to the academic world and asked whether apps represent an opportunity for the scholarly market and can you make any money out of them? He presented Semantico statistics to illustrate some of the issues to consider:

• 68% of 15-24 year olds (UK) use the internet on mobile phones
• 11% of UK households have a tablet
• Younger audience are heavy users of mobile
• Only 5% of sessions served in 12 month period for some big publishers has been from mobile site
• 50% of people have downloaded an application and actually used it.

The type of apps that tend to be most successful are those that deliver micro-experiences. These are experiences that do not overwhelm or perplex the customer, are relevant, small and beautifully formed. He cited good micro-experiences as: Tools of Change app, his bank's fast balance app and Spotify (amongst others) as they are focused, they do one thing, but they do it well. With the arrival of the iPad comes the macro-experience: that adds significant value and richness and provides experiences that go beyond the text. Good macro-experiences included: The Wasteland app.

He went on to define the recipe for a good micro-experience as:

1. take on sharpened proposition - do one thing really well, fight one battle
2. reduce content aggressivly - content should be be ‘glanceable’
3. think small - architect from the ground up
4. push back - resist pressure to add more
5. be agile - not software, move fast, iterate.

Consider content that is location specific or for quick reference. Think about discovery and bookmarking, cost and value. Understand your options and don't forget the cost of reach through an app or via a mobile website. If you already have a mobile site what can you do? Make an ‘app’ with a responsive design solution: a web app! This can serve a single source of content and be laid out so as to be easy to read and navigate with a minimum of resizing, panning and scrolling, on any device. When you get it right, you get a really nice, simple app site which is like a micro-experience app. While this can be seen as a defensive move, the pros are that it is low risk and high reach, has comprehensive browser support, is future proof and has a single code base. The cons: it's not a specific content set, it front loads process, is network dependent and isn't an ‘app’!

Is there an opportunity? Probably. But micro- or macro-experiences will depend on the nature of your content. Can you make money? The low cost and potential reach of web apps might be the best option for the majority.

ALPSP Conference Day 2: Apportunity Knocks - Will Russell with the RSC Publishing view

Will Russell showcases ChemGoggles

In Wednesday’s parallel session Apportunity Knocks, Will Russell, Manager of Innovation and Technical Development at RSC Publishing provided an overview of their approach to develop mobile apps for their members. They started their mobile timeline in 2010 with Chemistry World (mark 1) following in the same year with Publishing Platform and ChemSpider mobile sites. In 2011 they launched RSCMobile, ChemSpider and Chemistry World (mark 2) mobile apps.

They believe the future is multi-device so their aim is to be device independent. The mobile market is large and still growing with app usage time exceeding mobile website usage. In this landscape, browser-less discovery is key.

They aim to keep customer needs at the heart of what they do.
Chemistry World now has a full mobile app to respond to reader demand. They have optimised content for smaller handsets, but it is more like reading the magazine on a tablet. ChemSpider 2010 had a mobile optimised website but has now moved to the ChemSpider Mobile App. Why? Because of the mobility of scientists. Whether in a lab or at a seminar - you can put content in their hands. They have received great anecdotal feedback at conference: people speaking positively about ChemSpider because of the app.

They keep the strategy and products under constant review. Developments to consider include APIs that will generate the most useful apps with your/our content and the use of information available free of charge to create apps such as UK Government Data.

Russell reflected on some of the challenges they have faced:

• authentication
• number of new devices and variety of functionality set on each one
• testing on devices (availability)
• supporting devices and staff training
• app store approval
• on-going future maintenance - more technologies than just a hosted website.

He concluded with some advice. Make your approach to apps part of your digital strategy - not separate. Think about what it offers over a mobile website. Release on one platform first and limit the initial approach on delivery: wait for customer information to help you prioritise what is being asked for and what works. Keep a close eye on KPIs, ROI and analytics. Understand that separate mobile websites may not be scalable. Think about how many devices and screen sizes are you going to need to support in the future. Other issues to consider include:

• for usage: it’s not as simple as reproducing the website 
• how can you support others to build apps?
• impact of support for app development
• traditional channels still serve the highest usage
• we will never have such a long period with the same interface again - in two years we could be talking glasses in the mainstream.

ALPSP Conference Day 2: Changing the game - Arend Welmers

Arend Welmers challenges way organisations are run

Day two of last week’s ALPSP conference saw a new departure for the programme with a session focusing on how to radically improve the way your organization operates. Speaker Arend Welmers specializes in helping organizations execute their strategy.

He provided an outline of the Open Book Management and Quantum90 approach to use the power of people to rapidly transform organization performance.  Here are the highlights from his talk – essential for anyone considering organizational change or transformation.

Most people when asked what their role is in an organization will probably describe it in a way that is something to do with their role or linked to your job description. This is what is called functional thinking and is a disease in most organizations. So marketing = campaigns; finance = count money; technical = build wonderful technical platforms. In fact, this is only partly right.

There’s a second job most people are also – or should be – doing: a role in helping the organization to make more money, to grow and be more profitable.

Whether you are not for profit or for profit or mission driven, you are competing in a market place. There are people out there trying to come up with better ways of doing what you do. You are responsible for the fees your organization generates. You can’t just participate; you need to compete in your market. And don’t be under any illusions: there is a market for the area you are working in.

Everyone in an organization has two roles: functional expertise and the competitive inclination of the whole team. This is about participation in the business of business to make the company more successful.

Most organizations start with somebody who has a great idea. They bring people together and provide the drive to work on a passion. This excitement, the energy, focus and purpose is what helps the company start to perform.

As an organization starts to be successful, the founders that have the passion need to recruit specialists to help them develop. But they are not about the company; they are focused and passionate on what they do i.e. setting up a great appraisal system. They take a functional approach.

How often do founders sit down with new recruits to tell them why you should join and help them make money or make the organization successful? It doesn't happen. You need to get everyone in organization thinking along these lines from whenever they start. If not, the growth curve will flatten out.

Many businesses are on the point of going downhill. What happens at the bottom? There are drives for employee engagement: and while the intention is right, the results tend to be poor. Nobody will take accountability where they don’t own what they are acting on.

Do you want all employees acting, thinking and feeling like they own the business? Isn't that the sort of company you’d invest in? Why don’t all businesses run like that?

Often, people come into an organization and want to do a good job, but can’t help change or influence because they are not allowed to: management don’t know how to tap into the innate need to win. Open Book Management is an approach that creates a high involvement culture in the business.

How do we create an organization that performs in this way?

1) Identify weaknesses or opportunities of running the organization to get everybody participating. This is a great way to get those who know a function or job well to be able to work out the challenge and figure out how to fix it. People get really creative if you give them the opportunity.

Tip: Set a seven day challenge. Generate huge excitement that will generate change. Quantum90 challenge is also a model to consider.

2) Build a high involvement culture in the business. This takes a little longer. It starts with sharing much more information in your business with everyone. Share information on how the business is performing and make sure the team understand what it means.

3) Consolidate this work by giving the team the skills, knowledge and information to empower them so they make better decisions. This in turn makes it easy to manage them and make change.

If you then have the courage to entertain notion of spreading the wealth that you create among the people who generate that wealth you can move from participation to engagement to a terrific outcome. It only seems fair that the outcome should be shared.

Further thinking on this approach is available here.

ALPSP Conference Day 1: News of the World - Science Journalism Demystified

Sian Harris: science journalism insight 

Sian Harris, editor of Research Information, provided an introduction to the work of - and case for - science journalists.

Specialist journalists act as a bridge between research and readers. They aid public understanding and help researchers to deal with information overload. But there are challenges with the flow of information. Expert journalists play an essential role in decoding science and finding out what it means for everyone. That’s not to say that it can’t go wrong (e.g. MMR vaccination controversy), but there are good examples including extensive coverage of the Higgs Boson experiments.

What kind of people are science and technology journalists? They generally have a science or engineering background. They are pedantic about grammar and scientific accuracy. They work to tight deadlines. There are some differences between journalists in the mainstream press and specialist press.

What are their sources? Press releases are a common primary starting point. These might be from direct from journal or publisher PR and marketing departments, from research institutions, companies or distributed by PR news services.

Scientific papers are often the source of stories and these can be used in two main ways: 1) for a news story about a new piece of research, or 2) source of background and researcher contacts for a bigger article about a research area.

Other sources include conferences – a brilliant resource for a whole range of material and contacts - personal communication, patents, corporate news or other journalist articles.

There are limitations with press releases. They may be subject to spin or a particular bias. Often, they are not comprehensive enough and there can be a reluctance to share further detail behind the story.

Another limitation can be access: where access to a particular journal’s content is not available. An Athens type login would be ideal to get beyond seeing only the abstract of research papers. Unfortunately, this can inadvertently bring in a level of bias towards research that is freely available.

Discoverability can also be a major barrier to accessing research for articles. Citation databases behind paywalls present a challenge and while free search engines can be a great source, you can miss things or bring up spurious results.

To a certain extent there is a geographical bias: it is easiest to find stories from the USA, UK, rest of Europe (especially Germany), and other English-speaking countries.

There are limitations with researcher communication skills.  They may be inexperienced with dealing with journalists, not reply to emails or calls or may not be able to explain clearly.

Sometimes journalists struggle with media embargoes: they are fine when they give you time to interview and prepare the piece, but they are rarely relevant. Often it should be a case of either release the information or don’t bother.

It was interesting to hear that the challenge of information overload applies to journalists as much as researchers, publishers or librarians.  While Sian acknowledged that news journalists use Twitter and other social media channels widely, the journalists that Sian spoke to didn’t, and most felt that perhaps they should use it more. They felt that it wasn’t the most efficient use of time, but acknowledge that it has provided some great leads.

Sian’s suggestions for publishers when dealing with journalists are:

• distribute more releases
• send to all who expressed interest
• make it clear who to contact
• make headline clear in subject
• enable easier access
• simple discovery
• make it possible to search corporate info on publishers website
• provide images without lots of red tape.

Her suggestions for universities and researchers are:

• provide training in communication
• don’t be frightened of journalists
• feel free to ask if you can check facts and quotes (but bear in mind they may say no due to deadlines)
• use opportunity to talk at conferences.

She believes that there is a need to work together and to have better communication and understanding. If the red tape around press access can be broken down and some sort of authenticated content and access tool for accredited journalists can be developed, it will lead to better coverage for research.

ALPSP Conference Day 3: Giving away the farm

'Giving away the farm' was the penultimate session from this morning's programme. Chaired by Catherine Candea from OECD, the panel reflect on the pressure scholarly publishers are under to give away content. 

With six month embargoes being demanded and some publishers moving fully to giving away their output as soon as it’s published, what effect is this going to have on the industry?

Wim van der Stelt from Springer provided an relatively upbeat assessment of where they are at. It’s good that the Finch group recommended the gold OA route and acknowledged that content needs to be paid for. Meanwhile, Europe, as always, took the wrong decision and have come down on the side of green with a 6 months embargo or gold, but with the funding still insecure. 

Springer pioneered the hybrid journal and now have price adjustments for selected hybrid journals every year. They moved into real/full open access when they bought BioMed Central in 2008. Not only did it provide them with an open access portfolio, but also helped their systems and processes to be author oriented. Most importantly, they bought in the new culture enabling them to shift from legacy culture. Oh, and it also makes money.

Springer Open now has over 405 members in 46 countries. Their Open Access journals are in all area including economics, social sciences, humanities, etc and 15% of all their articles are already open access. Springer Open now includes books! 

His advice to publishers on what they can do included:

• provide hybrid option
• start full open access
• transfer subscription journals to open access
• look at sister journals
• sponsored journals
• new journals
• be creative with financial models for society journals

But don’t forget... open access is just a business model so keep on providing the service of validation, structuring and dissemination and don’t forget to develop new services.

Jose de Buerba from the World Bank took us through their transition from charging for publications to making everything free. They are the largest Development Agency worldwide with $35.2 billions in projects approved during FY12. With 10,000+ staff and 120 field offices (mostly in developing countries) their annual publishing outputs in 2011 were: 367 journal articles (75% published externally), 438 working papers, 146 books, 500+ other pieces of analytical work very diverse subjects.

The World Bank mission is to help generate a world free of poverty, but their conflict was between: mission or money. They have embraced green OA so they can be open about what they know (data and knowledge), what they do (operations and results), about how they work (partnerships for openness), and have open government (transparency, accountability).

This video puts it neatly:

The new currency is for development impact and their Open Knowledge Repository has had 140,000 downloads since September. The business model comprises: budget from the institution, publishing service fee, revenues from commercial activity from value added products.

Xavier Cazin from Immateriel.fr considered paid content vs paid comfort. They are one of the four ebook distributors in France. Distribution is still pertinent for their ebook market and it involves seeing all kinds of publishing offers based on the same content.

The certainties of print costs have gone and with digital content it has become difficult to understand what people are expecting on pricing. One trend they’ve seen as a distributor is that of people making a business out of refurbishing public domain content. Why does it sell? And why at that price?

He considered what customers are willing to pay for: 

• ease of access (where they are now)
• handy (readable with my current device/app)
• easy navigation through the content

And what are the reading rewards? A rich and well designed environment, content/curation appropriate to current needs and sharing functionalities. In his view, the product unit price should work to equation of ease of access + reading rewards = value. For the reader, content quality + authors reputation = content reputation. Based on this, the total revenue should be: product unit price x number of customers/readers with the former related to reading comfort and the latter to content reputation.

For anyone not clear on definitions of OA there’s an overview on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access

ALPSP Conference Day 2: Discovering the needle in a haystack

Ann Lawson introduces the panel

Chaired by Ann Lawson from EBSCO, this session is designed to help publishers understand how they can help academics and professionals to navigate quickly and seamlessly to the trustworthy content they need.

Ann's colleague Harry Kaplanian, Director of Discovery Services at EBSCO Publishing, kicked off with an overview of discovery services as well as the features and benefits for the publishers. 

He began by reminding us of the first discovery system is a library catalogue system in the early 1900s. He then went on to outline the pros and cons of subsequent systems. 

The Integrated Library System OPAC (1980-1995) 

Pros: users can search the entire physical collection quickly; tight ILS integration; one place to search. 

Cons: users can only search catalogue; metadata searching only.

In the 1990s, the first electronic databases began to appear. They aren’t part of the physical collection; change often; multiple tools needed for searching content; students and faculty no longer know where to look; and the e-content just keeps on coming...

Federated search

Pros: single search box for all content; currency of content.

Cons: speed; many indexes; multiple ranking algorithms; larger result sets in complete; internet traffic; content provider traffic.

Web scale discovery

Pros: single search box; search all content, single index and complete result sets

single relevance ranking; speed and bandwidth; no local hardware or software to install; eliminates traditional list problems; drive usage and lower traffic.

Cons: not tightly integrated with ILS.

Usage impact

Longwood University

5000 students

09/10 to 10/11 205% increase in usage in text

He classifies content providers as:

• Primary publishers
• Aggregators 
• Subject Index Providers
• What do they need to do?
• What should they watch out for?

Primary Provides - journals & books:

Now standard to provide full text and metadata to discovery services for searching. In most cases content is presented by publishers. The user is guided to full text by link resolver. You have to make sure highest quality metadata and content provided and that active updates to databases are provided.

Aggregators - full journal databases

Most don’t have the right to submit the full text so content presented by aggregator or publishers. The user is guided to full text by link resolver. Make sure highest quality metadata and content is provided, that discovery vendor accurately states if aggregator is actively taking part or not, and active updates to databases are provided

Subject index providers

Powerful subject indexing based on controlled vocabularies, no full text, but a big impact on full Discovery. Make sure the Discovery service is capable of properly searching, merging, ranking and securing entitled access. Consider what happens when a customer cancels subject index subscription, renews, adds it, doesn’t have it?

Make sure Discovery vendor accurately states if subject index provider is actively taking part or not - check the vendor’s claims.

Simon Inger provided an overview of key findings from the Survey on Reader Navigation which is due to be published shortly. Read about the project here. 

Main recommendations for publishers are:

• Publishers need to support all of the discovery channels that their clients (libraries and readers) want to use
• Publishers need to understand how different reader types discover and access their content so that they can target readers and authors more effectively
• Potential to expose more sophisticated discovery information to key channels
• Potential to differentiate through which discovery channels to make subscriber offers.

The summary report will be published for free later this month. The full report will be published at the same time. All supporting publishers receive these items in return for their help. Full results set and analysis framework will be available for a fee shortly afterwards. 

Robert Faber, Director, Discoverability Program at OUP, concluded with an overview of the Introducing the Oxford Index.

Why does discoverability matter to publishers and librarians? Traffic and use are the lifeblood of digital scholarship. use of subscriptions shows the value of the content. Discovery reveals interest and demand for new content. Customer and user behaviour is changing. If you can’t find it, you won’t use it. People are searching for a topic, not book - 80% of traffic to Oxford Journals is direct to article. There are many search systems and rapid evolution. It's about free content outside the paywall for some products - abstracts, keywords, Oxford Journals, Oxford Scholarship.

The MARC program has been improved and expanded. Linking: some in place, mainly in close neighbourhood. Some editorial linking between products. Some partnerships with other publishers and institutions have been set up. New mobiles sites for Oxford Journals and future products are set up. Library discovery services have been developing new partnerships. SEO is at the centre of product evolution.

Discovery happens in Open Web Search, library services, research hubs, through content links, opt-in services, viral awareness and via OUP web features.

What is the Oxford Index? It’s free discovery from OUP: a standardised description of every item of content, in one place. It incorporates external search partners, an Oxford interface - landing pages: quick pathways to full text, web-searchable; and cross searchable - but they recognise that the website might not continue to be very important. It provides a way to create links and relationships across content with meaningful links that add value and traffic. There are overview pages for quick view of topic links embedded in products. This is a free service integrated with existing products.

What does this mean for search rankings and usage?

• No change to existing SEO or rankings
• OI is supplemental route to primary full-text content
• OI gives Google a super-site map across OUP content
• Highly-trusted network reinforces destination full-text sites
• Aim is additional traffic, monitored and reported

What does it mean for library integration? Library visibility? Bring in users from general web search. OI can interact directly with library search. OI identifies library’s provision of full content which highlights the benefits of library services. Visibility through other library, A&I, research services? OI metadata routinely supplied to library systems.

The benefits include i) traffic: sustaining and widening sales, ii) consistent methods - for users and systems, and iii) evolving grid of options to connect content.

Faber finished with trends and predictions that included:

• importance of india, china and the non-western world
• differences between journals, book and reference content defined by role/task within the research journey
• sites that can qualify general users will become a larger focal point of discoverability activity e.g Google Books
• shift from focus on entrance-point to linking: related content, related services
• scholarly/research communities play bigger role in academic discoverability.

ALPSP Conference Day 1: Global Consortia and Library Markets overview

News of the World panel

Thomas Taylor from Dragonfly Information Services provided a packed overview of global consortia and library markets as part of the News of the World session on day one of the conference.

He observed that access to research is becoming a ‘right’. Open Access movement is a disruptive business model and there is an evolution of traditional subscription models for consortia. 

The advantages for publishers include protection for subscription revenue, access and usage explodes, the impact factor goes up and you can integrate Open Access journals into consortia deals.

Global trends in consortia markets include:

• Library budget constraints in all economies – from dire (in Ireland) to selective (China)
• Large national closed consortia with less/no central funding (DFG, NSTL, CRKN, CAPES)
• Mature (penetrated) consortia acquiring less
• Budgets plus time constraints (renewals) (CRKN, China, JISC)
• Newer (less penetrated) consortia proceeding cautiously and in increments (Mexico, Japan)
• Renewals still strong, the default setting
• Consortia as purchasing model still healthy

China

Has a strong economy showing signs of slowing down. There is a commitment to invest in education in short and long term and to indigenous publishing (including journals). Local marketing, sales and brand are a necessity for language, laws, social media (they have their own versions of twitter and google). Consortia had aggressive purchasing until two years ago, but are now more selective and subject area specific. They are showing sign of mature consortia and purchasing has been slowed down by politics and bureaucracy. There are two very well know consortia: NSTL (closed, centrally funded, 600 institutions with 9 member board) and CALIS (open with no central funding, 700 to 1400 institutions).

India

They have a strong economy with no signs of slowing down as well as the third largest HE system in the world. Major investment in recent years appears to be continuing in both new institutions, R&D spending and new consortia. With 10 to 15 major consortia this is still an immature market.

Middle East/North Africa

This is a diverse region with many markets. There has been an economic slow down since 2009. They are thinking about how to invest in post-oil economy, education is one of the key factors. The Arab Spring has created political uncertainty and instability in some countries (but hope as well!). There are immature consortia who are increasing spending on e-journals, databases and ebooks, especially in STM. It is anticipated that 2013-2015 library budgets will be flat or increasing modest.

Europe

Economies continue to be challenged and uncertain. Europe is a diverse market (north vs south?). Library budgets are decreasing or remain flat. Very little new content is being purchased. Renewals of deals still the default in most cases. Main policy impact is through Open Access mandate from EU in support of UK mandates.

UK

The economy is in recession. JISC is one of the oldest and mot mature consortia (Open). There is little acquisition of new content (ISPG purchased this year). Renewals of deals is the default (two big deals renewed last year amid much noise). Government mandated Open Access most aggressive in the world.

Brazil

Strong economy (6^th largest in the world, overtaking Britain). CAPES a national, closed, mature consortium, is one of the oldest. It has deals with most commercial publishers. There are 350 libraries (all of Brazil academic market and then some). The new government has created an uncertain future and there has been very little new content acquisition in last two years.

Mexico

This is a growing economy with an unstable political situation with new government and drug wars. Mexico has a three year old government funded consortium.

Canada

The economy is growing. CRKN is a mature national closed consortium that no longer has government funding, but is funded by member libraries now. Budgets for new content are uncertain. Renewals only in 2012 for 2013. There are regional consortia (four, open) buying some new content, but budgets will continue to be uncertain until CRKN renewals are confirmed.

United States

Elections in US could effect consortia in a big way. If Obama is re-elected he has promised to invest in education and research. EBSCO Community Plus is a new open North American consortium. There are 250+ research libraries and 50 ARL libraries. ISPG and several other content providers are participating with tentative plans to expand into Europe.

In summary:

• Consortia deals continue to be healthy and renewed
• Most consortia adding little new content when compared to the past
• Centrally funded consortia are challenged
• Addendum scientific research is increasingly global
• Implications for libraries, consortia, publishers and purchasing models
• Addendum 2: Open Access mandates and how they affect the consortia world.
• If you are’t a large commercial publishers, join forces with other like minded publishers.