1. Progress towards the Digital Future Dr. Gloriana St. Clair Dean of University Libraries Digital Libraries Colloquium February 22, 2006

2. Purpose  Introduce the NIH Public Access Policy as a major first step toward solving dysfunction in scholarly communications  Compare the NSF-funded Million Book Project with Google Print and the Open Content Alliance  Foster an interchange about these developments relevant to education in Qatar

3. Scholarly Communications and NIH  Essence of the problem  Promise of open access  NIH Public Access Policy proposal  Current situation

4. Essence of the Problem Provost Mark Kamlet at Carnegie Mellon’s Open Access Forum (2004)

5. Essence of the Problem Serial & Monograph Costs, 1986-2003 * North American research libraries *Source: www.arl.org/stats/

6. Essence of the Problem AuthorPublisher GoalWide distribution of work Increase revenue RewardReputation, P&T, grants Maximized profit StrategyPublishControl access & price Mismatched Motives

7. What is “Open Access”?  Immediate free availability on the public Internet  Research literature that scholars produce without expectation of payment (e.g., journal articles)  Recognizes that the value of research increases with use  Exploits economics of Internet  An access model, not a business model

8. What Open Access Can Achieve  Expand information usage and application.  Remove barriers that make content scarce.  Weaken the position of publishers that use their monopoly position to support excessively high prices.  Focus economic return on value addition (rather than content control).  Eliminate systemic inefficiencies by unbundling functions.  Introduce price competition.  Benefits outweigh dislocations.

9. NIH Public Access Policy Proposal Elias Zerhouni’s memo urging authors of NIH- funded research to submit final manuscripts to PubMed Central

10. Why Pennsylvania Mattered  NIH Public Access Proposal began as a rider to NIH appropriations bill (ATA)  Arlen Specter is the chair of the Appropriations Committee  Rick Johnson called me because I have a certain reputation, having left Journal of Academic Librarianship when Elsevier purchased it  Carnegie Mellon provost Mark Kamlet is a medical economist who understands the dysfunction and favors change

11. Why Pennsylvania Mattered  Carnegie Mellon lobbyist, Maureen McFalls, has a daughter in library school and was a great advocate  Carnegie Mellon Libraries asked for letters from PALCI, PALINET, Pennsylvania Library Association, etc.  ATA and SPARC arranged for Carnegie Mellon, Pitt, Penn, and Penn State provosts to send a joint letter  Provost Kamlet made telephone calls and visits on short notice

12. Why Pennsylvania Mattered Provosts’ joint letter supporting expanded access to NIH-funded research

13. ATA

14. NIH Policy Fulfills its Promise  Accessible electronic information is more desirable than print  Author goals of wide distribution and reputation are met  Publishers are not put out of business but the public is better served  Health domain has huge popular interest

15. NIH Policy Problem  Slow uptake Nature, New England Journal of Medicine

16. in the News, January 2006 Founder Sergey Brin said he believed Google is "doing the right thing" with their work in China: "We ultimately made a difficult decision, but we felt that by participating there, and making our services more available, even if not to the 100 percent that we ideally would like, that it will be better for Chinese Web users, because ultimately they would get more information, though not quite all of it.“ 1

17. “This is the day the world changes.” John Wilkin, University of Michigan 3 “… commercialize the great research libraries with a handshake, suddenly and epochally.” Rory Litwin, in Library Juice 2 Advent of Google Print (late 2004)

18. A Closer Look at the Players …  Compare the NSF-funded Million Book Project with Google Print and the Open Content Alliance (OCA)  Project the impact of partnership: Million Book Project and OCA

19. Digital v. Paper  Rory Litwin, “On Google’s Monetization of Libraries” 4 1. Privacy [cookies] 2. Introduction of commercial bias 3. Questions about democratization and equity of access 4. Disintermediation issues 5. Decontextualization of knowledge 6. Closing of the information commons

20. In our rapidly changing world, lifelong learning and access to books have become essential to employment, health, peace, and prosperity. Greater public access to information is consistent with the goals of education and democracy. Million Book Project Dr. Raj Reddy

21. MBP Vision To create online access to all published works … Searchable, browsable and navigable by humans and machines …  Free-to-read  Instantly available  In any language  At any literacy level  Anywhere in the world

22. Google Print Vision To organize the world’s information and make it useful and web-accessible. “How many users will find, and then buy, books they never could have discovered any other way? How many out-of- print and backlist titles will find new and renewed sales life? How many future authors will make a living through their words solely because the Internet has made it so much easier for a scattered audience to find them?” 5

23. OCA Vision 6 To collect all published information, and make it accessible to everyone, no matter where they are in the world  Access to information is a key ingredient to education and an open society  We have the necessary technologies, and the will for an open society … Will we make it happen?

24. MBP Partners  The National Science Foundation has awarded the Million Book Project four grants for equipment and planning  Partners include government and academic institutions in India, China, and Egypt; academic libraries in the U.S.; OCLC; and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization  Newest partner is the Open Content Alliance

25. Google Print Leader & Partners  Google, Inc.  U. Michigan  Stanford University  Harvard University  U. Oxford  New York Public Library

26.  Brewster Kahle, director and co-founder of the Internet Archive  I can do this OCA Leaders

27. OCA Partners  Adobe Systems Incorporated  Biodiversity Heritage Library, a cooperative project of:  American Museum of Natural History  Harvard U. Botany Libraries  Harvard U. Library of the Museum of Comparative Zoology  Missouri Botanical Garden  Natural History Museum, London  The New York Botanical Garden  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew  Smithsonian Institution Libraries  Columbia University  Emory University  European Archive  HP Labs  Johns Hopkins University Libraries  McMaster University  Memorial University of Newfoundland  Million Book Project  Missouri Botanical Garden  MSN  National Archives (United Kingdom)  O'Reilly Media  Prelinger Archives  Research Libraries Group (RLG)  Rice University  Smithsonian Institution Libraries  University of British Columbia  University of California  University of Ottawa  University of Pittsburgh  University of Toronto  University of Virginia  York University

28. MBP Collections  Books for College Libraries (best books)  University presses and scholarly societies (with copyright permission)  U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization content  National Agriculture Library  Academic libraries with agriculture collections Janet McCue, Cornell University will coordinate the agriculture collections

29. Google Print Collections  Stanford – 40,000-volume pilot  Harvard – 40,000-volume pilot from a 15-million volume collection  U. Michigan – virtually the entire collection; add seven million to search engine; Michigan to “receive and own a high quality digital copy” and to provide access 7  New York Public Library – a subset of a 20-million volume collection. Selection criteria = in public domain (1923), interesting, not too fragile

30. OCA Collections Will seed the archive with partners’ collections (below). Will scan U.S. collections in situ at 10¢ per page.  European Archive  Internet Archive  National Archives (UK)  O'Reilly Media  Prelinger Archives  University of California  University of Toronto

31. MBP Research Initiatives  Machine translation  Massive distributed database  Storage formats  Use of digital libraries  Distribution and sustainability  Security  Search engines  Image processing  Optical Character Recognition (OCR)  Language processing  Copyright laws

32. Research: Arabic OCR R&D in Arabic OCR “Million Book Project at Bibliotheca Alexandrina,” by Youssef Eldakar et al. Journal of the Zhejiang University SCIENCE: Special Proceedings Issue of the 1 st Int’l Conference on Universal Digital Library (ICUDL November 2005): p. 1331.

33. Research: Indian and Chinese OCR and Language Translation

34. OCA Research Initiatives  … In discussions with major publishers and the organizations that represent them in order to explore legal, sustainable business models through which more copyrighted content can be made widely available. … OCA looks forward to continued dialogue with publishers in order to explore and build solutions that benefit the entire community of Internet users. 8  Exploring and/or creating inexpensive digitization techniques 9

35. Worries  Copyright, Copyright, Copyright  Printing  [Good News] Working with Publishers

36. Copyright, Copyright, Copyright … Copyright is the biggest reality that we all face.

37. MBP Copyright Strategy  Focusing on available out-of-copyright materials (government documents, pre-1923 collections, etc., as well as indigenous cultural treasures …) Incised palm leaves to be digitized Saraswathi Mahal Library, India

38. Google Print Copyright Strategy 10  For books in copyright, a Google Print search displays “snippet[s] of text” A ‘snippet’ is defined as three lines Search returns three snippets per book and indicates how many times search terms appear Search also returns bibliographic data about the book, and information on where to buy the book or find it at a local library

39. Google Print Strategy Adjustments “Google said yesterday that it would temporarily halt its program to make searchable, digital copies of the vast contents of three university libraries to give publishers and other copyright holders the chance to opt out of having their protected works copied.” 11

40. OCA Copyright Strategy The OCA is committed to respecting the copyrights of content owners. … OCA contributors must secure the permission of all concerned copyright holders prior to submitting materials to the OCA for digitization or inclusion in the archive. 12

41. MBP Working with Publishers  Focusing with increasing success on gaining permission from university presses and scholarly societies to digitize books and provide access to searchable full-text.  The MBP approach is to request permission for a range of years, for example, everything published prior to 1990. A publisher can specify the cut-off year or, alternatively, specify the list of titles for which they grant non-exclusive permission to digitize in the MBP.

42. Google Print Working with Publishers “We’ve already had great success working with publishers directly to add their works to our index through our Publisher Program, and when we add books with publisher permission, we can offer more information and a much richer user experience.” 13

43. OCA Working with Publishers 14  OCA has been in discussions with major publishers and the organizations that represent them in order to explore legal, sustainable business models through which more copyrighted content can be made widely available. O'Reilly Media is one commercial publisher that has already agreed to make certain content available to the OCA.  OCA looks forward to continued dialogue with publishers in order to explore and build solutions that benefit the entire community of Internet users.

44. 2005 MBP Partners’ Meeting Partners met in Hangzhou, China

45.  India 200,000 volumes  China 400,000 volumes  Egypt 20,000 volumes 620,000 volumes Status of Collection Digitization

46. Big New Ideas: Reading Online  “ Will people read on screens in the future? ” 15 People often print long online documents (i.e., users still find hard copy easier to use) Hardware improvement? Navigation improvement? Building on previous user behavior to help guide new users from page to page online?

47. Big New Ideas: Synthetic Documents Bypass current copyright restrictions with machine-made synthetic documents that transmit intellectual content. 16

48. Big New Ideas: Big Finish 17  Finish the Million Book Project by the next Partners Meeting (fall 2006)  Congregate all the metadata in one place

49. Conclusions  Future of libraries is digital  Technical progress is substantial  Intellectual property laws continue to be a major barrier  Social reactions deserve more research by librarians

50. Q & A Digital future and education in Qatar … What lies ahead?

51. Thank You Gloriana St. Clair gstclair@andrew.cmu.edu And thanks to my generous collaborators: Mark Kamlet, Provost, Carnegie Mellon Rick Johnson, Executive Director, SPARC If you would like an electronic copy of this talk, contact Cindy Carroll, stell@cmu.edustell@cmu.edu

52. Endnotes 1. Brin, Sergey. Quoted by David Kirkpatrick, “Google Founder Defends China Portal.” Fortune (January 25, 2006). Available: http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/25/news/international/davos_fortune/. http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/25/news/international/davos_fortune/ 2. Litwin, Rory. “On Google’s Monetization of Libraries.” Library Juice 7, 26 (December 17, 2004). Available: http://www.libr.org/Juice/issues/vol7/LJ_7.26.html#3. http://www.libr.org/Juice/issues/vol7/LJ_7.26.html#3 3. Wilkin, John. Quoted in “Google to Scan Books from Major Libraries.” MSNBC Tech News & Reviews (December 14, 2004). Available: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6709342. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6709342 4. Litwin.

53. Endnotes 5. Schmidt, Eric. “Books of Revelation.” The Wall Street Journal (October 18, 2005). Available: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/point-of-google-print.html. Mr. Schmidt is Google CEO. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/point-of-google-print.html 6. Kahle, Brewster. “Towards Universal Access to all Knowledge: Internet Archive.” Journal of the Zhejiang University SCIENCE: Special Proceedings Issue of the 1 st International Conference on Universal Digital Library (ICUDL November 2005). 7. University of Michigan (Nancy Connell). “Google/U-M Project Opens the Way to Universal Access to Information.“ University of Michigan News Service (December 14, 2004). Available: http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2004/Dec04/library/index. http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2004/Dec04/library/index

54. Endnotes 8. Open Content Alliance. “Open Content Alliance FAQ.” Available: http://www.opencontentalliance.org/faq.html. http://www.opencontentalliance.org/faq.html 9. Kahle. 10. University of Michigan. “Google/U-M Project Questions and Answers.” The University Record Online (January 7, 2005). Available: http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Dec13_04/lib_qa.shtml. http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Dec13_04/lib_qa.shtml 11. Wyatt, Edward. “Google Library Database is Delayed.” New York Times (August 13, 2005). Available: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50614FD3E5A0 C708DDDA10894DD404482. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50614FD3E5A0 C708DDDA10894DD404482

55. Endnotes 12. “Open Content Alliance FAQ.” 13. Smith, Adam. “Discovering Hard-to-find Books.” Available: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/discovering-hard-to-find- books.html. Mr. Smith is Senior Business Product Manager for Google Print. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/discovering-hard-to-find- books.html 14. “Open Content Alliance FAQ.” 15. Lesk, Michael. “The Qualitative Advantages of Information: Bigger is Better.” Journal of the Zhejiang University SCIENCE: Special Proceedings Issue of the 1 st International Conference on Universal Digital Library (ICUDL November 2005): p. 1176.

56. Endnotes 16. Shamos, Michael I. “Machines as Readers: A Solution to the Copyright Problem,” Journal of the Zhejiang University SCIENCE: Special Proceedings Issue of the 1 s t International Conference on Universal Digital Library (ICUDL November 2005): p. 1179-1187. 17. Proposed by N. Balakrishnan, Supercomputer Education & Research Center, Indian Institute of Science (ICUDL, November 2005).