Keywords
Transformative agreements, Scholarly Communication, Scholarly Publishing, Open access, Library collections
Description
Open Access journals and scholarship share a new relationship as content has transitioned from a subscription commodity to rights management. As federal governments encourage and increasingly mandate sponsored research outputs be freely and widely available at the time of publication sustainability of such models led to varied ways of how OA could be made viable. Recent practices suggest successes and trials in changing the footprint of collections. Libraries accustomed to acquiring content for perpetual ownership, and those that created institutional repositories to allow authors when they didn’t retain intellectual property could distribute and repurpose their works are but examples of how collections have changed. Some disciplines expanded the preprint culture. Publishers must rethink whether to publish them after peer review. OA contributes to increased diversity as authors in developing countries and in emerging disciplines share their research findings as libraries eagerly seek this material. Disciplinary differences advance and restrict the OA marketplace and business models explore how to communicate to the next generation of authors what the future of scholarly publishing will be. Costs of knowledge creation suggest different models of transformative agreements and positions libraries and their academic affiliates with new options for submission and publication with publishers trying to offer social, economic, and sustainable incentives to maintain a competitive publishing landscape while influencing and responding to author behaviors. Instead of renewing subscriptions, many libraries seek strategies that offer how to demonstrate impact and encourage new business practices. This paper explores how libraries and publishers will communicate this evolution anticipating what changes will likely define library collections in the future. Speculating about what role transformative agreements have in libraries as they rethink the focus of collections is uncertain.
Gelfand Paper
Transormative Agreements: Communicating Next Phase of Library Collections
Open Access journals and scholarship share a new relationship as content has transitioned from a subscription commodity to rights management. As federal governments encourage and increasingly mandate sponsored research outputs be freely and widely available at the time of publication sustainability of such models led to varied ways of how OA could be made viable. Recent practices suggest successes and trials in changing the footprint of collections. Libraries accustomed to acquiring content for perpetual ownership, and those that created institutional repositories to allow authors when they didn’t retain intellectual property could distribute and repurpose their works are but examples of how collections have changed. Some disciplines expanded the preprint culture. Publishers must rethink whether to publish them after peer review. OA contributes to increased diversity as authors in developing countries and in emerging disciplines share their research findings as libraries eagerly seek this material. Disciplinary differences advance and restrict the OA marketplace and business models explore how to communicate to the next generation of authors what the future of scholarly publishing will be. Costs of knowledge creation suggest different models of transformative agreements and positions libraries and their academic affiliates with new options for submission and publication with publishers trying to offer social, economic, and sustainable incentives to maintain a competitive publishing landscape while influencing and responding to author behaviors. Instead of renewing subscriptions, many libraries seek strategies that offer how to demonstrate impact and encourage new business practices. This paper explores how libraries and publishers will communicate this evolution anticipating what changes will likely define library collections in the future. Speculating about what role transformative agreements have in libraries as they rethink the focus of collections is uncertain.