scholarly communication

Leila Sterman The enemy of the good How specifics in publisher’s green OA policies are bogging down IR deposits of scholarly literature

n the evolving landscape of scholarly publication—citations—and do not impact Icommunication, librarians not only spend subscriptions, as discovery happens at an countless hours educating researchers about individual level and purchasing at an insti- copyright, subscription licensing, classroom tutional level. use, author’s agreements, and , The Berne Convention for the Protection but they also pay enormous subscription fees of Literary and Artistic Works expresses that to publishers. This is potentially the reality copyright should “protect in as effective and of a system in flux, the fact of being in the uniform a manner as possible the rights of middle of a change: we work for reform authors over their literary and artistic works.”1 and enforce the current system in the same The current system of green open access breath. Librarians tend to be risk averse, and lacks effective or uniform processes and rightly so, but this caution should not mean stipulations, thus delaying and inhibiting the that librarians are pacifiers instead of change rights that publishers claim they give back agents, that we educate while accepting pub- to authors of articles. As a lisher’s models without question or action. result, authors are turning to alternate sources Green open access, the subsection of to share and access journal articles. These open access in which no additional money social media or file sharing sources operate changes hands and a version of a paper is outside of copyright. posted online, is the most financially available means of providing broad access to research The Internet has changed access to for many authors and consumes a great research amount of librarian time. The most common The Internet is a powerful medium for format of green open access is the deposit of knowledge dissemination that has greatly postprints, versions of papers that have been increased access to published knowledge. through peer-review but often not copyedit- Institutional repositories have proliferated to ing or journal layout and typesetting. Journal embrace and expand this digital landscape, publishers allow these versions to be posted with restrictions, based on an understanding that scholars will seek the Leila Sterman is scholarly communication librarian and cite that work in any future publication. at Montana State University, email: leila.sterman@ montana.edu Therefore, the secondary versions do not impede the most valuable metric of journal © 2017 Leila Sterman

C&RL News July/August 2017 372 yet depositing the precise copy of an arti- tions. The looming fear of copyright viola- cle allowed by journal publishers is made tion for libraries and for authors influences needlessly cumbersome by restrictions that the strict adherence to green open access are neither clear nor consistent. In this way, stipulations, even though there is little legal publishers punish the people attempting underpinning for these restrictions. Legally, to follow their guidelines by increasing the there is no precedent that versions of an time and effort for each repository deposit. article are protected under different copy- These restrictions are in place to protect rights. Although publishers will argue that the business model and profit margins of copyediting and formatting are copyrightable, publishers, yet when they feel stress from without added creativity or original expres- outside forces, most recently by Sci-Hub sion,2 a final version is just another version and similar file sharing sources, publishers of the same work, protected or restricted by seem to attack libraries—their largest paying the same copyright. Publishers may make customers, instead of fixing the problems clear in author contracts the uses and restric- themselves. Suggestions that by tightening tions of postprint or versions of a library access (two-step authentications, , but these are profit-motivated, etc.), publishers can fix the “leakage prob- not driven by copyright since there is no lem” of copyrighted materials onto the web difference of copyright between versions. A are based on a lack of understanding about policy that allows a postprint version, but not the possibilities of the Internet. If publishers the final version, to be posted to a repository were willing to work with libraries to create a relies on the contract of the author agree- standardized system of compliant green open ment, not copyright. access, academic libraries would be more ef- Green open access policies are often ficient, which could decrease motivation to buried on publisher’s websites or only men- download illegal copies of papers. tioned in contracts. This practice obfuscates important information, increasing both the Publisher restrictions time library staff spend searching for that Publishers increasingly allow green open information and author’s obliviousness to the access, but without any consistency in poli- opportunities and restrictions of green open cies or embargoes. This creates an unnec- access. Searching for and complying with essary amount of work for institutions and journal’s unique green open access policies authors to comply with the often-changing increases the effort required to post articles policies across disciplines and publishers. in repositories and decreases the perceived In many author agreements, authors assign barriers to post on academic social media copyright to the publisher and the publisher sites or personal pages as the restrictions are allows the right to post preprint (pre-peer not obvious or visible. review version) or postprint (after peer Embargo lengths are not always clear, review version) copies on the web. What- even in resources like Sherpa/Romeo,3 which ever justification publishers give for their are devoted to maintenance of this informa- arbitrary restrictions on green open access tion. Further, even if an embargo is clearly activities, they undermine their own justifi- stated, does the embargo period start at the cation with the diversity of policies, restric- time of online publication, assignment of tions, embargoes, and versions they impose volume and issue, print publication, or some on depositing copies of published journal other date? This lack of clarity opens to un- articles. necessary risk for even diligent librarians Publishers, who often claim they are sup- attempting to comply. portive of green open access, work to impose Many journals require a “set statement” restrictions on digital works as if they were when a postprint copy is deposited in a physical items being placed in physical loca- repository. This practice is in line with

July/August 2017 373 C&RL News academic norms: a full citation and link are to personal home pages or departmental provided with any other pertinent version- pages.”5 Since it is common practice for re- ing information. However, as each publisher searchers to distribute copies of their papers has a separate “set statement,” the variety of through the mail, by fax, email, Twitter, etc., these statements across publishers creates an posting the publisher’s version of a paper inefficiency in compliance and speaks to a seems no different to them and removes need to reform. the need for individual requests for copies The mandated use of a postprint acts of a paper. This common practice makes it as a deterrent to the actualization of green harder to convince authors to go through the open access, since multiple publishers do trouble to find a postprint of an article for not ever provide an author with that ver- the library—many of the benefits institutional sion of a manuscript. Some only send a repositories are proposing have already been postprint to the corresponding author, and fulfilled (though illegally) on their personal some merely send a final version for review. sites or by commercial platforms. Many postprints arrive as HTML files and are not saved, or are hosted on Some possible solutions software and never actually in the hands of Time spent working toward copyright com- the researcher. Anecdotally, a researcher at pliance is inefficient in the push for open ac- my institution asked for a postprint of her cess through institutional repositories. This recently published article from the journal inefficiency is especially apparent when it editors and was emailed back a PDF of the is compounded by illogical and changing publisher’s version. Not even the journals restrictions that have little to do with copy- had a copy (or understanding) of this ver- right. If librarians are to keep working on sion. This practice, whether purposefully or this issue, we should work with publishers inadvertently, serves to protect the financial to increase the efficiency of our work so interests of publishers and delay the growth that we may advance the spread of knowl- of repositories. edge while in compliance with reasonable As funder and institutional open/public restrictions. access mandates have increased, some pub- If a publisher must impose restrictions on lishers have changed their policies to allow green open access copies of journal articles, a six-month embargo on personal sites, but they should ensure that those restrictions and a twelve- or eighteen-month embargo on stipulations are: institutional or subject repositories.4 This is in • Clear: Author’s rights for reuse and direct response to the existence of mandates reposting should be clear, correct, and ma- that require an open access copy within 12 chine readable. months of publication. In these cases, authors • Consistent: Any restrictions or com- may be forced to pay for immediate open pliance instructions should be easily found access to maintain compliance. This artificial and consistent across publishers, journals, restriction serves to complicate open access and within fields. Publishers should have and increase income for a journal. a set rule across their journals and make it As a result of the difficult process of clear if there is a variation (which should be depositing postprints in repositories or a avoided). Embargoes should be consistent as general lack of awareness about green open well, in length and across platforms. access, authors often upload the publisher’s • Reasonable: Journals should not ask version of a paper to their own web page or for a postprint version to be posted if the to a commercial site like ResearchGate, with only “postprint” they provide the author is no regard for copyright or embargo, as “in in a web system and never a complete file. reality authors seem to care little for such • Fair: Journals should not punish (or restrictions, in particular for copies uploaded (continues on page 394)

C&RL News July/August 2017 374 I began to think and brainstorm ideas on their practice through different lenses, must how to transition the content in a more do the same.”6 inclusive way beyond the basic introduc- Often the root of our reactions and ac- tions done through webinars and confer- tions are not always obvious. To better un- ence presentations. Rather than present the derstand my colleagues, I needed to explore ACRL Framework immediately, I needed to the assumptions I made with the workshop understand my colleagues’ context and cur- participants. rent teaching philosophies. My colleagues did not need a repeat of all the workshops Notes and sessions they had attended or would 1. Jan Fook and Gurid Aga Askeland, attend. Rather, they needed help unpacking “Challenges of Critical Reflection: ‘Nothing the document and more importantly, con- Ventured, Nothing Gained,’ Social Work textualizing the document and identifying Education, 26, no. 5 (2007): 528. where resources need to be allocated or 2. Stephen D. Brookfield, Becoming a are required. Critically Reflective Teacher (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1995), 8. Conclusion 3. Ibid. I am guilty of frame-shaming. However, as 4. David Tripp, Critical Incidents in I listen and reflect on my colleagues’ reac- Teaching: Developing Professional Judge- tions and experiences, I can empathize and ment (New York: Routledge, 1993).Tripp, hope that I can better facilitate a discus- Critical Incidents in Teaching, 59. sion to move towards more positive action. 5. Tripp, Critical Incidents in Teach- Brookfield writes that “. . . those of us who ing, 59. are trying to get colleagues to identify and 6. Brookfield, Becoming a Critically Re- question their assumptions, or to look at flective Teacher, 205.

(“The enemy of the good. . .,” continues from page 374) attempt to persuade to pay open access adversaries. Ultimately, the more access charges) authors who are publishing with researchers have to articles, the more those open access mandates from their funder or articles get cited,7 which increases impact institution. There should not be differences factor and journal prestige. Since libraries between posting in an need to maintain subscriptions for intuitional and a personal webpage. accreditation and performance, and increased Current practices help perpetuate an citations benefit journals, ease of institutional artificial monopoly that inhibits knowledge repository deposit should be seen as an easy dissemination and growth while giving the win for publishers. appearance of openness. The Internet has not merely increased access and availability of Notes resources, it has opened an avenue to shar- 1. World Intellectual Property Organiza- ing that is inevitable. Like water through the tion, “Berne Convention for the Protection of cracks, information will find a path of least Literary and Artistic Works,” www.wipo.int resistance, and it is in publisher’s’ best interest /treaties/en/ip/berne/. to promote a system that enables reasonable 2. Nancy Sims, “It’s all the same to me! compliance for librarians and authors. As Copyright, contracts, and publisher self-ar- publishers struggle with illegal downloads chiving policies,” College & Research Librar- and the potential security threat of platforms ies News 76 no. 11 (2016) 578-581. such as Sci-Hub,6 it behooves them to treat 3. Jisc, “Publisher copyright policies libraries and repositories as partners in the and self-archiving,” www..ac.uk dissemination of knowledge rather than as (continues on page 401)

C&RL News July/August 2017 394 Ann-Christe Galloway Grants and Acquisitions

Pepperdine University has received a $1.3 90,000 , periodicals, manuscript col- million gift along with the Dr. Leonard B. lections, photographs, textile sample books, and Joan R. Starr Art and Music Col- tintypes, glass plate negatives, trade cata- lection. The books and recordings from the logs, and more, telling the story of the tex- collection will be preserved and displayed tile industry in New England and across the as part of the Starr Art Book and Music Col- country. lection, while the monetary gift will form an endowment that will be used to fund a cura- torial position for, and periodic additions to, the collection. The collection is organized (“The enemy of the good...,” continues from with a catalog created by Starr that identi- page 394) fies books containing specific works of art. Many of the books in the collection are lim- ited edition publications, an additional ben- /romeo/index.php. efit to researchers. Cataloging the collection 4. An example of differing restrictions is expected to take much of the rest of 2017. based on mandates or policies from the Sherpa Romeo database reads: Northwestern University and Indiana Uni- • Voluntary deposit by author of authors versity have received a $967,000 Institute of postprint allowed on institution’s open schol- Museum and Library Services (IMLS) grant arly website including Institutional Reposi- that will allow each university library to tory, without embargo, where there is not a enhance their jointly developed audiovisual policy or mandate. repository system, further improving the • Deposit due to Funding Body, Institu- ability of archival institutions to manage and tional and Governmental policy or mandate make accessible large digital collections of only allowed where separate agreement video and audio. The National Leadership between repository and the publisher exists. Grant, LG-70-17-0042-17, from IMLS focuses • Permitted deposit due to Funding on the functionality and sustainability of the Body, Institutional and Governmental policy open source tool, Avalon Media System. Ava- or mandate, may be required to comply with lon is designed to help institutions manage embargo periods of 12 months to 48 months, and deliver audio/video materials to faculty, www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo. students, and researchers. 5. Björk, Bo-Christer, Mikael Laakso, Patrik Welling, and Patrik Paetau, “Anatomy of green open access,” Journal of the Association for Acquisitions Information Science and Technology 65, no. 2 (2014): 237–50. 6. Bastian Greshake, “Looking into Pan- Cornell University Library has acquired dora’s Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its a collection documenting the U.S. textile in- Usage” [version 1; referees: 2 approved, 2 dustry. The collection, from the Osborne Li- approved with reservations], F1000Research brary at the recently closed American Textile 6, no.541 (2017): http://dx.doi.org/10.12688 History Museum, comprises approximately /f1000research.11366.1 7. Gunther Eysenbach, “Citation Advan- tage of Open Access Articles,” PLoS Biology Ed. note: Send your grants and acquisitions to Ann- Christe Galloway, production editor, C&RL News, email: 4, no. 5 (2006): e157, https://doi.org/10.1371 [email protected]. /journal.pbio.0040157.

July/August 2017 401 C&RL News