Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

5.17.18 "The 2.5% Commitment: Investing in Open" presentation slides

565 views

Published on

Presented on 5.17.18 by David Lewis and Michael Roy

Published in: Technology
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

5.17.18 "The 2.5% Commitment: Investing in Open" presentation slides

  1. 1. The 2.5% Commitment: Investing in Open David W. Lewis and Mike Roy DuraSpace Hot Topics Webinar May 17, 2018 http://scholarlycommons.net © 2018 David W. Lewis and Mike Roy. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license
  2. 2. Fundamental Truth #1: There is no sustainable path to an open scholarly commons without sustained and substantial investment from academic libraries.
  3. 3. Fundamental Truth #2: If we do not create the open scholarly commons, Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, et. al. will own the scholarly record and continue to exploit the academy. What should be a public good will be used for private gain.
  4. 4. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B Steven Kerr, “On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B,” Academy of Management Journal December 1975, 18(4):769-783, https://www.ou.edu/russell/UGcomp/Kerr.pdf
  5. 5. Fundamental Truth #3: Librarians are generally cooperative. We like to help each other when we can. Going forward this will not be enough. What will be required is significant and sustained collective investment. We need to create new institutions.
  6. 6. The Commitment: Every academic library should commit to invest 2.5% of its total budget to support the common infrastructure needed to create the open scholarly commons. See: David W. Lewis, “The 2.5% Commitment,” https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/14063
  7. 7. Why 2.5%? 2.5% of $7 billion (annual U.S. academic library expenditures) = $175 million 60% of $175 million = $105 million The Financial Times reported that Elsevier paid $115 million to acquire Bepress U.S. Department of Education, Academic Libraries: 2012. First Look (Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, January 2014), 10, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014038.pdf David Bond, “Relx Buys Bepress to Boost Academic Publishing,” Financial Times, August 2, 2017, https://www.ft.com/content/c6f6c594-7787-11e7-a3e8-60495fe6ca71.
  8. 8. Why 2.5%? As a community, academic libraries have a collective action problem.
  9. 9. “Although it is likely that university libraries could develop a more efficient system of scholarly communication if they were to redeploy their collective subscription budgets, each individual library— when it decides how to spend its own little piece of that huge pie—has little incentive to redirect its own expenditures… Unfortunately, if every librarian waits for every other librarian to make the investments necessary to develop a sustainable system of Gold OA publishing, it may never happen.” — John Wenzler John Wenzler, “Scholarly Communication and the Dilemma of Collective Action: Why Academic Journals Cost Too Much,” College & Research Libraries 78(2):192 February 2017 doi: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.2.16581
  10. 10. Why 2.5%? An attempt to develop community norms around the level of contribution to the collective good. Provide information about what organizations and projects deserve support. What gets measured and reported, gets done.
  11. 11. What Has Happened and Next Steps August 2017 — “2.5% Commitment” paper released Fall 2017 — Preliminary data collection effort Fall 2017/Spring 2018 — Develop specifications, governance, and processes for Tracking Tool, secure funding Fall 2018 — Build Tool(s) Spring/Summer 2019 — Use Tool for large scale data collection
  12. 12. Fall 2017 Data Collection Prototype Opening Questions: 1. What should we count as an Open Investment? 2. How much do libraries spend on Open annually? 3. How might we understand these investments in the broader context of overall library spending?
  13. 13. Step One: Make a List ● What counts as an open investment? ○ 120 crowdsourced items ○ 60 ‘other’ items added by participants ○ 105 items had some level of investment ○ Biggest investment: $1,137,026 for staffing for IR (23 schools) ○ Smallest investment: $20 for Zotero The list lives at https://scholarlycommons.net/the-list/
  14. 14. Step Two: Recruit Schools to Participate ● Asked SPARC, Leading Change, Oberlin Group, various other library consortia, colleagues, and via our website ● 60 signed up ● 35 filled out the form
  15. 15. Who actually contributed data to this? Demographics: Smallest: FTE of 1,394 Largest: FTE of 53,000 Master's Colleges & Universities – Larger Programs: 3 Doctoral Universities: Higher Research Activity: 15 Baccalaureate Colleges: Arts & Sciences Focus: 14 Other (Canada): 3
  16. 16. More on demographics and investment Average Total Budget (w/o salaries) : $7,633,990 Most invested: $868,065 Least investment: $1,048 Investment per FTE: Most $112 Least : $1 Average: $14
  17. 17. Investment Data Average percent of library budget: Of total budget (w/o staff): 2.96% Of collections: 4.12% Biggest investor: 9.4% Smallest investor: 0.3%
  18. 18. Top Ten Investments Full list at https://scholarlycommons.net/the-list/
  19. 19. We asked participants: 1. How much did you know about your library’s Open contributions before you undertook this exercise? 2. What about the results was expected? What surprised you? 3. Is your library considering changing its level of contribution to Open or where they are made as a result of this exercise? 4. What recommendations would you make to advance the project as it is developed further?
  20. 20. Feedback — Strategy • Increase the target to 5%. Think about facilitating conversations among participants and in the broader community about collective efforts that would tip the scales in the open / market balancing act. • What is the vision, how to we get there, who decides? How do we move quickly and with unified determination, and yet slowly enough to consult together, deliberate carefully, and design wisely?
  21. 21. Feedback — What Counts? • Should we focus primarily on infrastructure (i.e. software, technology, etc.) and not include open content? • Within infrastructure, should we focus on initiatives that are widely adopted and have an international community, versus more geographically, regionally, or nationally constrained initiatives? By extension, should new/emerging initiatives be included and if so, how? • More detail should be provided on eligible in-kind contributions, e.g. staff time/costs at the local institution and how to calculate this.
  22. 22. Feedback — Local Plans • We are always looking at ways to effectively support a transition to open access; currently thinking about how to develop a more comprehensive strategy to increase and coordinate our efforts.
  23. 23. Feedback — Concerns • Expanding the definition of shared OA infrastructure may have the effect of making institutions feel good about themselves, but it is counterproductive. What is really needed is a comprehensive vision, not a disparate list of activities. • The exercise made it clear that individual library efforts have limited impact.
  24. 24. Feedback — Concerns • As the word of the year was just announced as "complicit" there is much to be said about where the other 97.5% of library budgets go, and if that aligns with long term values.
  25. 25. Feedback — Statements of Support • We might need to use a higher percentage target in the name of the initiative!! • I would encourage everyone to figure out what you are already spending. • Well, if you could drive a certain commercial publisher out of business, that would be icing on the cake. :)
  26. 26. What Comes Next? Spring/Fall 2018 — Develop specifications, governance, and processes for Tracking Tool, secure funding Conversations and investigation
  27. 27. What Comes Next? Fall 2018/Spring 2019 — Build Tool Spring/Summer 2019 — Use Tool for large scale data collection
  28. 28. What Comes Next? “Invest in Open Tracking Tool” Combination of: 1. Angie’s List — Registry of Open Projects 2. FitBit — Investment Tracking
  29. 29. Angie’s List Open Registry
  30. 30. Angie’s List Open Registry Open Infrastructure Providers Profile: • Product Description • Budget • Governance • How to Invest • Etc.
  31. 31. Angie’s List Open Registry 3rd Party Badging Open Infrastructure Providers Profile: • Product Description • Budget • Governance • How to Invest • Etc.
  32. 32. Angie’s List Open Registry 3rd Party Badging Open Infrastructure Providers Profile: • Product Description • Budget • Governance • How to Invest • Etc. FitBit Invest in Open Tracking
  33. 33. Angie’s List Open Registry 3rd Party Badging Open Infrastructure Providers Profile: • Product Description • Budget • Governance • How to Invest • Etc. Libraries • Investments in • Budget Information FitBit Invest in Open Tracking
  34. 34. Angie’s List Open Registry 3rd Party Badging Open Infrastructure Providers Profile: • Product Description • Budget • Governance • How to Invest • Etc. Libraries • Investments in • Budget Information Libraries • Standard Measure of Investment • Peer Comparisons FitBit Invest in Open Tracking
  35. 35. Libraries • Assessment of Projects 3rd Party Badging Open Infrastructure Providers Profile: • Product Description • Budget • Governance • How to Invest • Etc. Libraries • Investments in • Budget Information Libraries • Standard Measure of Investment • Peer Comparisons FitBit Invest in Open TrackingCommunity Feedback Angie’s List Open Registry
  36. 36. Libraries • Assessment of Projects 3rd Party Badging Open Infrastructure Providers Profile: • Product Description • Budget • Governance • How to Invest • Etc. Libraries • Investments in • Budget Information Libraries • Standard Measure of Investment • Peer Comparisons Community • Clear Picture of Open Infrastructure Providers — Revealing Redundancies and Gaps • Clear Picture of Open Investments by Libraries — Shows Where Investment is Needed and How it Changes over Time FitBit Invest in Open TrackingCommunity Feedback Angie’s List Open Registry
  37. 37. What Should Count? — Three Buckets 1. Investment in Open Tools and Services 2. Investment in an Institutions Repository 3. Open Content
  38. 38. What Should Count? — Include for-Profits? Much debate Likely for repositories — OCLC versus Bepress, Atmire or Ubiquity Only if they meet certain criteria See for example: Paul Peters, “A Radically Open Approach to Developing Infrastructure for Open Science,” Hindawi Blog, October 23, 2017, https://about.hindawi.com/opinion/a-radically-open-approach-to-developing-infrastructure-for-open-science/
  39. 39. What Comes Next? A map of open infrastructure Alejandro Posada and George Chen, “Preliminary Findings: Rent Seeking by Elsevier: Publishers are increasingly in control of scholarly infrastructure and why we should care,” The Knowledge Gap Geopolitics of Academic Production, September 20th 2017, http://knowledgegap.org/index.php/sub-projects/rent-seeking-and-financialization-of-the-academic-publishing-industry/preliminary -findings/
  40. 40. What Comes Next? The standard contribution % becomes part of reported statistics (ARL, ARCL, etc.) “Portfolios” for investment developed United Way like organization to channel funds and evaluate investments
  41. 41. Questions for You: 1. Is this a good idea? 2. Would your library contribute information? 3. Would your library contribute a modest sum to support this effort? (zoom poll)
  42. 42. Questions for You: 4. Who should be able to see what data? 5. How should decisions about policy be made? 6. Other advice would you give us? https://bit.ly/2wLLA07
  43. 43. Questions/Comments © 2018 David W. Lewis and Mike Roy. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license
  44. 44. David W. Lewis dlewis@iupui.edu Lori Goetsch lgoetsch@ksu.edu Diane Graves dgraves@trinity.edu Mike Roy mdroy@middlebury.edu http://scholarlycommons.net @in4open David W, Lewis, Lori Goetsch, Diane Graves, and Mike Roy. “Funding Community Controlled Open Infrastructure for Scholarly Communication: The 2.5% Commitment Initiative.” College & Research Libraries News, 79(3):133-136 March 2018, https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16902 © 2018 David W. Lewis and Mike Roy. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license

×
https://www.slideshare.net/DuraSpace/51718-the-25-commitment-investing-in-open-presentation-slides
www.slideshare.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-10
181942
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:NNH7VTLUVILQPGWVS4ALKYXOVMWH5WHY
<urn:uuid:b0f894fa-7cc4-4ccf-81d4-28b43a79a916>
2021-03-09T02:52:25Z
52.54.232.80
text/html
sha1:64WU6T6PETSWURM2AH32ULSDY3GE74YB
<urn:uuid:14ae54e9-2dff-4262-9b2c-2a0e71340d0d>
https://www.slideshare.net/DuraSpace/51718-the-25-commitment-investing-in-open-presentation-slides
response
<urn:uuid:45e52484-e5a3-4965-9678-d7329ac0b410>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February/March 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-165.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/