- Email: [email protected]
SPARC: current initiatives
Conference Report / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 24 (2000) 403– 441
413
and to continue to find ways to add value to products, a company has to either build a product very fast, or buy it. DeSousa then continued to explore the reasons for the recent merger announcements. She said that the politics are ripe for mergers. Businesses must maximize their resources (time and money) as well as focus on customer needs. Also, the free market works on win/win collaborations. Bell & Howell’s reasons for merging/acquiring are multifaceted. They want access to a new customer base. They want to fill out their content; take advantage of new technologies and channel distribution. The recent purchase of ChadwyckHealey provided an excellent complement to Bell & Howell’s services while continuing to share similar philosophies. Their recent acquisition of Infonautics Partnership – e-library creates an education portal for them into the K-12 market. DeSousa predicted that the future would bring more mergers and more niche products, but hesitated to guess whether or not these mergers would raise or lower prices. Robert W. Birch (Director of Sales, Greenwood Press), was the fourth and final speaker on this panel. The title of his presentation was “Mergers: A Cautionary Tale.” He began by discussing the traditional stream of information, which is author-publisher-distributor-library-end user. He reminded the audience to keep in mind that everyone contributes to this stream. The publisher invests in the shaping of intellectual property, the distributor simplifies access and the library filters information. However, Birch indicated that the pressures within the stream are leading to consolidation. For example, libraries feel budgetary pressures and subsequently join consortia. Distributors feeling the pressures to deliver the same products at lower prices form mergers. Publishers feel margin pressures and also form mergers. Birch then went on to discuss the benefits of these mergers. In consortia, libraries gain more efficient exposure of products. For distributors, mergers mean combined strengths and improved services. For publishers, collective strength allows risks to be taken. E-commerce can radically change the picture. Distributors can sell directly to end users and publishers can sell directly libraries and end users. Birch cautioned that the bleakest scenario would be an author selling to end-users. Rosann Bazirjian The Pennsylvania State University Libraries 510 Paterno Library University Park, PA 16802-1812 E-mail address: [email protected]. SPARC: current initiatives “SPARC, the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition, is an alliance of libraries that fosters expanded competition in scholarly communication. Launched with support from membership of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), SPARC creates ‘partnerships’ with publishers who are developing high quality, economical alternatives to existing high-priced publications.” [1] Jennifer Kostelnik (Yale University) introduced the panelists and gave an overview of their role in the session: Julia Blixrud on the vision and goals of SPARC; Anthony Watkinson on what part libraries can play; and Peter Boyce on questioning the plans of SPARC.
414
Conference Report / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 24 (2000) 403– 441
Julia Blixrud (Director of Public Programs at SPARC) highlighted conditions that led to the founding of SPARC, namely: 1) the growing gap between the price of information and the ability to pay for that information; 2) the explosion in the volume of knowledge and its different formats; and 3) consolidations within the publishing industry. Library strategies in response to these situations have been: 1) journal cancellations and reduced monograph acquisitions; 2) improved document delivery models; 3) cooperative collection development; and 4) site and consortial licensing of electronic information. As an alternative to these strategies, SPARC was formed in June 1998 to “introduce more competition and cost-based pricing into the marketplace for scientific and technological information by encouraging a mix of commercial and not-for-profit organizations to engage in electronic publication of the results of scientific research.” [2] The organization’s central idea is to take advantage of libraries’ buying power by offering lower-priced alternatives to high-priced journals and to explore new models of dissemination that better serve authors, users and buyers. There are 175 SPARC members: 144 are Full members (those who make a $7500 annual purchasing commitment); 21 are Consortial members (those who make a purchasing commitment of 0.2 percent of their materials budget); and ten are Supporting members (those who make no purchasing commitment). In addition, there are seven affiliated library organizations and six endorsing organizations. Blixrud spoke about three SPARC initiatives. The Alternatives Program is an arrangement between SPARC and three professional organizations (American Chemical Society, Royal Society of Chemistry, and Evolutionary Ecology Research) whereby, each individual society and SPARC in partnership, are publishing new alternative titles. The Leading Edge Program offers two electronic-only journals (New Journal of Physics and Internet Journal of Chemistry) that take advantage of innovative technology and business models. The Scientific Communities Program is an aggregation of journals from AIBS (American Institute of Biological Sciences) member societies. This program also offers grants as an opportunity for professional academies to explore their role in publishing. Anthony Watkinson (Consultant) spoke about his ambivalence toward SPARC. While he was keen on the collaborative component of the organization, he postulated that libraries would end up spending more money on journals because, in addition to the new alternative titles, libraries would still need the established, traditional titles. Watkinson noted that most publishers make their profit from a small number of journals, and wondered if any of the new journals would reach a level of long-term profitability. Peter Boyce (American Astronomical Society) posited some questions about SPARC: Will SPARC change publishers’ habits? Are there enough SPARC publishing partners, and are these partnerships successful? Is SPARC too conservative for tomorrow’s information structure? From a publisher’s point of view, Boyce felt that a partnership with SPARC was not particularly appealing, except as a service to the community. Publishers that are already community-oriented would not need to partner with the organization. He also felt that new publishers would need more monetary backing than SPARC could provide. In addition, they would need more publishing expertise. Boyce felt that the American Astronomical Society had already achieved SPARC’s aims - they have always had inexpensive journals, and strong input from the library community. He wondered if the impact of SPARC is real or symbolic - there are few publications and few articles. Boyce felt the publishing community is in a
Conference Report / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 24 (2000) 403– 441
415
period of transition. The basic structure of information is changing, and any new paradigms must incorporate easy, long-term maintenance in its design. He is a little disappointed in SPARC. The session ended with discussion and questions from the audience. 1. What is SPARC doing to encourage deans to get faculty to submit articles to SPARC journals? Blixrud responded that SPARC has an advocacy program. Members have a responsibility to speak to faculty about submitting articles to alternative journals. The organization also has a program to help SPARC members carry out this task. 2. Is there data on whether libraries actually are canceling the more expensive journals? Blixrud responded that it is too early in the process. There is no hard data, but ARL is keeping track of this information. Pamela Theus William Paterson University 300 Pompton Road Wayne, NJ 07470 E-mail address: [email protected].
References [1] From the organization’s homepage: http://www.arl.org/sparc/. [2] From Blixrud’s transparencies: 1994 AAU Task Force on a National Strategy for managing Scientific and Technological Information.
The changing structure of information in the electronic era In this presentation Peter B. Boyce (Senior Consultant for Electronic Publishing, American Astronomical Society) outlined the changing structure and ideas associated with information in the electronic era. Starting with a review of the positive features of paper as a format as exemplified in the traditional academic journal, Boyce reminded us of the value of stand-alone capability, ease of transmission, archiving capabilities even though locating similar or associated materials was a clumsy process at best. The e-journal article format, on the other hand, provides one answer to the problem of locating associated materials through its linking feature. Boyce indicated that while the linked journal has provided a valuable resource to the scholarly community, its critical needs of long-term access, archive management and further development of standards for linked information will be required for the e-journal’s ongoing success as a medium. The world of scholarly publishing is currently undergoing a period of evolution with regard to the state of electronic information and the concerns and problems associated with any change in technology are beginning to present themselves. As we move away from the paper model of information, we are also moving away from the concept of the page and its physical appearance as an information paradigm. Boyce feels we are moving away from the concept
413
and to continue to find ways to add value to products, a company has to either build a product very fast, or buy it. DeSousa then continued to explore the reasons for the recent merger announcements. She said that the politics are ripe for mergers. Businesses must maximize their resources (time and money) as well as focus on customer needs. Also, the free market works on win/win collaborations. Bell & Howell’s reasons for merging/acquiring are multifaceted. They want access to a new customer base. They want to fill out their content; take advantage of new technologies and channel distribution. The recent purchase of ChadwyckHealey provided an excellent complement to Bell & Howell’s services while continuing to share similar philosophies. Their recent acquisition of Infonautics Partnership – e-library creates an education portal for them into the K-12 market. DeSousa predicted that the future would bring more mergers and more niche products, but hesitated to guess whether or not these mergers would raise or lower prices. Robert W. Birch (Director of Sales, Greenwood Press), was the fourth and final speaker on this panel. The title of his presentation was “Mergers: A Cautionary Tale.” He began by discussing the traditional stream of information, which is author-publisher-distributor-library-end user. He reminded the audience to keep in mind that everyone contributes to this stream. The publisher invests in the shaping of intellectual property, the distributor simplifies access and the library filters information. However, Birch indicated that the pressures within the stream are leading to consolidation. For example, libraries feel budgetary pressures and subsequently join consortia. Distributors feeling the pressures to deliver the same products at lower prices form mergers. Publishers feel margin pressures and also form mergers. Birch then went on to discuss the benefits of these mergers. In consortia, libraries gain more efficient exposure of products. For distributors, mergers mean combined strengths and improved services. For publishers, collective strength allows risks to be taken. E-commerce can radically change the picture. Distributors can sell directly to end users and publishers can sell directly libraries and end users. Birch cautioned that the bleakest scenario would be an author selling to end-users. Rosann Bazirjian The Pennsylvania State University Libraries 510 Paterno Library University Park, PA 16802-1812 E-mail address: [email protected]. SPARC: current initiatives “SPARC, the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition, is an alliance of libraries that fosters expanded competition in scholarly communication. Launched with support from membership of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), SPARC creates ‘partnerships’ with publishers who are developing high quality, economical alternatives to existing high-priced publications.” [1] Jennifer Kostelnik (Yale University) introduced the panelists and gave an overview of their role in the session: Julia Blixrud on the vision and goals of SPARC; Anthony Watkinson on what part libraries can play; and Peter Boyce on questioning the plans of SPARC.
414
Conference Report / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 24 (2000) 403– 441
Julia Blixrud (Director of Public Programs at SPARC) highlighted conditions that led to the founding of SPARC, namely: 1) the growing gap between the price of information and the ability to pay for that information; 2) the explosion in the volume of knowledge and its different formats; and 3) consolidations within the publishing industry. Library strategies in response to these situations have been: 1) journal cancellations and reduced monograph acquisitions; 2) improved document delivery models; 3) cooperative collection development; and 4) site and consortial licensing of electronic information. As an alternative to these strategies, SPARC was formed in June 1998 to “introduce more competition and cost-based pricing into the marketplace for scientific and technological information by encouraging a mix of commercial and not-for-profit organizations to engage in electronic publication of the results of scientific research.” [2] The organization’s central idea is to take advantage of libraries’ buying power by offering lower-priced alternatives to high-priced journals and to explore new models of dissemination that better serve authors, users and buyers. There are 175 SPARC members: 144 are Full members (those who make a $7500 annual purchasing commitment); 21 are Consortial members (those who make a purchasing commitment of 0.2 percent of their materials budget); and ten are Supporting members (those who make no purchasing commitment). In addition, there are seven affiliated library organizations and six endorsing organizations. Blixrud spoke about three SPARC initiatives. The Alternatives Program is an arrangement between SPARC and three professional organizations (American Chemical Society, Royal Society of Chemistry, and Evolutionary Ecology Research) whereby, each individual society and SPARC in partnership, are publishing new alternative titles. The Leading Edge Program offers two electronic-only journals (New Journal of Physics and Internet Journal of Chemistry) that take advantage of innovative technology and business models. The Scientific Communities Program is an aggregation of journals from AIBS (American Institute of Biological Sciences) member societies. This program also offers grants as an opportunity for professional academies to explore their role in publishing. Anthony Watkinson (Consultant) spoke about his ambivalence toward SPARC. While he was keen on the collaborative component of the organization, he postulated that libraries would end up spending more money on journals because, in addition to the new alternative titles, libraries would still need the established, traditional titles. Watkinson noted that most publishers make their profit from a small number of journals, and wondered if any of the new journals would reach a level of long-term profitability. Peter Boyce (American Astronomical Society) posited some questions about SPARC: Will SPARC change publishers’ habits? Are there enough SPARC publishing partners, and are these partnerships successful? Is SPARC too conservative for tomorrow’s information structure? From a publisher’s point of view, Boyce felt that a partnership with SPARC was not particularly appealing, except as a service to the community. Publishers that are already community-oriented would not need to partner with the organization. He also felt that new publishers would need more monetary backing than SPARC could provide. In addition, they would need more publishing expertise. Boyce felt that the American Astronomical Society had already achieved SPARC’s aims - they have always had inexpensive journals, and strong input from the library community. He wondered if the impact of SPARC is real or symbolic - there are few publications and few articles. Boyce felt the publishing community is in a
Conference Report / Libr. Coll. Acq. & Tech. Serv. 24 (2000) 403– 441
415
period of transition. The basic structure of information is changing, and any new paradigms must incorporate easy, long-term maintenance in its design. He is a little disappointed in SPARC. The session ended with discussion and questions from the audience. 1. What is SPARC doing to encourage deans to get faculty to submit articles to SPARC journals? Blixrud responded that SPARC has an advocacy program. Members have a responsibility to speak to faculty about submitting articles to alternative journals. The organization also has a program to help SPARC members carry out this task. 2. Is there data on whether libraries actually are canceling the more expensive journals? Blixrud responded that it is too early in the process. There is no hard data, but ARL is keeping track of this information. Pamela Theus William Paterson University 300 Pompton Road Wayne, NJ 07470 E-mail address: [email protected].
References [1] From the organization’s homepage: http://www.arl.org/sparc/. [2] From Blixrud’s transparencies: 1994 AAU Task Force on a National Strategy for managing Scientific and Technological Information.
The changing structure of information in the electronic era In this presentation Peter B. Boyce (Senior Consultant for Electronic Publishing, American Astronomical Society) outlined the changing structure and ideas associated with information in the electronic era. Starting with a review of the positive features of paper as a format as exemplified in the traditional academic journal, Boyce reminded us of the value of stand-alone capability, ease of transmission, archiving capabilities even though locating similar or associated materials was a clumsy process at best. The e-journal article format, on the other hand, provides one answer to the problem of locating associated materials through its linking feature. Boyce indicated that while the linked journal has provided a valuable resource to the scholarly community, its critical needs of long-term access, archive management and further development of standards for linked information will be required for the e-journal’s ongoing success as a medium. The world of scholarly publishing is currently undergoing a period of evolution with regard to the state of electronic information and the concerns and problems associated with any change in technology are beginning to present themselves. As we move away from the paper model of information, we are also moving away from the concept of the page and its physical appearance as an information paradigm. Boyce feels we are moving away from the concept