Library Consortia and Article Processing Charges: An ICOLC Survey Tony Horava (University of Ottawa) & Monica Ward (Canadian Research Knowledge Network) Charleston Conference, November 4, 2016

Outline Introduction Background Research Questions Methodology Summary of results Conclusion

Introduction In the rapidly changing scholarly communications landscape, article processing charges (APCs) have emerged as a complex issue for libraries. This presentation reviews the results of a survey of international library consortia (ICOLC) and explores the role of library consortia in relation to article processing charges. What are the issues to think about? What are some of the larger implications of library engagement with this new business model? What are the challenges for the future?

The context for APCs (article processing charges) The spiralling costs of scholarly journals - providing alternatives Pressures to publish as Open Access Increasing the impact and visibility of research Complex landscape of stakeholders The question of “who pays” has important & disruptive implications for the economics of publishing

A definition of APCs “A fee charged by some OA journals when accepting an article for publication, in order to cover the costs of production. It’s one way to cover production costs without charging readers and erecting access barriers. While the bill goes to the author, the fee is usually paid by the author’s funder or employer, not by the author out of pocket” - Peter Suber, Open Access (2012) https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/9780262517638_Open_Access_PDF_Version.pdf

Characteristics of the APCs landscape APCs are discipline-centric: journals in HSS don’t charge APCs; some journals in STEM and especially Medicine do APCs are not the major factor in deciding where to publish Public policy on access to publicly-funded research plays a huge role in APC developments For commercial journals, the APC is in the $40-$3,300 range , while for a university or society journal, the range is $261-1,371 (Morisson, 2015) For commercial publishers, the takeup is very low (less than 2%)

Other background information The APC OA market is evolving rapidly and growing at about 30% a year. Overall APC revenue was estimated to be approximately 182 million USD in 2012 and growing at about 34% a year, though the rate of growth is expected to tail off to about 20% over the next 5 years (Bjork and Solomon, 2014). Funders seek an APC funded OA market that is transparent, competitive and reasonably priced. Many in the profession feel that consortia should exert influence in this market.

Research Questions What are the goals of library consortia negotiating for APC terms? Examples of potential goals may be: achieving the lowest cost, setting a precedent, and achieving administrative savings. What are the challenges, risks and opportunities involved in consortia negotiating APC terms with publishers?

Methodology A survey, along with a short description of the project, was sent to the ICOLC listserv on April 4, 2016, and was open for response until May 31, 2015. 166 potential respondents (consortia) Total of 34 responses, for a response rate of 20%

What is ICOLC? The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) is an informal group comprising over 150 library consortia from around the world. ICOLC supports participating consortia by facilitating discussion on issues of common interest. There are a variety of consortia types represented and not all are involved with licensing and negotiations for content, thus the survey was not applicable to all respondents.

Limitations Timing: Survey was conducted in May 2015, since that time, answers may have changed North American focus: Responses were largely from North American consortia (59%) Language: Survey and communications were conducted in English, which limited the potential responses to those with sufficient English skills Potential respondents: Survey limited to ICOLC participants – there may be other consortia doing work in this area that do not participate

Question 1 “Has your consortium negotiated an agreement with a publisher for APC terms?” Of the 33 responses, only 10 (30%) of consortia have negotiated any terms related to APCs Some comments from respondents Not a game changer Not appropriate for consortial negotiations Too complex Too new

Question 2 “If your consortium has negotiated (or attempted to negotiate) an agreement with a publisher for APC terms, how was this prioritized with the context of determining negotiation objectives (eg. is it more or less important than other objectives, such as cost containment or other licensing terms)” open-ended question 13 responses received Themes: 2 respondents indicated that APC terms are the top priority, with one specifically mentioning a government policy regarding a required transition to Open Access 3 respondents indicated that APC terms have not been much of a priority in the past, but that its relative level of priority is increasing 3 respondents mentioned that cost containment or level of annual increase to pricing is still more of more importance

Question 3 “How much interest or pressure is there from your members to address APC terms in consortial negotiations with publishers?”

Major Concerns with APCs Administrative overhead Problems in communication Possible lack of transparency Double dipping

Risks and Challenges Lack of experience in negotiating for APCs Incorporating APCs into negotiation strategies Perpetuating the dysfunctionality of the scholarly ecosystem Risk of misperception by authors that publishing is “free” Uneven playing field Funder mandates and rapidly evolving landscape

Opportunities Cost containment Favourable terms Promoting and raising awareness of Open Access Making more content available as OA Opportunity to promote the library and institutional goals/professional values

Conclusion New and volatile publishing environment Some consortia are taking bold moves in the OA space, while many others are taking a cautious approach What are the benchmarks of success? How does this impact the goals and mission of the library in an era of financial constraint? Well thought out strategies are needed

Raymond K. Nakamura,  “What does the new tri-agency open access policy mean for researchers?” University Affairs, April 28, 2015

Questions or comments? Tony Horava, Associate University Librarian, University of Ottawa thorava@uottawa.ca Monica Ward, Senior Content & Licensing Officer, CRKN mward@crkn.ca