I couldn't get a persistent wireless connection at the conference, or I would have posted more while I was there. Here's a play by play summary of the highlights:
1. "What Consultants Tell Publishers that Libraries Might be Interested to Learn"
One of the things that I liked most about this conference was that publishers, vendors, and librarians all participated together on a more level playing field. It was interesting to hear publisher consultants discuss the direction that publishers are going. One of the most interesting statements was that open access is NOT on the publishers' radar screens. They aren't thinking about it or concerned about it. As well, Peter Banks pointed to Freeculture.org's "Free Culture Manifesto" which articulates the movement of Web2.0 and the intention of Library2.0 fairly well. Now just to overcome the barriers that make it impractical.
2. "Can Cooperative Collection Development Work for Monographs?"
The CARL libraries in Colorado embarked on a 1 year experiment to do cooperative collection development amongst many of their research institutions in a couple of areas. Their intention was to assess the number of monographs they get in specific areas by potential usage and only get enough copies between the participating libraries that they will need. So, instead of buying five copies between the libraries, they might buy two and rely on ILL for the times that other libraries might need them. They have pilot projects with both YBP and Blackwell.
Interesting idea!!! The relationship between these libraries set them up well to enter into a trusting relationship that might make this attempt at cooperative collection development feasible. See more at the committee web page.
3. "Views on Use Statistics and Value"
Charging for e-resources by use is at best a messy model. We don't have a good indicator of what constitutes use, and the application of usage statistics can be dangerous without proper context. These ideas were echoed in another session on usage later in the conference. But, the most interesting side of this presentation was when Melanie Schaffner from Project Muse gave the provider side of creating appropriate pricing models.
4. OCLC's Worldcat Selection Service Juried Product Development Forum
The ITSO CUL idea from Cornell is a good idea that's going in the right direction. Create a one-stop shop for collection development librarians to receive notifications from vendors, sort through them, and submit orders to the acq staff. OCLC is trying to run with this ball, but with only three vendors on board (Aux Amateurs de Livres International, Cassalini Libri, and Harrassowitz), the product has an uphill battle to convince libraries to buy in. Without the backing of the companies that sell us most of our firm orders, I can't see it flying. I like the idea of integrating our order records with the added value of OCLC records, but Library 2.0 is creating the potential for libraries to do record sharing outside of OCLC and to disintegrate the vendor interfaces in such a way that we may be able to collect their information in our own environments and route information just as effectively. I'll keep my eyes open and keep thinking of ways to solve the multiple vendor/multiple interface problems.
5. Several Plenary sessions:
- Greg Tananbaum (author of the "I Hear the Train A Comin’" column in "Against the Grain") moderated a panel presentation on the future.
- Andrew Pace of NCSU spoke about the patron technology, e-books, the content ecosystem, and the ILS. He said that libraries are generally just catching up in the realm of patron technology. For example, he said that chat reference is NOT revolutionary, and it should be normal. He argued that publishers have been holding up the development of e-books because of fears of losing revenue and control. He also argued that the content "ecosystem" is shifting. And, like other ecosystems which shift, not all of the organisms in that ecosystem will survive the shift. Finally, he talked about the dis-integration of the ILS systems, the introduction and rise of open-source systems, and his hope that ILS systems will "vertically integrate," allowing customization and development from many angles.
- Peter Banks of Banks Publishing discussed an idea to push publishing toward an "ITunes model" which would take advantage of the long-tail curve and allow publishers to lower prices to get return on the long tail articles (which is particularly relevant to research libraries). He showed how high-interest did fit into a subscription model (the "short head" of the "long tail") and how there is a gap between the head and the tail which isn't sufficiently served by either the open-access or subscription models. As well, he lamented that open-access is still a PASSIVE publishing model which doesn't fully tap the potential of the web. We need a more active, empowering model to change the industry.
- One of the points of Ann Okerson's (Yale) talk was to lament the need for dozens of platforms that are fighting for her attention. She desired a simpler way to navigate through the complex world of academic information.
- And Isabella Hinds of Blackboard outlined models of customized teaching and of disintegrating teaching services to create better, individualized online teaching environments for students. It is a model that we should be looking to for library services. One of her illustrating points was that e-books are NOT exciting. They are the same paradigm and just a different publication medium. E-content needs to integrate the possibilities of the web to be revolutionary.
- Matthew Bruccoli went on a 45 minute tirade against the movement away from paper books to web services, e-books, and the like. He sang the praises of sniffing book gutters and of reading through volumes and volumes of information to learn. I'm not sure he gets what the revolution of communal knowledge creation, dissemination, and consumption means to the world.
- I saw several of the speakers of a panel on open-access, including Anthony Watkinson, Mark Patterson of PLoS, and Astrid Wissenburg (I didn't get to hear Scott Plutchak). The panel did a good job of answering Watkinson's concerns about the open access model, including questions about the impetus for open access despite its potentially faulty business model. Patterson argued that open access is NOT a business model and does not concern itself with profitability. By providing open access, PLoS tries to increase the potential for data mining and interaction between authors and readers. Wissenburg argued that a moral imperative exists to push open access because we should be assisting the research structure and dissemination.
6. "eBooks and Libraries -- Near and future eBook Trends" was a panel discussion moderated by Sara Nelson of Publisher's Weekly which included Olaf Ernst (Springer), James Gray (CEO of Coutts), Richard Curtis (e-publisher), and Jeanne Pyle (director of UT Tyler) (see their biographies here). The panel was VERY interesting. While new pricing and dissemination models were deemed inevitable, the eBook discussion is still stuck in the idea that eBooks are just electronic books. I believe that the eBook revolution hasn't happened in that authors, editors, and publishers of eBooks need to change the way they consider information to take advantage of the potential of digitally mounted information. EBooks can be more and can take advantage of 2.0 technologies only if the book is written in a way that allows it to be used in the 2.0 environment.
Recent Comments