Elsevier vice-president aims to fix ‘disjoint’ with academics | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Elsevier needs to do more fix a “disjoint” with academics and to demonstrate its value to universities, according to a vice-president at the publishing giant.

Gemma Hersh, senior vice-president for global research solutions at Elsevier, argued that the company offered value for money to its customers and contributed positively to research, despite the decisions of many German and Swedish universities, as well as the University of California system, not to renew their subscriptions….

Ms Hersh said that much of the criticism of Elsevier was misplaced….

Ms Hersh claimed that some critics had mistaken parent company Relx’s profit margin – 19 per cent – with its operating margin of 37 per cent, referencing the £942 million it made on revenues of about £2.5 billion last year….”

E-books at local libraries: Inside the fight between publishers and librarians over buying and lending policy.

“In July, Macmillan announced that come November, the company will only allow libraries to purchase a single copy of its new titles for the first eight weeks of their release—and that’s one copy whether it’s the New York Public Library or a small-town operation that’s barely moved on from its card catalog. This has sparked an appropriately quiet revolt. Librarians and their allies quickly denounced the decision when it came down, and now the American Library Association is escalating the protest by enlisting the public to stand with libraries by signing an online petition with a populist call against such restrictive practices. (The association announced the petition Wednesday at Digital Book World, an industry conference in Nashville, Tennessee.) What’s unclear is whether the association can get the public to understand a byzantine-seeming dispute over electronic files and the right to download them….”

Libraries and Archivists Are Scanning and Uploading Books That Are Secretly in the Public Domain – VICE

“A coalition of archivists, activists, and libraries are working overtime to make it easier to identify the many books that are secretly in the public domain, digitize them, and make them freely available online to everyone. The people behind the effort are now hoping to upload these books to the Internet Archive, one of the largest digital archives on the internet.

As it currently stands, all books published in the U.S. before 1924 are in the public domain, meaning they’re publicly owned and can be freely used and copied. Books published in 1964 and after are still in copyright, and by law will be for 95 years from their publication date.

But a copyright loophole means that up to 75 percent of books published between 1923 to 1964 are secretly in the public domain, meaning they are free to read and copy. The problem is determining which books these are, due to archaic copyright registration systems and convoluted and shifting copyright law….”

Libraries and Archivists Are Scanning and Uploading Books That Are Secretly in the Public Domain – VICE

“A coalition of archivists, activists, and libraries are working overtime to make it easier to identify the many books that are secretly in the public domain, digitize them, and make them freely available online to everyone. The people behind the effort are now hoping to upload these books to the Internet Archive, one of the largest digital archives on the internet.

As it currently stands, all books published in the U.S. before 1924 are in the public domain, meaning they’re publicly owned and can be freely used and copied. Books published in 1964 and after are still in copyright, and by law will be for 95 years from their publication date.

But a copyright loophole means that up to 75 percent of books published between 1923 to 1964 are secretly in the public domain, meaning they are free to read and copy. The problem is determining which books these are, due to archaic copyright registration systems and convoluted and shifting copyright law….”

Controlled Digital Lending by Libraries

“Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) is an emerging method that allows libraries to loan print books to digital patrons in a “lend like print” fashion. Through CDL, libraries use technical controls to ensure a consistent “owned-to-loaned” ratio, meaning the library circulates the exact number of copies of a specific title it owns, regardless of format, putting controls in place to prevent users from redistributing or copying the digitized version. When CDL is appropriately tailored to reflect print book market conditions and controls are properly implemented, CDL may be permissible under existing copyright law. CDL is not intended to act as a substitute for existing electronic licensing services offered by publishers. Indeed, one significant advantage of CDL is addressing the “Twentieth Century Problem” of older books still under copyright but unlikely ever to be offered digitally by commercial services….”

Will Libraries Help Publishers Prop Up the Value of the Big Deal? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“This is a disruptive moment for journal licensing. The value of the big deal has declined. When the value of a product declines, one expected outcome is for customers to drive down its price in the market. But something slightly different is instead taking place. Several major university negotiating groups, including those for Germany and the University of California, have cancelled deals with Elsevier, the result of failed negotiations. Some consortia have entered into “transformative” agreements with Wiley, Springer Nature, and others, including Elsevier. In this moment of disruption, I wish to focus on one growing if counterintuitive element of the library negotiating playbook: helping publishers prop up the value of their big deal bundles….”

Will Libraries Help Publishers Prop Up the Value of the Big Deal? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“This is a disruptive moment for journal licensing. The value of the big deal has declined. When the value of a product declines, one expected outcome is for customers to drive down its price in the market. But something slightly different is instead taking place. Several major university negotiating groups, including those for Germany and the University of California, have cancelled deals with Elsevier, the result of failed negotiations. Some consortia have entered into “transformative” agreements with Wiley, Springer Nature, and others, including Elsevier. In this moment of disruption, I wish to focus on one growing if counterintuitive element of the library negotiating playbook: helping publishers prop up the value of their big deal bundles….”

Academic Libraries’ Stance toward the Future

Abstract:  The literature about academic libraries takes a strong interest in the future, yet little of it reflects on academic libraries’ underlying stance toward the years ahead: is there a sense of change or continuity? Is there optimism or pessimism? Consensus or divergence? This article explores these questions using data from interviews with a broad range of practitioners, commentators, and experts. Some see libraries as fundamentally unchanging, while others perceive innovation as a given. There is little consensus about upcoming trends. Some interviewees doubt libraries’ ability to deal with change, but others feel considerable optimism.

 

Pursuing a new kind of “big deal” with publishers

“Making the transition from paying to read to paying to publish academic research won’t be easy for universities or publishers. But it is possible, attendees at an open-access-publishing event were told Thursday.

The University of California, which canceled its “big deal” with publisher Elsevier earlier this year after negotiations to establish a new agreement broke down, hosted a public forum discussing how libraries, publishers and funders can support a system where all research articles are made free to read at the time of publication….”

Library Publishing Workflows | Educopia Institute

“Educopia Institute, the Library Publishing Coalition (LPC) and 12 partner libraries are embarking on a two-year project to investigate, synchronize, and model a range of workflows to increase the capacity of libraries to publish open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Most library publishers have developed services in response to local needs, and initial workflows are generally home-grown, varied, and idiosyncratic. This represents a missed opportunity for comparative analysis and peer learning; it also yields frequent omissions of crucial workflow steps, such as contributing metadata to aggregators (essential for discovery and impact) and depositing content in preservation repositories (necessary for a stable scholarly record). The workflow model envisioned in this project will help libraries provide a strong alternative to commercial publishing for a wider range of journals, representing a significant advance in the development of open and academy-owned scholarship….”