1. OPEN ACCESS INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES The views of a society publisher Robert Campbell Blackwell Publishing

2. Open Access Institutional Repositories – 26 January 2005 2 ABOUT BLACKWELL PUBLISHING MISSION STATEMENT Partnerships in learning, research and professional practice Our mission is to provide an expert publishing service to other experts - authors, editors, librarians, researchers, teachers and their students, societies and professionals - enabling them to do their jobs better. We aim continuously to improve the quality and effectiveness of our products and services. Just as we support the advance of knowledge and learning, we are constantly developing our own professional skills too. We strive to align our goals and values with those of our clients and customers. In partnership with them we are making an important contribution to society.

3. Open Access Institutional Repositories – 26 January 2005 3 ABOUT BLACKWELL PUBLISHING 2004 Sales – £187M (£153M journals, £34M books) 755 journals Working with 600 societies 65 additional journal titles in 2005 including 37 new partnerships (societies)

4. Open Access Institutional Repositories – 26 January 2005 4 HOW ARE SOCIETY JOURNALS DIFFERENT? Pricing and citation Three-quarters (148) of top 200 and two- thirds (345) of top 500 ISI ranked titles are owned by Societies or other non-profits 25% of the 148 are contracted out to another publisher 35% of the 345 are contracted out Average price per page is lower than commercial equivalents

5. Open Access Institutional Repositories – 26 January 2005 5 ISSUES FOR SOCIETIES Members join for conference and journal How many members will be lost with Open Access? Will self-archiving undermine subscriptions? Many societies dependent on publishing income Authors like having a PDF but how should their use of this be controlled? Switch from CAF (Copyright Assignment Form) to ELF (Exclusive Licence Form) has some appeal

6. Open Access Institutional Repositories – 26 January 2005 6 ISSUES FOR SOCIETIES (continued) Dont seem too concerned about Green status Fairly aware of NIH story Most see need for embargo to protect journal Impact Factor is very important Not interested in being associated with pre- print servers Capable of changing their minds very quickly

7. Open Access Institutional Repositories – 26 January 2005 7 THE VERSION QUESTION At the Publisher Submitted12/11/04 Accepted10/12/04 Online Early23/12/04 Online21/1/05 Print-on-paper28/1/05 At the Institutional Repositories Pre-print Post-print – authors version of the accepted work PDF (publishers version) Other authors versions on other IRs Final authors version at PubMedCentral ?European counterpart to PubMedCentral

8. Open Access Institutional Repositories – 26 January 2005 8 ISSUES FOR CROSSREF IN ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH IRs Mission To provide services that bring the scholar to authoritative primary content, focusing on services that are best achieved through collective agreement by publishers. Status 350 members (2/3 not-for-profit), 1400 publishers 10,833 journals 4,640 books 11,000 conference proceedings $3M annual turnover 326 depositors: 285 linkers Issues Match rate (successful linking up from 18% in 2003 to 27% in 2004) Multiple Resolution Relationship between Google and CrossRef Search New content (spreading out from STM) Relationship with Institutional Repositories but lack of clarity on their role

9. Open Access Institutional Repositories – 26 January 2005 9 HOW DO WE GO FORWARD? As the IR system becomes more comprehensive and efficient so we could see more protection of the subscription base What might the balance be? If a journal offers free access after 12 months and insists on a self-archiving embargo of 12 months what need of self- archiving? Why not simply link to publisher?

10. Open Access Institutional Repositories – 26 January 2005 10 LONG-TERM ISSUES FOR JOURNAL PUBLISHING Widespread increase in R&D funding – UK: science budget £2.4 Bn 03/04, £5 Bn 13/14 – Europe: goal for R&D 3% of GDP, UK currently 1.9% GDP, aiming for 2.5% – Developing countries: DFID policy, eg Pakistan More funding means more papers (1.5M papers going up to 3M papers per annum over 10 years) Geography of authorship (RoW: 25% in 1983, nearly 50% in 2003) Will the Impact Factor pattern change with greater volume? Technology in place for production and in development for discovery What models will partner this technology?

11. Open Access Institutional Repositories – 26 January 2005 11 CHANGING PATTERN OF IMPACT FACTOR