1. Session #3: When titles change publisher: Issues & Impacts ICOLC #—Montreal, Canada Diane Costello and Joan Emmet April 23, 2007

2. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 Agenda Primary Issues / Impact TRANSFER Project UKSG Briefing Session, April 2007(powerpoint) TRANSFER Code of Conduct Phase 1 Transfer data elements Subscription list data License language now? Open Access impacts IRs | Self-Archiving | Persistent Access

3. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 Primary Issues Access Subscription information transfer Timely notice of transfer Archival rights/perpetual access Pricing Titles non-subscribed but accessible within package arrangements

4. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 Impact  Retention of print from society publishers because of uncertainty about access  Delay in reconciliation of subscriptions lists  Delay in pricing information  Communication never comprehensive – someone misses out  Turnover potentially 3 to 5 years

5. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 Solutions  Transfer protocols (swap to Nancy Buckley presentation here!) All relevant publishers to be compliant for this to work  License conditions  Open Access?????

6. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 Solutions (2)  License conditions (now) Transfer in (most commonly, subscriptions carried over, titles included in consortial package except if no subscriptions ….) Transfer out (most commonly, removed from institution’s subscription base) Common conditions for new (start-up) titles  Opt-in on consortial or individual basis  Add on percentage to base spend  Add on subscription x consortial duplication factor

7. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 Solutions (3)  License conditions (now) Springer – doesn’t specify, but adds/subtracts subscriptions from base OUP – adds/subtracts subscriptions from base, differentiates between young and mature titles Wiley – adds/subtracts subscriptions from base, treats transfers without subscriptions as new (start-up) titles

8. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 License conditions (potential) Model clause Licensee Rights with respect to Transfer Publications. 1. Responsibilities as successor Licensor. Successor Licensor shall ensure that Licensee’s rights to published content are available to Licensee in perpetuity from either the antecedent Licensor or its designated server. If significant content is added to transferred title, Licensor may increase its charge in an amount equal to the percentage of content but shall not exceed 3%. 2. Responsibilities as antecedent Licensor. Existing content of titles shall continue to be made available to Licensee either within or outside of package arrangements for a term no less than 6 months.

9. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 Solutions?? - Open Access  Open Access varieties Self-archiving of published content (the Stevan Harnad focus) Open Access publishing (the BioMed Central model) The “bob each way” approach (open access options within traditional publishing model)

10. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 Open Access (Self-archiving permission)  Author / Publisher contract (OAK-Law http://www.oaklaw.qut.edu.au/)http://www.oaklaw.qut.edu.au/  RoMEO Publisher's Copyright Listings http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php RoMEO http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php  Green / Blue / Yellow / White Green (post-peer review) – author / publisher version  deposit to repository (institutional, discipline-based)  with/without embargo  persistence!!!!!

11. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 Open Access (Gold)  Classic example BioMed Central Yet to find a stable business model  Initially fixed membership price  Then varying types of membership Full – pay-by-the-drink Supporters – discounted author fees  Individual titles e.g. OUP’s NAR (Nucleic Acids Research) Sponsorship Author charges (may be reduced if institution subscribes) Membership fees (different from subscriptions?)

12. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 Open Access (mixed)  Traditional publishers provide options for immediate open access e.g. Springer Open Choice, Oxford Open, ACS AuthorChoice, Cambridge Open, etc Individual decision for article to be OA Decision made after acceptance OUP take-up approx. 10% (report June 2006, 120pp) Take-up varies by discipline OA may or may not affect subscription cost

13. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 Open Access Issues  Who pays? OA started as a cost issue Now an innovation issue  ROI for funding bodies, especially government  whole of system costs for the research enterprise  library subscriptions form a tiny part  Continuity and Security Portico, LOCKSS, etc  Does not support the Transfer Protocols????  Permissions model, not a publishing model

14. ICOLC--Montreal 2007 Session #3 Questions  What are the publishers offering the societies?  Can we compel the societies by ensuring that publishers are compliant?  Should we be addressing the societies and the academics who run them?