Open Access and Information Commons
by Joshua Rouan
“Information commons” and “open access” are terms that correlate to two problems facing the modern library – the declining relevancy of libraries to the younger generation and the financial cost of information. This post will address both topics separately.
Information commons is a model that seeks to redefine the ways that the younger generation understand and use libraries. It encompasses both libraries as a physical space and the very nature of library service. According to Tucker, an “information commons” could contain the following elements:
· facilities for teamwork and collaborative study;
· state-of-the-art technology for research and coursework including multimedia capabilities and production software;
· library reference and research assistance;
· printed reference works and online databases;
· a writing center serving the intellectual interests of all disciplines offered by the institution;
· faculty development staff and resources;
· tutorial guidance and adaptive services;
· lectures and musical performances;
· art gallery space;
· a café service;
· lounge-type furniture for leisure reading and conversation;
· copy center and binding equipment for printed resources. (Tucker, 2007).
The idea of an information commons developed in response to students staying away from libraries except when absolutely necessary. This trend away from libraries was in turn a response to the growing amount of information available online – in the form of both private web pages, search engines, as well as remote-access databases (Tucker, 2007).
Information commons is not, however, simply a rethinking of physical library space. It also encompasses the way in which librarians interact with their patrons. The “roving reference librarian” is an emerging trend. Here, the reference librarians do not necessarily sit behind a reference desk waiting to be approached for help but, as the name suggests, “rove” around the reference area asking patrons if they need help (Balas, 2007). Not only is this heightened interaction with patrons important to building a more friendly perception of librarians and information professionals, but it is also crucial in helping patrons navigate the increasingly complex world of digital information. Helping patrons navigate the world of digital information is not as easy to do remotely, and providing a comfortable library space with non-traditional reference librarians is a way to both help patrons use electronic resources and attract them to the library’s physical space (Balas, 2007).
Open access is a model for making information available to researchers and students. In the traditional, non-open access model, databases and online journals charge member libraries a fee (often a very high one) for allowing their patrons access to journal articles. This model relies on libraries to pay the cost of publishing and distributing the scientific and scholarly journals. The open access model inverts this traditional pay scheme. Under the new model, users have access to the scholarly journals for “free” – the content is available online to anyone who needs it. Here is it important to note that the information itself is not free. Open access journals charge the authors of the articles a fee for publishing their work. It has been argued that information is inherently costly, and that any move towards open access that denies this reality will not work (Anderson, 2004). In other words, open access policies move the cost of the information from the user to the creator – from libraries and their patrons to the authors of the articles in question (Navin, 2007).
Buy why should the move to open access be made, especially considering that the “cost” of information is not being eliminated, but simply shifted? Aside from the obvious financial reasons, studies have found that open access articles are cited more frequently than traditional subscription based articles (Navin, 2007). Not only is this a positive for libraries (who are no longer saddled with the cost of subscription) but the authors and the journals themselves benefit from becoming more visible in their individual fields of study. New research thus has the possibility of having a greater impact (Navin, 2007). There is a third reason for making the move to open access. Navin and Starrat examined thousands of articles in the disciplines of economics, mathematics, and chemistry. In the field of chemistry and mathematics, a majority of the articles consulted reported funding from public sources (Navin, 2007). In other words, open access would help guarantee that the research that the public funded would be accessible to them for free, while the entities that reap the benefits of publication (authors, in the form of salaries, bonuses, etc.) would be responsible for the costs of publishing and disseminating that information. This last fact, however, remains a point of controversy. Rick Anderson, in his article “Open access in the real world: Confronting economic and legal reality,” notes that publicly funded research remains protected by copyright law.
Open access is not a term free of controversy, nor is it possible to explain the many questions it raises in this post. By and large most libraries do not have the luxury of utilizing only open access journals – most academic journals still charge. Whether or not open access will replace the traditional pay or subscription based model will depend upon the willingness of authors to pay for publication, as well as the legal implications surrounding publicly funded (but privately owned) research.
Sources:
Anderson, R. Open access in the real world: Confronting economic and legal reality. C&RL News Vol. 65, No. 4 (April 2004).
Balas, J. Physical Space and Digital Space-Librarians Belong in Both. Computers in Libraries, 27(5), 26-29. May 2007.
Navin, J. C., et. al., Does Open Access Really Make Sense? A Closer Look at Chemistry, Economics, and Mathematics. College & Research Libraries v. 68 no. 4 (July 2007) p. 323-7
Tucker, J.M. An Emerging Model for the Undergraduate Library. Library Issues: Briefings for Faculty and Administration. Vol. 27, No. 5. May 2007
15 comments:
According to Tucker, the elements that an “information commons” should contain are all appealing in their effort to make libraries more attractive to patrons. It kind of reminds me of the “one shop stop” mentality of the big box shops. But I do think that all of his suggestions are worth considering since libraries are in need of reconstruction in the subconscious of the general public.
Merging art with literature is never a bad idea.
All of Tucker’s elements for information commons are directed at empowering the community to easily find the resources it needs. Now the question is… how do we get patrons to realize these assets are what they need? How do we get them to step away from their hypnotic televisions and get into their rewarding libraries?
The “roving reference librarian” as an emerging trend is also a valuable transition. It is simply good business to mingle with the patrons. I hate to relate it to the retail experience but it is true. I cannot tell you how many times I have hesitantly approached the reference desk with the “sorry to interrupt” attitude. The reference librarians at one of my local public libraries do not seem approachable or inviting. I imagine that the majority of library users would have a higher quality experience if reference librarians met them halfway, literally.
As for Open Access, I think it may be difficult to shift the cost of Open Access journals back onto the author. But as it stands now, libraries who subscribe to journal articles already have to pay retail to make the access possible, and in doing so, have to forgo other purchases or resources. So if this cost was lifted off the libraries more money could be spent in other areas needed. Maybe OA articles would become tax payer funded? What happens with copyright?
I agree that the trend towards the “roving reference librarian” could be a very positive change. I think that in order to best serve patrons, the reference librarian should be as accessible as possible. If they walk around and interact with the patrons, I think they are more likely to seem approachable. A patron might be more likely to ask a question that was on their mind if the reference librarian makes the effort to go out and make some conversation with them. They don’t have to be intrusive, which is one of the potential concerns that are listed in the Balas article. Simply walking around, making conversation and seeing if anyone needs help would be enough.
I was an Education major for undergrad, and I keep thinking back to my classroom management class, where we talked about the importance of circulating around the room rather than just sitting at a desk in the back of the classroom. An approachable and friendly librarian is more likely to see when patrons might need help and provide it. This kind of help cannot be provided in the digital information environment. As Balas states in her article: “The growth of electronic information has not reduced the need for librarians, but instead has made the presence of a librarian--an approachable librarian--even more necessary” (Balas, 2007).
Bibliography
Balas, J. (2007). Physical Space and Digital Space-Librarians belong in both. Computers in Libraries , 27 (5), 26-29.
The idea of a rovng reference librarian is very appealing as long as I can find some help when she/he is out roving somewhere. Perhaps the rover could be a new position in the library during busy hours, to relay needs to the reference librarian. During my experience as retail business owner for 14 years, I learned that it is a fine art to be available just at the right time - to be accessible and informative without hovering. People do like to feel that their money and business matters (i.e. tax dollars) and that someone would like to help them. Many peope do not understand that the reference librarian is there to help with many needs-it never occurred to me to ever call up a reference librarian to gather research for me much less to find out what a dose of chidrens Tylenol would be.
In regard to open source databases, I am a bit leery. If authors have to pay to be published is this not the same as paying to advertise your product regardless of the worth of the product? And can all authors afford this; does this not become a matter of money talking? When I think of open source, I think more on the lines of the story about Evergreen. Evergreen is an open source ILS, developed by the Georgia Public Library Service. Rather than buying a vendor generated library system at great cost, the GPLS inhouse team used "existing, freely available source codes" to build their own ILS for cataloguing and e-resource management. This saved many dollars to be spent elsewhere. I would like to see my library save money this way rather than using free databases built with information supplied by authors who paid their way in.
I failed to include my reference...so sorry.
Weber, Jonathan. Evergreen: Your Homegrown ILS. Library Journal, 12/15/2006. Retrieved on February 17, 2008 from http://www.blackboard.wayne.ed/webapps/frameset.
Josh is right, the public is demanding open access, and people at the top have, at least on some level, gotten the message. (McLennan, J., 2007). For example, on December 26, 2007, for the first time ever, the U.S. government “mandated public access to research funded by a major agency”, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). (McLennan, J., 2007) See also the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 (H.R. 2764).
And this increased access makes sense. Why shouldn’t taxpayers benefit from research conducted on their dime, at least when the public has covered all or most of the associated costs. (Anderson, R., 2004) And why, after footing the bill, should tax payers be forced to pay again (by funding libraries) to see the fruits of their investment? The researchers themselves may not profit to the same extent as they would if allowed to condition access on payment, but they can still derive a benefit from their research and publication.
Furthermore, ‘“… access to new knowledge is key to the rapid advancement of science,” [according to] Harold Varmus...Nobel Prize Winner.’ (McLennan, J., 2007) And according to David Shulenburger, Vice President for Academic Affairs at NASULGC...‘“[p]ublic access to publicly funded research contributes directly to the mission of higher education.”’ (McLennan, J., 2007) Promoting scientific discovery and higher education benefits us all. And as librarians, it means scarce resources can be spent elsewhere.
These arguments are less compelling, however, outside the context of fully subsidized (by taxpayers) research. Information takes work to produce and has value. (Anderson, R., 2004) Someone has to pay.
But I agree with Roby and Anne, shifting journal publication costs to authors is also not the answer. It’s true that authors submitting work to peer reviewed journals are a good target for open access (“OA”) because “most scholarly journals do not buy their articles or pay royalties to authors.” (Public Knowledge, 2003-2007) But researchers are not doing the work for free. Instead of monetary gain, researchers publishing in a scholarly publication receive “intangible rewards such as visibility, impact, prestige, certification for career advancement, and a time-stamp to establish their priority over other researchers working on the same problem.” (Public Knowledge, 2003-2007).
As Anne noted, however, most authors, or their respective institutions, will not and cannot assume all journal publishing costs for their faculty or staff, indefinitely. The author-pays model, if universally adopted, risks cutting scholars from less-well-funded institutions out of scholarly communication, and promotes scholarship judgments based on money rather than merit. (Souto, 2007, p. 162)
What OA advocates forget is that journals have costs beyond the actual creation of content. .
“[E]ven when articles and editorial services are provided at no charge, the remaining costs of preparing information for publication are considerable. These include a publisher's staffing and overhead costs, which are often substantial and may actually increase when a journal moves from print to online. Consider, for example, the added costs of robust and long-term archiving (which is integral to the open access concept and not an issue with which publishers typically concern themselves in the print realm), the cost of hiring a Web master and other content maintenance staff, and the costs of acquiring and maintaining servers. A journal publisher that employs its own editorial staff has even greater costs to recover.” (Anderson, R., 2004)
And it’s worth noting that OA journals currently operating under author-pays models are unable to cover more than 40% to 60% of their costs. (Souto, 2007, p. 162) The rest is either being floated, or subsidized through an assortment of alternatives that include membership fees, paper journal subscriptions, advertizing, and government subsidies. (Souto, 2007, p. 162)
But the escalating costs associated with subscriptions to “major high impact journals,” whether in traditional format or e-journals, also means that less-well-funded institutions, particularly institutions in developing countries, already cannot access much of the available primary literature. (Gosh, 2007, p. 232)
One interesting alternative for OA is to have authors retain their copyright and allow institutional repositories (“IRs”) and libraries to assume responsibility for registering, archiving and disseminating research. (Souto, 2007, p. 159) When publishing in traditional, peer-reviewed journals, authors would license only specific rights to the publisher, and retain the right to allow OA through their institution. (Souto, 2007, p. 159) Academic libraries and IRs can then inject a little competition into the scholarship industry, while allowing for increased OA to research. (Souto, 2007) Although the author’s institution still bears the cost under this model, production costs are significantly lower because Institutions are expanding the utility of resources they already possess to cover the costs of research dissemination, instead of subsidizing a separate publishing industry. (Crow, 2002).
I found this option particularly interesting because it creates a new role for librarians.
“[W]ith the IRs, libraries are becoming actively involved and heavily responsible for the dissemination and archiving of the research outputs of their institution. All these changes have increased librarians’ visibility and promoted a more strategic importance for them inside the institution…It should be remembered that peer-reviewed archives with an efficient search engine perform the functions of journals.” (Souto, 2007, p. 160)
Although peer review raises costs, and it may be that this function should remain the province of traditional journals. Other journal functions, however, can be replicated on a smaller budget. Some IRs, for example, have duplicated journals’ new issues by offering RSS feeds. (Gosh, 2007, p. 233) This allows the IR to notify subscribers when new items are added to the collection. (Gosh, 2007, p. 233)
…Who knows, maybe OA and IRs are the future for our profession.
Works cited:
Anderson, R. (2004, April) Open access in the real world: Confronting economic and legal reality. College & Research Libraries News, 65(4) 206-8.
Crow, R. (2002) Crow, R. (2002).The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC position paper. Retrieved on March 25, 2008, from the ARL Website at http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/br/223br.shtml.
Gosh, S. and Das, A. (2007) Open access and institutional repositories: A developing country perspective: a case study of India. IFLA Journal, 33(3)229-250.
McLennan, J. (2007, December 26) Public access mandate made law: President Bush signs omnibus appropriations bill, including National Institutes of Health research access provision. Retrieved on March 25, 2008, from Alliance for Tax Payer Access Web site at http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/media/release07-1226.html.
Public Knowledge (2003-2007) Open access to research. Retrieved on March 25, 2008, from Public Knowledge Web site at http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/openaccess.
Souto, P. (2007, January/April) E-publishing development and changes in the scholarly communication system. Ciencia da Informacao, 36(1) 158-66.
I actually have mixed feelings about roving reference librarians. I currently work in a library where our adult reference librarians are scheduled into one, two, or sometimes even three hour blocks for "roving." To be honest I have never really inquired as to the feedback from patrons regarding this service, but now it is something I plan to ask. I guess my personal take on it is that I don't want to be bothered. It is bad enough that in retail places such as mall stores you are practically bombarded the moment you enter a store and then followed around and asked if you need help finding anything..it almost drives you to insanity!
The last place I want to get this is the library. While I do realize that scenario is a bit extreme and that most roving librarians probably won't be that agressive, I personally, would rather approach a librarian on my own terms.
However, I do see the benefits. I do see that it can be a positive service provided by the reference librarians. In the article "Where Reference Librarians Do Rove" Geauga County Public Library Director Deborah E O'Connor makes an excellent point by saying
"Many patrons feel that because they learned how to use the library in school they should be able to work there independently. Libraries are much more sophisticated places than they were years ago. We find that people don't know the wealth the library has to offer."
So while I may not need or want that public service because I have more experience navigating a public library it doesn't mean that it isn't useful and that there aren't patrons out there that will be appreciative of that kind of service, especially those who don't realize that libraries have come a long way from the card catalog days. I think the idea of roving librarians is going to really start to emerge as vital resource to many libraries.
works cited:
Burek Pierce, J. Where Reference Librarians Do Rove. American Libraries v. 37 no. 2 (February 2006) p. 39
I think there is something to be said about "roving" librarians. Years ago when I was working as a page at my library I was asked reference questions all the time because it was more convenient for the patrons to ask me than to walk back to the reference desk and lets face it, for some patrons including children, going up to the desk can be intimidating. However, having worked at Ann Arbor District library where they enforced a roving librarian policy (at least in part), I can say that sometimes it was inconvenient because patrons would come to the desk, where they expect to find help, only to find no one is there. I think a happy medium would be best.
As for open access information, I have to say that the idea scares me a little. If the cost of publishing is put on the author then won't that discourage some authors from publishing or even from doing certain types of research? I think if I had to first find the money for the research and then the money to get something published, I might think twice before starting that process. In this way I think it will in the end, limit the diversity of information available.
I also agree with Ann here. Who is to say that what gets published in this way is worth anything? I feel that there is a collective belief that just because an article or study gets published, then that means that it is good information. Having a BA in Psychology and having spent hours upon hours evaluating different studies I can say that this isn't true. The one thing each of my professors stressed the most was to be critical of every aspect of a research article from the method to whether the statistics were actually significant and if the conclusion is actually supported by the finding and these were published articles in peer reviewed journals! Keeping the pool of knowledge diverse, even if it isn't free, provides some alternatives for the reader.
I found a blog with some references to this debate where it concerns the medical field if anyone is interested...
http://www.lomasin.com/19691231/Pros-and-Cons-of-Open-Access-Publishing-Debated,784/
Two very different topics, but both very relevant.
Roving librarianship is a bit of a fence issue. I agree that it is great to have available,approachable staff out among patrons. But the question remains, what will they be doing as they rove? Will they hover, hang around patrons studying or browsing? Will they shelve or straighten shelves? Would this interfere with the page position? Will there be a separate reference librarian at the desk? Do patrons expect to approach a desk for reference, or would they rather seek out a librarian in the stacks?
An experiment at Harvard a couple years back seems to have taken the term "roving librarian" to a new level. Librarians would hang out in various areas of campus where students tended to gather, with a laptop connecting them to reference resources. The particular article I read stated it seemed to be a positive and welcomed experience. But I wonder if there was any follow-up. Do students want to ask reference questions while grabbing a bite to eat? Are they prepared for information when it comes to them, rather than them actively seeking information?
Open Access seems to be a very controversial topic. Free access to information could never be a bad thing, right? But does an author deserve a portion of profit? Should they have to pay to be published? Should libraries have to pay high fees to distribute information? I realize databases are incredible resources to have, but at what cost? Harvard, again, is on the edge of the topic. Harvard faculty have initiated a policy in which faculty members would hand over articles, digitally ready to be posted to the Internet, available to all, at no cost. Their plan seems good natured and well thought out, but I'd be interested to see how things go with time.
Harvard on roving librarians
http://hul.harvard.edu/publications/hul_notes_1313/hcl.html
Harvard on open access
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/books/12publ.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Firstly I think that literature is art. So adding more attractive surrondings in alibrary will only enhance the beauty seeing rows of books.
I also agree that the roving librarian is a good idea. However, I haven't seen it yet. I haven't been to a library where this is apparent. The librarians I know, work behind the desk, when they need too, they get up and help the patron, on their way back to the desk, if they see someone who looks lost or unsure then they will stop and inquire. I think this works pretty well. We have actually had patrons complain that there are too many people coming at them inquiring if they need assistance. But I guess that is a good complaint to have?
I don't agree with Open access. By making authors pay to publish their works would seem really discouraging. I have a friend who is working on a PHd at UM, seeing how much she time she spends finding grant money just for researching, if she had to add to that for publishing. By doing that would severly limit our access to information, good research, good sources.
Libraries are going though an intense period of modernization. The need for such change is the fast pace of technological advancement. Technology is allowing greater access to finer forms of information than the public has encountered before. Open access information is a novel concept before libraries. A library and its patrons would benefit from open access databases, however, it remains to be seen how widespread open access information will become. As R. Anderson points out in his article “Open Access and the Real World: Confronting Economic and Legal Reality” there are major impediments to the adoption of this particular approach to information dissemination. The inherent costs of researched information being the main obstacle
The research process is taxing on a scholar. Facts are readily available but finding a meaning amongst them is where the real work is done. A finely polished piece of research is worth compensation. The open access model would shift the cost of access to the information from the end user, as in the case of conventional databases, to the author and or publisher. The motivation for this is that the creators of the information would compensate someone to disseminate their finished product. Of course the idea behind creating research works is that it should be read, but the work in creating it cannot go uncompensated itself. Anderson makes that argument in his article and to good effect. I cannot see how the entire existing system of scholarly research will shift over to the open access model anytime soon. However desirable the drastically reduced cost of information would be to the library and the consequential explosion in disbursement to the authors, the methods of compensation which will facilitate the shift have yet to be refined themselves.
Sources:
Anderson, R. (April 2004) Open access in the real world: Confronting economic and legal reality. C&RL News, 65, No. 4, 206- 208.
The system of information transfer is becoming increasingly complex. Now libraries are facing increased competition for providing information services for their patrons. Libraries are not the only, the first or the best provider of information service any longer.
While in the past, libraries and publishers composed the whole information industry, today the library is just one of many players in the industry, that is currently composed by the Internet, search engines as Google, Yahoo, online services, database developers, media producers, and so on…
Eric Flower the Library Director at the University of
Hawaii–West Oahu, Pearl City asks:
“How will libraries compete with the Microsoft Network’s eLibrary if they get serious and advertise broadly and directly to end users? What if they offer direct access into EBSCOHost, LexisNexis, or Science Direct databases?
What if Microsoft bypasses the aggregators altogether and licenses content directly from publishers?”
Naturally a customer will seek out the provider that offers the greatest convenience, accuracy and speed at the most reasonable cost.
“Deep down, library users do not want to pay much for services. They want the lowest possible charges for document delivery, photocopying, and printing, including color printing. It is difficult to build a model
where one side of the equation equals a number close to zero.”
Work cited:
Eric Flower. Competition, Technology, and Planning: Preparing for Tomorrow’s Library Environment. Retrieved March, 28, 2008 from
http://www.ala.org/ala/lita/litapublications/ital/volume23a/tocnumber2/communications.pdf
Open access, as some have already mentioned really does seem to be a double edged sword. Access to information is always a positive thing and something that we always future librarians should be promoting and encouraging. However, when it is at the expense of a scholar is that really a good thing? As Joe touched on so thoroughly and thoughtfully, writing a scholarly piece is hard work! Though I myself have never published anything of subtance, I realize that those who do dive into writing a scholarly piece put a lot of themselves into it. Credit is deserved where credit is due. To make someone pay to publish something they have worked so hard at is almost insulting!
On the flip side, as Anne mentioned, is the stuff that does get published at the hands of money talking really going to be quality? Is that something you to make available to your patrons or would you rather spend your precious resource dollars on something that will be of use?
It is an interesting debate. I can't wait to see what becomes of it in the next few years!
Roving reference librarians are a great idea...maybe there should be more than one though (I'd say about five maximum) so there'll always be (more times than not) someone on hand if there's a major question or problem afoot.
Post a Comment