Library Journal Academic Newswire - April 3, 2008

A survey report from the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has found that academic research libraries are offering more publishing services, and beginning to view publishing as an important part of their mission. In Research Library Publishing Services: New Options for University Publishing , written by Karla Hahn, director of the Office of Scholarly Communication at ARL, the association found that as of late 2007, 44 percent of the 80 responding ARL member libraries offered publishing services. Another 21 percent were in the process of planning such services, while 36 percent said they were not active in publishing thus far.

“There has long been a balance between publishers, researchers, and libraries in scholarly publishing,” Hahn noted in the executive summary, “but all three are now reviewing their historic roles in the dissemination process.”

Among the 44 percent of respondents that reported publishing activities:

• 88 percent report publishing e-journals. 
• 79 percent publish conference papers and proceedings.
• 71 percent publish monographs.

Although the aggregate number of journal titles reported to be published by research represents “a very thin slice of the scholarly publishing pie,” Hahn wrote, publishing activities, enabled by “emerging capabilities of digital information and networks,” is clearly increasing. Respondents reported working on 265 titles, 131 of which were “established”; 81 were new titles; and 53 were “under development.”

Libraries, meanwhile, are also bravely exploring new models for publishing, and most embrace open access. “The aspirations of libraries to replicate traditional publishing services are modest to non-existent,” the report found Instead, “libraries are focusing on the capabilities and possibilities of new models rather than slavishly duplicating or simply automating traditional models.”

Supporting publishing activities with funds and staff, however, requires commitment. “Libraries can and will need to redirect resources,” Hahn wrote, and “broader institutional investments will be required to supplement existing library budgets.” It appears, nevertheless, that library expansion into publishing will continue. “There is an emerging consensus that some sort of basic publishing services will become a core service for research libraries,” Hahn concludes, noting that “the same forces straining library materials’ budgets seem likely to ensure that demand for publishing services delivered in a campus environment to campus constituencies will grow.”

In a release, ARL officials said they commissioned the survey “to foster a deeper understanding of an emerging research library role as publishing service provider.” In addition to the survey, ARL met with publishing program managers at ten institutions for “semi-structured interviews to delve more deeply into several aspects of service development,” including “sources and motivations for service launch, the range of publishing services, and relationships with partners.”

What’s billed as the first report to analyze the global library market for all types of libraries and information centers suggests that the $22.5 billion market will continue to grow, but the 3.1 percent compound annual growth rate for content, leading to $24.7 billion in spending in 2010, still won’t keep pace with inflation. In fact, according to Outsell's 2008 Library Market Size, Share & Forecast Report (for purchase), academic libraries worldwide have it especially tough, with a 2.5 percent predicted growth rate. That is less than half that of corporate libraries, which face the sunniest outlook.

The largest market worldwide is school libraries, followed by corporate libraries, and academic libraries, and the region with the largest spending is North America. Academic libraries spend the single largest share of their corporate budgets in the category of “education/training”—a little over 20 percent, slightly ahead of that spent on scientific and technical materials. Those two categories dwarf all others; however, when all libraries are aggregated—the report doesn’t break out academic libraries on this—the scientific and technical category is declining, while the education/training category is growing. Still, the scientific and technical category remains the largest worldwide for all libraries; if the medical category is added, the STM category easily is even larger.

Outsell points out that libraries are “successfully changing their models to stay abreast of the new information world paradigm.” Indeed, the report notes trends, well-evident to many librarians, that libraries are creating more original content, including via digitization, and coping in a world with much more user- and institutionally-generated content. Libraries must meet users where they are, Outsell advises, and use the strength of consortia to combat rising prices.

With the National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandatory public access policy set to kick in on Monday, April 7, NIH last week issued a call for another round of public comments. Although NIH says it will consider “all comments and suggestions” regarding the policy, it has structured the comment form to feature three particular areas of interest: recommendations “for alternative implementation approaches”; recommendations “for monitoring and ensuring compliance”; and recommendations what “additional information, training or communications” might help researchers now required to comply. A fourth question solicits general comments. The comment period closes May 31, 2008.

So far, commenters have been mostly investigators, the vast majority of which are supportive of the policy—with exceptions: one said the policy places another “administrative burden on researchers, who are already being overwhelmed with new mandates, even as the competition for funding becomes greater and greater.” Among familiar voices in the fray, Southampton, UK-based open access (OA) advocate Stevan Harnad called the policy “splendid, timely, historic” but urged once again that NIH grantees be mandated to self-archive their research in their institution’s repository. “There will then be a synergy between funder OA self-archiving mandates like NIH’s and institutional OA self-archiving mandates like Harvard’s, with one point of direct deposit (the institution) and both the institution and NIH jointly monitoring and ensuring compliance,” he wrote. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it will reestablish five closed libraries: on-site libraries in Region 5 in Chicago, Region 6 in Dallas, Region 7 in Kansas City, and the consolidated EPA Headquarters Repository and Chemical Library in Washington, DC. The deadline for reopening is September 30.

The EPA news came in a report to Congress requested as part of the Congressional appropriations process, which provided an additional $1 million to the agency. EPA said the funds would also help regional libraries “to update their collections, facilities, and equipment” and to “conduct a formal needs assessment for EPA library services to support future development.” However, given that two of the regional libraries, in EPA’s language, “will maintain core reference materials and additional library resources to meet specific local needs,” Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) associate director Carol Goldberg warned that “EPA is approaching the task of restoring its libraries grudgingly and appears to be trying to get by doing the bare minimum.” She added that some of the libraries lack a place to operate, as their prior locations were leased out or converted to cubicles.

Meanwhile, it now appears the National Agricultural Library (NAL) is facing a challenge. The American Library Association (ALA) is lobbying against an inadequate funding request put forth by the Bush Administration. The NAL FY09 budget proposal includes a $3 million reduction and “fails to provide the support needed to maintain current services,” ALA’s Emily Sheketoff wrote to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, chair of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies. Such a cut could have wide-ranging negative impacts. For example, Sheketoff argued: nondigital resources would no longer be publicly available via document delivery to government employees or the public, the proposed elimination of special collections would impair research, and acquisition and access to resources would be “significantly reduced.”