Sep 10 2009 1:57PM
Matthew Marsteller: Hi! This is Matt Marsteller. I'm in the chat room and standing by.
Sep 10 2009 1:59PM
Judith Emde: Hi, Matt, this is Judith
Sep 10 2009 1:59PM
Matthew Marsteller: Howdy Judith.
Sep 10 2009 2:00PM
Judith Emde: If we find it's only the two of us, it might be easier to talk by phone.
Sep 10 2009 2:00PM
Matthew Marsteller: Much easier ... but this is recording things. We could always summarize our meeting and post that.
Sep 10 2009 2:01PM
Judith Emde: Good point.
Sep 10 2009 2:01PM
Matthew Marsteller: Last year we did just do phone conversations between Richard and myself, so it does have precedent. :-)
Sep 10 2009 2:01PM
Matthew Marsteller: I'm game either way.
Sep 10 2009 2:02PM
Judith Emde: shall we start by looking at the ideas received via e-mail?
Sep 10 2009 2:03PM
Matthew Marsteller: We could do that. Did we want to review the recently held discussions?
Sep 10 2009 2:03PM
Judith Emde: I missed that. Is it under discussions?
Sep 10 2009 2:04PM
Matthew Marsteller: I was looking at them earlier and I think we can largely move on from them.
Sep 10 2009 2:04PM
Matthew Marsteller: That was what I meant by "Determine if any recent topics should be revisited."
Sep 10 2009 2:05PM
Judith Emde: I'm confused. Is there a link under "discussion" to "determine if any recent..."
Sep 10 2009 2:05PM
Matthew Marsteller: I can put them up for us quickly ... I have them in a notepad file.
Sep 10 2009 2:06PM
Matthew Marsteller: In abbreviated form, here they are:
Sep 10 2009 2:06PM
Matthew Marsteller: 2005 - Boston - NIH OA Proposal - successful? - now mandated
Sep 10 2009 2:06PM
Matthew Marsteller: 2006 - San Antonio - Best Practices for Electronic Resources - all over the map? - link to ELD punchlist now broken
Sep 10 2009 2:07PM
Matthew Marsteller: 2007 - Seattle - Copyright Agreements
Sep 10 2009 2:07PM
Matthew Marsteller: 2008 - Philadelphia - Evolving form and use of reference books
Sep 10 2009 2:07PM
Matthew Marsteller: 2009 - Seattle - SCOAP3 and other possible funding models for journals
Sep 10 2009 2:08PM
Judith Emde: Now I understand. I don't see a tangent to these topics.
Sep 10 2009 2:08PM
Matthew Marsteller: By a tangen do you mean a good lead to use a related topic?
Sep 10 2009 2:08PM
Judith Emde: Yes. I thought that some of the ideas received via e-mail on your attachment might be worth putting into a survey
Sep 10 2009 2:09PM
Matthew Marsteller: Okay ... my feeling as well.
Sep 10 2009 2:09PM
Judith Emde: There are 2 IR questions. I have to admit that I'm not interested since we've had an IR for around 5 years but that doesn't relate to everyone.
Sep 10 2009 2:09PM
Judith Emde: And back then there wasn't a hosted option as there is now.
Sep 10 2009 2:10PM
Matthew Marsteller: I see. I was thinking that most folks have already moved on that.
Sep 10 2009 2:11PM
Judith Emde: I suppose we could still put it in the survey and stress the hosted vs local options.
Sep 10 2009 2:11PM
Matthew Marsteller: Hmm...not much of a publisher/vendor tie though, eh?
Sep 10 2009 2:12PM
Judith Emde: Good point. I suppose the hosted part would lead to what vendors provide it
Sep 10 2009 2:12PM
Judith Emde: I guess we could put that aside.
Sep 10 2009 2:13PM
Matthew Marsteller: I would vote for putting it aside for now ... unless we kill the rest of the ideas off. :-)
Sep 10 2009 2:13PM
Judith Emde: I like the 2nd one but it's needs to be flushed out. Continuum of content: e-journals evolve and the rise in value of e-content
Sep 10 2009 2:13PM
Judith Emde: Do you more ideas what that means?
Sep 10 2009 2:14PM
Matthew Marsteller: Let me look at the email quickly...
Sep 10 2009 2:15PM
Matthew Marsteller: Hmmm... that's all I have is a that short description by Gordon Tibbits of Bepress.
Sep 10 2009 2:15PM
Judith Emde: I wonder if we could get him to expand his intent.
Sep 10 2009 2:15PM
Matthew Marsteller: It's kind of related if we tie it to a couple of ideas from the "Unmeeting Minutes"
Sep 10 2009 2:16PM
Matthew Marsteller: The other ideas being "The Death of the Journal" or...
Sep 10 2009 2:16PM
Matthew Marsteller: "Future Scenarios of Journals Dead"
Sep 10 2009 2:16PM
Matthew Marsteller: That's more of a contrast now that I think of it. :-)
Sep 10 2009 2:17PM
Judith Emde: Are you referring to the death of the "print" journal as we know? And e-journals are evolving into another format?
Sep 10 2009 2:17PM
Judith Emde: With added value
Sep 10 2009 2:17PM
Matthew Marsteller: I'm pretty sure this was the outright death of the journal as we know it.
Sep 10 2009 2:18PM
Matthew Marsteller: Replaced by depositions in IR's? Who knows?
Sep 10 2009 2:18PM
Matthew Marsteller: arXiv?
Sep 10 2009 2:18PM
Matthew Marsteller: Stuff like that?
Sep 10 2009 2:19PM
Judith Emde: Let's consider that idea.
Sep 10 2009 2:19PM
Matthew Marsteller: The subtitle of that was ACS, Elsevier and Friends in the Twilight Zone.
Sep 10 2009 2:19PM
Matthew Marsteller: We should likely avoid the subtitle.
Sep 10 2009 2:19PM
Judith Emde: probably but that leads to a topic I'd like to bring up
Sep 10 2009 2:19PM
Matthew Marsteller: Sure!
Sep 10 2009 2:20PM
Judith Emde: I'm getting off track with the e-mail list but how about something in regard go negotiating big packages and the frustrations we have with publishers
Sep 10 2009 2:20PM
Matthew Marsteller: Ah! There were a couple of good related ideas with that. I agree.
Sep 10 2009 2:21PM
Judith Emde: Especially with disclosure policies. I'd love to get someone from ACS to talk.
Sep 10 2009 2:21PM
Matthew Marsteller: The first was "Future of e-book plans or e-book business models"
Sep 10 2009 2:21PM
Matthew Marsteller: Or the Budget Crisis idea for journal packages.
Sep 10 2009 2:21PM
Matthew Marsteller: Disclosure policies?
Sep 10 2009 2:22PM
Judith Emde: Are you looking at the unmeeting minutes?
Sep 10 2009 2:22PM
Matthew Marsteller: I have them at the ready and could look at them.
Sep 10 2009 2:22PM
Judith Emde: I'm just wondering where you're getting the titles from : "future of e-book plans or e-book business models>
Sep 10 2009 2:23PM
Matthew Marsteller: Yes, from the unmeeting minutes. Not verbatim though ... sorry about that.
Sep 10 2009 2:23PM
Judith Emde: May I suggest we call each other? It looks like it is the two of us and would probably take less time.
Sep 10 2009 2:23PM
Matthew Marsteller: They looked like they were pretty much the same idea.
Sep 10 2009 2:24PM
Matthew Marsteller: Sure, then we can just summarize and post the balance.
Sep 10 2009 2:24PM
Judith Emde: I'll call you.
Sep 10 2009 2:24PM
Matthew Marsteller: 412-268-7212.
Sep 10 2009 2:40PM
Matthew Marsteller: Hi Mel!
Sep 10 2009 2:40PM
Matthew Marsteller: Judith and I are on the phone since we didn't seem to have any takers in chat.
Sep 10 2009 2:41PM
Matthew Marsteller: Hi Mel
Sep 10 2009 2:41PM
Matthew Marsteller: We'll summarize for you.
Sep 10 2009 2:41PM
Judith Emde: Mel, I'm going to type in the ideas
Sep 10 2009 2:41PM
Mel DeSart: Sorry, I was tied up until about 12:30 my time, just got back in my office a few minutes ago.
Sep 10 2009 2:42PM
Matthew Marsteller: Glad to have you stop by.
Sep 10 2009 2:42PM
Judith Emde: 1. Future of e-book plans or e-book business models. e.g. Springer won't allow single purchases of books
Sep 10 2009 2:43PM
Judith Emde: 2. Death of a journal: what will happen with libraries cancelling packages, will more content be placed in IRs
Sep 10 2009 2:43PM
Judith Emde: 3. big deals in eyes of small publishers. Could probably be tied into another subject
Sep 10 2009 2:43PM
Judith Emde: 4. Publisher transparency and the elsevier fiasco
Sep 10 2009 2:43PM
Judith Emde: 5. Is there a role for indexing/abstracting databases anymore? Are we canceling these in favor of content rich sources?
Sep 10 2009 2:44PM
Judith Emde: 6. Making $ in the open access age: is that possible?
Sep 10 2009 2:44PM
Judith Emde: Mel, Do you have some ideas?
Sep 10 2009 2:44PM
Judith Emde: Matt,
Sep 10 2009 2:44PM
Mel DeSart: Well, here are a few thoughts on the ones above first.
Sep 10 2009 2:44PM
Judith Emde: Please clarify if I've written something incorrectly.
Sep 10 2009 2:45PM
Mel DeSart: First one is interesting, but I'd be concerned that vendor reps would turn it into too much of a sales pitch.
Sep 10 2009 2:46PM
Mel DeSart: But we ARE getting tons of e-book offers these days from the major publisher, including them trying to tie e-book package purchases into serial package renewals
Sep 10 2009 2:46PM
Judith Emde: But aren't most of those for collections?
Sep 10 2009 2:46PM
Mel DeSart: Death of a journal is timely for sure. I'm cutting $195K out of my engineering journal line alone.
Sep 10 2009 2:46PM
Matthew Marsteller: Ouch!
Sep 10 2009 2:48PM
Matthew Marsteller: Budget crisis and package deals don't seem to be going well together - be they for books or journals.
Sep 10 2009 2:48PM
Mel DeSart: big deals in the eyes of small publishers is intersting, but would it end up being a sob story session by smaller publisher reps about how they can't compete?
Sep 10 2009 2:49PM
Mel DeSart: Publisher transparency and the Elsevier fiasco - I like the pub transparency part, but the Elsevier deal is old news at this point.
Sep 10 2009 2:49PM
Matthew Marsteller: Librarians could take the floor on some of these topics as well ... we don't have to just listen to them.
Sep 10 2009 2:49PM
Matthew Marsteller: Our panel could represent both sides.
Sep 10 2009 2:49PM
Mel DeSart: It was one Australian segment of Elsevier doing that content for primarily an australian audience.
Sep 10 2009 2:50PM
Mel DeSart: I checked OCLC for all of those journals and it was tough to find a holding library outside of Aust/NZ other than the British Library.
Sep 10 2009 2:50PM
Matthew Marsteller: Not approved by Elsevier hq?
Sep 10 2009 2:51PM
Mel DeSart: The indexing/abstracting one is intriguing to me, since part of that $195 in cuts will be databases. Might be a nice vendor vs. librarian perspective there.
Sep 10 2009 2:52PM
Mel DeSart: Making $ in the OA age is interesting as well. Springer apparently things so - they just announced hiring a new person to run BioMed Central.
Sep 10 2009 2:52PM
Mel DeSart: Some woman with a publishing history at Taylor and Francis.
Sep 10 2009 2:52PM
Judith Emde: Springer owns BMC?
Sep 10 2009 2:52PM
Mel DeSart: Yep. Has for about a year now.
Sep 10 2009 2:53PM
Matthew Marsteller: If we were to survey the STS-L list, are any of these duds that you wouldn't bother with? Ugh! That's right ... that was a recent happening with BMC.
Sep 10 2009 2:53PM
Mel DeSart: As for any additional ideas, an annoucement I saw this morning shoved an idea into my wee brain.
Sep 10 2009 2:54PM
Judith Emde: okay lets hear it.
Sep 10 2009 2:54PM
Mel DeSart: The announcement was from Johns Hopkins - they received a $300K NSF grant to have JHU explore the creation of a repository for NSF-funded content, similar to
Sep 10 2009 2:55PM
Mel DeSart: what NIH has now with PubMed Central.
Sep 10 2009 2:55PM
Matthew Marsteller: Ah ... PubScience afterbirth...
Sep 10 2009 2:56PM
Mel DeSart: I've been waiting to SOME large agency to follow in NIH's footsteps, but this if the first I've heard of anyone even looking at the possibility.
Sep 10 2009 2:56PM
Judith Emde: Do you think the NIH requirement will extend to NSF?
Sep 10 2009 2:56PM
Judith Emde: It would be interesting to hear from somebody at PMC regarding compliance
Sep 10 2009 2:56PM
Mel DeSart: The other interesting piece is that NSF is doing this WITHOUT any kind of a mandate at this point.
Sep 10 2009 2:56PM
Matthew Marsteller: Not without a fight. PubScience was done away with rather quickly.
Sep 10 2009 2:57PM
Mel DeSart: FRPAA has been reintroduced into this session of Congress, which would mandate such repositories and access.
Sep 10 2009 2:57PM
Judith Emde: That's a good idea to add something in regard to these mandates and their current status.
Sep 10 2009 2:57PM
Mel DeSart: My guess it that's what prompted NSF to move forward in investigating the possibilities.
Sep 10 2009 2:58PM
Mel DeSart: The intriguing part from the publsher standpoint is, with NSF at least exploring this idea, and with NIH already doing it, what will publishers do if FRPAA
Sep 10 2009 2:58PM
Mel DeSart: passes?
Sep 10 2009 2:58PM
Matthew Marsteller: So, we'd consider a topic of 'extending the NIH Mandate to all funded research'
Sep 10 2009 2:59PM
Mel DeSart: Having one part of one government agency''s funded research being made openly accessible is not much of a threat.
Sep 10 2009 2:59PM
Matthew Marsteller: ... but if the dominoes fall.
Sep 10 2009 2:59PM
Mel DeSart: But having the funded research from all 11 agencies that fund over $100M in research per year being made openly available? That's a whole 'nother ballgame.
Sep 10 2009 2:59PM
Matthew Marsteller: NSF, then Energy and Defense ...
Sep 10 2009 3:00PM
Mel DeSart: Yeah, right now it's NIH with a mandate and NSF starting to explore.
Sep 10 2009 3:00PM
Matthew Marsteller: That's exactly what they were worried about.
Sep 10 2009 3:00PM
Mel DeSart: But if FRPAA passes, it's all 11 of the biggest funding agencies with a mandate added all at once.
Sep 10 2009 3:01PM
Mel DeSart: What the hell would publishers do if, instead of an article here and there, if 40-50% of what they published in a given journal fell under the funding mandate
Sep 10 2009 3:01PM
Matthew Marsteller: That would upset the applecart. How about the timing with this meeting in mid-January?
Sep 10 2009 3:01PM
Mel DeSart: of one of the other of those 11 agencies?
Sep 10 2009 3:02PM
Matthew Marsteller: What if it dies in committee?
Sep 10 2009 3:02PM
Mel DeSart: Re: timing, dunno. Winston Tabb at JHU just announced this funded project from NSF this morning.
Sep 10 2009 3:03PM
Judith Emde: Well, we could still speak to the NIH mandate and discuss how well it is doing, the Johns Hopkins project and the potential future of FRPAA
Sep 10 2009 3:03PM
Mel DeSart: As for dying in committee, that could happen. But that wouldn't keep agencies like NSF from doing this on their own, just as NIH did.
Sep 10 2009 3:03PM
Matthew Marsteller: I see ... and FRPAA could be reborn in the next session.
Sep 10 2009 3:03PM
Mel DeSart: And it seems apparent than the current administration is significantly more in favor of this kind of idea than was the previous one.
Sep 10 2009 3:04PM
Matthew Marsteller: Sessions are two years ... right?
Sep 10 2009 3:04PM
Mel DeSart: Heck, I don't remember.
Sep 10 2009 3:04PM
Judith Emde: Got any other thoughts, Mel? We'll drop the transparency and Elsevier idea.
Sep 10 2009 3:05PM
Matthew Marsteller: Any others we ought to drop?
Sep 10 2009 3:05PM
Matthew Marsteller: Perhaps "death of the journal" is a bit soon.
Sep 10 2009 3:05PM
Mel DeSart: well, i'm not enamored with the big deals / small publishers one, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't like it
Sep 10 2009 3:06PM
Judith Emde: Matt and I will tidy up these ideas and send out on a survey
Sep 10 2009 3:07PM
Mel DeSart: the death of a journal one is interesting, but most of these big cancellation projects seem to be happening THIS year. We woundn't know by January
Sep 10 2009 3:07PM
Mel DeSart: (but could speculate) on what the impact on IRs might be of this monster round of cancellations.
Sep 10 2009 3:08PM
Judith Emde: Are we all going to be subscribing to the same titles?
Sep 10 2009 3:08PM
Mel DeSart: That's an interesting bit. A variant is, are we all going to be subscriber to content from just the same few publishers?
Sep 10 2009 3:09PM
Judith Emde: We could still address it as future consequences
Sep 10 2009 3:09PM
Mel DeSart: As in, can Inderscience, and IOS Press and other similar mid-sized to small sci-tech publishers make it through this round of cuts?
Sep 10 2009 3:10PM
Matthew Marsteller: Wow ... I don't either of them ever made it here to begin with.
Sep 10 2009 3:10PM
Mel DeSart: Or will we all end up with the major societies in our subject areas, plus content from Elsevier, Wiley, Springer and Taylor & Francis?
Sep 10 2009 3:11PM
Mel DeSart: I've got a handful of IOS Press titles and two or three Inderscience ones, but most of them are on my potential cuts list.
Sep 10 2009 3:11PM
Matthew Marsteller: We're down to APS AIP IOP and about a dozen other journals now.
Sep 10 2009 3:11PM
Matthew Marsteller: in physics.
Sep 10 2009 3:11PM
Mel DeSart: yep, the pubs from the major societies in a particular area plus content from the Big Guys
Sep 10 2009 3:12PM
Judith Emde: I need to leave the discussion soon. Are we ready to close up?
Sep 10 2009 3:12PM
Matthew Marsteller: Yes, I think I'll be having to wrap things up as well.
Sep 10 2009 3:12PM
Mel DeSart: we're even looking at cutting a bunch of low-priced trade journals and low-prices popular stuff (like Flying) this time around.
Sep 10 2009 3:12PM
Judith Emde: Matt, you and I could divide up these topics and add more content to put in the survey.
Sep 10 2009 3:13PM
Mel DeSart: sorry to duck in late
Sep 10 2009 3:13PM
Matthew Marsteller: That sounds good. Thanks for ducking in Mel!
Sep 10 2009 3:13PM
Judith Emde: Mel, thanks so much for joining us. Say hi to Faye
Sep 10 2009 3:13PM
Mel DeSart: will do Judith
Sep 10 2009 3:13PM
Mel DeSart: adios you two
Sep 10 2009 3:13PM
Judith Emde: bye
Sep 10 2009 3:14PM
Matthew Marsteller: Take care Mel
Sep 10 2009 3:14PM
Judith Emde: Matt, do you have a preference what you want to work on?
Sep 10 2009 3:14PM
Matthew Marsteller: Not really ... I can take whatever on.
Sep 10 2009 3:14PM
Judith Emde: From the list at the top, we'll drop the transparency one and add the mandates
Sep 10 2009 3:14PM
Matthew Marsteller: Sounds good.
Sep 10 2009 3:15PM
Judith Emde: Do you want to take the first 3? and I'll take numbers 5, 6 and mandates?
Sep 10 2009 3:15PM
Matthew Marsteller: Which leaves us with six. Okay... I'll take the first three.
Sep 10 2009 3:15PM
Judith Emde: Do we just want to come up with a title and maybe a sentence or two in description?
Sep 10 2009 3:16PM
Matthew Marsteller: Yes, with clarity of the utmost importance ... for survey purposes.
Sep 10 2009 3:16PM
Judith Emde: I better have a due date.
Sep 10 2009 3:16PM
Matthew Marsteller: :-) understood. What's a reasonable one?
Sep 10 2009 3:17PM
Judith Emde: Next Friday, the 18th? Too soon? We probably need to get something out so we can plan and get speakers.
Sep 10 2009 3:17PM
Matthew Marsteller: I will shoot for the 18th.
Sep 10 2009 3:18PM
Judith Emde: Okay. Well, this worked out pretty well. Do we just want to send drafts to each other by e-mail?
Sep 10 2009 3:18PM
Matthew Marsteller: That would be fine. The survey itself would make the next reasonable record for STS.
Sep 10 2009 3:18PM
Judith Emde: Great. Thanks a lot! Be back in touch.
Sep 10 2009 3:19PM
Matthew Marsteller: Take care ... this should be interesting.
Sep 10 2009 3:20PM
Matthew Marsteller: I can post these for us if you like.