Open Access, scholarly communication and the academic library

It has been about a decade now since the start of what is generally referred to as the Open Access Movement, starting off with the Budapest manifesto in 2001. The thought was to break the paradigm in scholarly communication dominated by commercial publishers and constrained copyright agreements. Emerging new, more communicative, ways of using the internet was paving the way for a more open way of disseminating scientific results. In this development academic libraries have come to play an important, but not uncomplicated, role. Open access is primarily directed at two kinds of output: academic journals and open institutional repositories. In the latter case, libraries in higher education institutions (HEI) have in many cases been (and are) responsible for the development.

During the last couple of years a number of studies in LIS research have focused on the actual development of open access, both from a library point of view, and a scholarly. Did it indeed change the patterns of scholarly communication as it was intended to? Has the role of academic libraries increased in relation to research processes and publication strategies of teaching faculty? Well, the situation is evidently quite complex and somewhat ambiguous. There seem to be a general agreement that open access is an amendable initiative, and that the possibilities really are there. But, when it comes down to real action, there seems to be a lot left to wish for.

In many countries today academic libraries work with the development of open institutional repositories. Sometimes these are shared between more than one HEI, as the Swedish DiVA. These repositories might be of value to the institutions they serve, they might provide an insight between faculty in individual universities, and the might be good for individuals that may publish their collected research output in one place, thus achieving a very dynamic list of references. The problem seems to be, that the scholars themselves do not see these advantages to a very high degree – if indeed they are aware of their existence. Instead there does not seem to be much that indicates any significant change in the patterns of scientific communication and publications of research results. The commercially based system of ranked academic journals still holds up against a more “free” way of publishing, and the question is whether academic libraries in any way can influence this. Libraries have, ever since the the “modern” scientific journal emerged in the mid 17^th century held a very strong position as the very institutions where scientific results are kept available. Even though it has not been without trouble (extraordinary raising costs etc), one can claim that they still hold this position today. An open access alternative does not perhaps constitute a threat to libraries, but they sure do not seem to know what to do with it. Without doubt the potential is there, especially with the development and hosting of institutional repositories. But if this is to work, if academic libraries will be able to meet their positive attitudes to open access and their contribution to it, they evidently need to bring communication with local scholars to a whole new label. There is no reason why they could not, but the initiative must come from the library side. Scholars still tend to rely on more traditional ways of publishing, where the award system is well known and stable.

The most significant agent now, meeting the increasing social demands for open access that we see today, are various forms of funding agencies and research councils, not least in Sweden. Many of them now demand some form of open access publishing if tax payers’ money should be spent on research projects. Perhaps it is through these agencies academic libraries should go to strengthen their position in relation to scientific publishing strategies among the scholars in their HEI’s. The perceived uncertainty of open access as a “threat” or not might just find its answer there and yet another distinct role for academic libraries emerge – to the benefit of open access to research results.

------------------

As mentioned, a number of studies on these issues have been published during the last couple of years. Here are a few examples:

Creaser, C (2010) “Open access to research outputs: institutional policies and researcher’s views: results from two complementary surveys”. New Review of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 16, 4-25.

Cullen, R. & Chawner, B. (2011) “Institutional repositories: open access and scholarly communication: a study of conflicting paradigms”. Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 37(6), 460-470.

Haglund, L. & Olsson, P. (2008)”The impact on university libraries of changes in information behavior among academic researchers: a multiple case study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 34(1), 52-59.

Palmer, K., Dill, E. & Christie, C. (2009) "Where there's a will there's a way?: survey of academic librarian attitudes about open access". College & Research Libraries, Vol. 70(4), 315-355.

Folkets bibliotek? - Pre-order new book by Joacim Hansson

It is now possible to pre-order my new book, written in Swedish:
Folkets bibliotek? Texter i urval 1994 - 2012.

The book is a compilation of articles and essays on public libraries and librarianship published in various anthologies and journals between 1994 and today. It also contains three previously unpublished essays.
It is published by BTJ Förlag.

It will be out in late march/ early april.
It can be ordered here:Adlibris - Bokus


Cover by Lotta Löthgren/1811 Ord&Bild

E-books, Users, Reading promotion - the SPLQ chronicles

In the beginning of this year, which soon now has to defend its place in history, I was asked by the Swedish Council of Cultural Affairs to provide three short chronicles to Nordic journal Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly. I was happy and intrigued to be asked as SPLQ for many years has been a cutting edge library journal - also by international standards. The task gave me a good opportunity to think and write in a very free form, far from the constraints of traditional scholarly writings, something which I found very refreshing. The three short texts became reflections on some current issues in librarianship and together they form, for me at least, some kind of unity. Looking at public librarianship it is clear that many of the current trends stems from the same social and technological delevopments - even to the point where individual technical services are taken for general social development. As they thus may be read together, I decided to gather them here - enjoy:

SPLQ chronicles


Soon these texts will also be published in their Swedish original forms in another very exciting context - something I will have reason to return to here in just a short while.

Bibliometrics and the Changing Role of the University Libraries

For the first time, NDL hosts an original publication of a full scale research article, together with Lund University Publications. Enjoy.

UPDATE: As this article has been officially published by the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, the link is now directed to the proper DOI.


How implementation of Bibliometric practice affects the Role of Academic Libraries

by

Dr. Fredrik Åström, Lund University, Sweden
Prof. Joacim Hansson, Linnaeus University, Sweden
 


Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to discuss the background and potential consequences of bibliometrics being incorporated as a part of librarianship tasks and competencies.

Approach: The discussion is based on previous literature as well as a questionnaire sent out to Swedish libraries with organized bibliometric activities.

Findings: Incorporating bibliometrics into academic librarianship is part of a redefinition and widening of the professional role. This is motivated by ambitions to provide more complete services in the scholarly communication process, as well as to increase the visibility and status of libraries, not the least in relation to central university management. Underlying reasons are professional competencies such as metadata and bibliographic database management; and bibliometrics being strong within library and information science.

Implications: Incorporating bibliometrics is a widening of the professional profile of librarianship, and may well increase the visibility of the libraries in relation to their wider academic environment, not the least in times when bibliometrics is getting increasingly important in terms of research evaluation. The new role should, however, also be considered from the viewpoint of potential changes in how libraries are perceived when incorporating a monitoring function through bibliometric analyses of research performance to the previous service oriented functions.

Originality/value of the paper: Bibliometrics as a complementary path for librarianship has been discussed previously; however, not in terms how the role may be changed and how libraries are perceived. There are limitations to be considered: the questionnaire is limited to Swedish libraries; and no efforts are made into investigating how this change is viewed upon by scholars and university management.

Keywords: Profession; Role of libraries/librarianship; Academic libraries; Bibliometrics; Research evaluation


The full paper is here

Librarians versus (real) users - comment on a new report.

I have on several occasions lately claimed that users have an unproportional influence on the thinking of librarians and the way in which libraries are discussed. Well, not perhaps the users themselves, but the perceptions of the “user” that flourishes among librarians and LIS researchers. Almost every new thing, from the introduction of social media in libraries to new management formulas are legitimized by the perceived will of the “user”. At the same time we have known for quite some time that there is no group surrounding the library that is more conservative than…the actual user. This picture has once again been corroborated by a new Swedish report published by the Swedish Library Association. 800 citizens and 300 librarians have answered questions about what they consider to be the most and least important aspects of libraries. The study exclusively focuses on public libraries.
Many of the issues that so concern contemporary librarianship and LIS research are just not that important to the users. Two examples are the web presence and the idea of public libraries as “meeting places”. When it comes to web presence, it is clear that this is mainly a concern for librarians. This goes well in line with other international studies that indicate that web presence and use of social media is of marginal interest to users, but a high priority for librarians. Taking into consideration the efforts and resources put into this by libraries, this is an interesting result. There seems to be little doubt that the fixation on technology found among large groups of librarians – and indeed – LIS researchers have little bearing on the world and library activity of those actually using the library.
Another clear result of the study is the fact that most users are not particularly interested in their local library as a “meeting place”. Librarians however believe that they are. Within the LIS research community the concept of the library as a social meeting place has been in centre for several years now. It has been problematic though in that it has proven very difficult to define what this idea actually means. The library users know better – they go to the library to do their thing and really do not care much about the other users being there at the same time.
Of course the report – which is in Swedish – shows a wide range of results, and mostly users and librarians are pretty much in line with each other. The two examples I have lifted here are where they differ the most, and one may argue that this is no strange thing, but in some ways it is. Both web presence and the idea of meeting places are today so central to both practical librarianship and LIS research that we really have to ask ourselves what is wrong here. To me it seems like we in both practice and research take our point of departure in a perception of the user as we want her/him to be. Both areas are politically correct, but if the users do not respond to the efforts laid down in promoting them, then what we have is nothing but words, and that is – honestly – not much. Still, as everyone has to legitimize themselves, the discussion now might just turn to the question of the “good” user and the “bad” or “ignorant”one, or – even worse – how users could be “won over” to the side of the social and the technological. Evidently, what the citizens using libraries want is what they always have wanted; to borrow books, read magazines and newspapers – in a calm and quiet environment. The one thing they appreciate the most is a good and knowledgeable reception by the librarians. Well, some do indeed wish for a more socially stimulating and exciting environment as well – those between 74 and 85 years of age.
This is a good and interesting report. Hopefully it will trigger discussions and self scrutiny both among librarians and LIS researchers because we all know, in the end, the users are always right. Aren’t they?

The report:
Olika syn på saken: Folkbiblioteket bland användare, icke-användare och personal (2011). Stockholm, Svensk biblioteksförening.

"Back in the USSR" - classification and cataloguing in Soviet libraries

Soviet librarianship was a good example of ideological institutionalism – libraries were used as tools for the communist party to both spread literature that was seen as beneficial for the state ideology, and as guardians of ”bad” literature that might threaten the political stability. When studying institutional development we know that public institutions are formed in the mould of the dominating political culture of the time (and no such lasts forever) – we see it today in the USA and in Sweden (and everywhere else…). We saw it in the Soviet Union and the “old” communist states of the 20th century. One of the ways in which libraries adapt to the ruling powers of their days is to create tools and practices that correspond to them. In the USSR, libraries introduced the Dewey-system in 1921, however in the “European version” of the UDC. During the years to come it was developed to fit the ruling regime, as was the practice of descriptive cataloguing. E.I. Samurin was one of the chief ideologists in Soviet librarianship in the 1940’s (as well as the author of the most thorough history on bibliographic classification to date). At one occasion he wrote about the bibliographic responsibility of Soviet librarians, stating that they must “(1) indicate for each subject its ‘politically acceptable’ place in the classification scheme; (2) grant first place in every division and subdivision to the opinions of the ‘classics of Marxism-Leninism’, as well as to party directives; (3) grant priority to materials relating the Soviet Union as the country of ‘victorious socialism’, with the provision that these materials must be clearly separated from those of foreign (‘capitalist’) countries; (4) grant fist place to ‘advanced’ (communist) theories and practices and literature about them; and (5) provide class, division, and subdivision names in ‘politically acute and distinct terms’ “ [1] This basically lead to a situation where Soviet libraries had two separate catalogues – one “public” available to the average library user, and one “official” containing the complete holdings of the library, but only available to people with special permits (party members, researchers). In 1948 librarians in Novosibirsk Regional Library spent months reforming the catalogue, resulting in an exclusion of about 40% of the library’s holdings from the public catalogue. Gorkij Region Library was even more thorough; 78% of the titles were excluded from the public catalogue, a figure that even made the authorities comment on the issue as somewhat too much. When it came to classification two systems came to serve as role models for various local and regional systems. The first was a developed Dewey system made by (among others) Samurin at the Lenin State Library in Moscow, and the second was used to classify the Knishnaya letopis’ , the “Book Annals”, a periodic part of the Soviet national bibliography. This also takes the Dewey system as its point of departure, but as classifying library catalogues and classifying bibliographies are two different matters it takes on another character. The Book Annals’ classification became widespread through out the USSR and during the years it appeared in several versions (in itself a problem when adapted to library practice). As an example I would like to show the main classes in the 1936 version of it:

1. Marxism-Leninism.

2. Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Philosophy.

3. Comintern. All-Union communist Party (Bolsheviks)

4. Politics. Soviet Construction. Law.

5. Defence. Military Science.

6. Economics.

7. Labour.

8. History.

9. Geography. Ethnography.

10. Mathematics. Natural Sciences.

11. Medicine.

12. Technology. Transportation.

13. Agriculture. Veterinary Medicine.

14. Philology.

15. Belles-lettres.

16. Arts.

17. Antireligious Literature.

18. Cultural Construction. Education.

19. Juvenile literature.

20. Bibliography. Reference Works.

As seen there’s not a lot of Dewey left. The classification systems of Soviet libraries differ mostly in terms of how many main classes they have. They all have several things in common, such as the prime class of Marxism-Leninism (1, 2), the anti-religious literature class (17), the explicit aim at displaying the unified USSR (4, 18). The idea of geographical and cultural construction of unity was actually one of the most important issues in the first developments of the imported Dewey-system in the early 1920’s. The practice of bibliographic control in the Soviet Union is still of interest for bibliographical control research in that – if for no other reason - it is so clear. Libraries are used to establish an order and division of power which is very explicit. We know that this is the case in contemporary political environments too, however, in most cases we find it in more implicit forms. It is important to still keep analysing the bibliographical tools of libraries and bibliographies. From them we can learn a lot about the relation between libraries and societies of today.

I recommend the following articles for further readings on this subject:

Baumanis, A & Rogers, R “Soviet classification and cataloguing”. Library Quarterly, Vol. 28 (3), pp. 172-186.

Delougaz, N. (1947) “Adaptations of the Decimal Classification for Soviet libraries” Library Quarterly, Vol. 17 (april), pp. 148-161.

Whitby, T. (1956) “Evolution and evaluation of a Soviet classification”. Library Quarterly, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 118-127

[1] Quote from Baumanis & Rogers, p.174.

On the complex issue of e-books in libraries

Slowly it is beginning to become clear: during the last months, the sales figures for e-books in the USA have been bigger than for those of printed books. People got a lot of various, electric, reading devices for Christmas, and now they try them out. The time has obviously come to consider these hard sales figures and discuss their consequences for libraries and librarianship.

There is no doubt that the forms of selling and distributing e-books today is not compatible with traditional library standards. This is hardly surprising, and should not be seen as a sign of slowness in the library sector, more of the aggressiveness and speed in the publishing/entertainment industry today – not only in the US. Most e-books that are sold today are versions of already existing printed books – as is the case of the bestselling Millennium trilogy by Swedish author Stieg Larsson, that according to the latest figures today sell more as e-books than as prints. Here e-versions come as “extra”, as any new version of the printed original. As long as this is the situation, librarianship will have no bigger problems in handling the e-books (except for issues like economy and copyright...). They will be in the margin of their ordinary lending activity. For a long time still, we will also have a relatively limited access to electric reading devices, and for a very long time to come these devices will be distributed among economically strong groups of society and large groups will simply fall outside of the market strata.
The really new situation will emerge (soon enough probably) when publishers find it worth while to no longer issue printed editions, or when the printed editions will be seen as second rate versions of the electronic versions of a text. In scholarly publishing this is more or less the case already today, but that is, whichever way we look at it, quite a different story. The true challenge for librarianship will be when this happens to novels, fiction, poetry, children’s literature and other forms of literature identified with the book as artefact.
There are several factors influencing the situation that lies ahead of us:

- Emotional: the term “book” will be reduced to a metaphor. What is left in an e-book is a text. This might very well turn out to be a real problem for libraries, as we know that most library users do what they always have done in libraries; borrow books – not in a metaphorical sense, but in a real sense. We must be very careful to start describing this as a problem. Here we may otherwise soon face a situation where librarians’ expectations of user behaviour is more coloured by producers of electronic reading devices and publishers than of the users themselves – a situation similar to that of the libraries’ felt need to use “social media”, which we see today.

- Technological: no library will be able to provide electric reading devices in any significant numbers to users that do not have access to them. They are (for long) too expensive and too sensitive. This will probably be less of a challenge and more of an obstacle in the developing of e-book services. A large number of library users will not be able to read these texts due to lack of technology, which brings us to a third, and more serious, problem:

- Social: libraries have for years now been increasingly important in providing access to electronic documents and information through their publically available computers. This is tremendously important to those large groups in society that still cannot afford, or for some other reason don’t have, computers and Internet access in their homes. The present instrumental collaborations between producers of reading devices and the publishing/entertainment industry make no such considerations, of course. Here libraries will face their perhaps biggest challenge for the future. Who to serve – the people who need them the most, or the commercial actors in the publishing/entertainment industry? It is a matter of interest which is indeed very real.

Why does this become a potential problem? Well, simply because there is a huge difference between selling text to read in specially suited reading devices and promoting (good) reading and literacy. Not ever have the commercial interests of the publishing/entertainment industry and the democratic mission of – primarily, of course, public – libraries been more in conflict than when it is within this development. The problems are easily foreseeable, but the solutions are complicated. Especially alarming is the thought of children’s literature in this development. Libraries have a responsibility to guarantee access to a broad variety of children’s literature for reasons both obvious and well known. The development of e-books threatens – in the long run – the libraries’ independence in relation to an industry which is getting bigger and more cynical by the hour.

As always it will be those with already the least resources that will be “losers” in this development. Once again: libraries have a choice here. To develop their mission to the benefit of those who need them the most – or to those who see them only as yet another channel of distribution of.…texts.

See also this interesting comment in Swedish by Dr. Pelle Snickars, head of research department at the Ntaional Library f Sweden.