CAUL Library Publishing Advisory Committee (CLPAC)
Library Publishing Survey 2015
Author: Roxanne Missingham (The Australian National University)
NataliePearce (La Trobe University)
Date: 22 October 2015
CLPAC Survey Result Summary
A total of 19 participants completed the questionnaire online via Survey Monkey between August and September 2015. A majority of respondents identified themselves as a university librarian (26.3%). See Appendix A for a full list of participant’s role within their institution,Appendix B for full list of roles responsible for publishing in theparticipant’s institution andAppendix C for a list of participant’s institutions.
Executive Summary
Australian university presses have made a significant contribution to scholarly publishing over made decades. The emergence of online publishing had provided an environment where university libraries can both support new models of presses and new models of scholarly publishing within their institutions.
This study provided a benchmark for publishing activity within university libraries in Australia.
In terms of library publishing models the most commonly discussed model[1] is that where the library provides support for the institutional repository which makes openly available researchoutputssuch as journal articles, book chapters, conference papers and theses and the published material is formally published by traditional presses and publishers. The open access copies and either the author accepted manuscript or copies for which access rights have been acquired through paying article processing fees or some other mechanism.
The information obtained through this survey suggest that a significant number of university libraries, albeit still small in total numbers, actually support publishing through either their university press or producing journals that increase access to scholarly research. 43 journals and 67 books have been published by these libraries’ and presses so far in 2015, with the number of titles steadily increasing.
They publications have a wide variety of open access models, 66% are green open access, with 11% each Gold, Hybrid and Diamond.
There are over 2 million downloads from material published by libraries per annum – making a very significant contribution to the visibility and impact of Australian research.
The role of academics is vital. Active editorial boards, writers and peer reviewers are fundamental to the operation and the libraries and presses.
Major support roles include:
- Copyright assessment and licensing
- ISSN/ISBN
- DOI provision
- HTML provision
The resources devoted to this activity are small and have remained steady over the past three years. The operations represent a truly remarkable return on investment by universities.
Areas identified for further work include:
- Opportunities for sharing innovations
- Joint marketing
- Best practice guidance
- Considering working jointly on major issues such as curation and technology.
Feedback to the Advisory Committee
Participants were asked to provide any suggestions for CLPAC on issues they should be pursing or activities they should be organising. Participant’s responses included:
“Opportunities for sharing innovations, best practice and experiences in working with online publishing and online publishing platforms”
“I think there would be benefit in exploring if we can do any joint marketing to promote titles from all of the Australian university presses”
“Encouraging ongoing dialogue through regular forums, e.g. in the style of the CAVAL Reference Interest Group (CRIG) with an annual seminar/conference that encourages contribution and attendance by a wide range of library and higher education staff involved in publishing. Given the predominantly small-scale operations within libraries and university presses it would be interesting to learn more about examples of collaboration between institutions and also with commercial publishers”
“Best practice guidelines and/or modelling - Service development support - Business engagement support through use of CAUL affiliation”
“Research and advice into publishing software and tools; Provision of ebook publishing tools; Support for open etextbook development; support for SCOAP3 membership for Australian universities; Could we have a shared CAUL ejournal and ebook publishing platform?”
“Continue to develop case studies and guides for setting up and improving university library publishing”
Publishing Overview
Participants were asked to provide an overview of their institutions publishing. Only 47.4% of participants responded, Table 1 below displays their responses.
Table 1
Description, future plan, partnership and year publishing began for participant’s university
Participant / Mission/Description / Strategic/Future Plan for Publishing Venture / Partnership / Year Publishing Activities BeganParticipant A / To provide open access to [university] published journals and monographs / Develop and promote scholarly communications solutions by extending library hosting of university’s open access journals and monographs / Colleges within the university / 2014
Participant B / To be a leading scholarly publisher in Australia of books that advance knowledge and influence policy. To support the [university’s] brand as a research-intensive institution nationally and globally / Publish in selected series to develop a positive reputation in certain fields to support the mission. / We co-publish with a number of professional associations, e.g. ASHA, Royal Society of NSW, and also provide print/distribution services for other associations, e.g. ALARA, AIC, Power Pubs, Oriental Society of Australia / 2003
Participant C / To facilitate the dissemination of [university]published outputs / N/A / [University] Internal / 2006
Participant D / Neither the Library nor the University have had a publishing program for many years. We do have an Institutional repository / Investigate and recommend a service model to provide a university open access publishing service (OJS/OMS) / The two University Colleges / N/A
Participant E / Currently being defined. Please see response to strategic and future plans for publishing. / Requests from a range of [university] researchers regarding e-publishing has led the Library to trial Open Journal System (OJS) an open access publishing platform. In 2014 we created openjournals@[email], and currently host 6 journals, 4 of which are active titles managed by [university]academics. Given the evolving scholarly communications environment and new approaches by upcoming researchers, there is future value in the University supporting the development and expansion of openjournals@[email], and the Library developing a range of targeted services to support University e-publishing. The Library is developing a client e-publishing survey to better understand emerging and future University interest and requirements for e-publishing. It is anticipated that the survey will be disseminated to [university] staff and HDR students in September. In addition the Library recently launched its own new publication, discourse: [university] Library research and practice. discourse is intended to showcase Library expertise and depth of knowledge in, and across, a range of professional practice and research areas. We anticipate continuous publication with new issues released in 2015 and into the future. / The Library seeks partnerships with University Faculties and research groups to publish openly accessible publications, and to share information about best practice, policies and guidelines required to successfully publish in the open access environment. / 2013
Participant F / [University] Press is no longer active. / BUP produced its last title in 2014 / 2003-2005 then 2008-2014
Participant G / To publish ANU Scholarly works through a vigorous peer-review process and have the works freely available to the world (Open Access Publisher) / ANU Press to be recognised as one of the top international publishers. / We have a number of partnerships, these vary, we have partnerships with internal areas across campus, we have co-publication agreements with international publishers, we have distribution agreements such as JSTOR, Thomas Reuters etc / 2003
Participant H / We have no publishing program
Participant I / [University]ePress facilitates the publication of peer-reviewed research and scholarship. ePress is a Recognised Acceptable Commercial Publisher for the purposes of the Higher Education Research Data Collection Scheme (HERDC) and Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) research assessment exercises, respectively. The rationale for establishing the ePress service was to facilitate an increase in the amount of claimable peer-reviewed journal articles (C1s) by [University] academics in the above mentioned research assessment exercises. / Under review as part of the recent restructure and evolving University goals. / 2007
Participant J / To provide an open access journal publishing service for academic staff and students / Develop open journal, open book, and open conference site for staff / None currently established, but relationships being explored with other local organisation / 2012
CLPAC Library Publishing Survey 2015 / 1
Participants were asked which of the following services were funded through funds allocated to the library. Table 2 below displays the percentage of participants which indicated that the services were funded through the library.
Table 2
Percentage of participants which indicated that the services were funded through funds allocated to the library
Services / %(n)Cover design/artwork / 9.1% (1)
Copy editing / 0% (0)
Third party copyright fees / 9.1% (1)
Author costs / 0% (0)
Peer Review / 0% (0)
Copies for review / 9/1% (1)
Copies for author / 9.1% (1)
Antiplagiarism software (e.g. iThenticate) / 9.1% (1)
Marketing / 9.1% (1)
Typesetting/Book design / 9.1% (1)
ISSN/ISBN / 54.5% (6)
DOI provision / 45.5% (5)
HTML provision / 27.3% (3)
Copyright assessment and licensing / 54.4% (6)
Diagram 1. Support services provided
As can be seen in Table 2 above, over half of the participants surveyed indicated that ISSN/ISBN were funded through funds allocated to the library, and copyright assessment and licensing.
Table 3 shows the number of FTEs library publishing staff are employed.
Table 3
Percentage of publishing staff employed from 2013 to 2015
Year / Number of staff employed / %(n)2013 / 0 / 70% (7)
1 / 10% (1)
2 / 10% (1)
5 / 10% (1)
2014 / 0 / 70% (7)
1 / 10% (1)
2 / 10% (1)
5 / 10% (1)
2015 / 0 / 63.6% (7)
1 / 18.2% (2)
2 / 0% (0)
5 / 18.2% (2)
As can be seen above in Table 3 the percentage of library publishing staff employed remained the same in 2013 and 2014, with the percentage of staff employed increasing in 2015. Participants were asked to estimate the salaries budget for library publishing, see Table 4 below.
Table 4
Percentage of salaries budget for library publishing from 2013 to 2015
Year / Budget (AUD or NZD) / %(n)2013 / 0 / 70% (7)
40000 / 10% (1)
182500 / 10% (1)
463778 / 10% (1)
2014 / 0 / 60% (6)
9500 / 10% (1)
16000 / 10% (1)
187800 / 10% (1)
474644 / 10% (1)
2015 / 0 / 54.5% (6)
9500 / 9.1% (1)
80000 / 9.1% (1)
166000 / 9.1% (1)
413110 / 9.1% (1)
483535 / 9.1% (1)
Table 4 above illustrates that most university salaries budget for library publishing is $0, however the percentage has slightly decreased from 2013 to 2015.The major growth in costs, noting this was slight growth, is likely to be the increasing cost of staff salaries because of enterprise agreements.
Participants were asked to report the revenue from their university – See Table 5
Table 5
Percentage of revenue from university
Year / Revenue (AUD or NZD) / %(n)2013 / 0 / 90% (9)
423787 / 10% (1)
2014 / 0 / 90% (9)
472000 / 10% (1)
2015 / 0 / 90.9% (10)
525000 / 9.1% (1)
As can be seen in Table 5 the percentage of revenue from university has mostly remained unchanged. This provides information of a consistent commitment for this group of participations from their university to scholarly publishing and communication.
Participants were asked to report the income from sales – see Table 6
Table 6
Percentage of income from sales from 2013 to 2015
Year / Income from Sales (AUD or NZD) / %(n)2013 / 0 / 80% (8)
75214 / 10% (1)
310000 / 10% (1)
2014 / 0 / 80% (8)
81069 / 10% (1)
222381 / 10% (1)
2015 / 0 / 81.8% (9)
46921 / 9.1% (1)
225000 / 9.1% (1)
As can be seen in Table 6 a majority of participants reported $0 income from sales, which has mostly remained unchanged from 2013 to 2015. For those who are responsible for publishing the revenue pattern, noting that 2015 is only partially complete did not demonstrate any major changes over the last three years.
Participants were asked to report income from other sources (e.g. grants) - See Table 7 below.
Table 7
Percentage of income from other sources from 2013 to 2015
Year / Other Revenue e.g. grants (AUD or NZD) / %(n)2013 / 0 / 100% (10)
2014 / 0 / 100% (10)
2015 / 0 / 100% (11)
All participants reported $0 income from other sources, such as from grants, from 2013 to 2015.Table 8 below shows the percentage of total library expenditure.
Table 8
Percentage of total library expenditure from 2013 to 2015
Year / Total Library Expenditure / %(n)2013 / 0 / 81.8% (9)
182500 / 9.1% (1)
23893785 / 9.1% (1)
2014 / 0 / 72.7% (8)
6800 / 9.1% (1)
187800 / 9.1% (1)
22187780 / 9.1% (1)
2015 / 0 / 72.7% (8)
11400 / 9.1% (1)
413110 / 9.1% (1)
22560726 / 9.1% (1)
A majority of participants reported $0 total library expenditure from 2013 to 2015.
Publishing Activities
Peer Review
Participants were asked about the peer review process. Table 9 below shows the percentage of participants who indicated that all publications are peer reviewed and the percentage if participants who use the double blind process.
Table 9
Percentage of participants who agreed with the following statements
% (n)“Are all publications peer reviewed?” / 70% (7)
“Is a double blind process used?” / 60% (6)
Over half the participants indicated that all publications are peer reviewed and that a double blind process is used. Participants were asked to report the number of titles primarily published for undergraduate student research, see Table 10.
Table 10
Journal titles published each year
Year / Number of titles published / %(n)2013 / 0 / 50% (5)
1 / 20% (2)
2 / 10% (1)
3 / 10% (1)
2014 / 0 / 30% (3)
1 / 60% (6)
2 / 0% (0)
3 / 10% (1)
2015 / 0 / 30% (3)
1 / 60% (6)
2 / 0% (0)
3 / 10% (1)
As can be seen in Table 10 the percentage of titles published from 2013 to 2014 has increased slightly and then remained the same from 2014 to 2015. The disciplines/specialty reported by participants ranged from arts/creative arts, education, humanities and social sciences, landscape architecture, environmental management, musicology and psychology. Participants were given the opportunities to provide additional comments about journals that primarily publish undergraduate student research which included: publishing open access journals only in early stages of development, not necessarily student research and ceased in 2010.
Technical aspect
Participants were asked to report the types of publishing platforms/software used, see Table 11 below.
Table 11
Percentage of publishing platforms/software used
Publishing platforms/software / % (n)Bepress – Digital commons (with journal templates) / 20% (2)
In house publishing platform / 10% (1)
IGP Digital Publisher Portal / 10% (1)
OJS / 60% (6)
Over half the participants reported using OJSsoftware for publishing. Participants were asked about their university’s digital preservation strategy. Participants provided the following comments:
“CLOCKSS has permission to ingest, preserve the titles. No digital preservation strategy”
“Archival formats from DPP, and PDFs in Uni repository”
“Digital preservation managed by Bepress for [university] Library”
“Expecting to become participants in the PKP Private LOCKSS network, once we’ve upgraded to the next version of OJS. We are also considering Portico publisher membership”.
“Archival”
“Pandora, digital repositories”
“Pandora”
“Under development”
Two participants reported not having a digital preservation strategy. Additional services identified included: Personal Researcher Pages, Online editorial option, CrossRef, CrossCheck, JATS, University repository for research articles and OJS. Lastly participants were asked to report standards – see Table 12
Table 12
Percentage of participants who reported using the following standards
Standards / % (n)DOAJ / 50% (4)
COPE / 25% (2)
Not Applicable / 25% (2)
Table 12 above shows that half the participants reported using DOAJ, followed by COPE.
Scholarly peer-reviewed journals
Participants were asked to report on scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Table 13 below shows the number of titles published in scholarly peer-reviewed journal each year.
Table 13
Percentage of scholarly peer-reviewed journal titles published from 2013 to 2015.
Year / Number of titles published / %(n)2013 / 0 / 22.2% (2)
1 / 22.2% (2)
2 / 11.1% (1)
3 / 0% (0)
4 / 0% (0)
5 / 11.1% (1)
6 / 0% (0)
7 / 11.1% (1)
8 / 0% (0)
9 / 11.1% (1)
10 / 0% (0)
11 / 0% (0)
12 / 11.1% (1)
2014 / 0 / 10% (1)
1 / 10% (1)
2 / 30% (3)
3 / 0% (0)
4 / 10% (1)
5 / 0% (0)
6 / 10% (1)
7 / 20% (2)
8 / 0% (0)
9 / 10% (1)
10 / 0% (0)
11 / 0%(0)
12 / 0% (0)
2015 / 0 / 11.1% (1)
1 / 11.1% (1)
2 / 22.2% (2)
3 / 0% (0)
4 / 0% (0)
5 / 11.1% (1)
6 / 0% (0)
7 / 33.3% (3)
8 / 0%(0)
9 / 0%(0)
10 / 0%(0)
11 / 0% (0)
12 / 11.1% (1)
As can be seen in Table 13, the percentage of scholarly peer-reviewed titled published from 2013 to 2015 has largely remained unchanged. For a full breakdown of disciplines, please see Appendix D. Other comments included:
“2015: Business 1, Sustainable development nil”
“The above 2 journals use double blind peer review [Law: Business Systems, Governance & Ethics. Law: Law & Justice]”
“We are the host but not the publisher for these journals”
Monographs/books
Participants were asked to report on scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Table 14 below shows the number of monographs/book title published.
Table 14
Percentage of monographs/book titles published form 2013 to 2015.
Year / Number of titles published / %(n)2013 / 0 / 80% (8)
21 / 10% (1)
55 / 10% (1)
2014 / 0 / 70% (7)
1 / 10% (1)
18 / 10% (1)
58 / 10% (1)
2015 / 0 / 66.7% (6)
1 / 11.1% (1)
11 / 11.1% (1)
55 / 11.1% (1)
As can be seen in Table 14, the number of participants publishing 0 titles from 2013 to 2015 has decreased slightly. Two participants reported the total number of monograph/book titles ranging from 11 to 21 and 55 to 58 from 2013 to 2015.Additionally, one participant commented that their university is”exploring a couple of different monograph options for 2016, including a joint publication with an overseas partner university”. The disciplines/specialty reported by participants include: Australian history, Australian literature, Australian archaeology, copyright law, indigenous music, animal studies, public and social policy, drama education, art theory law, science, humanities, arts, pacific, Asian studies, environment visual arts and local history. Other comments provided by participants included:
“We are developing books in series, with occasional books outside the main 6 areas”
“Will digitise and republish archival publications”
Conference papers and proceedings
Participants were asked to report on conference papers and proceeding. Table 15 below shows the number of conference papers and proceedings title published.
Table 15
Percentage of conference papers and proceeding titles published from 2013 to 2015.
Year / Number of titles published / %(n)2013 / 0 / 70% (7)
1 / 10% (1)
10 / 10% (1)
50 / 10% (1)
2014 / 0 / 66.7% (6)
1 / 11.1% (1)
10 / 11.1% (1)
68 / 11.1% (1)
2015 / 0 / 66.7% (6)
1 / 22.2% (2)
10 / 11.1% (1)
Table 15 shows that over half the participants reported publishing 0 conference papers or proceeding from 2013 to 2015.The following disciplines were reported: East Asian security, engineering, commerce, law: corporate governance and law conference and multiple disciplines. Other comments included, “We are concentrating on high quality books, so are reducing our activities in other areas”.
Other
Participants were asked to provide details for ‘other’ published titles – please see Table 16 below.
Table 16
Percentage of ‘other’ titles published from 2013 to 2015.
Year / Number of titles published / %(n)2013 / 0 / 75% (6)
1 / 0% (0)
2 / 12.5% (1)
3 / 12.5% (1)
4 / 0%(0)
5 / 0% (0)
2014 / 0 / 75% (6)
1 / 0%(0)
2 / 0% (0)
3 / 12.5%(1)
4 / 0% (0)
5 / 12.5% (1)
2015 / 0 / 62.5% (5)
1 / 25% (2)
2 / 0% (0)
3 / 12.5% (1)
4 / 0% (0)
5 / 0% (0)
Table 16 above illustrated that a majority of participants publish 0 ‘other’ titles. The following disciplines were reported: Library and information science, creative writing, university histories, family history, humanities and local history. Other comments from participants included:
“‘Discourse: University Library research and practice’ an open access scholarly but not peer-reviewed publication”
“Digital publishing of the local Historical Society Bulletin”
“We are reducing activities in these areas to focus on scholarly works - mothballing the Darlington Press imprint for the time being”
Open Access
A majority (80%) of participants reported that all publications are open access. Those participants who indicated that publications were not open access, reported that 25% of publication were open access. Participants were asked to describe the open access model, see Table 17 below.
Table 17
Percentage breakdown of open access model
Open access model / % (n)Green / 66.7% (6)
Gold / 11.1% (1)
Hybrid / 11.1% (1)
Diamond / 11.1% (1)
As can be seen in Table 17, most participants reported using green open access model.