Electronic Publishing Marketing And Business Issues - Essay Example

Introduction Electronic publishing has changed all the aspects of scholarly publishing. Scholarly communication is the method and route by which academic information is passed from author to reader, via various intermediaries such as libraries and publishers (University College London 2005). A student can look up journals and other scholarly papers with simple key strokes. Electronic publishing has been advantageous to some, electronic publishing does have drawbacks. This paper will seek to discuss and analyse three business issues in the scholarly publishing which are: 1. Impact of electronic publishing in scholarly publishing. 2. Emerging electronic business models and the situation of stakeholders in scholarly communication toward these models. 3. The future of scholarly publishing. Impact of Electronic Publishing in Scholarly Publishing For many years, academic libraries have seen an unprecedented increase in cost of journal subscriptions particularly in the science, technology, and medical (STM) publishing arena. Scholarly publishers and academic libraries are included in what is referred to as the “serial crisis”. The technological development added a new dimension to the crisis by providing both new solution and challenges. The major contribution of electronic publishing lies in the speed of publication, diversity, and choice it brings to the marketplace. However, these do not come without a cost. Publishers, libraries, authors and other stakeholders are being affected by these industrial changes. Major scholarly publishers were cautious, as they found it difficult to predict a business model that would protect their revenue base. Scholarly publishers are responsible for producing books and journals specifically written for and marketed to professionals in a wide variety of industries; such as medicine, law, business, technology, science, and the humanities. STM journals are Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishing (Association of American Publishers 2006). Electronic publishing refers to the distribution of information, art, or software in any electronic form. The advent of electronic publishing in the late twentieth had a vital impact in scholarly publishing, especially scholarly journal publishing. It has increased the distribution of journal articles and has improved library resource sharing networks (Pettenati 2001). Robertson (2003) who examined the impact of electronic journals in academic libraries found that fewer print journals were in stock. Some subscriptions for print journals had been cancelled due to online access and more user appeal of the electronic journals. Economic crisis issues are becoming evident. Rohe (1998) pointed out that: Electronic publishing is changing the economic climate of scholarly communication. Costs, payment structures, and fees are confusing and a source of friction between publishers and libraries, as publishers try to determine how to charge for scholarly information in electronic form. Edlin and Rubinfeld (2004) have indicated that, a major change occurred in journal industry and increased distribution of journals by the internet. The statistics showed that from 1984 to 2001 the journal subscription prices increased. The combination of price increases and an increased number of titles has put pressure on libraries, who complain of a crisis in scholarly communication. Chen (2003) said that “the more e-access, the more pricing dilemma is “. SPARC (2001) have provided statistics showing the price rise in the US and the UK. Graph 1 & 2 show price effect in other library purchasing opportunities and therefore library budget. The mission of the academic societies is to communicate their subjects. Authors want to be read and at the same time publishers need authors. More readers mean leads to higher prestige for a journal as well as the authors. All these demands put the scholarly publishers in directed economy. Therefore developing new business models to protect revenue streams is a key factor in the present situation. Emerging Electronic Publishing Business Models Business models are plans through which every business operates and can sustain it self. A business model includes information about how the company generates revenue and where its place is in the value chain (Bartelt & Lamersdorf 2001). The literature reviews showed a variety of business models were proposed by different publishers and other scholar professionals and the perspective of the stakeholders such as, publishers, libraries, librarians, scholars and authors in the new industrial environment. The information technology has a significant role in emerging new business models for scholarly publishing. Lagoze (2004) said “new technologies provide unexplored opportunities for new scholarly communication models”. Ginsparg (1995) emphasized the purpose of scholarly publication as publishing information to maximize the research distribution rather than making money. He suggested an e-print archive system which is a set of automated archives for electronic communication of research information that have been operational in fields of physics, plus some related and unrelated disciplines. Harnad (1996) discussed a PSYCOLOQUY model which is based in peer review of the referred electronic journal. He considered ways of implementing peer review for electronic journals, arguing that combining traditional forms of review with the current free for all on the Internet to produce a hierarchical system “scholarly skywriting”. Smith (1999) set up a Deconstructed Journal (DJ) model. This model uses an archival storage where a virtual journal could be the responsibility of one organization, while another organization could control access to the journal, and the original peer review could have been conducted by a third. Willinsky (2000) proposed a Knowledge Exchange Model’ (KEM) system for scholarly publication. The aim of publishing the rationale for this model is to initiate an online discussion among readers of Current Issues in Education (CIE) on the general issue and specific features of this proposal. Kling, Spector and Mckim (2002) have developed a model called “Guild Publishing. It is a free online dissemination of working papers or technical reports sponsored by academic departments of research institutes. Halliday & Oppenheim (2000) suggest a free-access model. This model shares production costs between authors and subscribers, but it requires administration of two prices. A range of new subscription models are being explored by all type of publishers in response to the opportunities and challenges that have appeared. Common strategies for new models include; Bundling, Big Deal, Collaboration, Hybrid models, Open Access, and Digital Repositories. Some publishers, especially large commercial entities, have experimented with bundling print or electronic journals into aggregate entities. These arrangements offer libraries comprehensive licensing agreements, often with discounts for the bundle package, but prevent the cancellation of individual electronic journal subscriptions. Bakos and Brynjolfsson (1999) showing that bundling can create "economies of aggregation" this is for information of goods if where marginal costs are very low, when network externalities are absent. Jeon & Menicucci (2004) emphasised a site licensing by practicing bundling. They find that: 1. When bundling is prohibited, surprisingly, market structure does not affect prices. 2. When bundling is allowed, each publisher finds bundling optimal and bundling increases the industry profit while reducing social welfare 3. Any asymmetry-increasing merger is profitable. but reduces social welfare Another approach called Big Deals, where publishers sell their entire portfolios to consortia in multiple year deals, offer little options for cancellation. Some of these consortia were organised by national governments, while others were organised by librarians themselves. Although the Big Deal provides appropriate content and value for the money, it places considerable stress on the budget structure in many academic libraries. There is some statistical evidence to show that users are downloading articles well outside the range of the previously subscribed core of hard-copy titles. Cox (2005) has point out Big Deals are difficult to get out of, and limit librarians’ ability to select what is most appropriate for their readership. However, Roberts, Kidd and Irvin (2004) observed stresses were shown to favour budgetary structures of three university libraries in Scotland with consortia licence agreements and Big Deal arrangements. Ball (2004) indicated the benefits of Big Deals are, users have immediate access to material previously not subscribed to at any incremental cost, libraries can predict inflation over the term of the agreement and save money from their budget, and publishers receive a stable revenue stream for a number of years with no cancellation. Publishers using Big Deal arrangement have reacted to the controversy by offering different pricing models, based on simultaneous users, size or type of institution, and subject-based packages that are subsets of their journal lists. Some are also experimenting with self-select packages in which discounts are offered on a sliding scale, depending on the number of titles ordered. The Collaboration model not-for-profit publishers face a challenge in this comparatively new environment. Many publishing options are arising through need. For example BioOne launched 2001 online showing peer-reviewed research on the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. Offering ideas to scientific society’s libraries and the private sector facilitate interactive networking on individual projects. Reforming and transforming to enable new methods to be practiced (Joseph & Alexander 2003). Open Access (OA) is a free online access to all peer-reviewed journal articles, reachable by two distinct routes, OA self archiving (Green) and OA journals (Gold). It had been widely promoted within the scholarly publishing community as the basis for transforming and resolving the funding problems in the communication of research. One of the biggest publishers creating publishing alternatives with OA is SPARC. This is a worldwide alliance of research institutions, libraries, and organizations. The legal basis of OA is either the consent of the copyright holder or the public domain, usually the former. OA journals can use traditional forms of peer review, or they can use innovative new forms that take advantage of the new medium and the interactive network joining scholars to one another. Removing access barriers and reforming peer review are independent projects. Some OA journal publishers are non-profit e.g. Public Library of Science, and some are for-profit e.g. BioMed Central. A common misunderstanding is that all OA journals use an "author pays" business model. But there are ten OA types of journal articles; home page, E-print archive, Author fee, Subsidized, Dual-mode, Delayed, Partial, Peer capita, Indexing and Cooperative. (See appendix II). Springer Verlag (2003), a major scholarly publisher, with more than 1,000 journal titles, took matters a step further. Springer already permitted its authors to post their versions of published articles in e-print archive, but it went on to introduce Springer Open Choice (your research, your choice). Velterop (2003) that, "It is indeed not open access. To be fair to Springer, they know it isnt open access, and thats why they call it Open Choice”. There are different arguments for OA. Advocates say that visibility and impact provide the key advantage of OA. Harnad (2003) said that OA is not only about human rights, but the greater circulation of knowledge. Increased research impact is the issue. Willinsky (2005) mentioned that OA models of scholarly publishing hold some promise for broadening the circulation and exchange of knowledge, while expanding research’s’ presence in the world. The Economics of Knowledge shares the theory of an “open science model” based on establishing an intellectual-property-right-free zone that “has proven to extremely socially efficient”. The OA archives aim to help authors self archive. The librarian’s role being to point the user in the right directions through library web interfaces (Bosc and Harnad 2005). Waltham (2006) has indicated that OA business was attractive in principle to publishers, because it is aligned with their mission and provides increased visibility of their journals, authors, and research they publish. There is concern expressed over the financial sustainability of a switch to an OA model. Publishers could see substantial savings from moving to an OA publishing model. Morris (2005) point out that moving to open access journals removes the costs of licence negotiation, sales and access control, but adds the cost of charging authors. Velterop (2003) indicated that publishers feel torn about OA; in principle, their charters favour widespread dissemination of knowledge, but they also fear for the viability of their journals. The smallest societies fear that OA could jeopardize their very existence and hence their journals too. Another uncertainty created in OA publishing is the copyright. The Budapest Open Access Initiative states that OA publishing is compatible with copyright law, in that it gives the copyright holder the right to have OA or restricted access. This initiative negates the traditional role of the publisher as a curator of scholarly literature, removing the basis upon which business has operated until now. Another disadvantage of OA for the author is the system review. OA shifts the cost of publication, including peer review, from the individual or institutional subscriber to the author, by charging the author a publication fee. OA advocates state the fee covers costs of operating the publication, including processing and reviewing papers that are rejected. The rejection rate in leading journals can be as high as 70%-80% of all papers submitted. If an author’s paper is accepted for publication, the author would bear all costs including the costs of authors not good enough to publish (Cox 2005). Another approach is Hybrid models, some for-profit scholarly publishers are experimenting with a mixed or “hybrid” model. These models are funded by publication fees, with OA for some of their content, while maintaining subscription fees for others. For example the Oxford Open initiative expands Oxford Journals experiments with OA publishing models (Scholarly Communications Group 2003). The Digital Repositories or local archiving is another publishing model. Various publishers now allow some form of archiving locally. This means authors can deposit their work voluntarily in repositories at their own institutions or funding agencies. This movement is just beginning to gather momentum; few full-fledged local repositories exist at the moment. Such models are arXiv and Dspace. Willinsky (2005) said “e-print archives and institutional repositories are part of a larger movement to create an open and public space online that would carry forward the continuing life and legacy of print culture”. Future of scholarly publishing in the academic The future of scholarly publishing is predicted by different views. Lebron et al. (2002) mentioned “electronic publishing is here to stay, but its future is difficult to for tell”. Friend (2002) suggested that it is important to separate the communication functions of quality control and academic reward when looking into the future. Consumers want OA to work. Patrons also want to work with publishers to ensure a good future for all stakeholders in scholarly communication. Gannon (2005) point out that learned societies play a useful role in educating; ignoring that fact maybe too large price for all to pay in the future. Morris (2004) said that a possibility may arise for the need of the OA model to work alongside with new business models. Self archiving may become common practice and possibly limit the use of traditional journals. Hopefully there will be a merging of all these facets enabling a mutual agreement between all parties. Research grants and authors’ pay models obviously provide disciplines to be encouraged. If a grant is larger, authors will see OA journals as a viable source to meet their needs and encourage submission. Bentum (2001) suggest studying authors’ attitudes, perceptions, and strategies for changing the future of electronic publishing. Morris (2004) emphasized the quality of information. An author’s objectives are communication with many, high quality peer review, and publication in a high impact factor journal. Conclusion The marketplace for scholarly publishing has developed in a way that challenge libraries’ and publisher’s ability to acquire the works needed by their users. Rapidly rising journal subscription prices have made it difficult to purchase the publications necessary for research and education. Publishers of all types are exploring a range of new subscription models such as free online scholarly publishing, e-journals, hybrid paper-electronic journals, author posting to their own web sites, and self-archiving to institutional in response to the opportunities and challenges that have appeared. No one model has proven advantageous over the others. The future of scholarly publishers is hard to predict. Economic pressures and information technology progress lead to new look at the future for scholarly publishers. Developing effective, sustainable, quality and economically viable models is the key for successful future to scholarly publishers. It might be difficult to predict the future of electronic publishing, but it is possible to improve it. References Association of American Publishers (2006) About publishing: types of publishing [online]. Available from: http://www.bookjobs.com/page.php?prmID=8 [accessed 22 March 06]. Bakos, Y. & Brynjolfsson, E. (1999) Bundling and competition on the Internet. SSRN [online]. Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=231598 [accessed 27 March 06] Ball, D. (2004) What’s the “big deal”, and why is it a bad deal for universities? Interlending & Document Supply [online]. 32 (2), p. 117-125. Available from: www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-1615.htm Bartett, A., & Lamersdorf (2001) A multi-criteria taxonomy of business models in electronic commerce. Workshop on electronic commerce [online]. Available from: wotan.liu.edu/docis/db1/welcome/2001-193-AMTOB.htm-5k [accessed 27 March 06]. Bentum M. V. (2001) Authors’ attitudes and perceptions and strategies for change with respect to electronic publishing [online]. Available from: www.uba.uva.nl/projecten/object.cfm/ objectID=A3D1A354-AAAE-40FA-B26F81497D06506D/download=true/arnowp7.rtf -, [accessed 25 March 06]. Bosc, H. & Harnad, S. (2005) In a paper less world a new role for academic libraries: providing open access. Learned publishing, 18, p. 95-99. Edlin, A. S. & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2004) Exclusion or efficient pricing? The ‘Big Deal’ bundling of academic journals. ABA:Antitrust LJ, 72(1), 128-158. Halliday, L. & Oppenheim, C. (2000) Comparison and evaluation of some economic models of digital-only journals. Journal of Documentation. 56 (6), p. 660-673. Friend, F. J. (2002) Improving access: is there any hope? Interlending & Document Supply [online]. 30 (4), p. 183-189. Available from: www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-1615.htm [accessed 27 March 06]. Gannon, F. (2005) Open access: scientists as paradoxical consumers. Learned publishing. 18 (4). Ginsparg, P., (1995) First steps towards electronic research communication in physics. Computer in Physics [online]. 8 (4), 390-401. Available from: http://biblio fr.info.unicaen.fr/bnum/jelec/solaris/do3/3ginspar.html/ [accessed 27 March 06]. Harnad, S., (1996) Implementing peer review on the Net: scientific quality control in scholarly electronic journals [online]. Available from: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/¬harnad/papers/Haranad/harand96.peer.review.html [accessed 27 March 06]. Harnad, S. (2003) Self-archive unto others as ye: would have them self-archive unto you. The Australian Higher Jekyll.com [online]. (6). Available from: http://jekll.comm.sissa.it/commenti/foc0602eng.pdf [accessed 01 April 06]. Jeon, D.S. & Menicucci, D. (2004) Bundling electronic journals & competition among publishers [online]. Available from: http://www.sceco.univ-montp1.fr/laser/Seminaires/EbundlingE29Apr04.pdf [accessed 27 March 06] Joseph, H. and Alexander, A. W. (2003) Two years after the launch: An update on the BioOne electronic publishing initiative. Access [online]. Available from: http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number47/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=04 [accessed 25 March 06] Kling, R., Spector, L. & Mckim, G. (2002) The guild model. The Journal of Electronic Publishing [online]. 8(1). www.press.umich.edu/jep/08-01/kling.html [accessed 27 March 06]. Lagoze C. (n.d). Bridging the past and future: scholarly communication in the 21st century. Cornell Information Science [online]. Available from: www.cs.cornell.edu/lagoze/papers/Tsukuba%202004.pdf [accessed 25 March 06]. Lebron, M. et al (2002) The future of scientific publishing in the electronic age. Science Editor [online]. 25 (5). p. 155. Available from: www.councilscienceeditors.org/ publications/secureDocument.cfm?docID=998 [accessed 25 March 06]. Morris, S. (2004) The future of publishing: what’s really happening in scholarly communication? Managing Information. 11 (5), p. 31-35 Morris, S. (2005) The true costs of scholarly journal publishing. Learned Publishing. 18 (2). Pettenati, G. (2001) Electronic publishing at the end of 2001: World Scientific [online]. 10, 1-9. Available from: http://villaolmo.mib.infnit/Manuscripts/10_generalities/Pettenati.pdf [accessed 27 March 06]. Roberts, M., Kidd, T. & Irvine, L. (2004) The impact of the current e-journal marketplace on university library budget structure: some Glasgow experiences. Library Review [online]. 53 (9), p. 429-434. Available from: www.emeraldinsight.com/0024-2535.htm [accessed 27 March 06]. Robertson, V. (2003) The impact of electronic journals on academic libraries: the changing relationship between journals, acquisitions and inter-library loans department roles and functions. Interlending & Document Supply [online]. 31 (3), p. 174-179. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-1615.htm [accessed 27 March 06]. Rohe, T., A. (1998) How does electronic publishing affect the scholarly communication process? The Journal of Electronic Publishing [online]. 3 (3). Available from: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/03-03/rohe.html [accessed 29 March 06]. Scholarly Communications Group (2003) Publishing models [online]. Available from: http://openaccess.jhmi.edu/publishing.cfm [accessed 20 March 06]. Smith, J., (1999) The deconstructed journal: a new model for academic publishing. Learned publishing [online]. 12 (2). Available from: http://library.kent.ac.uk/library/papers/jwts/DJpaper.pdf [accessed 29 March 06]. University College London, (2005) Scholarly communication [online]. Available from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/scholarly-communication/index.shtml [accessed 04.04.06] Velterop, J. (2003) Should scholarly societies embrace open access or is it the kiss of death? Learned Publishing. 16(3). Waltham, M. (2006) Learned society business models and open access: overview of a recent JISC-funded study. Learned Publishing. 19 (1), p. 15-30. Weill, P., et al. (2005) Do some business models perform better than other’s ? A study of the 1000 largest US firms [online]. Available from: http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/pdf/wp226.pdf [accessed 28 March 06]. Willinsky, J. (2000) Proposing a knowledge exchange model for scholarly publishing. Current Issues in Education. 3 (6). Willinsky, J. (2005) The access priniciple: the case for open access to research & scholarship. London: MIT. Read More