Institutional repositories are the latest talk of libraries. With growing research departments all over the country, frequently funded by grants and government money, the public is looking for more return on investment by way of free open access to the information their money created. Universities are likewise looking to find a better way to capitalize on the success of their faculty and researchers. And of course researchers and scholars are always looking for a way to get their research out there. So the IR model seemingly works for everyone. Well, everyone except the publishers.
The information industry, publishing in particular, and the situation it finds itself in isn’t all that different from the situation the music industry found itself in a decade or so ago. Technology has made it possible for the little guy to successfully and relatively easily create and distribute his work without cowing down to the publishing monolith. There was quite a struggle for while within the music industry in which record companies tried desperately to maintain control over all content. Ultimately though, they have released much of their power and formed a sort of symbiotic relationship with the indie labels and digital distribution schema. It’s not so far fetched to see the same trend in the making in the information industry. The power of IR and digital commons approaches much like indie music publishing and distribution is in the niche markets. Things that aren’t getting out there because there isn’t enough of them or enough of an audience for the big presses to mess with them. Indeed it makes sense for researchers as well, since it gives them a place to publish the work they do, the work they really want to do; a place where others with similar interest no matter how obscure, can find them, which is to say, it opens up fields of research and allows us to discover and explore much more of our world and reality. However, it’s going to take quite a while for the information industry, including libraries and universities, to find this balance and it will require a change to some of the traditional systems in place in these institutions.
The publishing industry is first going to have to give up its need to control information and the flow of money that comes with it. It would to well to take a look at the lead of the music industry’s long struggle with DRM. To its credit, many publishers have already begun to do so through different embargoes, pre-print agreements, and linking rights. But the publishers aren’t the only system in need of change. Universities are asking authors, researchers, and scholars, to donate their fame in a way. Publishing used to be a way for a researcher to make a name for him or herself. The university they were associated with also gained some renown obviously, but universities like the public are looking for a bigger return on their investments, so they want to capitalize on the products of their faculty. While this is good and seemingly mutually beneficial, the fly in the ointment, so to speak, is that the same universities who want you to put research and information into their IRs (which with the current publishing trends often means not publishing it in a peer reviewed journal) won’t give tenure to a faculty who hasn’t published in a peer-reviewed journal. So the criteria by which tenure track faculty are evaluated needs to evolve along with trends in scholarly communication if it is to remain a valid model. Of course one might question the validity of a tenure model at all these days, but that is perhaps a debate for another time. If we return to the music industry model we can see that indie lables were successful because they just wanted to get their music out, they didn’t necessarily want to be famous in the traditional Rolling Stones model of things. Perhaps then part of the change in the tenure and scholarly communication models will come when scholars and researchers who don’t care about tenure reach a critical mass. It may take a few pioneers to reach this point, but eventually, as in all things, the information industry researchers, scholars, publishers, universities, and libraries, will find an equilibrium – a balance – and a new system that works for everyone. We need only to look to the success or iTunes and the decline of Napster, Kaaza, and traditional CD sales to see the logical result. Perhaps someday, we will all settle for a smaller piece of the pie in order to sit at the table at all.
