Amazed by the global reach. Thanks for your interest in Omega Alpha | Open Access!

I have been writing Omega Alpha | Open Access for 7 months now, starting at the end of November 2011. On February 25, 2012, WordPress.com launched an enhancement to blog statistics called “Views by Country.” This feature displays both a country listing (with country flag) and a map showing the views distribution for a given time period. Because it is today exactly four months since this feature was launched, I thought it would be interesting to take a cumulative look at my stats using this view. (This feature is unable to retrieve statistics prior to February 25.)

It is fascinating and actually a little amazing to see how far and wide (if not yet deep) my blog has been accessed in just four months time. Although I have had only about 5,000 views in this period (I have had just over 6,500 views over the life of the blog), I count 92 countries where at least one view has been logged! Of this total, 45 countries have had 10 or more views logged.

Wow! This is pretty remarkable. I want to thank you for your interest in Omega Alpha | Open Access. I hope you are finding the stories informative and encouraging toward the promotion of open access publishing in Religion and Theology. I welcome your comments.

New Theology Review goes open access with the library as publisher

Melody Layton McMahon is director of the Paul Bechtold Library at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Illinois. She is also Critical Reviews Editor for the open access journal Theological Librarianship—a publication of the American Theological Library Association. Earlier in May, Ms. McMahon posted this announcement (excerpt) to the ATLANTIS email listserv:

The Paul Bechtold Library of Catholic Theological Union is now going to be the publisher of New Theology Review. New Theology Review was published by Liturgical Press as a publication of both Washington Theological Union (WTU) and Catholic Theological Union (CTU), but now the Paul Bechtold Library will be publishing it as an online, open access journal. (Some of you may be subscribers to the past print version; you will be receiving a letter soon that details plans.) I am very happy to be able to act on what I have been preaching for a number of years now, and I have convinced our administration that by being open access we can spread the Word around the world, particularly in the many areas where our students and alums live and work.

I was interested to follow-up with Ms. McMahon, not only to get the story about this former subscription journal moving to open access, but also to hear more about her library assuming the role of journal publisher. McMahon is co-editor (appointed just March 8 of this year) of New Theology Review, and as library director she will also be its publisher.

The conversion to open access

Omega Alpha: Between the time of your announcement on the listserv and my actual preparation for the story Liturgical Press took down all content from the journal’s website. I wasn’t able to get any background information on New Theology Review. A page on Catholic Theological Union’s website, however, does include this blurb regarding the mission, scope, and intended audience of the journal:

New Theology Review is a peer-reviewed and current Catholic journal for ministry. It offers resources that address contemporary trends in theology and pastoral practice. It publishes essays, invited columns, and book reviews designed for clergy, religious, and laity.

The page also mentions that the final print issue was published in November 2011, and that it will begin publishing again in an online only, open access format in September 2012 by the library, under the auspices of Catholic Theological Union. This is an exciting development. What else can you tell me by way of background?

McMahon: New Theology Review has been published for 24 years. It started in 1988 as a joint publication of Catholic Theological Union and Washington Theological Union, published by Michael Glazier (which was later taken over by Liturgical Press). The journal was published quarterly. I cannot confirm the accuracy of this information, but I found something that said in 2010 NTR had 820 subscribers. We also offered it as a perk to members of the alumni organization. I do know subscription fees were only paying for the publication of the journal in print form, however, and not really earning any profits.

In speaking with the previous editor the other day, I learned that Liturgical Press had indicated to Catholic Theological Union already five years ago they wanted to stop publishing NTR. I was not involved when that decision was made, but I know they have also divested from a couple of other journals, including Liturgical Ministry.

It seems like it was a long, protracted period of negotiation and discussion about what to do. WTU was still involved for part of this time. (Regrettably, WTU is now in the processes of closing its doors. I believe that in leading up to this they decided to back away from the relationship with CTU regarding New Theology Review.) There was a discussion with Taylor & Francis. Fortunately, our editors came to the realization that T&F would jack up the price, and they did not want that. The editors suggested a guy who would create the journal on a website, and require subscriptions which he would also manage. All sorts of options were discussed. But very early-on faculty were queried, and as a unit we decided we wanted to continue, transforming into an online, peer-reviewed journal—though at that point not yet open access.

Omega Alpha: So how did the decision to shift away from the subscription model to a library published open access model come about? What was the catalyst?

McMahon: Me! I’m sure my faculty and administration get tired of hearing me talk about open access, but whenever there was a discussion of NTR at faculty meetings I made a point of standing to say we should consider it. At the time, it was thought we would not be able to live without the subscription fees. But I was fairly sure we could. I had also been invited to give a faculty seminar on publishing, and of course, I discussed open access. I think my faculty find my point of view persuasive, though some of them still have other concerns that cause them to choose not to go open access when they publish articles they have written.

Omega Alpha: Concerns such as?

McMahon: Like other faculties, a few are still of the opinion that the jury is out about whether or not online journals are as scholarly or prestigious as print journals. I think my frank discussions with the faculty as a group and individually has turned around this opinion with most. A larger concern is that some still have ties to for-profit publishers or to journals that are published by for-profit publishers. I hope this will change as time goes by. I think they are persuaded by the notion that open access is more consistent with our ‘mission’ to get our word, the Word, out there. 

Omega Alpha: These are commonly expressed concerns. Who was finally involved in the decision to go open access?

McMahon: Old and new editorial teams, and the executive council which includes the president, dean, and VP for finance. We met and talked about the realities of dealing with subscriptions, and I piped up to say that we could just do away with all that hassle!

Omega Alpha: Getting support from both faculty and administration is essential. Was it also at this point that the decision was made to have the library assume the role as publisher?

McMahon: Yes, I had read the article “Library as Journal Publishers” and combined with my experience with Theological Librarianship was convinced that the library could take this on. I piped up again and suggested this, and it proved acceptable to everyone. (Maybe they were just relieved!) This meeting was held in April of this year. We will have a live journal website any day now, and our first issue out in September.

The Library as journal publisher

Omega Alpha: Wow! That’s fast work. So tell me more about the library at Catholic Theological Union and yourself as library director assuming the role of publisher, and co-editor of New Theology Review.

McMahon: My role as a co-editor is as a faculty member and includes the editorial functions of receiving manuscripts, doing a first editorial review, sending to peer-reviewers, moving through the system to publication.

My publisher role includes applying for online ISSNs, setting up the Open Journal Systems (OJS) site (the journal platform we decided to use), making sure all the editorial staff understand how to use OJS, making sure that the server is there for the publication, and preservation of the journal. This is the side that I am figuring out as I go. I feel comfortable because of my prior knowledge of open access publishing with OJS in my editorial role at Theological Librarianship. I am convinced we can handle it.

As I said earlier, I read a recent article about libraries as journal publishers, and that was all the justification I needed. There is a continuum chart in the article ranging from “Barebones” to “Premier” which had a huge impact. It made me realize that one could offer a package that was doable somewhere in the middle of the continuum that would result in a very professional looking journal we could be proud of. It broke down the levels of service into manageable parts. What especially inspired me was the article authors saying “e-publishing activities are now among core services for libraries.” I could see how my library could be among these forward-looking libraries. I try to be a leader for open access, and I need to make my actions speak louder than words. My administration and faculty expect us to be on the cutting edge when it is fruitful.

I think that over the years I have achieved a familiarity with OJS that made me think with help I could do this. I have a great IT and marketing guy, Chris Meyer, who is helping with the technical things I don’t understand. (Let’s just say I understand the front of the platform, not so much the back-end.) I have also been able to call on folks at ATLA because of my work with TL, to answer my questions and assist me in designing our “look.”

As publisher I’ll obviously be putting more time into this than I have as Critical Reviews Editor at TL. Just let me say that I am really trying to discern how my publisher role is different, separate from my co-editor role. I do not want to get them mixed. I’m thinking it could be possible for the library to take on publication of another one or two journals that need help going online. So I want to define the roles I am playing here fairly clearly. Eventually I’ll rotate off as an editor, but continue in the role of publisher.

Omega Alpha: Who else is on your editorial team?

McMahon: My faculty colleagues, Antonio Sison, C.PP.S. and Dawn Nothwehr, O.F.M. Our colleague vanThanh Nguyen, S.V.D. will edit book reviews.

We are also in the process of putting together our advisory board. We already have agreements with 8 of the 10 we have asked. As we expect to have a global audience, we have selected people from all parts of the world. It’s very exciting to hear that these people want to be part of this venture!

Omega Alpha: Can you say anything about how this effort is being funded, and how much you anticipate it costing?

McMahon: CTU is budgeting about $5,000. I anticipate that this will cover ongoing needs. The library purchased a new server for the OJS platform. We are also going to use the server for our digital archives projects. So it is coming out of general library budget and archive budget lines. The NTR budget includes lines for small stipends for the co-editors, to pay a graphic designer to come up with logo and items needed to make the journal look professional, marketing, and for a professional proofreader.

I’m fortunate to have an in-house marketing whiz, Nancy Nickel, who recently joined CTU, and Sara Corkery, formerly at ATLA, who has done a fabulous job working on our graphics.

Looking toward the 25th Anniversary/first online open access issue launch

Omega Alpha: The website blurb indicated that the first online-only open access issue will be coming out in September. Will you be continuing the volume count where it left off, or starting a “new series” with Volume 1, Issue 1?

McMahon: We are just going on with this as the 25th volume.

Omega Alpha: What is the planned format (e.g., editorial content, articles, reviews, etc.)?

McMahon: The journal will have peer-reviewed articles, a couple of book reviews, and four columns (Word and Worship, one on Catechetics, one on current topics of interest in theology or pastoral ministry called Theology of the Cutting Edge, and one on world events and socio-cultural trends with a pastoral ministry slant called Signs of the Times).

When the journal first started it was decided that each volume would have a theme. There was a call for papers on the theme, and also people were invited to write on that theme. Now we will not necessarily have a theme, but we might occasionally. For example, we hope to have a Vatican II theme for our second issue. Our first issue will publish some recent papers given at The Lay Centre in Rome, an organization with whom we have recently formed an alliance. This decision was made prior to the new editorial board being formed, but we are quite happy with the contents.

Omega Alpha: How many issues a year will you be publishing?

McMahon: Two for now.

Omega Alpha: Do you have access to all the back issues of New Theology Review to digitize for inclusion in your OJS web archive?

McMahon: Yes, we have them, and once we get up and running it will be a task to import them into the OJS platform and make them available as well. We are hoping subscribers will consent to donating the remainder of the amount they are owed from subscriptions to help us with the project of making past issues available on the site.

Omega Alpha: I am pleased that you will have access to back issues for a digital archive. How deep are you going with metadata (TOCs, tagged articles, full-text searching)?

McMahon: I have given this no thought yet, other than feeling quite sure we will be able to put each article pdf in OJS, and create the same digital issues that the print issues were. This just has to wait until we have the first issue published.

Incidentally, the journal website is not yet live, so I don’t have a URL to share as yet. I think you will like our new look! I will let you know when it’s ready so you can add a link to NTR on your journal directory page.

Omega Alpha: Thanks. Will New Theology Review continue to be indexed in ATLA’s Catholic Periodical and Literature Index (CPLI), and will you be working to get indexing into Google Scholar and other search engines?

McMahon: I sure hope so! I will do everything I can to optimize searchability and discoverability. The OJS platform offers some help with this.

We will also have a Facebook page. Theological Librarianship has found that a valuable way to get readership.

Omega Alpha: Do you have any events or celebrations planned to mark the 25th Anniversary of New Theology Review?

McMahon: Wow! What a great idea. Thanks!

Omega Alpha: Do you have any final thoughts?

McMahon: I say this quite often, but I feel it is of tremendous import that theological publications think about their mission. Is it to make a profit on subscription fees, or is it to get their word, THE Word, out to the folks who need and want to hear it? I am obviously pro-open access for journals in all disciplines. But it seems to me that Christian journals have an even stronger reason for going open access. The open access community is very willing to help. I would love to see more journals, especially those published by churches and seminaries think through these issues. I know at Theological Librarianship we have been so surprised by our global readership. At CTU, we have students from about 35 countries, and our alums are working in about 65 countries. It is vital to get information to them and their colleagues. Finally, I am quite willing and happy to answer questions if folks are thinking about taking on a project like this! You can contact me at mmcmahon @ ctu.edu.

Omega Alpha: Thank you so much for sharing this story. Blessings and best of luck to you, and to New Theology Review as it begins its new life in open access.

From my old school files, Part 2: Excerpts from that research paper on the development of the scholarly journal

I have a few very interesting stories brewing regarding a couple of theological journals that have converted from subscription-based to open access (the library will become the publisher for one, and the other is based at an institution that, along with its library, strongly supports and promotes open access), and a society journal which is not open access per se (although they provide a web archive of freely available back issues) but recently reversed a decision to go with a commercial publisher.

I hope to have my research for these stories completed before too long. I have to confess, however, that since the end of the school year (despite the fact that I work throughout the summer) I’ve been feeling pretty lazy about writing. I know. That’s not good. Bloggers need to keep a forward momentum going so their readers will stay engaged.

So, if only to let you know that I’m still alive, I’m following-up with the plan I suggested in a recent post to excerpt relevant bits from the semester paper I wrote for my Foundations of Library and Information Science course back in May 2004. The paper is entitled The Scholarly Journal: Long Tradition Behind the Coming Change. I uploaded the entire paper here (PDF 141KB).

As I mentioned in my previous post, the paper ended-up veering away from the topic of open access, though it deals with many of the issues that have been pertinent to the developing logic of open access in scholarly communication, including the currently unsustainable economic model, peer review, and intellectual property.

Budget Crunch at the Academic Library

It turns out that the issue of economic sustainability surfaced in a very real way at University of Arizona while I was researching for this paper. I led off in this way:

The news was right on the front page of Arizona Daily Wildcat (April 9, 2004): “Library cuts new books from budget.” The article reported that beginning October 2004, the University of Arizona library will implement an across the board cut of 16 percent over the next two years to book orders and journal subscriptions. The cuts were described as “a move to combat inflation [of about 9 to 10 percent per year] and a lack of additional funding.” Currently, UA library’s budget is about $9 million. Unless the cuts are implemented, librarians fear they will be facing a $1.3 million deficit by 2006. The planned cuts include 7,000 new books, 3,000 journals and $250,000 for electronic indexes. One faculty member who was interviewed for the article insisted the cuts “will be detrimental to the research and teaching mission of the university.” Students interviewed seemed to concur. “A library is a key component of the university. Cutting back is a huge mistake if you want to keep the university’s standards up.” Meanwhile, University President, Peter Likins was reported as appreciating the dilemma of trying to fully support valued assets such as the library in economically tough times. “In recent years, everybody gets cut. It’s more a question of who gets cut less. This university has treated libraries and library materials as very high priorities.”

I found it especially interesting and not a little ironic that commercial publishers, who first hit on the idea of selling journal subscriptions directly to institutions in the years following World War II, thus creating a guaranteed revenue stream from a “captive readership,” were initially resistant to the idea of getting into journal publishing because they didn’t see any profit in it!

After elaborating a bit more on the historical and economic circumstances that precipitated this most recent “serials crisis” (famously enshrined in the “Monograph and Serial Costs in ARL Libraries, 1986-2002″ graph on page 10 of ARL Statistics 2001-02 published by the Association of Research Libraries), I turned to the development of the scholarly journal as a conduit for research communication. The transition was captured in this excerpt and associated footnote, which anticipates key issues in the current conversation around open access—scholars taking ownership of their own intellectual property and having alternative avenues for scholarly communication (the notion that scholar-publishers could utilize the Internet to disseminate their research just like commercial publishers was really just starting to gain momentum in 2004, and print was still dominant), while continuing to assure quality of research through peer review:

There would be no journals to publish, or subscribe to, if there were no scholars and scientists conducting research, and desiring to report their findings to colleagues and contribute to the general store of human knowledge. Budget cuts also punish these primary producers of research. Every journal subscription that is cancelled potentially impacts communication and access between research producers and interested users. But the current journal system impacts communication and access in other ways, too. If there is a “captive readership” it would not be surprising to discover there are also captive researchers, and that commercial publishers are in the thick of it.

There are historical and practical reasons why the journal commands such a central place in the process of scholarly communication, and (ironically) why it became subject to commercial publisher exploitation. The present paper will look at some of these reasons as a preface to understanding the “serials crisis.”* Beyond this, the paper will very briefly introduce awareness of the rapid rise of electronic delivery that may be challenging the dominance of the print journal as the principal conduit of scholarly communication.
__________

* Publisher bashing is fun, and in some circumstances even justified. But I do not really want to belabor the “serials crisis” debate. As I quickly discovered, more than enough bandwidth has been dedicated to it. My introductory comments are (probably more than) sufficient. Rather, what surfaced for me as I began my research on the ways the crisis is being addressed, was coming to an understanding of the long tradition embodied in the journal as the principal and enduring artifact of scholarly communication, and insight into the process of peer-review that is typically conducted through the journal. If only for my own benefit, this is where I decided to put my energies.

“Scholarly” vs. “Scientific”

The paper focused on the particular relevance of journal literature in the sciences. But I was really interested in understanding the development and function of the journal in scholarly communication generally. I consciously chose to use the term “scholarly” instead of “scientific” because of my humanities orientation. I wrote about this in a footnote:

I am persisting in using the term “scholarly” in speaking about journals and communication, even though much of the literature I consulted was oriented toward the “scientific.” I will generalize from this direction, being aware that my own orientation is in the humanities. Naturally, Meadows (1974) grants that “scholarship” exists “outside the sciences.” However, for him the “essential difference is that scientists consider their knowledge to be ultimately objective.…[H]istorians can…write on topics that have been dealt with many times before; yet their work will be counted original—even if it uses exactly the same data—so long as they present their own interpretation. But two scientists who use the same data and work within the same theoretical framework should arrive at virtually identical results” (pp. 35-36). Similarly for Mary Jo Lynch (1984), “scientific research” is oriented toward discovering “new knowledge” with “data collected from nature” utilizing the scientific method. She defines “scholarly research” as “typically done by humanists [and] often based on [finding and analyzing] previous published work [i.e., existing knowledge] related to the matter at hand.” But she adds that in scholarly research, like scientific research, “data are collected and organized in an objective way and analyzed according to systematic principles.” The scholar’s research also “involves disciplined inquiry which enables the scholar to make an original contribution to the knowledge base of a field” (pp. 368-369).
__________

Lynch, M. (1984). Research and librarianship: An uneasy connection. Library Trends, 32, 367-383.

Meadows, A. J. (1974). Communication in science. London: Butterworths.

I highlighted why scientists came to prefer the article over the book, and (in a footnote) why humanists still prefer the book:

The scientific book also had long tradition of use, but its principle weaknesses were that it was too slow and too expensive, for both author and would-be readers. The format was also unwieldy for reporting on a single observation or experiment. Kronick (1976) makes the point that the “new philosophy” (à la Bacon) marks a “change in emphasis from constructing comprehensive world-views and all-embracing philosophical edifices, to an emphasis on collecting the results of observations and experiments.…The single observation or experiment has a unity in itself and the publications in which it results are likely to be short.…[T]he book…is not efficient for presenting the results of experiments or observations, because the author has to wait until he has accumulated a sufficient number of them to justify the publication of a book.” (p. 45)*
__________

Kronick, D. A. (1976). A history of scientific & technical periodicals: The origins and developments of the scientific and technical press, 1665-1790 (2nd ed.). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
__________

* As an aside, but related to the larger topic, humanist scholars are more apt to continue, as it were, “constructing comprehensive world-views” in their research reporting. Consequently, they would be making ready use of the monograph to communicate their findings. Though I haven’t seen the breakdown, there is a good chance that the University of Arizona library’s decision to cut 7,000 books from its 2004-2006 budget will, on balance, hurt humanities scholars more than scientists.

Although the monograph continues to be the gold standard for judging humanities scholarship (Can you demonstrate an ability to construct “a comprehensive worldview” or an “all-embracing philosophical edifice”?), I believe the journal article or essay is increasingly gaining a respectable place. This may be due to a combination of factors, including economic (the expense of publishing a low volume specialized study in book form), social (the desire even among humanist scholars to speed communication to solicit feedback from colleagues; reduced time and capacity of colleagues to spend digesting voluminous works), and cultural (less confidence in comprehensive systems). And even where a comprehensive (or at least, expansive) treatment is desired, there may be greater openness (by tenure and promotion committees?) to have scholars dole it out piece-meal in more easily digested article-sized chunks.

The Purpose of the Scholarly Journal and Peer Review

My research introduced me to a fascinating study by Nancy Fjällbrant (1997) entitled Scholarly communication: Historical development and new possibilities. Fjällbrant argues that the scholarly journal became a “closed artifact” because it provided the best overall solution to the needs of scholarly communication.

Fjällbrant alludes to four important aspects of academic writing: ownership of an idea, societal recognition for the author, claiming priority for a discovery, and establishing an accredited community of authors and readers (Scholarly communication section, ¶ 1). She continues: “Authors are concerned with the ‘reach’ and diffusion of their ideas and findings. Their success and/or influence depends on the extent of the spread and recognition of their texts.”

I have already referred to informal communication among scholars (e.g., “invisible colleges”). But formal means of communication have traditionally taken print form. The advantages of formal communication are listed by Fjällbrant:

1. information can be spread to a widely scattered group of readers;

2. detailed information, such as descriptions of methods, tables, diagrams, results etc. can easily be given;

3. printed documents contain information which can be critically examined and verified;

4. the documents can easily be referred to as and when required;

5. published documents provide a means for establishing “priority” of academic work, and thereby contribute to establishing academic merit for the author(s). (Scholarly communication section, ¶ 4)

According to Fjällbrant, the printed scholarly journal was better able to deliver the majority of these advantages to the majority of the stakeholder groups than any of the alternatives. Consequently, it became dominant and forced “closure.” This has been true for roughly three hundred years. Fjällbrant goes on to wonder whether new forms of electronically published and network disseminated scholarly communication will force a reopening of this traditionally dominant artifact.

Regarding the early development of peer review:

Addressing advantages #3 (verifying the quality of research) and #5 (establishing priority of discovery) above led to a parallel development of refereeing, or peer review. It was the learned societies that first pushed scientists from secrecy into the public by providing mechanisms to guarantee priority of discovery, to register a permanent record of the discovery (society archives), and to give “an authoritative stamp” on their work through the judgment of peers (Fjällbrant, 1997, Needs of various groups section, ¶ 4-8). This model was carried over into print form via the scholarly journal. An early example can be seen in Rozier’s diligent editorial policies for the Observations. As was noted above, not only was Rozier prepared to reject articles that lacked requisite quality and originality (negative control), he also implied a belief that the community of scientists would conduct itself ethically and objectively “as friends of humanity” (positive control). These were the values and safeguards—what Stephen Cole (2000) alludes to as “the norm of universalism”—that lent credibility and sufficient confidence to this format.
__________

Cole, S. (2000). The role of journals in the growth of scientific knowledge. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield [ASIS Monograph Series] (pp. 109-142). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Re-opening the “Closure”: Print to Electronic…and Beyond

Fjällbrant could wonder in 1997 about the prospects for electronic dissemination of journals in electronic format. Most prescient, she identifies “a shift in emphasis from [library] collection building in anticipation of possible needs (JUST IN CASE) to information access on demand (JUST IN TIME) delivery” (Problems section, ¶ 2). I responded that this “is a challenge to the long-held perception of the library as a repository for human knowledge.”

The day is now here. Just the other day I was reviewing our periodicals renewals list for 2013. If I wasn’t canceling a title (due to cost, or lack of demonstrated use) I was making sure we were able to receive it in electronic format. Print is now reserved for the casual reading rack.

A change in delivery format driven by user expectation and demand is only the start. But I left it there. I gave the last word to Kate Thomes (2002), who did provide a passing reference to open access:

We are moving from a known mature system of scholarly communication in the print environment to an unknown digital environment in which established practices are no longer deemed relevant or necessary. The stakes are high in changing the system both economically, for publisher profits and costs to higher education, and socially, for the potential benefits of open access to the scholarly record.…It took the ingenuity and intelligence of our predecessors to create the past system and it will require nothing less from us to create a new system of scholarly communication that fulfills its mission in the digital age. (p. 109)
__________

Thomes, K. (2002). Scholarly communication in flux: Entrenchment and opportunity. Science and Technology Libraries, 22(3/4), pp. 101-111.