Evolution or revolution: the future of identity and access management for research

ALPSP member Eduserv is holding a free symposium in London on the 21st of May which you may be interested in attending. Here are the details:

Evolution or revolution: The future of identity and access management for research

Royal College of Physicians, London
Thurs 21 May 2009, 10:00AM - 4:45PM
Free registration - deadline for registrations: Friday 17 April 2009

This symposium will be of value to people with an interest in the impact that the social Web is having on research practice and scholarly communication and the resulting implications for identity and access management. Attendees will gain an insight into the way the research landscape is evolving and will be better informed when making future decisions about policy or practice in this area.

Confirmed presenters include:

James Farnhill, Joint Information Systems Committee; Nate Klingenstein, Internet2; Cameron Neylon, Science and Technology Facilities Council; Mike Roch, University of Reading; David Smith, CABI; John Watt, National e-Science Centre (Glasgow).

If you have any questions about the Symposium, please contact Eduserv at symposium@eduserv.org.uk or phone +44 (0)1225 474328.

New PRC study on author rights

The Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) has just published a new report examining the difference between the usage rights that publishers grant authors to different versions of articles and the perceptions that authors have of what they can do.

(ALPSP is a founding member of the PRC and the study made use of data collected for the third running of our Scholarly Publishing Practice study.)

Full press release below:

Publishers' agreements are more liberal than journal authors think, but do not allow self-archiving of the published PDF.

The Publishing Research Consortium has published another in its series of reports: Journal Authors' Rights: perception and reality (Summary Paper 5).

Using re-analysis of the recently published ALPSP report Scholarly Publishing Practice 3 (which looks at the practice of 181 publishers, representing 75% of all articles), and a new survey of 1163 authors, the report compares what publishers actually allow authors to do with the different versions of their manuscript, and what they want to do and believe they are permitted to do.

For both the submitted and the accepted version of their manuscript, the majority of publishers' agreements (as calculated by the number of articles they publish) allow authors to provide copies to colleagues, to incorporate into their own works, to post to a personal or departmental website or to an institutional repository, and to use in course packs; just under 50% also permit posting to a subject repository. However, far fewer authors think they can do any of these than are in fact allowed to do so.

The published PDF version is the version that authors would prefer to use for all the above purposes; again, publishers' agreements exceed authors' expectations for providing copies to colleagues, incorporating in subsequent work, and use in course packs. However, the picture is turned on its head when it comes to self-archiving; more than half of authors think that publishers allow them to deposit the final PDF, whereas under 10% of publishers actually permit this - probably because of serious concerns about the long-term impact on subscriptions.

Why do authors have such a poor understanding of publishers' agreements? The PRC concludes that publishers need to do much more to make sure that their terms are crystal clear, but also suggests that the ambiguous term 'preprint' may mislead authors, and should be dropped in favour of the recommended NISO terminology.

*Full report: Sally Morris, Journal Authors' Rights:
perception and reality (PRC Summary Paper 5), PRC 2009 (PDF) http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/JournalAuthorsRights.pdf
*Summary of findings: Journal Authors' Rights: perception and reality - a preliminary report, PRC 2009 (PPT) http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/SummaryforAPE-final.ppt
*Author survey summary: Author Rights Copyright Project, GfK Business 2008 (PPT) http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PRC2008v2.ppt
*John & Laura Cox, Publishing Practice 3, ALPSP 2008
(PDF) http://www.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?id=200
*Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group, NISO l 2008 (PDF) http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf

The Publishing Research Consortium is a group of associations and publishers, which supports global research into scholarly communication in order to enable evidence-based discussion. Our objective is to support work that is scientific and pro-scholarship. Overall, we aim to promote an understanding of the role of publishing and its impact on research and teaching.

Latest ALPSP member

I am pleased to say that DataSalon are the latest organization to apply for membership to ALPSP.

DataSalon provide "flexible and powerful tools for data integration and analysis which are also extremely user-friendly and easy to implement". In practice that means that they are able to take feeds from all of your databases, mash them up, link them together and give you a more complete view of your customers and prospects... it's good stuff!

They have just announced a strategic partnership with Ringgold. It looks to me like a good fit as Ringgold maintains an extensive database of subscribing organizations and DataSalon provide the means to analyze and visualize the data.

DataSalon join:

Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Kaufman-Wills Group LLC
Cadmus Communications Ltd
Oxfam Publishing
Multi-Science Publishing Company Limited
Sydney University Press
Society for the Study of Addiction

as new members of ALPSP so far this year... Welcome to you all!

2009 ALPSP International Conference Program announced

That's the thing about blog posts; nothing for ages and then three come along at one (at least that's the thing about my blog posts...)

Anyway, I am very pleased to say that the program for the 2009 ALPSP International Conference has just been announced. Precise details of speakers will follow shortly but the outline program has details of the session abstracts and Chairs and - believe me - we have some fantastic speakers lined up.

Mark the dates (9-11 September) in your diaries or better still register now!

www.alpspconference.org

Ian

ALPSP blog gets new skin

Oh no, I am blogging about the blog...

We've had some feedback that our rather sleek blackboard style of white text on black background was difficult to read. I can certainly agree that my attempt to introduce different colours of text for different commentators in a previous posting was a bit optically challenging...

So we're trying this new style. A bit military grey in tone but hopefully legible!

Love it or hate it? Let us know...

Latest issue of ALPSP Alert just posted

The PDF version of the latest issue of ALPSP Alert - our monthly e-newsletter has just been posted on the ALPSP website, http://www.alpsp.org/.

ALPSP Alert is free to everyone at an ALPSP member organization but you will need to login in order to access it (a username and password can be requested from our website if needed).

Alternatively you can sign up to receive an html version of the newsletter directly to your e-mail inbox.

Discussion on JISC report on economic implications of alternative business models

Following items in the February 2009 issue of ALPSP Alert on the JISC-sponsored report, Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models: Exploring the costs and benefits (Houghton et al), we have received some correspondence from one of the report's co-authors Professor Charles Oppenheim. I am reproducing the exchange below with permission. Charles has asked me to emphasise the following:

"I would like to add to the blog a reminder that if any third party wishes to challenge the model itself, or the assumptions within in, they should do so - but they then should publish their results."

Here's the exchange...

Charles Oppenheim (Comments from Ian Russell in blue, comments from ALPSP Alert Editor Pippa Smart in green):
As one of the joint authors of the JISC report on the economics of alternative scholarly publishing models, I feel I must reply to the comments made in the latest ALPSP Alert.

To cover some of your points:

1. The model's assumptions and the modelling software are available for use. The Alert report says the results are based on the authors' assumptions, which is correct, but the whole point is that if others want to try alternative assumptions, they can do and can see how the figures stack up.
>> Fine, but this doesn’t change or invalidate my comments.

2. On industry consultation, we approached several publishers for data. Most refused on the grounds that such data were confidential. However, we DID get data from a few well known scholarly publishers, but this was passed to us on the understanding that their names would not be disclosed. So the claim that not a single one of the major publishers was consulted is incorrect - indeed, how could you possibly know that?
>> I have personally checked with each of the major scholarly publishing trade associations active in the UK and a couple overseas; none had been approached. I also personally checked with a number of the major journal publishers; none of these admitted to being approached either. I also checked this point with Neil Jacobs at JISC. He replied with 5 points, my comments in brackets after each one: 1. There is vast amount of information about journal publishing that is in the literature and well known. (true but irrelevant. I was questioning specifically those assumptions claimed to be based on ‘industry consultation’); 2. When asked, publishers rarely actually divulge details about costs (understandably, as this is commercially sensitive information). I understand that even in the RIN / CEPA report, only one publisher responded to their requests for information. (this is supposition and the expectation that no information will be forthcoming is not an excuse for failing even to ask. Many of the assumptions made on the basis of ‘industry consultation’ are not regarding commercially sensitive information and – in my experience – look way off beam. A phone call to any of the trade associations could have cleared them up); 3. In informal conversations I had toward the start of the project, with a senior publisher representative, it was made very clear to me that there would almost certainly be no cooperation from publishers with this project. (I think this is a very poor response for a major study of this type – based on informal conversations with one publisher representative? Come on!); 4. The project consulted (informally) widely in areas where information was needed and it was not readily available, incl. two book publishers, from which detailed cost data were obtained, library purchasers specialising in book purchasing, individual library and consortial purchasers, as well as several repository managers giving repository stats. (but no journal publishers? On a report that is, let’s face it, primarily about journal publishing?); 5. Matt Cockerill was on the steering/review group. (OK, but so what? He doesn’t say that BMC provided any information and anyway talking to one journal publisher with an obvious bias not balanced by other houses is hardly objective is it? And besides, I doubt that Matt could give much up-to-date information on toll-based publishing costs. This is why I was careful to say journal publishers. Charles, I ask you do you really think this is acceptable for a study of this type?)

3. The model is out there for others to test by inputting their own hard data or assumptions. It was always intended as a scenario exercise and not as a prediction of the future. The one thing I would ask is that if others input their own hard data or assumptions, that they publish the results for all to see; and that if anyone wishes to challenge the actual model, then they should publish details of what they think the model should look like.
>> Fair enough, I don’t think I have suggested otherwise. Nonetheless, the press release for this report DID paint the report as a prediction of the future.

4. In another piece on the topic, you make the comment "The report, unsurprisingly, comes out in favour of open access". This implies that John Houghton and I got the answer we were looking for. Both of us started this research genuinely open minded. I am philosophically in favour of OA, but am genuinely uncertain whether it makes economic sense, and that was John Houghton's approach as well. We would have published if the results had come out in some other direction.
>> Regarding my comment about the fact that the report "unsurprisingly" comes out in favour of OA, it was made in light of where the report originated (i.e. that JISC and other organisations from the research/institution side are likely to be more in favour of OA as a philosophy) - if a similar report had come from STM and concluded against OA, I have commented that this was also unsurprising! However I take your point that it was an emotive word and possibly sounded snide in this context.

5. The claim that we only look at costs and not at benefits is incorrect; much of the report is focused on long term benefits to the UK economy. Possibly the Executive Summary does not make that clear enough though.

6. the criticism that we did not focus on non-economic costs is accurate, but that side of things was not part of our remit. Similarly, it is true we only looked at the UK. JISC's interests are the UK only, so it's not surprisingly they restricted us in such a way, and I acknowledge it is a deficiency in the study.

I hope you feel able to report my comments to the ALPSP membership.

Charles

Ian Russell:
I am sorry Charles, but I stand by my comments. I think that – with the information I have received so far – the lack of consultation with the journal publishing industry is really inexcusable and dramatically reduces the credibility of the report, especially since many of the assumptions regarding ‘industry consultation’ look to me to be highly dubious. If you are now telling me that Neil Jacobs was wrong then I’d be very interested to hear the type and number (not the names) of the journal publishers consulted and the nature of the interaction.