A Publisher's view on Authors to Readers: Whom are we serving? How? How well? The Fiesole Collection Development Retreat Series, number 5 - 24-26 July 2003

Citation

Harvey, J. (2003), "A Publisher's view on Authors to Readers: Whom are we serving? How? How well? The Fiesole Collection Development Retreat Series, number 5 - 24-26 July 2003", Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 20 No. 9. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhtn.2003.23920iac.003

A Publisher's view on Authors to Readers: Whom are we serving? How? How well? The Fiesole Collection Development Retreat Series, number 5 - 24-26 July 2003

Judith Harvey

Introduction

Evolution not revolution is my summing up of the presentations and discussions at the 2003 Fiesole Retreat. The relaxed atmosphere of the Retreat provided an excellent opportunity to step back from the day-to-day micro challenges and take time to view the macro industry issues. The discussion primarily focused on STM journal publishing. However, there were some very useful general insights that apply equally to humanities and social science publishing. What follows are some of the conclusions I reached after listening to the excellent presentations and the interesting and generally very constructive discussions that followed.

Having attended many seminars and meetings on topics such as "the serials crisis", "the relationship between publishers and librarians" and Open Access Initiatives over the last two years it was interesting to see how issues and arguments have developed in this time. It is clear that a "middle ground" is developing between the entrenched positions of extreme anti-publisher Open Access lobby and the more bullish publishers. As is sometimes also the case in politics, the extreme views can drive the development of a middle way. Through meeting and talking each side can develop an understanding of the problems and challenges facing the other. Misunderstandings can be cleared up, time is taken to identify the real source of the problem, and constructive debate begins to replace heated arguments. This year's Fiesole meeting proved to be another step on the road towards just such an evolutionary middle ground, and another step away from a revolution in the delivery of scholarly information that could have predictable and unpredictable consequences that would be potentially damaging for all sides in the debate.

The introduction of digital online information systems is driving change for publishers, librarians and academic users, forcing an evolution of roles and relationships, skills and service, principles and practice. Online resources and services are still evolving and developing. There is definitely room for improvement and, therefore, a clear need for further investment. In the hard copy publishing world publishers had developed techniques for improving user access to the content over centuries. Developments in copy-editing, book, font and page design, typesetting and indexing all helped to remove barriers to reading the text and helped readers access the content. Books and print journals provided discrete chunks of content according to criteria that were understood and accepted by publishers, librarians and users. Librarians' understanding of these criteria meant that they could classify and categorise books and journals to help users find what they were looking for. The development of digital content, database products and online delivery has meant that publishers and librarians have had to look again at the criteria being used to define chunks of content, as well as examining their roles and the services they provide. Publishers still have to help make the content easy to read, using all their existing skills. Copy-editing, proofreading, typesetting and page design are just as important in a digital environment. The only financial savings to be made are in print, bind and distribution costs. However, publishers are still learning how to deliver content effectively in online databases rather than in discrete book or journal-sized chunks. Databases that are merely a collection of journal articles don't make the most of what new technology can offer. Nor do they necessarily make accessing the content any easier for users. Investment in the further development of online databases will be in addition to that already being made by publishers to add value to the content. It is clear that, far from reducing the costs of publishing, online digital delivery of high quality content increases the costs considerably. These are commercial realities that cannot be ignored.

The user experience

Librarians are also finding that these forms of content delivery are challenging their approach to information delivery for users. In addition, users' expectations are rising. Experience with new technology in other contexts, and an increasing understanding of what is possible with digital content that is not possible with hard copy books, is leading users to expect more from publishers' online output and librarians' online delivery of information. This mismatch of users' expectations and their actual experience of using online digital resources is causing frustration, both for users and for librarians. David Seaman, Director of the Digital Library Federation pointed out that librarians are finding it difficult to be the intermediary they would like to be. Users need training to find what they are looking for but, when they have found it, they are unable to interact with the content as they would wish. Content is also underachieving for users because, in some disciplines, there simply isn't enough of it online.

Derek Law's presentation related to the evolving nature of information systems and the relationship of these systems with their users. Perhaps there has been too much focus on creating systems to support the needs of the publishers and librarians, and not enough focus on the needs and wants of users? As yet, there are no repository standards for digital libraries and no way of kitemarking the performance and services that are provided. Evolution will play its part and good information systems will drive out the bad systems. As far as publishers are concerned, ongoing investment will be required in order to survive as one of the fittest. Publishers should also be actively involved in benchmarking their own systems against the best of the rest and, perhaps, in setting the standards of performance and service for digital information systems. Having an understanding of the needs and wants of users will also play a vital part in the survival of the fittest publishers.

Understanding the challenges facing librarians

Understanding the needs and wants of librarians as key customers is also vital for academic publishers. Responding to their needs and supporting the evolving role of librarian means that published resources will make librarians' lives easier and the resources will be a more attractive purchase. Librarians have also had to review their role within universities as a result of the introduction of digital online resources. Some aspects of a librarian's role are changing. Libraries are becoming places where people can engage with new technologies and where they can receive training in the use of these technologies. Attention should be given to the library as social space within a university and this was picked up on by Clare Jenkins in the next presentation.

Publishers need to be aware of the changing nature of libraries and should look to develop their online services to reflect these changes. For example, in the old "hard copy on shelves" library catalogue days the role of the librarian in the classification and categorisation of information was very clear to the users of that information. In the online environment, with database products often shelved by publisher rather than by subject, the role of the librarian is somewhat obscured. Clare Jenkins pointed out that publishers can help by supporting the inclusion of some library branding on database web pages that show users that their library and librarian had something to do with selecting and purchasing the content.

Librarians are also finding that, with the rise in desktop access to information systems, some academics in some disciplines are no longer visiting the library. What are the implications of this development for academics and librarians? Will this situation actually be exacerbated by the development of open access initiatives? Colin Steele predicted that, over time, we shall see the development of a distributed network of repositories and the development of the globalised ownership of public assets. If librarians' current responsibility for sourcing, cataloguing and archiving scholarly information is replaced by national or even international repositories, what will that mean in terms of the role of the library in universities? If such systems will be accessed by academics (and anyone else for that matter) from their desktop what will that mean for university libraries and librarians? A collection of resources specifically created by a librarian to meet the needs of an individual institution, and collections developed to support future scholarship, will no longer be required. Centralisation of information resources in repositories may therefore mitigate against locally funded libraries providing a service for local needs.

Information literacy and information overload

Two related issues for both publishers and librarians that were raised more than once in the presentations were those of information overload and information literacy. The increase in the number of digital information systems and the corresponding rise of the Internet as a source of information has meant that researchers and students have access to more information than ever before. As John Cox of John Cox Associates pointed out, we are all coping with an explosion in information. Users are getting more than ever before. The number of papers published is growing by 3 per cent per year but this is because the number of researchers has increased and not because each researcher is writing more.

Several presenters suggested that many users have yet to develop the skills needed to access, search, select and use digital information in an efficient and effective manner. Also, while the increasing use of Google by students is seen as a problem this, together with information overload and information literacy, provides publishers and librarians with opportunities to develop new services and new roles. For example, information skills training may become a key service offered by librarians. As outlined already, publishers need to develop and improve the accessibility of their online systems.

The needs and wants of authors

Authors value the service they receive from publishers, which they receive for free, and they are often unaware of the cost of the provision of scholarly information to them as consumers. This is because publishers have traditionally focused on providing a service for authors and editors (i.e. on the needs of the suppliers) and have, perhaps, not been as good at providing customer service for librarians. This could be seen as an unusual approach to doing business but it reflects the fact that suppliers (i.e. authors) are often also end users (i.e. researchers). Publishers support this virtuous circle of scholarly communication but it appears that customers' (i.e. librarians) ability to play a part in this cycle has not been similarly supported by either publishers or institutions. As John Cox indicates in his talk, while the number of researchers and the amount of research has increased, institutions have not funded the acquisition of information at the same rate of increase. Therefore, librarians as customers have been caught in the middle with more to buy and less money to buy it.

Michael Mabe, Director of Academic Relations at Elsevier Science, presented the findings of Elsevier's annual author survey. The survey results showed that the factors that authors consider when choosing a publishing outlet include (in order of importance):

• •

  Speed and standard of refereeing (same for all subject areas).

• •

  Reputation of journal.

• •

  Impact factor.

• •

  Production speed.

• •

  Editor & Editorial Advisory Board.

• •

  Physical quality and publication services.

Malcolm Campbell, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford stressed the importance of impact factor for authors. He expressed the belief that open access would facilitate citation. I do not believe this is necessarily the case. Simply making an article available in an online repository is not the same as active dissemination. I will expand on this point later.

There are moves afoot among the open access devotees to try and convert the academic community. The open access movement must therefore find ways of replacing those services that authors currently receive from publishers in the open access environment. Such moves take various forms but include things like finding an alternative to peer review and impact factors. A lot of research is being done to identify ways to circumvent traditional publishing. Publishers should not underestimate the impetus behind this movement and the strength of the argument. The arguments in favour of open access are inherently attractive to academics and they will support OAIs if they feel that their needs are being met. However, it was recognised that it will take a long time for the open access movement to convince authors that their way of delivering scholarly information is just as good if not better than traditional publishing routes.

Dissemination

One key role for publishers is that of dissemination. This is an active process of marketing and promotion to build awareness of the source of the best information. In an increasingly crowded and noisy scholarly information environment publishers can add considerable value by making sure that high quality information rises to the surface and notification about scholarly research reaches those who need to know. Posting an article in an institutional, national or international repository is a passive act and discovery of that article is entirely down to the quality of the search tools and the initiative and skill of the searcher. In contrast, publishers invest heavily in the active "push" of scholarly research to as wide an audience as possible and also invest in tools to support the discovery of good research in online databases. Publishers have a vested interest in the wide dissemination and usage of the articles they publish. This dissemination supports the publisher's authors in the achievement of their primary goals of citation and reputation (personal, departmental and institutional). Increasing usage of database content also helps publishers deliver value for money for customers buying databases. Publishers are therefore going to invest in dissemination. Institutional or global repositories will have no such incentive to invest in the active dissemination of authors' work.

Branding

Publishers' branding as a key indicator of quality also becomes increasingly important in the online environment. The second panel session at the conference was entitled, "Branding: How Important Is It?" Branding works well for publishers at the journal level. Authors write for journals and they want to be published in reputable journals with a strong brand identity. Publishers' promotional work is designed to build and sustain journal brands. Pippa Scoones' (Blackwell Publishers) presentation on launching new journals highlighted the problems inherent in creating new brands, particularly in the online environment. It can take many years and considerable investment to establish a new journal brand. Publishers need to be sure they are going to see a return on this investment so a great deal of work is required at the outset to ensure there will be a good and sustainable supply of articles and sufficient interest in the journal output to make the proposition viable. Many new launch journals have failed because the supply of articles dries up after a few years. There is still an expressed need for print copies of issues by authors so, paradoxically, publishers still need to incur print costs in order to help establish online journals. It is interesting to note that BioMed Central, one of the most energetic exponents of the open access approach, charges subscription fees for print journals.

Jerry Cowhig (Institute of Physics Publishing) emphasised the importance of design in journal branding. Journal covers can reinforce the journal brand and the publisher's brand. There is a danger that journal identities can become lost in an online database and publishers need to be aware that the need to brand journals in order to encourage the supply of copy does not disappear when you publish online. Over time, publishers may be able to build company and database brands that reduce the need for journal branding. However, this will require that authors in the future feel that the database is fulfilling their needs in the same way as individual journals do today.

Final thoughts

The problem at the heart of the relationship between commercial publishers and librarians is one of raison d'être. Librarians are, and see themselves as, public servants. The word 'public' here is very important. A librarian reason for being is to make information available to as wide a community as possible and to remove all barriers to access to information. Open access would therefore be the ultimate expression of a librarian's philosophy. Librarians are inherently idealistic and the serials crisis has meant that librarians are now actively promoting their ideals. Publishers must not underestimate the strength of feeling regarding open access among librarians – it is a matter of principle and belief.

Publishers, on the other hand, need to restrict access in order to make people pay for the value they add to primary information. This applies both to commercial and non-commercial publishers but librarians, by their nature, tend to focus on commercial publishers' profits rather than non-commercial publishers' surpluses. This is really a false distinction because all publishers need to make a surplus so that they can invest in future developments. Arguments about excessive profits are hard to justify in reality. Profits vary from publisher to publisher and profit margins in publishing, compared with those in other industries, are relatively low. Also, levels of investment are very high at present as publishers attempt to improve product and service quality through the use of new technology. The need for continuing investment was highlighted in many of the presentations and the very considerable costs of providing the level of service required by librarians, users and authors cannot be ignored.

One view expressed during the presentations was that journals' publishers have a significant advantage over book publishers in that they face little or no competition at the journal level. Most journals are unique and that means librarians are forced to buy them at the price charged because they are unable to shop around for a better deal of the same or similar product. The lack of competition as a key market driver/price control mechanism means that the market is dysfunctional. Open access is now being seen as an attempt to provide the competition for journal publishers that has previously been lacking. While I agree with the general thrust of this argument, it is not true that every journal is unique. Researchers in some disciplines do have a choice of journals in which to publish. However, it is reputation that is the key differentiator that distinguishes journals in the same subject area, which is why journal branding is and will remain of primary importance for any publisher.

A common view expressed at the Fiesole Retreat was that open access will probably not replace traditional journal publishing but will, instead, force change in publishing by making the market function more normally. The presentation given by Goldman Sachs underlined the investors' view that the publishing industry is inherently stable and perceived to be financially robust. Academic publishing is seen as an attractive investment opportunity at present, which means that the large commercial publishers will continue to benefit from inward investment. Large commercial publishers will, therefore, probably be able to survive the developing competition from OAIs. The worry is that it will be the non-commercial, so called not-for-profit, publishers that will suffer as a result of such competition. This presentation also reinforced the message that, in order to create value in this market, publishers need to invest. This means that the money is available for publishers to deliver the technological developments that librarians and users need. However, publishers have to believe that investment in new technology will deliver a good return in the future before they will commit the necessary funds.

Online databases, consortia purchase of such databases, reference linking, the increase in the internationality of journal articles and active dissemination by publishers all means that more users have access to more scholarly information than ever before. This massive increase in access to, availability of and awareness of research activity has come about because scholarly publishers have evolved. This evolution has come about because environmental pressures forced publishers to invest in new technology and in new types of products and services. The environmental pressures were relatively weak in the twentieth century and that created a dysfunctional market and the development of the serials crisis. Increasing environmental pressures in the twenty-first century, particularly the Open Access debate, will put the evolution of scholarly publishing back on track. The fittest publishers will survive, though there may be the regrettable loss of some small publishers along the way. For me the Fiesole meeting this year demonstrated that evolution is healthy for the market – for authors, users, libraries and publishers. Revolution would be destructive and all parties would lose more than would be gained.

The full programme and further information about this year's Fiesole Retreat can be found at www.casalini.it

Judith Harvey (jharvey@emeraldinsight.com) was Editorial and Production Director at Emerald, UK.