edward a. miner, phd, mls university of iowa libraries [email protected] cic center for library...

MISSION, MONEY, AND THE JOURNALS OF THE AFRICAN

STUDIES ASSOCIATION

Edward A. Miner, PhD, MLS

University of Iowa Libraries

[email protected]

CIC Center for Library Initiatives Conference

Indiana University Bloomington

May 18-19, 2009

Telling the Tale

Background: missions of scholarly societies; subvention of society activities with journal revenue; challenges of new publishing technologies vis-à-vis organizational capacity; temptations of profit maximization

Aliases and formal roles Players, proposals, and process

African Studies Association Founded as a not-for-profit in 1957 (see

http:www.africanstudies.org) 2,200 individual and institutional members Publishes ASA News, African Studies

Review, and History in Africa Governed by a Board of Directors (including

nine elected directors plus five officers: president, vice president, past president, executive director (ex officio) and treasurer (ex officio)

http://www.africanstudies.org/

ASA Committees

All committees are chaired by BOD members, and non-BOD members of committees are always ex officio.

Annual Meeting Committee Finance/Investment Committee Ethics Committee Executive Committee Institutional Partnerships Committee Nominations and Membership Committee Prize Committee Publications Committee

ASA Executive Committee Chaired by the president Includes the vice president, past

president, executive director (ex officio), treasurer (ex officio), and chair, Finance/Investment Committee

Responsible for making decisions on behalf of the entire Board in the intervals between the semiannual Board meetings

ASA Publications Committee Chaired by a BOD member (historically the

past president, but recently changed for greater continuity)

Includes ASA journal editors and liaison from the Africana Librarians Council (all ex officio)

Oversees publications and African Studies Association Press activities

Only formalized liaison point for ASA journal editors (who are NOT ex officio BOD members)

ASA Executive Secretariat Currently housed at Rutgers (formerly at

Emory) Staff comprises executive director;

senior program manager; and three program managers for Annual Meeting Services, Member Services, and Publication and Information Services, respectively

Executive director is appointed by BOD

African Studies Review A multi-disciplinary scholarly journal, publishes

original research and analysis of Africa and book reviews

Published three times annually Two manuscript editors, two book review editors Print subscription is a benefit to ASA members Institutional subscription (print) $225 for US and

Africa, $270 for international; online access available through JStor and Project Muse

History in Africa Focuses on historiographical and methodological

concerns and publishes textual analysis and criticism, historiographical essays, bibliographical essays, archival reports and articles on the role of theory and non-historical data in historical investigation

Published annually Editor is also African Studies Bibliographer at

University of Wisconsin Libraries Institutional subscriptions (print) $70 for US and

Africa, $90 for international; online access available through JStor and Project Muse

Africana Librarians Council Founded in 1957 as the ASA

Archives/Libraries Committee, and continues as an ASA-sponsored organization

ALC members are ASA members “interested in the preservation of or access to Africana”, and are largely professional librarians

ALC appoints an ex officio liaison to the ASA Publications Committee

The Suitors

“Commercial Publisher” – an infamously predatory commercial academic publisher, known for acquiring massive numbers of journals of varying quality, “prettyfying” them, and then hiking their institutional subscription costs by up to 40%

“University Press” – a venerable UK-based university press with a small number of very high quality African Studies journals

ASA ad hoc RFP Committee Distinct from standing Pub Com, reporting

directly to BOD Formed in Nov. 2006 to solicit and evaluate

journal outsourcing proposals Chaired by past president/chair of Pub Com Voting members included chair, 4 ASR editors,

1 HA editor, ALC liaison to Pub Com, and 2 BOD members; ex officio members included ASA president, treasurer, and executive director

Charge of this committee would become key point of contention

Timeline

In Fall 2005, ASA executive director received unsolicited proposal from Commercial Publisher

Coincided with a financial crisis in the ASA, together with a perception that the journals were a major culprit

In Nov. 2005, ASA officers met informally with Commercial Publisher representative at ASA Annual Meeting

Timeline ASA BOD appointed ad hoc RFP committee

to solicit and evaluate outsourcing proposals In Nov. 2006, RFP committee reported to

BOD receipt of six proposals, and recommended serious consideration of two -- from Commercial Publisher and University Press

The next past president assumed chairmanship of RFP committee, with charge to evaluate proposals and make recommendation

Timeline RFP committee requested detailed data on

journal revenues and expenditures Auditor produced data for Jan.-June 2007, and

then developed model projecting revenues and expenses over three years under the three publishing scenarios

Data showed that journals actually represented a significant source of revenue, due primarily to royalties paid from JStor and Project Muse; in-house arrangements outperformed publishers’ projections

Timeline

In words of ASR editor: “it was the decision of the committee…that we NOT accept any of the…proposals and stay in-house”

In words of committee chair: “The committee then turned to additional non-financial aspects of the decision…”

Timeline In Mar. 2008, RFP committee chair sent both

publishers excerpts of analysis showing advantages of publishing in-house; he also submitted to publishers “a formal statement of…additional concerns”.

In letter to publishers, chair states: “We would appreciate your review of these numbers, in comparison with the terms and projections that you made in your initial proposal. If they prompt recalculations of your proposal, we would of course consider new terms”.

Timeline

In July 2008, ALC appointed Miner to ASA Pub Com and RFP committee

RFP committee received revised proposals and responses to “additional concerns” from Commercial Publisher in Aug. 2008, and from University Press in Sept. 2008.

Comparison of Publishing Options: Journal Pricing

Commercial Publisher: $410 (ASR/HA bundle); 39% increase

University Press: $380 (ASR/HA bundle); 29% increase

In-house: ASR=$225; HA=$70 (no bundle)

Setting Future Prices: Commercial Publisher

“We would be happy to consult in advance with the ASA on subscription prices, and could for example discuss a price capped increase, but…[CP]…would need to retain reasonable pricing freedom to avoid anomalies, and to ensure that ASR and HIA are not disadvantaged.”

Setting Future Prices: University Press

“All subscription rates to the Journal shall be fixed by the mutual agreement of the Proprietor and the Publisher’s.’”

Comparison of Publishing Options: Royalty Rate

Commercial Publisher: 30% (plus subsidy of editorial offices of $16,000/year, with annual increase; plus an initial signing on bonus of $30,000)

University Press: 35% In-house: 100%

Comparison of Publishing Options: Royalty Guarantee

Commercial Publisher: $45,000/year University Press: 85% of projected

revenue – provided ASA delivers 350 institutional subscriptions and 1,700 individual memberships

In-house: 100%

Comparison of Publishing Options: JStor Royalties

Commercial Publisher: 100% University Press: 70% In-house: 100%

Comparison of Publishing Options:

Project Muse Royalties

Commercial Publisher: 100% legacy, 30% new (less than 3 yrs.); but no new content to PM (publisher’s digital backfiles would replace)

University Press: 70% In-house: 100%

Commercial Publisher on J-Stor and Project Muse

“Our new proposal gives the Association 100% of the J-STOR revenue, and will replace the Project MUSE income with alternative and equally strong online income streams, including revenue from the back-digitization of the journals’ archives. We agree that there is considerable scope for revenue generation from electronic publishing and have been experiencing growth of about 20% per annum from these sources”.

Comparison of Publishing Options: Authors’ Rights

From Sherpa RoMEO website (http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ ):

Commercial Publisher: yellow (can archive pre-print)

University Press: green (can archive pre-print and post-print)

African Studies Association: not in database, but most generous of the three

ASA Republication Policy (2009)

“…authors whose works are published in ASA journals may duplicate and distribute their own works to their own classes, to their own websites, or to their own institution’s website without seeking the publisher’s permission…

ASA members who wish to duplicate and distribute articles published in any ASA journal for their own courses, may do so without seeking permission from the ASA...”

Marketing Wisdom: Commercial Publisher

“Note that research shows price is not a major determinant in library buying decisions – quality, relevance, reputation, citation, faculty support and usage are all ranked higher. In journal cancellation decisions price was 10th of 13 factors and comprised just 2% of the total (Accucoms report, Nov 2007)”.

Fact CheckThe editor of History in Africa notes:

“Accucoms, the source cited for the claim that price hardly matters to libraries, is an interest group comprising present and former members of commercial publishing groups and confessedly designed to maximize their profits. The report in question is entitled “How to Boost Your Renewals” and speaks of “17,000 calls to librarians on behalf of publishers chasing lapsed subscribers.” In the same report is the statement: “the second most popular reason [21%] for cancelling subscriptions is budget cuts.” How this translates to 2% is left to readers’ imaginations”.

Ad hoc RFP Committee Process (9/29/08-11/13/08)

9/29: Chair writes: “The Board is not inviting us to meet as a committee in Chicago, although obviously we could assemble those present in case of urgent need. I would like to avoid that necessity by reaching a committee recommendation (accompanied by minority opinions, or not, as the circumstances may develop) for the Board to consider by November 1”.


Three options compared in terms of: marketing plan projected net revenue risks/guarantees pricing control editorial control circulation strategy (esp. in Africa) technical support business services authors’ rights & fair use policies


Persistent concern was lack of hard data on journal revenues and expenses after June 2007

Original model for three year projection assumed steady 3% increase in institutional subscriptions regardless of pricing; this assumption was repeated in publishers’ proposals and committee’s comparative data


Librarians on committee explained: libraries’ use of cost-per-use data to

evaluate journals for cancellation (with ILL cost as a threshold);

the tradeoffs that make journal ‘bundles’ relatively attractive or not (with specific reference to Project Muse); and

their universities’ specific experience with Commercial Publisher


ASR editor obtained data from Latin American Studies Association:

Before 2002, LASA published Latin American Research Review in-house, with 1300 institutional subscribers at the rate of $60/year

In 2002, LASA outsourced to U of Texas Press, price was hiked to $120 and then $180/year – losing 700 institutional subscribers

In 2007, LASA returned to publishing in-house


Voting members wrote preliminary recommendations – 7 (5 journal editors, ALC rep, and a former BOD member) recommended not to outsource; 1 (chair) recommended outsourcing with Commercial Publisher


On 10/31, chair writes: “A majority/minority position seems pointless to me – we are not making a decision, as that is the Board’s job. We are advising them, presenting issues and information that we have worked long and hard to discern, define, and document. Rather, present them with the full bouquet of the considerations that have flowered…and it will be obvious if they turn out to be largely of a single variety”.


Journal editors prepared a five year projection of revenues and costs under the three scenarios, taking into account:

modest price increases in in-house institutional price (5% every 2 yrs)

conservative, medium, and optimistic projections of increased royalties from JStor and Project Muse

conservative, medium, and pessimistic projections of cancellations in institutional subscriptions under either outsourcing option

Ad hoc RFP Committee Process (9/29/08-11/13/08) 11/3: Chair prepared Executive Summary for his

report, with assessments of committee members and various tables of comparative data attached

Chair writes: “Charge (as evolved): To assemble and assess information relevant to considering proposals from [Commercial Publisher] and [University Press], in relation to best-available ASA data on in-house publication, and to clarify considerations relevant to Board decision regarding outsourcing”.


Six committee members (5 journal editors and ALC liaison) felt the chair’s Executive Summary did not represent either the force of their opposition to outsourcing (esp. to Commercial Publisher) or their sense of committee’s charge

These six drafted a “majority report” recommending in-house option, with their individual assessments and tables of comparative data attached; chair was invited to attach his Executive Summary as a “minority report”

Chair declined, and attached the “majority report” as additional document to his Executive Summary

Ad hoc RFP Committee Process (9/29/08-11/13/08) Emergency meeting of ASA BOD was called

on morning of 11/13/08 BOD confirmed that it wanted RFP

committee to make a clear recommendation Entire RFP committee was invited to make

“majority” and “minority” reports Official BOD decision not yet announced;

unofficial word is that BOD Exec Com voted against outsourcing at Spring 2009 meeting

What are the responsibilities of scholarly societies?

White paper (Dec. 2005) circulated by UC’s Academic Council proposes that scholarly societies:

reaffirm development & dissemination of knowledge is a paramount purpose;

set journal prices at or near cost-recovery levels; acquire minimal copyrights; collaborate in development of most efficient and

technologically effective publishing methods possible; provide transparency in society finances

(http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/societies.html)

http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/societies.html

edward a. miner, phd, mls university of iowa libraries [email protected] cic center for library...

Documents