Notes from ALA Midwinter CCDO meeting that discussed Procon
Chief Collection Development Officers Meeting
January 21, 2006
Breakout Session on Janus Conference Challenge 2: Procon
Stephen Bosch, Chair
Participants included: Deg Farrelly, Arizona State University; Ione Hooper, Alberta; Stephen Lehmann, Pennsylvania; Barbara List ,Columbia; Kathryn Loafman, University of North Texas; Carol Robinson, MIT; Steve Sowards, Michigan State University; Michael Stoller, New York University; Paul Vermouth, Harvard.
The breakout session discussed the following challenge as amended following the Janus Conferences:
PROCON: Ensuring future publications are in digital form. Research libraries are committed to moving to an environment in the medium term future (e.g., by the end of the decade), in which most newly published materials are acquired in digital form. Research libraries will work with scholars, publishers, and each other in order to achieve this. Research libraries agree to shift to e-only by 2008 for those publications that are available in both print and electronic form including: journals, reference books, textbooks, government documents and other areas like electronic books as the electronic publishing models develop. A complete transition to digital form by 2008 is dependent on the existence of trusted archives for digital content.
The group began by discussing where we believe library users stand on the transition to digital content
Many institutions have noted that students want their information in digital form
LibQual results confirm this – for students – it is less clear where faculty and other users stand on the transition
And it is not clear that anyone is demanding digital monographs
It was noted that certain publications lend themselves particularly to digital format: journals, reference works
Print needs to be a secondary format overall – it will not disappear, but it cannot predominate, as it has to date
Publishers in the natural formats – journals, reference – appear to have made the transition successfully or to be well underway
The future of the digital monograph remains in doubt, at least in the short term – and monographic publishers have not made the transition – or really even begun the process
Concerns are focused on the “quirky” publishers – the small presses, scholarly societies outside the sciences, etc.
Variations even in the humanities are dramatic
Art history seems to be making the transition – but only in the realm of digital art images – the art history monographic and journal literature is still paper-based
Music lags behind – the music itself is making the transition, but scores present serious limitations
Faculty teach what is available – video is a perfect example of this – as libraries made video available, faculty began actively to integrate it into their courses
Discussion of library assistance to publishers in the digital transition is not about creating repositories for them – they must find those resources, or the resources will need to emerge in the publishing community
Who are the players in the process?
Publishers – the small presses and societies are the primary concern here, as the large publishers have the means
Software developers – there was much discussion of the need to develop better “reading” interfaces – and indeed to see a dominant interface technology emerge
Standards organizations – NISO, DLF
Users – the scholarly societies – in this context organizations like the Modern Language Association, the American Historical Association – to represent the interests of scholars
Libraries – potentially through the offices of ARL
The group discussed standards briefly
The necessary standards largely exist but need adoption by the appropriate agencies
Publishers, software developers, digitization agents of all sorts – coordination is key
There was discussion of the relationship to the evolution of licensing as a comparable phenomenon
Early development of licenses by publishers worked against the interests of libraries and scholars
Through consortia libraries were able to have an influence, and great progress has already been made in increased flexibility, etc.
An important question is whether libraries can have a similar impact on the digital transition – it’s much more complex, with more players and more complex issues
The driving force is often critical mass
The appearance of sufficient digital content in a subject or format to drive users to become comfortable with the digital format
This has happened in journal literature – even in the humanities and social sciences, where JSTOR and MUSE have set the standards
It’s happened in fields like art images and digital music
But the critical mass hasn’t emerged in monographic literature – large products like ECCO and EEBO have been important – but they’re not enough
Extensive discussion of the appropriate time frame for pushing the transition – is 2008 too soon? – for some – for how many?
There was also some discussion about the worldwide scale of the transition
How long will it take for the appropriate technology to spread to places like Africa and Latin America
There was discussion over when those geographic areas will have sufficient connectivity to make digital access to their own and other region’s materials feasible
There were equal concerns about the small presses, the small journal publishers and small scholarly societies
We don’t want to push them into the hands of the large commercial publishers – as happened extensively in the sciences
The group remained in agreement that 2008 might be a viable date for some publications
For journal literature, with some exceptions as noted already among small societies and presses
For reference publishing
For government documents
It will likely take longer in other areas
Mass digitization – the Google project and others - may finally push the monographic publishers to move to digital for new publications – as mass digitization may create the critical mass to accustom users to the digital monograph
But small presses, societies, and less developed portions of the world may lag behind and need a great deal of help
Again, we don’t want to drive them into commercial hands by pushing too soon and too hard
The group’s conclusions focused on the need to work through the professional associations
On the library side, primarily ARL as a driving force, as it has been in scholarly communication more broadly
On the scholars’ side, through organizations like the MLA and the AHA