Publisher/Vendor Relations Discussion Group (ACRL STS - Science and Technology Section)

 View Only
last person joined: one month ago 

Provides a forum for exchanging information between science and technology publishers and vendors and science and technology librarians.

#Academic Libraries #Vendors #Publishers #ACRL Discussion and Interest Groups (Association of College and Research Libraries)
#Vendors
#ACRLDiscussionandInterestGroups(AssociationofCollegeandResearchLibraries)
#AcademicLibraries
#Publishers

Chat: Midwinter 2010 Topic

  • 1.  Chat: Midwinter 2010 Topic

    Posted Sep 10, 2009 02:20 PM
    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.