Abstract
The Chicago Collaborative is a new initiative bringing together representatives from bio-medical associations of publishers, editors, and libraries to discuss the grand challenges facing scholarly communication and to avoid the usual discussions in the traditional buyer–seller paradigm. The Collaborative, which is less than two years old, has identified several educational initiatives it plans to pursue: educating authors about scholarly communications, creating a “Publishing 101” for librarians, and developing “Libraries 101” for publishers. While the Collaborative is still building a strong bond among its founding members, it is now considering what other associations should be involved in its future discussions and projects.
This presentation provided an overview of the new initiative called the Chicago Collaborative. The Chicago Collaborative (the Collaborative) was created to bring together bio-medical associations of publishers, editors, and librarians to discuss the major challenges facing scholarly publishing and communications. It is a new group, less than two years old, which is still defining itself.
Scholarly communication, including the publishing industry, is a complex set of stakeholders and processes. While many of the players hold pieces of the puzzle, no one group has all the pieces and so the individual players cannot complete the picture of the scholarly communication process alone. The Collaborative was created as a mechanism to develop a shared understanding of the scholarly scientific communication issues, including both challenges and opportunities. It was also developed to create ways to begin to address common understandings, as well as dispel some myths or misunderstandings about the various partners in this process or system.
The Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) wanted to start bringing more of the pieces of the puzzle together in order to begin discussions about the serious challenges facing scholarly communications. To avoid the usual territorial issues between players, AAHSL decided to focus on the associations representing the pieces of the scholarly communication puzzle instead of the individual publishers, publications, and libraries. AAHSL also realized that inviting all the possible players might be overwhelming to the process of building trust and communication, so initially the three areas of focus would be scientific, technical, and medical (STM) associations for publishers and editors, as well as academic health sciences libraries, which is what AAHSL represents. Therefore the founding members included the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries; the Association of American Medical Colleges Council of Academic Societies; the Association of American Publishers' Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division; the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers; the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology/DC Principles; the International Association of Sciences, Technical & Medical Publishers; the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; and the Society for Scholarly Publishing.
Initially AAHSL wanted to keep the group small and focused in order to build trust and start to have open conversations. Now the group has started discussing who else needs to be invited to the Collaborative. Other associations for editors and publishers? Other library groups? Even Google has been suggested. The Collaborate is aware that others may want to join them, but for now they are still trying to create a cohesive group among the founding members. Until it is ready to expand, the Collaborative does plan to invite in other groups or experts to give presentations or help sort through specific issues.
A frequent question is how is this different from other efforts? Most importantly the Collaborative focuses on association representatives and not on individual libraries, publishers, or publications. The group is focusing on the larger, challenging issues in the scholarly communications and publishing arena, including educational efforts. The challenges are the ones shared by the Collaborative's members. Any recommendations will highlight the commonalities and shared purposes held by the members within the broad realm of scholarly scientific communication. The group is not having the usual conversations about licensing or business models.
So how did the Collaborative come about? A member of the AAHSL Scholarly Communications Committee, T. Scott Plutchak, asked the association to consider developing a forum where librarians, publishers, and editors could develop a better understanding of the challenges, concerns, and values of each group. Through this understanding and collaboration, AAHSL believed that everyone would be better positioned to develop a scholarly communication system that truly serves the entire scholarly community.
AAHSL recognized that stakeholders shared a common goal: the creation, sharing, and dissemination of information and ensuring that the information was relevant and appropriate. AAHSL also realized that this forum needed to step away from the traditional buyer–seller paradigm and focus on the higher-level issues. The AAHSL Board created the Joint AAHSL/Publisher Task Force to explore what mechanism might be created to achieve this. The board approved the task force's recommendation that an initial forum or summit meeting be held to determine the interest in beginning discussions among key stakeholders.
Invitations to associations were sent out in April 2008 and nearly all the groups expressed an interest in a meeting to identify the big challenges and common concerns. Each association identified one or two representatives to attend the first meeting, which was held on May 22, 2008, following the Medical Library Association annual meeting in Chicago.
The major consensus-driven recommendation coming out of this initial meeting was to establish a new working group of association representatives in order to address the grand challenges of scientific communication. It was recommended that AAHSL serve as the administrative sponsor to help set up the meetings and develop a Web presence. The tentative name the group created was the “Chicago Collaborative” to reflect the location of the first meeting and the spirit of the new working group.
The initial meeting covered a wide variety of issues and concerns. Topics of discussion ranged from implementation of the National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy, branding for libraries and journals, dark archiving, plagiarism and scientific misconduct, peer review, and supplemental materials. The group also recognized that future issues would also need to be the sustainability of the group and the pursuit of specific activities. The participants left the meeting with the commitment to continue the dialogue and begin exploring challenging issues. Attendees also recommended that in future meetings the group include representatives from the American Association of University Presses and the editorial community, such as the World Association of Medical Editors, the Council of Science Editors, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
After this meeting, work began on a framework document, a frequently asked questions (FAQ) document, and future press release. In June the AAHSL board agreed to provide administrative support and serve as the initial organizing point for the group.
In September 2008, the group reconvened, again in Chicago, at the offices of the American Medical Association. This time the discussions focused on potential initiatives for the group such as educational activities. The name of the group was formally endorsed and the new Collaborative reviewed and approved the drafts of the framework, FAQ, and press release documents, which had been prepared over the summer. The representatives agreed to have their associations review and approve the documents after the meeting. Again, there was a strong consensus that these meetings were very productive and should continue.
In November 2008, a briefing was done for AAHSL members and the initial information about the Collaborative was sent out to key library groups. The other association representatives were encouraged to share similar information with their members and partners. A formal press release was later distributed in March 2009 and a website was launched from the AAHSL website to make documents publicly available.
In April 2009, the group met again in Chicago at the Sheraton Hotel. While many topics were discussed, the focal points for the meeting were educational activities, as well as promotional events so others could learn about the Collaborative.
The Collaborative is planning another meeting in November 2009. This time it will be in Boston in conjunction with the meeting of the Association of American Medical Colleges.
The Collaborative has also discussed strategies for maintaining trust and an open dialogue. In order to do this, the group will focus on the broader and higher-level issues, challenges, and opportunities within scholarly communication. When ideas are shared, members will be representing the interests of their association and not those of individuals or individual publishers or libraries. Everyone will be an equal partner in the dialogue, and as the group develops statements or white papers, these will be consensus driven. Any resolutions or recommendations will be reviewed and approved by the member associations. After agreeing to these working rules or strategies, the Collaborative then turned to specific initiatives that it wanted to pursue.
During the Collaborative's meetings it became clear that the stakeholders needed to learn more about each other and the scholarly communication process in order to more effectively work together. Members also realized that another common partner or stakeholder group was our authors, that is the faculty, students, and staff in academic institutions who write the papers edited and published by the other member associations.
Initially the group decided to educate others about the existence of the Collaborative. Therefore members of the group are attending conferences and holding information sessions to explain the group and ask for feedback, as well as answer questions. Sessions have been held at AAHSL and Medical Library Association meetings, as well as this session at the NASIG Annual Conference. The plan is to have similar sessions at other library and publishing conferences, such as the Charleston Conference.
Publishers and their societies are already trying to educate authors about the publishing process, including avoiding the pitfalls of scientific misconduct and plagiarism. Libraries are already working with the population that produces authors: faculty, students, and staff in academic institutions. The plan is to leverage both the content already developed by publishers and the library linkages to authors in order make this information and these educational programs more easily and widely available to the scholarly community.
It also became clear during the meetings that librarians, publishers, and editors need to learn more about each other's worlds. The Collaborative plans on creating educational modules, both online and in real-time for both groups. “Libraries 101” will focus on the issues facing libraries, as well as the broader institutional environment in which they operate so that publishers will better understand the pressures and realities libraries face. These sessions could be held at a variety of association and professional meetings, such as the ones held by Society for Scholarly Publishing. It is also possible to offer webinars for publishers via the Association of American Publishers outreach programs.
“Bio-Medical Publishing 101” will provide similar information for librarians. It will offer an overview of the publishing and editorial processes, as well as the pressures and challenges within the industry. Plans are already underway to hold a symposium at the Medical Library Association meeting, but shorter one- to two-hour presentations could be made available at other national, regional, and state meetings and, in fact, the Charleston Conference in November 2009 is a conference where a program may be offered.
The Collaborative is also exploring the other grand challenges in scholarly communication. The responsibility for preserving content has shifted from the library to the publisher and questions are arising about the role of national libraries and the development of distributed systems, as well as the fate of large paper storage facilities. The group is considering what exactly is being stored digitally, and how the digital content will migrate in the future as new operating systems and technologies immerge. The Collaborative will be inviting representatives from such initiatives as LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) and Portico to discuss these issues.
Another growing concern among academic institutions, as well as publishers and editors, is ensuring effective authorship of STM content. Conflict of interest, scientific misconduct, and plagiarism are all major issues for the scholarly community. The roles of the various stakeholders, including the peer-review process, need to be examined and understood.
What is the container for scholarly content? This is another key question. As we move even further into the digital environment, is it the journal, the single article, or the broader context of the publishing platform with related articles, editorials, and data sets? In addition, is it just the content or is it the entire experience? How does this impact how librarians and their users approach content and how we store it into the future?
Other issues being examined by the Collaborative are the branding of content from the perspective of libraries, publishers, and editors; the future of the journal; and what other scholarly communication formats might exist in 2025.
Ultimately the Collaborative hopes to generate position papers and statements on the issues within scholarly communication and to continue to have dialogues with experts and the broader scholarly community. It also wants to achieve a sustainable mechanism for conversations and actions among the library, publisher, and editorial communities beyond the traditional buyer–seller interchange. It hopes to maintain a trusted venue for examining and finding solutions or common ground on the larger opportunities and challenges within scholarly communication. The Collaborative members realize that they still do not have all the pieces of the puzzle at the table and are asking for feedback and questions about future directions and who is missing from the table.
After offering this complete description of the Collaborative, the speakers then asked for questions and comments from the audience. One participant asked if the role of libraries in scholarly publishing was being ignored. In fact the Collaborative wants to support libraries in educating faculty. They want to identify and develop educational materials and make them available. Additional comments included how helpful Web-based materials would be, including webinars, and how the creation of a clearinghouse would assist libraries in teaching authors about scholarly communication.
Another question was why this kind of group has not existed before, since the issues have been around for awhile. A member of the audience explained that NASIG did some work in this area a number of years ago and discussed educational programs. However, up to that point NASIG programs had focused on vendors and the paper-based world and then became overwhelmed with the various issues surrounding e-journals. After that there were some diverse activities that were pursued, but they were fractured and not sustained.
There are other groups which have tried to start dialogues, but many of them have centered on licensing and the buyer–seller negotiations. Some publishers have established advisory groups to seek input. The Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) has a librarian focus group and in February asked five to seven librarians from different settings to speak at their meeting. However, this meeting is limited to members only so only about sixty people attend. NASIG and SSP are trying to work together.
How to measure success was another topic of discussion. The issue is how to measure success when you are taking risks and the outcomes may not be as measurable as widgets. The Collaborative does need to consider how it will assess its outcomes, perhaps by groups reached and increased knowledge of authors, librarians, and publishers.
One suggestion was to include information schools in the Collaborative. It might be very helpful to include schools with publishing programs, such as the Stanford publishing course and the Columbia University program. Getting on the agenda of library schools would be another good opportunity; SSP could reach the schools through the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE). One of the speakers raised the question as to whether library-based publishers should be included as well. These programs would bring in fresh ideas and perspectives and help guide the Collaborative in areas which it might not expect.
Participants offered suggestions for other groups that should be included: administrators, the International Association on Publishing Ethics, NASIG, American Library Association, Medical Library Association, Special Libraries Association, American Statistical Society, and Royal Statistical Society.
Another comment was that societies may not understand open access, the concepts behind it, and how this mode of communication is bypassing internal, traditional structures. Progressive thinkers are pushing the envelope and the mechanisms for sharing information are exploding. The driving force is obtaining recognition for and visibility of one's work. If the traditional process does not add value, authors will be looking for other ways of communicating, instead of the tedious and lengthy review process. The entire communication paradigm of writer, editor, reviewer, and reader is changing. The urge to read will happen more and more outside the traditional structure and there will be more vetting in peer-to-peer networks of new ideas, approaches, and results. One concern is if this type of communication will be trusted. With an increasing interdisciplinary approach, readers will not be as comfortable outside their immediate area of study when determining what is good quality. Different layers of quality may exist for different disciplines. How will someone outside the discipline identify what layer of quality a work represents?
A related issue is the discussion about the use of a work without proper attribution, whether it be plagiarism or misrepresentation of someone else's work. Authors do not always anticipate all the ways their works might be used. There are also different cultural standards when dealing with plagiarism and misrepresentation.
Peer review was suggested as a possible research area for the Collaborative. There needs to be objective studies of the efficacy of peer review done in a dispassionate way. This should include looking at scholarly blogs and loose communities of scholars that review other works to determine whether this is the better way to go. There have been some studies of whether confidential peer review is the best approach. There should also be more creative ways of handling digital retractions and corrections when errors are identified.
A last suggestion was to establish a scholarly communication blog where others could share and contribute information, as well as where the Collaborative could share its work.