I had recently edited my previous posts about the AAA less then great response to open access ( The 30 Pieces of Silver the American Anthropology Association Sold Us Out For, American Anthropology Association FAIL!!!! This Time on an Epic Scale, and Why this #AAAfail is Epic- How the American Anthropology Association is throwing the public under the bus and killing books for no good reason!) to reflect a new statement that the AAA had come out with that seemed to indicate they were reversing course on their poor choices.
The AAA’s role is to be vigilant when it comes to proposed legislation that aims to limit dissemination of research, and that may disproportionately protect private over public interests. At the same time, AAA’s role is to protect the sustainability of our publications program, for anthropology as a whole and for individual authors. We continue to investigate models that both support broad dissemination of knowledge and a sustainable publishing program.
To this end, the Executive Board has adopted the following motion:
Acknowledging the Association’s commitment to “a publications program that disseminates the most current anthropological research, expertise, and interpretation to its members, the discipline, and the broader society,” but also the need for a sustainable publication strategy, and building on the Association’s support for a variety of publishing models, the AAA opposes any Congressional legislation which, if it were enacted, imposes a blanket prohibition against open access publishing policies by all federal agencies.
I had commended them for reversing course but now several other people has pointed out some flaws in this statement. From the comments on the post-
From Chad-
I assume this is in response to the Research Works Act (HR 3699). That bill would prohibit “dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher” or policies that require “network dissemination of a private-sector research work”. In other words, it doesn’t prohibit open access; it prohibits the government from mandating public access.
At the same time, Executive Director Davis’s letter to the Office of Science and Technology Policy suggests, “broad public access to [peer reviewed publications that result from federal funding] currently exists, and no federal government intervention is currently necessary.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scholarly-pubs-%28%23282%29%20davis.pdfTaken together, are these statements an expression of support for the current status quo, and a request that the government do nothing to support or oppose open access?
Mike Fortun-
I have to conclude that the confusion this statement creates in people like the commenter above is intentional on AAA’s part, so that it’s own members can’t really tell what its positions are. Other observes like open access scholar Peter Suber,are also left wondering “What happened between January 12 (date of AAA submission to the White House RFI) and February 3 (date of the new AAA public statement on OA)?” https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/Tgp9xqxCTgo
For those trying to understand the murky, vague statement here, I offer the following history:
On January 18, the Executive Board of the Society for Cultural Anthropology, in response to statements opposing the Research Works Act (HR3699) that had begun coming out in early January, passed the following resolution:
“To: Bill Davis, Executive Director; Leith Mullings, AAA President,
From: SCA Executive Board
RE: Research Works Act (HR 3699)
On January 18, 2012, the SCA Executive Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to pass the following resolution:
On behalf of the SCA membership, the SCA Executive Board urges the American Anthropological Association to oppose the Research Works Act (HR 3699) introduced into Congress on December 19, 2011, and to distance itself from the endorsement of this legislation by the Association of American Publishers, of which AAA is a member.
The Research Works Act would repeal the open access policy of the National Institutes of Health, whereby publications produced with federal funding are made publicly available in a repository 12 months after their publication, and block similar policies at other federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation. Opposing the RWA does not entail a full embrace of open access philosophies; for-profit publishing is perfectly compatible with the current status quo. Opposing the RWA does not entail renouncing membership in the AAP; a number of AAP members have distanced themselves from the AAP position on RWA but continue to affirm their relationship.
Indeed, a number of AAP members have spoken out against the RWA while remaining committed to AAP. The University of California Press, the MIT Press, the Rockefeller University Press, ITHAKA and Penn State University Press have all done so, and this motivates the SCA to request that AAA follow their initiatives. As the Director of Corporate Affairs for Cambridge University Press stated, ‘We support all sustainable access models that ensure the permanence and integrity of the scholarly record… The Bill as proposed could undermine the underlying freedoms expected by and of scholarly authors.’ (See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Notes_on_the_Research_Works_Act).
The Executive Board of the SCA shares this view of the proposed legislation, and urges the AAA to formally oppose it.”No one on the SCA Executive Committee was aware that, on January 12, AAA Executive Director Bill Davis had already sent his letter to the White House (linked by the commenter above), which while not mentioning the Research Works Act, was nevertheless unrepentantly defensive of the status quo and unequivocally opposed to open access mandates from the federal government. The commenter above cites one telling passage from that letter; here is another:
“We know of no research that demonstrates a problem with the existing system for making the content of scholarly journals available to those who might benefit from it…[and] we dispute assertions…suggesting that the federal government has the legal right to mandate public access to scholarly journal articles which result from federally funded research…Mandating open access to such property without just compensation and lawful procedural limitations constitutes, in our view, an unconstitutional taking of private property…”
On February 3, the SCA executive board received an email from AAA President Leith Mullings, which simply directed them to see the statement posted above. But there is no reference to the Research Works Act (the subject of the SCA resolution sent to Mullings and Davis); there is no date, or any account of why the executive board made this statement at this time; there is no mention of Davis’s letter; there is no link to this “position” of the AAA on either the “Issues & News” page, or on the “Public Policy/Advocacy” page, or on the “Public Position Statements” page. It just sort of floats out here in cyberspace, unattached to anything, only creating confusion should you happen to find it.
(By the way, if you decide to add those appropriate links for the sake of clarity and honesty, you might want to go ahead and update the “Partners” page (http://www.aaanet.org/about/partners/index.cfm) so that we don’t have to see that sad reminder of what Anthrosource was supposed to be.)
As a former editor of Cultural Anthropology, I thought I had become inured to the murk, doublespeak, or outright hostility that any mention of open access elicited from the upper levels of AAA. But apparently not: I find this statement, which skillfully avoids stating anything at all of substance, absolutely discouraging. Who could possibly want to join in a “conversation” about the sustainability of AAA publishing, which the AAA claims it wants to have, when Davis’s strongly and clearly worded letter isn’t even posted here as a AAA “position” or “statement,” but instead we get this kind of non-statement from the executive board, completely untethered from real world events and issues? And who could possibly want to join in a “conversation” about the sustainability of AAA publishing, when years of previous “conversation” with numerous dedicated AAA members have only led to Bill Davis informing the White House that “we know of no research that demonstrates a problem with the existing system”?!?! That’s a recipe for frustration, and I have had enough of that…
Mikes Second comment-
Well, I guess not quite enough: since I’m here, I’ll just add that if the AAA would like to learn how to make a clear statement about the Research Works Act, it could learn from the American Association of Universities and the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities: http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=13018
After reading these comments I fully agree the AAA is waffling and are trying to hedge their bets. Giving token lip service to open access but at the same time hoping for status quo. I know that the economics of publishing are tough for societies but they are hoping for a status quo that is going to hurt them in the long run. They, the AAA, estimate that by 2013 (next year) they will be back into the red as far as journals are concerned, losing money. Instead of seriously embracing the need for change they are hoping by extend their deal with wiley-blackwell till 2016 (2017? not clear) they will have enough time to find an alternative. In the mean time hoping that this status quo, that will start to hurt them next year, doesn’t change. I don’t see this as leadership that is needed right now.
Ed Liebow
February 13, 2012
Folks, the AAA executive board is quite clear that regardless of the specific wording of the Research Works Act and all others with similar legislative intent, we are opposed to any legislation of this sort that provides for blanket prohibition of open access publication of federally-sponsored research. Our opposition is not limited solely to the proposed Research Works Act, and as a matter of position statements, we would prefer the clearer, more general statement about the nature of legislation that we oppose or favor. What do we favor? A publishing climate in which, for the foreseeable future, we can afford to promote the scholarly exchange of anthropological research. Have we fully explored the implications of the ‘author pays’ model that has increased in prevalence among the health and life sciences? We’re working on it. Does this ‘author pays’ model preserve the diversity of voices to which the Association is committed? Unclear, but doubtful. Have we fully explored the implications of the ‘Association pays’ model, in which membership dues are increased to the point where our journal content is freely accessible to the rest of the world? We’re working on it. Kim Fortun proposed a $50/yr increase, for illustrative purposes, in a Montreal forum on publishing. What happens to our ‘ability to pay’ dues structure if we hike the membership rates for the world’s benefit? To our membership? These (and other) models of publishing sustainability are out on the table for inspection and debate. There is no murk or double-speak about any of this, and the dismissal with which the Association’s sincere attempt to engage in a discussion that leavens ideology with some actual observations is the most discouraging sort of response of all.
Doug Rocks-Macqueen
February 13, 2012
I think a real problem is that by leaving the option for “A publishing climate in which, for the foreseeable future, we can afford to promote the scholarly exchange of anthropological research.” you leave very unclear intentions. Its hard to see a world were mandated open access and a friendly “publishing climate” can work. Maybe it can.
I fully appreciate the problems associated with publishing but might I suggest a different option? Going digital reduces costs by about .5 million. Since, the deal with wiley-blackwell is confidential its hard to see exact numbers but they did raise prices by double when the deal went through and it looks like the costs to the AAA stayed about the same. Now I don’t believe that the doubling in prices translates to a doubling of revenue but your still looking at a significant amount of money. Is it enough to cover the difference I don’t know but it could make the numbers more manageable.
Another option is to ask the question does the AAA need to be in publishing? It doesn’t seem like anyone has asked that question? I could be wrong.
Might I finally suggest- Ubiquity press (http://www.ubiquitypress.com/) they can do an article for 100 pounds ($150) 370-400 articles in AAA publications would be $60,000. Lets assume that this price is only because they have low viewership and prices would raise with AAA. How much would it rise? 5x- $300,000 10x $600,000 15x $900,000 about what the members pay now. Being in bed with a non-profit seems like a better idea then someone who is trying to make a lot of money off of us. Just a thought.
Ed Liebow
February 14, 2012
Hi, Doug – I feel compelled to offer an historical reminder here: AAA’s self-publishing program was not sustainable, and about 15 years ago we began exploring various forms of partnership to help with the transition to a dual print/digital platform. It was an enormous investment to make this transition, an investment that nearly sank a large number of publishing Sections. Throughout, however, we have remained committed to preserving the diversity of our portfolio, and to treating the whole portfolio as a common property resource, rather than treating each journal as a separate cost center. The arrangement with W-B has helped to stabilize the Sections’ finances, and the renewal of the partnership has added further certainty to the Sections’ basis for planning while we sort through these high-stakes issues. Our institutional journal subscription prices remain a bargain compared with many others (especially in my field of health and life sciences).
Should we go all digital? We’d better look before we leap here. Should we stop publishing altogether? I see a mountain of wisdom to be gained from asking this question, and thank you for doing so. Should we categorically reject all prospective publishing partners because they are for-profit? What would we be overlooking if the profit/non-profit status were the single controlling criterion for selecting a publishing partner? I don’t know Ubiquity, but will want to look into how it (and others like it) help with editorial flow management, permanent archiving, discoverability, indexing and meta-tagging, and other editorial services that our Sections and readers reasonably expect.
I think the $500k reduction in production and distribution costs achieved by going all digital is about right (based on 2010 figures), but I also want to point out that the overall AAA publication production/distribution budget is about $2.3 million. If we eliminated all print, made no other changes to the publications suite, and made all of the digital content available at no cost to the user, that would still leave the Association with costs of $1.8 million, an amount that might require an average dues subsidy of $180/member. That’s a big increase in dues, and many would regard the loss of print as receiving less from us in exchange for paying more.
The Finance Committee has very specifically been directed by the Board to find ways of keeping the cost of Association membership and annual meeting participation affordable; we enacted a budget this year that is based on NO dues increases for the second year in a row, and are working on ways of making sure that increases in subsequent budget years are implemented fairly and with an eye towards assuring that members see the value of remaining active in the Association.
I will be very interested to hear what you and others have to say about these important questions, and thanks again for raising them.
Doug Rocks-Macqueen
February 14, 2012
I should probably clarify- I am not against for-profit publishers BUT I think we should be looking for a deal were the well being of the partner is tightly linked with the well being of anthropology.
I am not saying that this is impossible, just that I see many barriers to such a set up with commercial publishers. That being said some non-profits goals, like JSTOR, are not necessarily linked with that of their consumers. Though I do see non-profits being easier to work with then commercial publishers.
$2.3m is a lot of money and I am not saying that the AAA has not looked into cutting costs but it is very hard to understand what it goes for. Yes, some numbers have been posted but they are very vague and it is very hard to make suggests on how to improve when really all the information we have is-
Production costs (2010): about $1 million. This includes copy-editing, layout, relevant IT work, printing, mailing of journals and Anthro News, and marketing of journals. Keep in mind that we’re talking about 31 different serials, albeit including a few that aren’t publishing actively at present.
Salaries and related overhead, i.e., AAA Publications staff (2010): about $1 million for salaries/benefits/equipment/offices.
Editorial offices (2010): about $300,000. In addition there is in-kind support from the journal editors’ home institutions. Whether cost-conscious universities will continue to provide this level of in-kind support in the future is anyone’s guess.
Total annual cost (2010): roughly $2.3 million
Any reductions of course would probably mean a loss in someone’s job to cut the $1.5 m needed to not raise dues. Not something I am happy about but it probably would need to happen. That being said it would be great to try and cut costs other places but it is almost impossible to make suggestions with these numbers and information. Copy-editing who does it? How much does it cost? What software is used? If this information was available it would be much easier to make suggestions about cutting costs. It would be great if more information was made available.
Ed Liebow
February 15, 2012
Cost management is top of mind when it comes to managing the AAA publications program; the AAA and each Section has a specific agreement with Wiley-Blackwell that spells out the number of issues, number of pages, color, editorial work flow software, editorial support, and other production elements with cost and quality implications. Thus, in one sense, each publication’s production costs are left up to each Section (except the American Anthropologist, which is published by the Association, and the editor-in-chief works with the Board’s Anthropological Communications Committee, of which the Treasurer is an ex officio member). The ACC and Committee for the Future of Print and Electronic Publishing monitor the publications program, so that we do not set ourselves up for a tragedy of the commons.
Sections are uneven in the way that they report about their finances (http://www.aaanet.org/about/Annual_Reports/Section_Reports.cfm), and the Board does not have anything to do with Section budgets except to limit the withdrawal of operating reserves in any given year.
Along with our Chief Financial Officer, Elaine Lynch, and our Publications Director, Oona Schmid, I am happy to answer specific questions about the AAA budget: http://www.aaanet.org/about/annual_reports/index.cfm.
Doug Rocks-Macqueen
February 15, 2012
Minor question why did the annual budget get moved around after the wiley deal to only reflect roughly $1million in publication costs, when before it was $2m? Where does the AAA Publications staff $1m cost come from? Looking at the talks from the Nov. session it looks like none of the editors are paid, is this a false impression?
Could you give a detailed breakdown of one journal?
“Wiley-Blackwell that spells out the number of issues, number of pages, color, editorial work flow software, editorial support, and other production elements with cost and quality implications.”
An example of this for one journal would help give an understanding of what is involved.
Can you give an idea of what wiley gets out the of deal without breaking confidentiality?
Do you know the subscription numbers to the journals for universities? Are these subscriptions individual or part of general bundle?
Ed Liebow
February 16, 2012
Cost accounting: The full cost of AAA’s publishing program is distributed between the AAA-wide budget and the Sections’ publishing budget.
Editor pay: It is up to the AAA Sections to determine whether editors receive any financial support for their work. Most editors do not, but some do. AAA has provided some financial support to the American Anthropologist editorial office as well.
Agreement Details: I have a template that I can share, but I am not sure of the best way to post it where it can be inspected. It is a text document several pages long.
Details of financial arrangement with Wiley-Blackwell:
- AAA is guaranteed a royalty payment of roughly $520k per year, out of the net surplus (subscription proceeds in excess of costs).
- This guarantee goes up 2% each year through the life of the agreement.
- If the net surplus is higher than the guaranteed minimum, Wiley-Blackwell keeps 40%, and AAA receives 60% of the net surplus.
- 50% of AAA’s share is retained by the Association for partially offsetting the costs of American Anthropologist, Anthropology News, and publishing department operations.
- 50% of AAA’s share of royalties are distributed to the publishing Sections.
- Distribution of royalties among publishing sections is based on downloads and volume of material published – in keeping with the spirit of a ‘common property’ arrangement, the allocation of royalties bears no relation whatsoever to the cost of production or the revenues generated by any particular journal. In fact, 6 of our journals generate more in subscription sales than they cost to produce and distribute; the other 16 cost more to produce and distribute than they generate in subscription revenues. ALL publishing sections receive a share of royalty payments regardless.
Subscription details: I do not have that information at my fingertips, but I *do* know that institutions can subscribe to our publications as the AnthroSource bundle, or to individual titles. I also know that some of AAA’s titles are bundled together with some of the other titles in Wiley-Blackwell’s catalogue. In my view, an attractive dimension of our partnership with Wiley-Blackwell is the resourceful way in which they help make the AAA publications discoverable worldwide and accessible with reasonably affordable institutional subscription rates. All AAA members have electronic access to all AAA journals as a benefit of Association membership, and all individuals at subscribing institutions also have access to all AAA journals at no extra charge. We distribute journals to the HINARI- and AGORA-affiliated institutions worldwide, and to tribally operated colleges in the US at no charge or a nominal ($30) annual subscription, promoting access to individuals affiliated with institutions serving these disadvantaged and underserved communities.
Doug Rocks-Macqueen
February 16, 2012
Thanks for the information. You could email me the template drocks.macqueen (at) gmail.com. I could post it up if you want. Question on the guaranteed minimum you say if the net surplus is above its split. What is that? does that mean AAA gets all profits up to the first $520K then after it is split? or is the 520k the 60% so if $866,700, was made then the AAA gets 520k plus 60% of $34 that’s above what a 40/60 split is. Has the deal ever gone above that amount so that the AAA gets extra royalties?
Were does the American Anthropologist editorial office come into the mix cost wise?
Thanks for answer all of the questions.
Ed Liebow
February 16, 2012
The royalty agreement between AAA and Wiley-Blackwell has Wiley-Blackwell paying all of the basic costs of production and distribution (more on this in a moment) in exchange for 40% of the net surplus (subscription revenue minus costs). W-B guarantees AAA a certain amount of royalty payments, so the guaranteed $520k represents 60% of a projected net surplus of around $867k. But AAA gets at least the $520k no matter what (that’s the ‘guaranteed’ part). IF the actual net surplus is more than $867k, AAA gets 60% of this actual total. Every year of the partnership thus far, AAA has received more than the guaranteed minimum. And again, the royalty payment that AAA receives is split 50/50 between the AAA-wide budget and the publishing sections.
Now, back to the ‘basic costs of production.’ These costs are spelled out in the “memoranda of understanding’ agreed to by each journal’s editorial office and Section leadership. Sections are free to make further investments in the journal’s production and distribution (typically financial support for the editor and/or additional copy-editing), but these investments are outside the agreement.
I want to point out that unlike our previous publishing partnership agreement, which was of the ‘fee for service’ variety, this agreement with Wiley-Blackwell is close to all-inclusive, and the feedback we have received from the publishing Sections has generally been quite positive. As the relationship has matured, satisfaction with services is quite high, and the financial certainty that comes with the guaranteed royalty share has been welcomed widely.
We recognize that there still is a big pile of work to do, and I believe I speak for the rest of the board when I say we genuinely welcome the feedback about more transparent accouning, as well as this careful consideration of financial implications of alternative publishing futures.