Evidence Summary
Several Factors of Library Publishing Services Facilitate Scholarly
Communication Functions
A Review of:
Park, J.-H., & Shim, J. (2011). Exploring how library publishing services facilitate scholarly
communication. Journal of Scholarly
Publishing, 43(1), 76-89. doi: 10.1353/scp.2011.0038
Reviewed by:
Leslie Bussert
Head of Instruction/Literature
and Humanities Librarian
University of Washington Bothell, Cascadia Community College
Bothell, Washington, United States of America
Email: lbussert@uwb.edu
Received: 11 May 2012 Accepted: 27 Sept. 2012
2012 Bussert. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐sa/2.5/ca/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work
is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed,
the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this
one.
Abstract
Objective – To identify and examine the factors of library
publishing services that facilitate scholarly communication.
Design – Analysis of library publishing service programs.
Setting – North American research libraries.
Subjects – Eight research libraries selected from the
signatories for the Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE) Cornell
University Library’s Center for Innovative Publishing; Dartmouth College
Library’s Digital Publishing Program and Scholars Portal Project; MIT
Libraries’ Office of Scholarly Publishing and Licensing; Columbia University
Libraries’ Center for Digital Research and Scholarship; University of Michigan
Library’s Scholarly Publishing Office; Duke University Library’s Office of
Scholarly Communications; University of Calgary Libraries and Cultural
Resources’ Centre for Scholarly Communication; and Simon Fraser University
Library’s Scholarly Publishing.
Methods – The authors used Roosendaal and Geurt’s
(1997) four functions of scholarly communication to analyze and categorize
library publishing services provided by libraries included in the study. The
four functions of scholarly communication include registration, certification,
awareness, and archiving.
Main Results – Analysis of the registration functions provided by
library publishing services in this study revealed three types of facilitating
factors: intellectual property, licensing, and publishing. These include
services such as repositories for digital scholarly work and research,
ISBN/ISSN registration, and digital publishing. Analysis of archiving functions
demonstrated that most programs in the study focus on repository-related
services in support of digital content preservation of papers, datasets,
technical reports, etc. Analysis of certification functions provided by these
services exposed a focus on expert review and research support. These include
services like professional assessment of information sources, consultation on
appropriate literature and information-seeking tools, and writing or copyright
advisory services. Analysis of awareness function showed search aids and
knowledge-sharing platforms to be the main facilitating factors. These include
services like metadata application, schema, and standards or scholarly portals
enabling knowledge-sharing among scholars.
Conclusion – This study identified several services offered by
these library publishing programs which can be categorized as facilitators
under Roosendaal and Geurt’s (1997) four functions of
scholarly communication. The majority of the libraries in the study treated
library publishing services as part of broader scholarly communication units or
initiatives. Digital publishing (registration function) was offered by all
programs analyzed in the study, while traditional peer-review services
(certification function) were not. Widely adopted among programs in the study
were the use of social networking tools (awareness function) and self-publishing
(archiving function). The authors recommend developing services that facilitate
peer review and assert the need to provide a knowledge-sharing mechanism within
the academic community that facilitates the scholarly communication process.
Commentary
This study contributes to a growing body of literature
exploring library publishing services in the broader context of scholarly
communication. It uniquely and explicitly ties these services to specific
functions across the scholarly communication process while other studies focus
on service or business models for these programs. It is also interesting to
consider this study in light of the recent findings of Mullins et al. (2012) in
their library publishing services report released by the Scholarly Publishing
and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), which found approximately half (55%)
of survey respondents have or want to develop such services, and that those
with existing programs anticipate increasing their capacity within the next
year (p. 6).
This study fills a gap in the literature but comes
with some limitations. Its primary weakness is the lack of in-depth analysis of
the findings and their applicability, and the absence of suggestions for
further research. Further discussion on this could enhance understanding of the
role of academic libraries in scholarly communication and help readers consider
the application of this work to their library’s practice and context. The
sample size is small and includes mostly Association of Research Libraries members,
many of which have been at the forefront of establishing library publishing
services. Lastly, some methodological details are absent, such as how
information was obtained about the programs and the process of mapping services
to the chosen theoretical construct.
Roosendaal and Guert’s
(1997) framework outlining the four key functions of scholarly communication is
effective and appropriate for this analysis, and is a structure libraries could
utilize for program evaluation and planning. The Mullins et al. (2012) SPARC
report recommends “treating academic publishing support as a holistic endeavor
and assuming responsibility for acquiring a comprehensive understanding of
editor and author needs” (p. 2). This framework could be used to identify areas
where services need to be expanded or added, and could be helpful for libraries
planning to offer publishing services. It can also help managers of library
publishing services understand scholarly communication functions in both
conceptual and specific terms in order to better address the needs of their
scholarly community or to strategically develop and leverage collaborative
partnerships across campus to ensure fulfillment of all scholarly communication
functions.
The Mullins et al. (2012) SPARC report also notes that
further articulation of the important role library publishing services play in
scholarly communication is needed (p. 3). This study contributes to that goal,
and can be enhanced by replicating the study with a larger and more diverse
sample size, examining which library publishing service or business models best
facilitate the four functions of scholarly communication, and investigating the
feasibility of Roosendaal and Geurt’s (1997)
framework as a program development and assessment tool.
References
Mullins, J. L., Murray-Rust, C., Ogburn,
J. L., Crow, R., Ivins, O., Mower, A., Nesdill, D., Newton, M. … Watkinson, C. (2012). Library publishing services: strategies for
success: Final research report. Retrieved
19 Oct. 2012 from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/purduepress_ebooks/24
Roosendaal, H.
E., & Geurts, P. A. T. M. (1997). Forces and functions in scientific communication: An
analysis of their interplay. First
International Workshop on Cooperative Information Systems in Physics,
Oldenburg, Germany. Retrieved 19 Oct. 2012 from http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/conferences/crisp97/roosendaal.html