vertically integrated research alliances: a digital ... · katherine skinner christina drummond...

VerticallyIntegratedResearchAlliances:AChrysalisforDigitalScholarship

AWhitePaperforCommunityDiscussion

MartinHalbertKatherineSkinnerChristinaDrummond

EducopiaInstitute2015

PublicationNotes

Title:VerticallyIntegratedResearchAlliances:AChrysalisforDigitalScholarshipAuthors:MartinHalbert,KatherineSkinner,ChristinaDrummond,Publisher:TheEducopiaInstitute,1230PeachtreeSuite,Suite1900,Atlanta,GA30309Copyright:2015

ThispublicationiscoveredbythefollowingCreativeCommonsLicense:Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs4.0

Youarefreetocopy,distribute,anddisplaythisworkunderthefollowingconditions:

Attribution— Youmust attribute thework inthemanner specified by the author or licensor(but not in any way that suggests that theyendorseyouoryouruseofthework).Specifically,you must state that the work was originallypublished as “Vertically Integrated ResearchAlliances:AChrysalisforDigitalScholarship”,andyoumust attribute the copyright holder as the“EducopiaInstitute”.Noncommercial—Youmaynotuse thisworkforcommercialpurposes.

No Derivative Works — You may not alter,transform,orbuilduponthiswork.

Anyoftheseconditionscanbewaivedifyougetpermissionfromthecopyrightholder.Yourfairuseandotherrightsareinnowayaffectedbytheabove.

Theaboveisahuman‐readablesummaryofthefulllicense,whichisavailableatthefollowingURL:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐nd/4.0/

CONTENTS

ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................3

DefiningtheProblemandtheOpportunity..................................................................................................3

InstabilitiesofScholarlyCommunication......................................................................................3

NewProspects...........................................................................................................................................4

VerticallyIntegratedResearchAlliances.......................................................................................................5

KeyElementsoftheVIRA.....................................................................................................................5

VIRAAntecedents....................................................................................................................................6

ObservationsaboutStakeholderGroups.......................................................................................9

TheChrysalis:AdaptationthroughTransformation...............................................................11

ProspectiveResearchAllianceCaseStudies...............................................................................................13

CaseStudy:TexanaResearchAlliance..........................................................................................13

CaseStudy:SouthernStudiesResearchAlliance......................................................................15

CaseStudy:CoercedMigrationResearchAlliance...................................................................16

Conclusions..............................................................................................................................................................17

Bibliography............................................................................................................................................................20

Vertically Integrated Research Alliances: A Chrysalis for Digital Scholarship

1

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

This white paper summarizes project findings about “Vertically Integrated ResearchAlliances”(orVIRAsforshort),aprospectivemodelforcollaborationbetweenscholars,libraries,andpublisherstomoresustainablyproduceandmaintainworksofdigitalscholarship.Thiswhitepaperwas produced in the course of a one year planning grant funded by the Andrew W. MellonFoundation.Thefollowingarekeysummarypointsfromthewhitepaper.

1. The combination of longstanding instabilities in the current system of scholarlycommunicationandthepromiseofnewdigitalformsofcollaborativescholarshiphavebrought us to a critical transformativemoment. Like the chrysalis transformation oforganismswithapupal lifestage,reformingscholarship inparticularsubjectdomainsintoresearchalliancesofscholars,libraries,andpublisherscouldcreatemoresustainableorganizationalforms.

2. Feedbackfromabroadrangeofstakeholdersdemonstratesthattheideaofdevelopingacloser collaborative model which includes subject‐focused cross‐sections of scholars,libraries, and publishers was compelling and shows promise, but implementing themodelwouldentailworkingoutmanyspecificdetailsinpractice.

3. ThereareawiderangeofantecedentstotheVIRA(manyofwhichhavealonghistory)thatwe can learn from and build on. Examples of such antecedents include learnedsocieties,researchcenters,andothercollaborativeresearchorganizations.Bybuildingontheseexistingmodels,VIRAsmaybeeasiertounderstandandbetterabletolearnfrombestpracticesidentifiedinoperatingtheseantecedentorganizations.

4. IfanyparticularprospectiveVIRAistosucceed,scholarsmustbecommittedconceptuallyto the subject domain under consideration, and practically to the effort required tomobilizeandcontributetotheongoingoperationofthealliance.ThebiggestriskfactorinvolvedincreatingVIRAsmaybethatscholarsaretoodivergentinmotivations,levelofcommitment,andabilitytocollaborateeffectivelyinthiswaywithotherstakeholders.

5. Librariessupportscholarlyoutputsinvariousways,aspreservationrepositories,funders(throughbothsubscriptions,one‐timepurchases,andothermechanisms),andpointsofaccess and aggregation. The fact that librarybudgets are alreadyoverburdenedwithsuper‐inflationary costs of traditional scholarly outputs (notably from for‐profitpublishers)meansthatlibrarieswillhavedifficultyfreeingupfundsforexperimentswithneworganizationalcollaborativemodelssuchasVIRAs.Librarieswillhavetofindthewherewithal to transition from funding unsustainable forms of legacy scholarship tosustainablenewsformsofinnovativescholarship.

6. As a stakeholder group, university presses understand both themarket for scholarlyoutputsandtheprocessofmarketingpublicationsbetterthaneitherlibrariesorscholars.However,pressesmaybereactivelyfocusedonprofitabilityofnewtitlestothedetrimentofexperimentswithnewcollaborativemodels.


2

7. Tobeviable,aVIRAmusthaveasufficientlycriticalmassofcontent,motivatedscholars,and committed institutions. An “alliance” is inherently a community, and cannot belimitedtoahandfulofindividualsorasingleinstitution.Withoutsufficientscale,VIRAswillnotbehealthyorevenviableorganizations.

8. Weshouldnotbedisappointedinthepaceofchangeinscholarlytransformationefforts.Experimentation,change,andevolutionoforganizationshappenswithinanextremelylarge systemof institutions, establishedpractice, andperceptions, all ofwhichhaveasignificant amount of inertia. The fact that experiments with VIRAs and othercollaborativeformsmaytaketimetosolidifyandtakeholdshouldnotdissuadethefieldfromseekingtoimplementmoresustainableformsofscholarship.

9. Itmaybebettertodevelopastrongsharedsenseofcommunityfirstandthenusethatsense of community to seek out revenue streams rather than the other way around.Counter‐intuitively, even if it starts small and grows slowly, a shared and solidcommitment of multiple stakeholders to a subject domain of scholarship may be astrongerfoundationtobuilduponthanalargeupfrontinfusionoffundscommittedtoapropositionthatisultimatelyunclear.

10. TherevenuestreamsthatsustainaVIRAneednotsolelyorprimarilyresemblethosethathave sustained traditional forms of scholarship. Rather than purchases andsubscriptions, VIRAs might be sustained through combinations of other approachesassociated with social entrepreneurship such as crowdfunding, memberships (bothindividualandinstitutional),fund‐raisers,anddonations.

11. ActualcasestudiessurfacetheissuesinimplementingVIRAs.Oneormoreofthethreeexploratorycasestudiesundertakeninthisplanningproject,orsomeothersetofcasestudiesshouldbecarriedforwardtoassesstheVIRAmodel.


3

INTRODUCTIONThisisatimeoftransitionsfortheextendedsystemofscholarlycommunication.Effortsare

underwaytocreate,disseminate,andsustainunprecedentednewformsofscholarlyinquirywhichutilize the innovative capabilities of digital technologies. This white paper and the associatedplanningprojectthatledtoitisanattempttobetterunderstandthistimeoftransformationandthepathforward.Theplanningprojectusedafocalmetaphorforthistransitionalperiod:acaterpillarenteringachrysalistoreformitselfforadifferentkindoflifeasabutterfly. Hencethename:theChrysalisplanningproject.

Thetitularchrysalisofthiswhitepapertakesshapeasaparticularkindofquest:stakeholdersengagedinscholarlycommunicationtodayarenowstrugglingtofindnewwaysofundertakingtheirpurposes in the digital age. The particular new organizational form studied in this project issomething termed the “Vertically Integrated Research Alliance.” Thiswhite paperwill set forthtentativeclaimsregardingthisorganizationalform,andhowitmightpotentiallybeabetterfitforsustaining new forms of digital scholarship. We do not claim that this is the sole new form of“butterfly” which will emerge from this transitional period, only that this form deserves someattentionandexperimentation.Thiswhitepaperhasbeeninformedbyabroadrangeofinterviewswithrepresentativesfrommanydifferentstakeholdergroupsthattogethercomprisethesystemofscholarlycommunication,butratherthanafinalstatementitshouldbeconsideredastartingpointforfurtherdiscussionsandexperiments.

DEFININGTHEPROBLEMANDTHEOPPORTUNITYThere have been so many problems identified in the current landscape of scholarly

communicationthatitcanbedifficulttoarticulateparticularproblemswithenoughspecificityforusefuldiscussion,orevenreachanagreementonthecurrentstateofthefield.Yet,moststakeholdersinvolvedinthescholarlypublishingcyclecanatleastagreethattheestablishedorderofacademicpublishinghas forsome timebeenshaken. [ARL,1997] Although traditionalmodelsofscholarlycommunication continue to proliferate (e.g., print monographs, text‐based journals, and pre‐production peer review) the best summary statement that the authors of thiswhite paper haveencounteredoftheproblematicaspectsofthecurrentsituationisthattheapparatusofproductionforacademicpublicationshasbeen ina“livingdead”state fordecades. [Fitzpatrick,2011] WhatKathleenFitzpatrickmeansbythisanalogyisthatthestakeholderswhocreatescholarlypublicationstodaysuperficiallygothroughthesamemotionsandpatternstheyalwayshave,butlikezombiesinfilmandothermediatheyarenothealthyorevenfullyvitalinthesamewaytheyoncewere.

InstabilitiesofScholarlyCommunicationThe business models that enabled a variety of players to work together to support the

production anddisseminationof scholarship in theprevious century are either failingor rapidlytransitioning,aswitnessedbytheshrinkingnumbersandreducedoutputofuniversitypressesandthe steady stream of mergers and buy‐outs in the commercial marketplace. [Munroe, 2013]Whateveronethinksofthehealthofthetraditionalscholarlycommunicationfield,moststakeholderswilllikelyagreethatbothlargeandsmallplayerswithinitareinterestedinactivelyseekingoutnewwaystoadvancethescholarlyconversation,oftenthroughtheuseofdigitaltechnologies.

But if thetraditionalprintorprint‐orientedfieldisnowinadestabilizedstate, itmustbeadmittedthatthestillemergingfieldofdigitalscholarshiphasneverbeenstable.Althoughdigitalscholarshiphasexistedforseveraldecades, itremainslargelya“fringe”activity,undertakenonly


4

whengrantfundsandinstitutionalsubsidiespermit.Digitalpublishingbusinessmodelshavenotyetmatured,andpromotionandtenurepracticesareonlyjustbeginningtosystematicallyrewarddigitalpublishingefforts.Promotionandtenurepracticesstilldonotroutinelyacknowledgethecredibilityofdigitalformsofscholarshipforscholarlycareerprogression.Inthedigitalpublishinglandscape,thereisamixofoldandnewvoices,includingscholars,universitypresses,libraries,societies,andresearch centers. These stakeholder communities are experimenting with new roles and newrelationshipstomeetthechallengesofcreatinganddisseminatingdigitalscholarshipinaffordableandsustainableways.Thehope is that these stakeholderswillprovidea foundation for thenextgenerationofscholarship—presumingthatanextgenerationofscholarshipexistsatall,andthatitisnotasimplecontinuationoftraditionalprintscholarship.

NewProspectsButwhichofthemanypressingproblem(s)indigitalscholarshipshouldbeaddressedfirst

toenableneweffortstoflourish?Inthecontextofthisproject,wefounditusefultostartwithanexamination of the tensions between libraries and publishers. Relations between libraries andpublishershavebeenchallengedinrecentyearsbyarangeofissues,includingthecostofbooksandjournals,theOpenAccessmovement,andahostofcopyrightandfairuseissuesandclaims.Librarieshavealonghistoryofobjectingtopublishers’actions,certainlypricingbutalsoincreasinglyonnewissues such as the conservative stance of publishers on fair use and their lack of willingness toexperimentwithdigitaldisseminationstrategiesincludingvariousopenaccessmodels.Publishers,especiallycommercialpublishers,object tosuchcritiques,maintainingthat theyareopentonewmodels but as for‐profit enterprises are obligated to maintain their profit margins. Universitypresses conveyconcernsabout libraries,bothaspurchasers (e.g., libraries’decisions to cut theirmonograph budgets directly impacted UP bottom lines) and increasingly as competitors (e.g.,experimental“librarypublishing”activities,includingopenaccesspublishing).

Agrowingnumberofuniversitypressesnowreporttotheiruniversitylibraries(e.g.,PennState,MIT,PurdueUniversity,Northwestern,Stanford,Syracuse,UniversityofNorthTexas,OregonState,UniversityofArizona,UniversityofGeorgia,UniversityofUtah),representingsometenorofchange.However,traditionalinfrastructuresandtheisomorphicpracticestheyrepresentarehighlyresistanttotransformation,evenwhensuchchangeisencouragedthroughstructuralreorganization.These academic partnerships and mergers between university presses and libraries often arecomplexandfraught,andcommunicationproblemsoftenhindercollaborativeefforts.AsnotedbyKathryn Conrad, director of the University of Arizona Press, “You can’t collaborate if you don’tunderstandwhateachotherdoes.”[Howard,2013]

Therearesignsthatthetimeisrighttofosteradeepersetofconversationsandcollaborationsbetweenthesetwogroupsandthescholarstheyexisttoserve.Manyarenowcallingfora“repair”oftherelationshipbetweentheuniversitypressandthelibrary,includingperhapsmostimportantlythe2014AAUPPresidentPhilipCercone.[Howard,2013]Othershaveremindedbothlibrariesanduniversitypressestoengagethevoicesofscholars,notjustasauthors,butalsoaspartnersinthepublishing lifecycle. And some are demonstrating that multi‐stakeholder alliances are furtherbenefitted by cross‐institutional participation. The challenge, particularly in the latter case, isidentifyingareaswherethesecross‐institutionalplayerscancommitinongoingwaystoformastablebusinessmodel,ratherthansingle(usuallyexpensivebothtocreateandmaintain)projects.

Therearemanysmallerexamplesofthesecross‐sector,cross‐institutionalpartnershipsthatsuccessfullycollaborateonindividualpublicationefforts.Theseincludepublicationgroupingsthat


5

deliberatelypairprintmonographpublicationswithdigitalcorollariestodemonstratethedifferenttypesofinquiryandproductionthatareenabledbythesetwodistinctivemediaforms(e.g.,SouthernSpaces’collaborationwithUniversityofTexasPressandLynnWeber:“NoPlacetoBeDisplaced”ortheScalar‐supportedcompanionto“TheNicestKidsinTown”byMatthewF.DelmontandUniversityofCaliforniaPress).Todate,theseinitiativeshavereliedlessonaformalbusinessmodelandmoreoninformalrelationshipsandsubsidizationbykeyplayers.Theyareastart,buttheyhavenotyetdemonstratedtheirongoingviability,includingestablishingstablerevenuestreamsandformalizedbusinessmodels.

Theseexamplesareexceptionsthatmarktheimportance—andrelativescarcitytodate—ofsustained alliances between university presses, scholars, and librarians. These three stakeholdergroupshavemuchtogainthroughcollaboration:Iftheacademycouldinvestinsustainedcooperativealliances between these players, enabling each to bring its core strengths to the table, it couldpotentiallyreducethecostofproducinganddisseminatingscholarshipbymoreefficientlyaligningtransactions.Toaccomplishthisend,thescholarlycommunicationsfieldwouldneedtobothdevelopand broadly understand the advantages of sustainable alliances involving each of these threestakeholder communities. With better‐defined incentives, use cases, relationships, and businessinfrastructures,suchpublicationalliancesmightbegintotransformthescholarlycommunicationsenvironment,movingtheactivities thatcurrently thriveonthe fringescloser to thecenterof theacademicprocess.

If these three stakeholder groupswere to become better aligned, what formmight suchalliancestake?ThiswasthecentralquestionthattheChrysalisplanningprojectsetouttoexamine.

VERTICALLYINTEGRATEDRESEARCHALLIANCESIncurrentpublishingarrangements,researchers,libraries,scholarlypublishers,andother

stakeholdersexist inrelativelyseparatesilos.Inbusinesstheoryterms,eachofthesestakeholdergroupsareforthemostpart“horizontallyintegrated”;inotherwords,theyareeachorganizedandmanaged around only one type of process in the scholarly communication “stack” or cycle ofproduction. Researchers write the content, presses publish the content, libraries purchase andmaintainit,etc.Therehasbeensomeresearchthatsuggeststhat“verticallyintegrating”oraligningand organizing programs of creators, publishers, and distributors around particular thematicproductareas,maybeamoreefficientbusinessstrategythanhorizontallyintegratedapproaches.[MacInnes,2013]

KeyElementsoftheVIRAThe question of exactly which features comprise the VIRA model was a recurring issue

examinedinthisplanningproject.Therearemanyconceptualwaysthatresearchers,libraries,andpublisherscouldbebroughtintocloserworkingalignment.Forthepurposesofthisplanningproject,webroadlydefinedaverticallyintegratedresearchalliance(VIRA)asacollaborativeeffortentailinga commitment to shared goals and resources by a group of scholars, university libraries, andscholarlypressestoachieveamoresustainablemodeofproduction.Wealsohadafocusondigitalformsofscholarship(especiallyinthehumanities),althoughwedidnotspecifyexactlywhatwouldbe includedorexcluded fromthat focusbeyondageneralnotion that itwouldbedata‐intensive.There are several additional speculative assertions embedded in this model that we sought toevaluate through discussionwith others, themain ones being that a VIRA strategywould betterleverageresources foralignedpurposesand that thisapproachwouldmoresustainablymobilize


6

actorsconcernedwiththescholarlycommunicationcycleforaunifiedpurpose.AfinalassumptionisthattheVIRAstrategycouldachievegreatersustainabilitybygatheringmultipletopicallyrelatedresources into a publishing space that enables common workflows, citation mechanisms,infrastructuredevelopment,fundraisingefforts,andrevenueaggregation.

Obviously this strategy is not exhaustive of all potential types of chrysalis transitions inscholarship;rather,thisisoneinterestingwayofbridgingkeystakeholdercommunitiesto“buildachrysalis”anduseittostructureandinformactionbythefullcommunityofscholarlycommunicationstakeholdersparticipatingintheslowmigrationtowardsadigitalfuture.

VIRAAntecedentsTherearehundredsoforganizationsthathavesomeaspectsofverticalintegrationbetween

stakeholdersinscholarlycommunication.AsafirststepintheplanningprojectwestudiedavarietyoforganizationsandeffortsthathadsimilaritieswithourproposedVIRAmodeltoseewhatmightbegleanedfrompreviousefforts.SuchorganizationscanbeexaminedasconceptualforerunnersorantecedentstotheVIRA.ThefollowingisaselectivediscussionofseveralVIRAantecedents(bothcategoricalandspecific),therelevantfeaturesthatweexaminedinthem,andquestionsraisedbytheseexaminations.

Webeganwithobservationsandrecollectionsaboutasuccessfulprojectwithwhichwehadpersonal experience. The project principals had worked with Dr. David Eltis (emeritus, EmoryUniversity) and researchers at many other institutions to build the TransAtlantic Slave TradeDatabase(http://slavevoyages.org),averysuccessfulprojecttoorganizeinasingleportalmostoftheextantrecordsofthehistoryofTransAtlanticslaveshipments.Thestoryofcreatingthisdatabaseisrecountedonthesiteitselfandneednotbereproducedhere.Whatwefoundnotableaboutthisexamplewasthatitwasaverysuccessfulcollaborationbetweenscholars,librarians,andpublisherstocreateanentirelynovelhumanitiesinformationresourceofawhollydigitalanddata‐drivenformthat did not resemble a traditional humanitiesmonograph, butwhich had enormous impacts ininterdisciplinaryscholarshipinthisfocusedsubjectdomain.Wenotedthattheprojectalsoattractedsome interest by prospective donors who were willing to consider joining some hypotheticalorganizationaimedatongoingsupportforthesite,includingpayingannualfees.TheVoyagessiteinformedourthinkingabouttheVIRAmodel,althoughasitstandstodayitdoesnotrepresentafullyfeaturedVIRA. WeexploredthepossibilityofdevelopingitintoaVIRAinoneofthecasestudiesdescribedlaterinthiswhitepaperthroughalignmentofscholarshipconcerningcoercedmigration.Someofthemainquestionsthatthisprototypicalexampleraisedincluded:replicabilityofitsinter‐stakeholdercollaborativerelationships,andrevenuegenerationoptionstosustainitsoperations.

Whenwelookedforotherexamplesofexistingorganizationsthatembodiedsomevarietyofcloseralliancebetweentherolesandfunctionsofscholars,publishers,andlibrarieswefoundseveralbroadcategoriesthatseemedrelevanttoexamine. Onecategoryofsuchorganizationsis learnedsocieties.Therearemanyexamplesofscholarlysocietiesthatincorporatebothscholarlyfunctionsandpublishingfunctions.Indeedthisisarecurrentaspectofmanylearnedsocietiesdatingbacktotheearliestexamplesfromthe17thCenturysuchastheRoyalSocietyofLondon,andcontinuingupthrough contemporary societies such as the Modern Language Association and the AmericanChemical Society, all ofwhomcombine scholarship andpublishing. But learned societiesdonottypicallycollaboratedirectlywithlibrariesorsupportongoinginnovationsindigitalscholarship,twokeyelementsoftheVIRAmodelthatwesetouttoevaluate.Nevertheless,learnedsocietiesappearedtobethemostwell‐establishedandwidespreadoftheVIRAantecedentsthatweconsidered.The


7

question is whether or not the basic learned society model could be extended to encompassadditionalaspectstoenableittofunctionasaVIRA;wewillreturntothisbasicquestioninthelatterpartsofthiswhitepaper.

Digitalscholarshipcenters,digitalhumanitiescenters,andothersimilar inter‐disciplinarydigitally‐oriented centers for scholarly collaboration and innovation are additional categories ofVIRAantecedentsweexamined.Thenumberofsuchcentershasincreasedinrecentyears,andthistrendisreceivingasignificantamountofattention.(Lippincott,2014)DigitalcentersarethemostfrequentsiteofdevelopmentforthekindsofdigitalscholarshipproductsthatwefocusedonintheVIRAmodel,andoftenoffervariouskindsconsultationservicesortechnicalprogrammingfunctionsforinterestedscholars.Whiletheymayincludearangeofsimilarservicesandcollaborativeactivitiesandmaybebasedineitherlibrariesoracademicdepartments,onefactthatwenoteisthattheyarevirtually always hosted organizationally within a university rather than being free‐standingincorporated entities. Learned societies are most often 501(c)3 membership organizationscomprisedofmanyindividualscholarsfrommanydifferentuniversities.Whilemanydigitalcentersare comprised of university faculty and staff members who undertake grant‐funded projects incollaborationwithotheruniversities,theyarerarelymadeupofscholarsfrommultipleuniversities.Could digital scholarship centers include scholars from many universities? Or could they becomprisedofmultipleinstitutionalmembersinconsortiaarrangements?

Therecentspateofdigitalscholarshipcenterscanalsobeseenasacomponentoftheolderandquiteprevalenttrendofresearchcentershostedbyuniversitiesandfundedprimarilythroughexternalresearchgrants.WeconsideredmanysuchresearchcentersandnotedthatmanyofthemresembledourconceptoftheVIRA.AgoodexampleistheInter‐UniversityConsortiumforPoliticalandSocialResearch(ICPSR),whichmaintainsthousandsofsocialsciencedatasets.Foundedin1962,the ICPSR is hosted by the University of Michigan and is recognized as one of the most well‐established and dynamic repositories of scholarly datasets. The ICPSR has a robust model forsustainabilitystructuredontieredannualduesfromits740members,variousalacartedownloadfees,andsignificantsupportfromfederalagencies.TheICPSRisbuiltaroundawell‐understoodandre‐usable data‐centric genre of scholarship: social science datasets. While ICPSR does not hostexperiments in new forms of digital scholarship representation, its focus on aggregating andprovidingaccesstoscholarlydataisnotable.

There are many other national centers that focus on some particular type of scientificresearch, notably including the designated Federally FundedResearch andDevelopment Centers(FFRDCs) and theDOD‐fundedUniversityAffiliatedResearchCenters (UARC). Thereare severaldifferent typesofhostingarrangements inplace forFFRDCs. SomeFFRDCsareadministeredbycorporations(e.g.MITRE,Leidos)ornonprofitresearchinstitutesunaffiliatedwithuniversities(e.g.SRI International, The RAND Corporation). Finally, there are a very small number of nonprofitcorporationsthatareconsortiacomprisedofmemberuniversitiesworkingtogethertofundasharedresearch center with shared infrastructure and programs (e.g. the University Corporation forAtmospheric Research, the Association ofUniversities forResearch in Astronomy). FFRDCs andUARCsaretypicallyfarlargerthandigitalscholarshipcentersintermsoffundingandstaffing,andtypicallyfocusonresearchinthehardsciencesratherthanthehumanities.However,theydooftencombinescholarlyresearchandpublishingefforts,andtheyalsooftenmaintaindigitalscholarshipresources (usually in the form of databases). FFRDCs and UARCs raise several questions. WewonderedtowhatextenttheVIRAmodelwasbasedonhumanitiesdisciplinaryassumptions.Thekindofongoinglarge‐scalefederalresearchgrantprogramsassociatedwithFFRDCsandUARCsare


8

typicallynotassociatedwiththehumanities.AndtherearechallengesinsustainingorganizationsatthescaleofFFRDCsandUARCsinaclimateofdecliningfederalresearchfunding.Aretheremoreefficient and smaller scale organizational community‐basedmodels that could form the basis ofVIRAswhichdonotrequirelargeongoingandpre‐existingfederalgrantresources?

Finally, we examined two other specific organizations that appeared to have usefulsimilaritieswiththeVIRAconcept.Theseorganizationsdidnotfitneatlyintoanyofthecategoriespreviouslyidentified,andeachyieldedparticularinsights.

BioOneisperhapsthebestexamplethatwefoundofanorganizationthatincludesmostofthe characteristics of the VIRA model as we envisioned it. BioOne is a “global, not‐for‐profitcollaboration bringing together scientific societies, publishers, and libraries to provide access tocritical,peer‐reviewedresearchinthebiological,ecological,andenvironmentalsciences.”(http://http://www.bioone.org) Variously characterizing itself as both a publisher and a collaborationbetweenexistingpublishersandotherstakeholderssuchaslibrariesandresearchers,BioOnehasexperimented for fifteen years with a range of strategies for efficiently mobilizing collaboratingstakeholderstosupportscholarlypublications. [Alexander,2000] Themaindivergencenoted inBioOne from the VIRA model is the fact that publications supported by BioOne are primarily“traditional”researchjournals,ratherthanthenonstandarddigitalformsofscholarshipuponwhichtheChrysalisplanningprojectwaschieflyfocused.Nevertheless,BioOneisasuccessfularrangementfor sustaining research publications through collaboration between organizations that arecompetitors in other contexts, or at least not well aligned in their motivations. The process ofcreatingBioOnewaswell‐plannedandconstitutesamodelfordevelopingconsensusandbuy‐infromstakeholdersinaformativeprocess.

TherewereseveralissuesthatsurfacedinconsideringBioOneasanantecedentormodelforhow a digital scholarship VIRAmightwork. One issuewas scale. How big a subject domain isnecessary tocreateasuccessfulVIRA? Howmuchresearchcontentmustbeassembledbeforeacriticalmassofcontentexists?BioOneencompassesboththeBioOneCompletecollectionwith“morethan180highquality, subscribedandopenaccess titles focused in thebiological, ecological, andenvironmental sciences” and the newElementamega‐journalwhich publishes “original researchreporting on new knowledge of the Earth’s physical, chemical, and biological systems.”(http://www.bioone.org/page/about/overview)Thiscontentencompassesanenormousswathofscientificdisciplines.TheleadershipofBioOneemphasizestheimportanceofattainingscaleofusefulcontentinordertomotivateinstitutionstoagreetopayrelevantfinancialsumstowardthesupportof a viable organizational effort. It is unclear to uswhether or not there is someminimum (ormaximum) threshold content scale required to establish a viable organization, but this is anoteworthyfactorinconsideringtheVIRAmodel.

The other organizationwe studiedwas theWorldwide ProteinDatabank (wwPDB). ThewwPDBwasoriginallyfoundedastheProteinDataBankin1971asadatabaseofbiologicalmoleculestructures. The database grew steadily over the years into a massive international databasemaintainedbyaconsortiumof four collaboratingorganizations in theUnitedStates,Europe,andJapan.LikeBioOne,thewwPDBisaconsortiumcomprisedofsubsidiaryorganizations(whichareinturnmadeupprimarily ofuniversities). ThewwPDB is adata‐centric repository collaborativelymaintainedbyresearchers.BothBioOneandthewwPDBarefocusedonassemblinglargecuratedcollectionsofdataforresearchpurposes,andtoalesserdegreeonwrittencontentandcommunitytoolssuchasrelatededucationalmaterials.Thesetwodomain‐centereddatarepositoriesfunction


9

asscholarlycommunicationhubsbyorganizingactorsaroundcommoninfrastructuredevelopmentandcontentaggregationandaresustainedfinanciallybybothmembershipsandsponsoredfunding.

OurenvironmentalscanshowedthattherearealargenumberofVIRAantecedentsworthexamination.WhilenoneofthemwereanexactmatchfortheVIRAmodel,thereareclearlymanyexistingorganizational forms for collaborativealliance that couldbeextended tobetteralign thethreestakeholdergroupswefocusedon:scholars,libraries,andpublishers. Instudyingthewaysthat these organizations are structured, we noted some over‐arching points about these threedistincttypesofstakeholders.

ObservationsaboutStakeholderGroupsWe note that scholars, libraries, and publishers have quite different characteristics and

expectationswhichactasbarrierstocreatingintegratedalliancesincorporatingallthreegroups.Thefollowingaresomeof themostsalientpoints. Our firstbroadpointconcernsthebasiceconomicmotivationsofthesethreestakeholdergroups.

While scholars must make money to sustain themselves personally, the overridingmotivationofmostscholarsisnotpersonalfinancialprofit.Whilethereareresearchersintheprivatesector,we are concerned in thiswhitepaperwith themajorityof scholarswhoare employed inuniversities and other institutions that are part of the public sector, not private corporations.Reputation‐based benefit (as manifested in perceived quality of scholarship) generally trumpsprivate financial benefit (manifested as personal financial profitability) in the motivations ofscholars.Furtherdistancingscholarsfromthefinancialstakesofpublishing,recentgenerationsofscholarshavenotbeenexpectedtoindividuallyfundthecostsofthescholarlycommunicationcycle,and theyhavebeenrelativelyuninformedabout suchcostsor super‐inflationarycostescalationsoverthelastthreedecadeswhichhavegreatlyconcernedlibraries.

While libraries have revenue streams and may occasionally make money throughentrepreneurialstrategies,theiroverridingpurposeisnotmakingaprofit.Infact,mostlibrariesareunderstoodasinherentlyunprofitable,ascentersforefficientexpenditure(notgeneration)offundsforsharedresources,services,andotherpurposes.Publicbenefit(asmanifestedinbenefitstotheiridentifiedclientele)generallytrumpsprivatebenefit(manifestedasinstitutionalprofitability)inthemotivationsoflibraries.However,becauselibrariesarethestakeholdersinthistriumviratewhichtodatehavebeentypicallyexpectedtoshouldermostofthecostsofthescholarlycommunicationcycle,theyaresensitizedtoissuesofaffordability,efficiency,andcostinflation.

Of necessity, publishers (including university presses) diverge from both scholars andlibrariesintheirprofit‐makingorientationandmotivations.Whileenormousshiftsinthelandscapesurrounding the research enterprise have occurred in recent decades, the basic economicmotivationsofscholarsandlibrariesdescribedabovehaveremainedstable.Scholarlypublishers,however, have been forced to change in significant ways regarding their focus on profitability.Decadesagomostscholarlypublishersweresubsidizedbyparentorganizationsinwaysthatmadethemlessconcernedwithdirectprofitability.Thischangedasscholarlypublishingactivitieswerefinanciallyejectedfromthemainacademicenterprise,eitherbyoutsourcingdirectlytocommercialpublishers or by requiring university presses to be mostly self‐funded. University presses ofnecessitybecamemorefocusedonprofitabilityinordertosurvive.

It is critically important todifferentiate twoverydifferent sensesof “profitability” in thisdiscussion. On the one hand, “profitable” can simply refer to publications that generate enough


10

revenuetopayfortheirproductionbynonprofitpresses.Ontheotherhand,“profitable”canreferto publications that generate extremely largemonetary surpluses above and beyond the cost ofproduction by for‐profit presses. Recent work by Paul Courant, Ted Bergstrom, and othersdemonstratesthedistinctionbetweenthesetwosituations;journalspublishedbymonopolisticfor‐profitpublishersunaffiliatedwithacademicinstitutionsareroughlytentimesmoreexpensivethannonprofit journalspublishedbyuniversitypressesandotherpublishersaffiliatedwithacademia.[Bergstromet al., 2014] Whilebothuniversitypressesand for‐profitmonopolypublishersmustpublishtitlesthatpayforthecostofproduction,itisonlythemonopoliesthatimposeunsustainablecoststructuresonlibrariesandotherbuyers.

AVIRAenvironmentseekstoalignthemotivationsofstakeholders.Therefore,whileprivatebenefit(manifestedasinstitutionalprofitability)generallytrumpspublicbenefit(asmanifestedineitherqualityofscholarshiporbenefitstotheiridentifiedclientele)inthemotivationsofpublishers,nonprofit publishers are an essential part of theVIRAmodel. While university presses have topublishworksthatareeconomicallyviable,thequalityofscholarshiporpublicbenefitderivedfrompublications are usually the most important motivating factors for these and other nonprofitpublishers. For‐profitpublishersarea lesscompellingaddition to theVIRAmodel,because theydivertfundingfromthescholarlycommunicationcycleintothehandsofprivateinvestorsexternaltotheprocess,therebyreducingtheamountoffundingavailableforsustainingthecycle.

Thisdiscussionofpublicversusprivatesectormotivationsiscentraltounderstandingwhyandhowdifferentstakeholdersaremotivatedtoparticipateincollaborativeventures. Ifscholarsandlibrariesdonotunderstandtheneedthatuniversitypresseshavetoproduceprofitabletitles(oratleasttitlesthatshowsomepromiseofeventuallybeingprofitable)theywillbeunabletomotivatesuchpublishers to takepart inaVIRA. Universitypressesarealreadyaccustomedto thinking interms of maximizing the scholarly quality and the benefits of their products for scholarlycommunitiesaspartoftheirnormalworkflow,buttheywillnotbeabletocompromiseonrevenuegenerationforthesakeofsustainability.Butlibrariesarealsojustifiedindemandingthattheynotbegougedonpricesbypublishers.Withoutacommitmentbyallthreestakeholderstounderstand,compromise,andaddressthemotivationsofoneanother,itwilllikelybedifficultforaVIRAtobesuccessful.

Thesethreestakeholdershavedifferentinclinationsandaptitudesforcollaborationonthework of maintaining large collections of scholarly outputs, especially digital scholarship anddatabases. Scholarsareindividualactorsthatmayormaynothaveanyinterestoraptitudeforworkingtogetherwithotherresearchers,muchlesslibrariesorpublishers. Asmentionedbefore,their generalmotivation is to conduct research to benefit society as awhole, but they also haveparticularmotivationsaroundtheirpersonalcareerprogressions.Eveniftheyworkincollaborativelabs, they typically focus on the creation of individualworks of scholarship. They are primarilyfocusedonproducingnewscholarlyworksandgettingacademiccreditforsuchworks.Historically,they have not had to provision for the ongoingmaintenance or funding themaintenance of thescholarlyworkstheyproduce;theyhaveinsteadservedprimarydriversofresearchactivitiesandthearbitersandjudgesofqualityinscholarshipthroughthepeerreviewprocess.

Libraries aremadeup of individuals but they arenot individuals, they areorganizations.Further,theyareserviceorganizationsfocusedonservingtheneedsofsomeidentifiedclienteleofinformation seekers. Even if a library reports to a single individual such as a provost, librariesfundamentallyservetheneedsofmany individuals,andthey focuson largescaleaggregationsof


11

scholarly works from many sources for many synergistic research and instructional purposes.Becauselibrariesarealsocentrallyconcernedwithfundingandmaintainingongoingaccesstothelarge collections of scholarlyworks that they acquire, they are accustomed to negotiatingmanydifferentkindsofsystem‐widegroupagreementstomaximizeefficiencies(consortialpurchasingofshared resources, reasonable circulation rules for physical items, fair allocation of constrainedcollectiondevelopmentfundsformultipleacademicdepartments).

Librarieshistoricallydidnotconcernthemselveswiththecreationofnewscholarlyworks,butthenewtrendofdigitalscholarshipcenters(oftenembeddedwithinoraffiliatedwithlibraries)hasbegun to change this. Libraries havenowbegun to focuson the entire lifecycle of scholarlyinformation, includinghostingsomecenters for thecreationofnewscholarship,especially in thehumanities.Librariesunderstandtheneedsoftheirfacultyclienteleforacademiccredittoadvancetheircareers,includingfacultywillingnesstorelinquisheconomiccontroloftheirscholarlyoutputsandtheirdesiretohandoff long‐termresponsibility formaintainingandpreservingtheseworks.These factors may become key motivators for the VIRA strategy of reintegrating the threestakeholdersinthescholarlycommunicationcycle.InorderforVIRAstoexist,librariesareneededto act as both funders and maintainers, but they can only do so if scholars and publishers aremotivatedtoallywithlibrariesaspartners.

Publishers, specificallypublishinghouses focusedonpublishing scholarlyworks, are alsoorganizationsandnotindividuals.Theyarefocusedontheproductionandsaleoflargenumbersofscholarlyworksthattheyarecurrentlypublishingorpreparingtopublish.Publishersareexpertsinorchestratingthecreationofscholarlyproducts,whethermonographorserial.Theyhaveafarbetterunderstandingofmarkets,marketing,andsustainabilitythaneitherscholarsorlibrarieshave.Butpublishersareaccustomedtoactingincompetitionwithoneanother,andaretypicallyunwilling(orunable,duetoantitrustlaws)tocollaborateinwaysthatcouldcompromisetheireconomiccontrolofpublicationsorsharinginformationaboutpublishingworkflows,tools,andcosts.Yet,scholarlypublishersalsofundamentallybelieveintheimportanceofresearchforsocietyandanymodelforongoingscholarlycommunicationmusttakeaccountofthefunctionsofpublishersjustasitaccountsfortherolesofscholarsandlibraries.Thecostsofpublishingmustbebothunderstoodandresolvedinamannerthatisfairandefficientforallparties.Thetensionhereisthatpublishers,havingbeenexcluded from universities and academic subsidies once, may be unwilling to cooperate bycompromisingtheirprofitabilityiftheyareapproachedtocollaborateinprospectiveVIRAs.

TheChrysalis:AdaptationthroughTransformationTraditional scholarship, in the form of monographs and journals, is paid for by the

mechanisms of libraries purchasing this content or leasing access to it from publishers. In thetraditionalmodel,print copies survived throughbenignneglecton library shelves,which in turnweremaintainedthroughthesunkcostsofgeneralupkeepoflibraryfacilities.Butashasfrequentlybeennoted,thenatureofdigitalscholarshipisquitedifferent.Becausedatabasesandwebsitesmustbeactivelymaintainedovertime,digitalscholarshipmusthavestreamsofrevenuethatwillpayforongoingupkeepofcomputersystemsand(ideally)continuedsoftwareandcontentdevelopment.

Digital scholarship, assuming it does becomewidely accepted for faculty promotion andtenure(admittedlyabigassumption),mightgothewayoftraditionalscholarshipandbecomehostedbypublishersandsustained throughstraightforwardpurchasesandsubscriptions from libraries.Butthishasnottypicallybeenthecasetodate.Rather,digitalscholarshipresourcesareoftencreatedby scholars (sometimes in collaboration with librarians) in the course of grant funded projects


12

undertakenatresearchcenters(whetherinlibrariesorelsewhere).Sofartherehasnotbeenatrendof commercially selling such resources through publishers. It is unclearwhether this is becausepublishersareuninterestedincommerciallypublishingsuchresources,becausethecreatorsdonotwishtocommercializethesenewformsofscholarship,orsomeotherreason.Therehavebeencallsforuniversitypressestoembracenewformsofdigitalscholarship,butalsoacknowledgementthatthey are deeply invested in traditional products and reluctant to change. [Wittenberg, 2010]Researchcentershavedifficultymanaginglegacywebsitesaftergrantsareexpended;suchcentersare primarily funded by research grants, and are primarily motivated (both academically andeconomically)toundertakenewresearchratherthanmaintainoldresearchoutputs.

Researchlibrariesarewillingintheorytosustaindigitalscholarshipresources;afterall,theircoremissionistopreservethescholarlyrecord.Thechallengeisthelackfundsforsuchpurposes;librariesarealreadyoverburdenedbythelegacyofsuper‐inflationarycostescalationsintraditionalscientific journals.[PanitchandMichalak,2005] Butthequestionofwhetherornotthesesuper‐inflationary cost escalations are equitable has been raised repeatedly and is highlighted by thepreviouslycitedresearchofCourant,Bergstrom,andothers.Therehavebeenattemptstoestimatethepotentialcostsavingsofpublishinginopenaccessjournals[VanNoorden,2013],andestimatesthat changing the fundamental structures of the current scholarly communication system couldpotentiallyresultinbillionsofdollarsofsavingstoresearchlibraries.[CambridgeEconomicPolicyAssociates, 2008] But it is difficult tomodel a hypothetical planned transition from the currentsituation in which funds currently expended on unsustainable subscriptions from for‐profitpublishers(themajorityofthematerialsbudgetsofresearchlibrariesthesedays)areredirectedintosustainablerevenuestreamsfornonprofitpublishers.Yetthistransitionmaywelloccurthroughanunplannedtransition,asfollows.

The serials crisisdiscussedbyPanitchandMichalakhasbeen tracked formore than twodecades starting with the seminal 1992 Mellon‐funded study University Libraries and ScholarlyCommunicationwhichchartedtheextentofrapidlyescalatingserialspriceincreasesanddecliningpurchasesofmonographsbylibraries.[Cummings,1992]Thecostofserialsgrewoverthepasttwodecadesatsuper‐inflationaryratesinexcessof8%peryear(sometimesmuchhigher). Whilethetrends constituting the serials crisis have been charted for years and accompanied by direpredictions,conversationsinthisplanningprojectwithdirectorsofresearchlibrariesconfirmthatthistrendisnowcresting,withtheresultthatvirtuallyallresearchlibrariesarenowofnecessitycommencingmassivejournalcancellationprojectsandothercost‐cuttingmeasures.Formorethantwodecadeslibraryadministrationshaveundertakenherculeanmeasurestopreserveacquisitions,buteventhesometimesextremestrategiesbroughttobearintheseefforts(consortialpurchases,staffreductions,etc.)arenolongersufficienttoavoidlargescalereductionsinthe“bigdeal”journalbundles that Bergstrom and Courant analyzed. The question is no longerwhether or not fundsexpendedonmaterialsbudgetswillbereduced,thequestioniswhatwillhappennow?

Librarieshaveengagedinserialscancellationprojectsbefore,butnotonthisscale.Becausethisisterraincognita,noonecandefinitivelypredictwhatwillnowhappen;thefollowingareourcomments about this situation as it bears on the concept of VIRAs. If libraries simply use themechanismofcutsasareactivestrategytobalancetheirbudgets,thentheywillsimplypaymoreandmore for fewer and fewer items. An alternative scenario is that libraries proactively redirectcollection development funds toward partnerships with their university presses and faculty topublishscholarshipatmoresustainablerates;inotherwords,createverticallyintegratedresearchalliances. Especially fornewdigital formsofscholarship,somepermutationof this ideaemerges


13

frommany recent white papers and articles; examples include the Strategies for Success report[Mullinsetal.,2012],theIthakaS+RSustainingourDigitalFuturereport[Maronetal.,2013],andBryanSinclair’sarticleonthetopicinEducauseReviewOnline.[Sinclair,2014]

ThestrategyforgeneratingrevenuestreamswithintheVIRAmodelmaybeverydifferentthan mechanisms such as monograph purchases and journal subscriptions that have sustainedtraditionalformsofscholarship.Thenatureofdigitalscholarshiponthewebislesslikeatraditionalpassive publication consumption model, instead having aspects that resemble social media andcreative artistic endeavors aimed at exciting and motivating a potential group of collaborators.Rather than recapitulate traditional pay‐wall approaches, VIRAs could make use of approachesassociatedwith learnedsocieties suchasmemberships (both individual and institutional). Moreprovocativelytheymightadoptthe“crowdfunding”modelwhichhasbecomeaprominentmeansoffundingcreativeendeavorsinrecentyears,amodelwhichworksonaverydifferentdynamicthantraditional purchasemodels. [Belleflamme et al., 2014] The success of theKnowledgeUnlatchedproject using a model that essentially amounts to crowdfunding of institutions has been anilluminatingsuccessstory.[Montgomeryetal.,2014]

The VIRA strategy confronts the scholarly communication crisis head‐on and calls for atransformationofourarrangementsforproducingscholarship;hencethemetaphorofthechrysalisin the title of this planningproject. Webelieve that the timehas come for research alliances ofscholars,publishers,andlibrariestobeconvenedwiththeexplicitpurposeofsustaininginnovativescholarly communication efforts at affordable priceswhilemaximizing public access to researchresults.Butexactlywhatformsuchallianceswilltakeisstillanopenquestion.Theywilllikelybuildonestablishedmodelssuchasthelearnedsocietyandtheresearchcenter.AsawaytoassesstheVIRAmodel,wedecidedtoexploreitwiththreeprospectivecasestudies;thesearedetailedinthenextsection.

PROSPECTIVERESEARCHALLIANCECASESTUDIESThe Chrysalis planning project studied three prospective research alliances as a way of

assessingtheVIRAmodel.Thesecasestudieswerechosenonthebasisofthefollowingcriteria:

1. Was thereaunifyingscholarlysubjectdomain thatcould formthebasisofanalignedresearchalliance?

2. Didtheprojectprincipalshavesomepersonalknowledgeofpotentialcollaboratorsinthethreestakeholdergroups(scholars,librarians,presses)?

3. Didtheseinitiativesdemonstratesomecapacityforverticalintegration,i.e.weretherepotentialgroupsofscholars,librarians,andpublishersthatcouldpotentiallybebroughttogethertoformaVIRA?

The Chrysalis planning project selected three case studies based on these criteria andconvened a series of meetings to discuss the VIRA concept and garner feedback from potentialcollaborators.

CaseStudy:TexanaResearchAllianceThe ideaof this research alliance focusedon the inter‐disciplinary cultural andhistorical

study of the state of Texas. This regionally‐focused alliance was in some ways the moststraightforwardofthecasestudies,andonethatwasuniquelywellpositionedforseveralreasonstoexploreinasingleinstitutionalcontextattheUniversityofNorthTexas(UNT). Threesynergistic


14

outreacheffortsarebasedatUNT:1)theprimaryscholarlyassociationforthestudyofTexashistory,the Texas State Historical Association (TSHA), 2) the UNT Libraries’ Portal to Texas History, acollaborative statewide portal to historic digitized content from of 250 libraries, museums, andhistoricalsocieties,and3)theUNTPress,whichhasamajorfocusonTexasHistory.Allthreegroupsworktogetherclosely,andhaddiscussedthepossibilityofamoreambitiousoutreacheffortwithstakeholdersthroughoutthestateandbeyondtocreatearesearchalliancefocusingonTexana.

TherewereanumberoftransformativepossibilitiestoconsiderinthecaseofaprospectiveTexanaresearchalliance.TheadministrativeofficialsoftheUNTLibraries,UNTPress,andtheTSHA,wereallinterestedinthepossibilityofexploringpossibilitiesforrepurposingthebackfilesoftheTSHAandtheUNTPressfornewscholarlypurposesonline.Therichcorporarepresentedbymorethan a century’sworth of content from of the Texas State Almanac, the SouthwesternHistoricalQuarterly,andmanyotherpublicationsoftheTSHAandUNTPress,togetherwithmorethanamillionpages of historic newspaper content in the Portal to TexasHistory could potentially be used toproduce many new ad hoc publications on specific scholarly topics. Recent historical analysissoftware applications jointlydevelopedbyUNTandStanford for large scale textmining andGISanalysisofthePortaltoTexasHistory[TorgetandChristensen,2012]couldbebuiltupontocreatenewformsofinterdisciplinarypublicationsforhistoricalregionalstudies.

PlanningmeetingswereheldatUNTtodiscusstheconceptofaTexanaresearchalliance,including inter‐organizational agreements to be created that would enable collaborativeinteroperabilityofsystemsandconceptualizeproceedsfromsubscriptionsorotherfee‐basedaccessto such systems. There was a great deal of enthusiasm and interest by all concerned in thepossibilitiesofsucharesearchalliance.AnopenbrainstormingmeetingwasheldattheMarch2014annualconferenceoftheTSHAinSanAntonio;themeetingwaslistedontheTSHAconferenceagendaandattracted22attendees(bothscholarsand librarians)whospentseveralhoursdiscussingtheideaoftheresearchalliance.AllofthesediscussionsconfirmedthattheVIRAmodelwascompellingtobothadministrativeofficialsoftherespectiveorganizationsandprospectiveusersofthedigitalscholarshipresourcesenvisioned.

AlthoughtherewasagreatdealofenthusiasmfortheideaofaTexanaVIRA,uponreflectionthe project investigators began to question whether an alliance with such a limited number ofinstitutionalpartnerswasactuallyaVIRAintheend.ItisworthnotingthatdiscussionsconcerningtheprospectiveTexanaVIRAwereputonholdwhentheTSHAexecutivedirectorleft foranotherposition. TSHAwasthe lynchpin in theprospectiveresearchalliance,akeyconnector thatcoulddrawscholarstogether.Itmaybethatthelessonlearnedis,inpart,thatonelynchpinisnotenough,that a collective needs to be drawn togetherwithneutral facilitation at its center in order to besuccessfulthroughpersonnelchanges.AllrelevantstakeholdersshouldideallybecommittedtotheVIRA,with a degree of inter‐institutional neutrality governing relationships in order toweatherchangeswithinconstituentstakeholdergroups.

WhilethiscasestudyvalidatedmanyoftheconceptualelementsoftheVIRAmodelandtherelevantorganizationsmayverywellreturntothediscussionsaboutaTexanaresearchalliance,themostnotable findingitrevealedwasanironicallycautionarytaleaboutthecriticalityofacriticalmassinthecommunitythatmakesupaVIRAprospectively.


15

CaseStudy:SouthernStudiesResearchAllianceSouthern Studies is another regionally focused example thatwe examined as a potential

researchalliance. ThiscasestudyfocusedontheSouthernSpaces interdisciplinaryonlinejournal(http://www.southernspaces.org)basedatEmoryUniversity,whichhasservedasaproductiveandinfluentialresourceofnewscholarshiputilizingdigitalresearchevidenceandpresentations foradecade. This research alliancewould build on the success ofSouthernSpaces to seek out newopportunities through the collaborative group of scholars and curatorswho have beenworkingtogetherforadecadetopublishthejournal.Alargebodyofdigitalcontentwascreatedandarchivedduringthepastdecadeofpublishingthejournal,includingboththepublishedpiecesandthedigitalcontentthatscholarssubmittedandarchived,butultimatelywasnotused,inthecourseofcreatingSouthernSpacesarticles.Thisunusedbutarchivedcontentiscomposedofawidevarietyofcontenttypes, including digital photographs and video footage. Reusing this archive of content forcollaborativepurposeswithpublishersisapotentialmeansofgeneratingfundingforthesupportofthejournal.AnexampleofsuchacollaborativeeffortwasarecentpartnershipwiththeUniversityofTexasPress for theirKatrinaBookshelfSeries. In thispartnership,SouthernSpacespresentedselectedessaysandexcerptsfromtheserieswithtextlinking,maps,images,charts,andothermediathatdoesnotappearintheassociatedprintedbooks.Thisexperimentalcollaborationsuccessfullyshowcased the contributions that a digital scholarly publishing venture likeSouthernSpaces canmaketoanessay'sargument.Therearevariousbenefitsofthiskindofco‐publishingarrangement,inthatthepublicationalsohelpsthepressbydrawingattentiontotheseriesandtheeditedbookfromwhichtheessaywasadapted.

A series of discussions with the Southern Spaces editors took place during the Chrysalisplanningproject. Thesediscussions explored thenotionof a broader Southern Studies researchalliancethatcouldgeneraterevenuefromco‐publishingarrangements,includingthequitedifferentpossibility of re‐using the very robust Southern Spaces publishing platform for other scholarlypublications.Inthiscasestudy,SouthernSpaceswouldgrowtofunctionasthenexusofcollaborationfor scholars, libraries, and publishing operations interested in Southern Studies. This conceptualresearchalliancewouldseekoutmeansofcapitalizingonboththepublishedandunusedcontentofawell‐establisheddigitaljournaltocreateabroaderagendaforfosteringresearch,publishing,andsustaining catalytic activities in the larger communityof SouthernStudies scholars. Manyof theconversations in this case study tookup the question of publishing tool re‐use, centering on therobustSouthernSpacespublishingplatform.ConversationsonthesetopicsculminatedinameetingoftheprojectteamatEmoryUniversityinApril2014.ThismeetingfeaturedadeepdiveintotheproductionprocessesofSouthernSpaces,andthediscussionhighlightedtheongoingstrengthofthejournalasatraininggroundforyoungscholars.InsomewaysSouthernSpacesisalreadyaminiatureVIRA,andthiscasestudyendedupelaboratingotherprospectivestrengthsoftheVIRAmodelthatwe had not considered in terms of instructional and training value for graduate students. Thediscussionalsohighlighted the challengesof transitioningexistingdigital scholarshipefforts intorevenuegeneratingoperations.Asdiscussedelsewhereinthiswhitepaper,scholarsaremotivatedbyacademicvalues,notprofitability.FromitsinceptionSouthernSpaceshasbeenanOpenAccessjournal, and it is difficult to envision transforming it into a subscription‐based resources after adecadeofpublications. Werealized inthesediscussionsthatotheracademicmodels forrevenuegenerationbasedonthelong‐standingnotionofendowmentsanddonorsmightbemoreappropriateandcompellingfordigitalscholarship.ThetenyearhistoryofSouthernSpacesmadethiscasestudybothmorespecificandlessprospectiveinmanyways,asitbuiltonagreatdealofpastpracticethatstructuredand constrained the conversations. However, it did surfaceamuchgreaterdegreeof


16

nuanceinthediscussionabouttheneedforfinancialsupportoftheongoingoperationsofthejournal,thejuniorscholarsthatmadeupthemajorityoftheeditorialteam,andthepracticalconsiderationsofapublishingplatformfornon‐traditionalscholarship.

CaseStudy:CoercedMigrationResearchAllianceThisprospectiveresearchallianceofscholars,libraries,andpresseswouldstudythebroad

topicsassociatedwithcoercedmigration,includingslavery,refugees,andeconomicdisplacement.Thistopicalframing(“coercedmigration”)hasbeenarticulatedandadvocatedbyscholarsnotedfortheirworkonseveralinnovativedigitalscholarshipprojectsinthistopicalarea,notablyDr.DavidEltis,wholedthecreationoftwomajordigitalscholarshipresources:theTransatlanticSlaveVoyagesdatabase (http://www.slavevoyages.org) and the African Origins database (http://www.african‐origins.org).Dr.Eltisandvariousotherscholarsinvolvedinthestudyofeitherslaveryorrefugeestudiesarticulatedthepossibilitiesincreatingacooperativeresearchalliancefocusedoncoercedmigration. During the planning project they were interviewed concerning the production ofsecondarysourcepublicationsandotherservicesthatmightbecreatedassuperstructureontopofexistingresourcessuchastheVoyagesandOriginsdatabases,allofwhichrelatetothebroadtopicofcoercedmigration.Theconceptofacoercedmigrationresearchalliancewasdiscussedduringameetingofprospectivecollaboratorsassembledforthisplanningprojectatthe2014OrganizationofAmerican Historians Conference. This meeting and the conversations that led up to it wereexhilarating.

Creatingameaningfulresearchallianceforthissubjectdomainwouldinvolveabroadrangeofactivitiessuchascomparativeanalyticaluseofcoercedmigrationdatasets,normalizingdata,andthe creation of standards for storing, analyzing, using, and disseminating such datasets. Thetremendouspowerofcollaborativelyassemblingsuchdatasetsinportalshasbeendemonstratedinprojectsthatthevarioushistoriansandsociologicalresearchersbroughttogetherforthisdiscussion,notably including theVoyagesportalpreviouslymentioned, theSocialConflict inAfricaDatabase[Salehyanetal.,2012],theTexasSlaveryProject(http://www.texasslaveryproject.org),andothers.There are many challenges associated with these kind of coerced migration projects centeringaroundthecomplexitiesofadaptingtraditionalhistoricalmodesofinquiryintomachine‐actionabledatabasesandthepreviouslymentionedissuesinsustainingsuchwebsitesovertime.Thescholarswho were brought together for these discussions highlighted the difficulty that their respectiveprojectshadencounteredovertheyears. However,ofthethreecasestudies,thisoneseemedthemostbroadlybasedinanemergingcommunityofnewresearchmethodsalignedinmethodsandtheimportanceofitssubjectdomain:thelarge‐scalecoercedmigrationofhumanpopulationsinbothhistoricalandcontemporarytimes.

Anumberofissuesincreatingacoercedmigrationresearchalliancewerenotedduringtheplanningprojectdiscussions.Therewouldbemanypracticalchallengestoovercomeinordertogetmultiple high‐profile organizations and individuals to collaborate on an alliance of this kind.Developingstandardsfortheexchangeofdatainwaysusefulforresearchpurposeswasatechnicalissuenoted.Pointswereraisedaboutthechallengesofjuniorscholarsgettingcreditforpromotionandtenure files fromsuchprojects. However, therewasanoverallstrength in thesediscussionsfoundedontheimportanceofthisemergingcategoryofresearchmethodsandsubjectdomain.

A number of the discussions involved the issue of revenue generation, and the mostcompelling models again seemed to be based on the notion of donations or memberships in aresearch alliance. Such contributions might come from institutions, individuals, or both. Key


17

questionscontinuetorevolvearoundvaluepropositions.Howwouldcontributionsberewarded?Wouldresourcesproducedbegatedbehindtoll‐wallsoropenaccess?Howwouldthequestionoffree‐ridersbeaddressed,ifatall?Whilethiscasestudygeneratedfarmorequestionsthantheothertwoexamples,italsoseemedtogeneratethemostscholarlyandcollaborativeenergy.

CONCLUSIONSThe problems with the sustainability and viability current system of scholarly

communicationare longstandingand serious. Networkeddigital resources suchaswebsitesanddatabasesofferdynamicnewalternativestotraditionalscholarlyproductssuchasnarrowlyfocusedprint monographs and super‐inflationary journals. The focus of this white paper on a newcollaborativemodeltermedVerticallyIntegratedResearchAllianceswouldbringtogetherrelevantstakeholdersincloserworkingrelationshipstocreateandsustainpromisingnewformsofdigitalscholarship. The strategy of creating VIRA organizations intentionally reframes the need for afundamental transformation as an opportunity, rather than a challenge, barrier, or intransigentfinancial problem. This organizational strategy would incorporate stakeholders from keycommunities—scholars, publishers, librarians—in order to foster better ongoing connectionsbetween these groups, vertically assimilating different parts of the academic publishing processthroughconcentratedalliances.Organismswithapupallifestageexperienceakeytransformativemoment when they reorganize themselves internally to better adapt to changing lifecyclecircumstances. Like the chrysalis, restructuring theactivitiesof scholarship inparticular subjectdomains into research alliances of these key stakeholder groups could create more sustainableorganizationalforms.

Consultations with a broad range of such stakeholders during this planning projectdemonstrated that the concept of cultivating a stronger collaborative arrangement that wouldincludesubject‐focusedcross‐sectionsofscholars,libraries,andpublisherswasaverycompellingmodel. Most individuals consulted felt that the model shows promise, but all the projectconversationsalsocircledaroundtheunknownaspectsandpracticalchallengesofimplementingthemodelinactualresearchalliances.ItwasimportanttounderstandtheVIRAmodelinthecontextofexistingcollaborativeresearchorganizationsthatcouldbeconsideredasantecedentstotheVIRA.Alargenumber of such conceptual antecedents to theVIRA exist; antecedents such as the learnedsocietyhavealonghistoryandserveaspotentialexamplesthatcouldbeorganizationallyextendedtocreateVIRAs.Themanypermutationsoftheinter‐institutionalresearchcentermodelalsoserveasexistingexamplestobuildon.UnderstandingtheVIRAasanextensionoftheseexistingmodelstoinclude additional stakeholders in the scholarly communication cycle is a way of incrementallybroadeningourcollectivethinkingaboutresearchcollaborationstrategies.VIRAsmaybeeasiertounderstandifframedintermsofmodifiedversionsofexistingantecedentorganizations.

Thinkinginthesetermshighlightsthecentralityofscholarstoanyresearchalliance.Scholarsmust be strongly committed in terms of the research agenda of the subject domain underconsiderationinanyparticularVIRA,andmustcommitsignificanttimeandenergytotheintellectualoversightofsuchanallianceifitistosucceed.Thedangeristhatscholarsareoverburdenedintheirtimecommitments,andmaybespreadtoothintotakeontheadditionalresponsibilitiesassociatedwithaVIRA.TheymaynotbewillingtocommittoaVIRAbecausetheydonotseetheactivityassufficientlyalignedwiththeirpersonalresearchagendasorcareerprogressionpaths.Ifthisstrategyis to be successful, theVIRA conceptwill have to come to be seen as somethingworthy of timecommitments,muchaslearnedsocietiesandresearchcentersarenowseen.


18

Librariesarekeysupportinginstitutionsinthescholarlycommunicationsystem.Librariessustain the output of scholars in many related ways. Libraries act as repositories to preserveknowledgecreations;theyhouseinformationandkeepitinorder.Librariesactasfundersthroughmechanismslikesubscriptions,one‐timepurchases,andotherrevenuesthatsustaintheproductionofscholarship.Finally,librariesactaspointsofaccessandaggregation,storingverylargemassesofaccumulatedworksandmaintainingdiscoverysystemsintheformofcatalogsandotherfindingaids.ThebiggestproblemwithenvisioninglibrariesascontributinginsimilarwaystoVIRAsisthefactthat library budgets are already overburdened, especially by the super‐inflationary costs oftraditionalscholarlyproductsfromfor‐profitpublishers.Itwillbedifficultinpracticeforlibrariesto free up funds for experiments with new organizational collaborative models such as VIRAs.Library administrations will have to understand and be able to articulate the need for theirorganizations to step up to the challenge of moving funds from unsustainable forms of legacyscholarshiptosustainablenewsformsofinnovativescholarship.

University presses have strengths in their ability to realistically assess the market forscholarlyoutputsandthemosteffectivemeansofmarketingsuchworks.Pressesareeconomicallychallenged in the VIRA model by their necessary focus on the profitability of new titles andendeavors.Ifuniversitypressesareunabletofreeuptimeandfundsforexperimentswithnew7.

ThequestionofsufficientscalemustbeaddressedinthinkingprospectivelyaboutcreatingaVIRA.Acriticalmassofcontent,motivatedscholars,andcommittedinstitutionsmustexistifaVIRAis to be sustainable. This becomes obvious after considering successful existing researchcollaborativeorganizations.An“alliance”isofnecessitylargerthanasmallhandfulofindividualsorasingleinstitution.GainingabetterunderstandingoftheissueofwhatconstitutessufficientscalewillbeanessentialpartoffleshingouttheVIRAmodel.

During this planningproject some stakeholders voiceddisappointmentwith the fact thatmore progress had not been made despite being two decades or more into the scholarlycommunicationcrisis.Wefounditimportanttoreframethesituationintermsofthehumanpaceofchange,ratherthanatechnicaldevelopmentpaceofchange.Scholarlytransformationeffortsrequirehumanadaptations,notsystemupgrades.Experimentation,change,andevolutionoforganizationsoccursatamuchslowerpacethantechnology.Thesystemofscholarlycommunicationencompassesmanyinstitutions,establishedpractices,andperceptions,allofwhichhaveagreatdealof inertia.ExperimentswithVIRAsandothercollaborativeformswilltaketime;thisshouldnotdissuadethefieldfromengagingwithsuchexperimentsinordertomakeprogresstowardimplementingmoresustainableformsofscholarship.

The process for creating a VIRA startswith the research community concernedwith thesubjectdomain.Asaprogression,cultivatingastrongsharedsenseofcommunityfirstandthenusingthatsenseofcommunitytogeneraterevenuestreamsemulatesthestrategyoffoundingalearnedsociety.Manyeffortstodatehavesoughttoemulateatraditionalmanufacturingcorporatestart‐uppattern,withthenotionofofattractingalargeinitialinvestmentandusingthistocapitalizeakindofproductionlineforscholarship.Butscholarsandthescholarlyworkstheyproducearenotexactlylikeconsumersandtheproductstheyconsume.Scholarlyworksareamediumofcommunicationbetween members of a community. These works do not have communicative value before thecommunityexists.Thereisaninitialactivationenergytothesystem;telephonesarenotusefuluntilthereisacommunityoftelephoneuserstocommunicatewithoneanother.VIRAstart‐upsmaymoreaccuratelybecomparedtosocialmediacorporationsstartingup;theimportantthingistoengageagrowingnumberofparticipantsintheactivity.Counter‐intuitively,evenifitstartssmallandgrows


19

slowly,asharedandsolidcommitmentofmultiplestakeholderstoasubjectdomainofscholarshipmaybeastrongerfoundationtobuilduponthanalargeupfrontinfusionoffundscommittedtoapropositionthatisultimatelyunclear.

Anotherdivergencefromthepast:VIRArevenuestreamsmaynotresemblethosethathavesustained traditional forms of scholarship. Rather than recapitulate the model of monographpurchases and journal subscriptions,VIRAs couldmakeuseof approachesassociatedwith socialentrepreneurship such as memberships (both individual and institutional), fund‐raisers, anddonations. The crowdfunding model for sustaining creative endeavors by mobilizing manyindividualinterestsmaybeabettermatchforresearchalliancesthatembodysomeaspectsofsocialmedia.

ThethreecasestudiesundertakeninthisplanningprojectwereusefulasapracticalmeansofsurfacingissuesinimplementingVIRAs.Theinterestgeneratedbythediscussionsinthesethreeprospectivecasestudiesilluminatedboththestrengthsofthemodelaswellasitschallenges.Theprojectresearchteambelievesthatasanextstep,oneormoreofthethreeexploratorycasestudiesundertakeninthisplanningproject,orsomeothersetofcasestudiesshouldbecarriedforwardtoassesstheVIRAmodelmoreconcretely.

Thefutureofscholarshipinthedigitalagewill likelyfeatureneworganizationalpatterns.TheVerticallyIntegratedResearchAlliancemodelmayormaynotprovetobeaneffectivestrategyfor improvingthesustainabilityofnewformsofscholarship,butourhope is thatonewayortheotherthestakeholdersmakingupthesystemofscholarlycommunicationwillactivelyengagewiththechallengeofexperimentationwithnewforms.


20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander,Adrian,andMariluGoodyear.2000.“TheDevelopmentofBioone:ChangingtheRoleofResearchLibrariesinScholarlyCommunication.”JournalofElectronicPublishing5(3).AccessedDecember16,2014.http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0005.302

ARL(AssociationofResearchLibraries).1997.TheSpecializedScholarlyMonographinCrisis:OrHowCanIGetTenureIfYouWon'tPublishMyBook?ConferenceSponsoredbytheAmericanCouncilofLearnedSocieties,theAssociationofAmericanUniversityPresses,andtheAssociationofResearchLibraries.September11–12,1997.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://old.arl.org/resources/pubs/specscholmono/index.shtml

Arbuckle,Alyssa,ConstanceCrompton,andAaronMauro.2014.“Introduction:BuildingPartnershipstoTransformScholarlyPublishing.”ScholarlyandResearchCommunication,5(4).AccessedDecember16,2014.http://src‐online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/195

Ayers,Edward.2013.“DoesDigitalScholarshipHaveaFuture?”EducauseReview.July‐August,2013.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/does‐digital‐scholarship‐have‐future

AAUP(AssociationofAmericanUniversityPresses).2014.AAUPOperatingStatisticsSurvey.

Belleflamme,Paul,ThomasLambert,andArminSchwienbacher.2014.“Crowdfunding:TappingtheRightCrowd.”JournalofBusinessVenturing29(5):585‐609.

Bergstrom,Theodore,PaulCourant,R.PrestonMcAfee,andMichaelWilliams.2014.“EvaluatingBigDealJournalBundles.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica.111:9425–9430.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403006111

CambridgeEconomicPolicyAssociates.2008.Activities,costsandfundingflowsinthescholarlycommunicationssystemintheUK.ResearchInformationNetwork.

Crow,Raym.2012.ARationalSystemforFundingScholarlyMonographs:AWhitePaperPreparedfortheAAU‐ARLTaskForceonScholarlyCommunications.FlintHill,Virginia:ChainBridgeGroup.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/aau‐arl‐white‐paper‐rational‐system‐for‐funding‐scholarly‐monographs‐2012.pdf

Clement,Richard.2011.“LibraryandUniversityPressIntegration:ANewVisionforUniversityPublishing.”JournalofLibraryAdministration.51:507‐528.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2011.589330

Cummings,Anthony.1992.UniversityLibrariesandScholarlyCommunication:AStudyPreparedforTheAndrewW.MellonFoundation.Washington,D.C.:AssociationofResearchLibraries.

Fitzpatrick,Kathleen.2011.PlannedObsolescence.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.


21

Howard,Jennifer.2013.“ForUniversityPresses,aTimeofFixingBridges,andBuildingNewOnes”ChronicleofHigherEducation.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://chronicle.com/article/For‐University‐Presses‐a‐Time/139983/

Lippincott,Joan,andDianeGoldenberg‐Hart.2014.DigitalScholarshipCenters:Trends&GoodPractice.CNIWorkshopReport.Washington,DC:CoalitionforNetworkedInformation.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://www.cni.org/wp‐content/uploads/2014/11/CNI‐Digitial‐Schol.‐Centers‐report‐2014.web_.pdf

Lorimer,Rowland.2014.“AGoodIdea,aDifficultReality:TowardaPublisher/LibraryOpenAccessPartnership.”ScholarlyandResearchCommunication,5(4).AccessedDecember16,2014.http://src‐online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/180

MacInnes,Ian,KasamaKongsmak,RobertHeckman.2004.“VerticalIntegrationandtheRelationshipbetweenPublishersandCreators,”JournalofElectronicCommerceResearch,5(1):25‐37.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://people.stern.nyu.edu/wgreene/entertainmentandmedia/Vertical‐Integration‐in‐Publishing.pdf

Maron,Nancy,JasonYun,andSarahPickle.2013.SustainingOurDigitalFuture:InstitutionalStrategiesforDigitalContent.IthakaS+R,andtheHigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland(HEFCE).AccessedDecember16,2014.http://www.sr.ithaka.org/research‐publications/sustaining‐our‐digital‐future

Mollick,Ethan.2014.“TheDynamicsofCrowdfunding:AnExploratoryStudy.”JournalofBusinessVenturing29(1)1‐16.

Montgomery,Lucy,ChristinaEmery,FrancesPinterandLeonLoberman.2014.PilotProofofConceptProgressSummary.London:KnowledgeUnlatched.

Mullins,James,CatherineMurray‐Rust,JoyceOgburn,RaymCrow,OctoberIvins,AllysonMower,DaureenNesdill,MarkNewton,JulieSpeer,andCharlesWatkinson.2012.LibraryPublishingServices:StrategiesforSuccess:FinalResearchReport.Washington,DC:SPARC.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/purduepress_ebooks/24/

Munroe,Mary.2013.“TheAcademicPublishingIndustry:AStoryofMergerandAcquisition.”AccessedDecember16,2014.http://www.ulib.niu.edu/publishers/

OECD(OrganisationforEconomicCo‐operationandDevelopment).2005.DigitalBroadbandContent:ScientificPublishing.Paris:OECD.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/12/35393145.pdf

Panitch,Judith,andSarahMichalak.2005."TheSerialsCrisis.”WhitePaperfortheUNC‐ChapelHillScholarlyCommunicationsConvocation.ChapelHill:UNC.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://www.unc.edu/scholcomdig/whitepapers/panitch‐michalak.html

Salehyan,Idean,CullenHendrix,JesseHamner,ChristinaCase,ChristopherLinebarger,EmilyStull,andJenniferWilliams.2012.“SocialConflictinAfrica:ANewDatabase.”InternationalInteractions:EmpiricalandTheoreticalResearchinInternationalRelations38(4):503‐511.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2012.697426


22

Simmons,Whitney.2009.“StayingAlive:TheChallengesFacingUniversityPressesintheDawnoftheDigitalAge.”Thesis,MasterofScienceinPublishing,PaceUniversity.Paper15.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/dyson_mspublishing/15

Sinclair,Bryan.2014.“TheUniversityLibraryasIncubatorforDigitalScholarship.”EducauseReviewOnline.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/university‐library‐incubator‐digital‐scholarship

Torget,Andrew,andJonChristensen.2012.“MappingTexts:VisualizingAmericanHistoricalNewspapers.”JournalofDigitalHumanities.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1‐3/mapping‐texts‐project‐by‐andrew‐torget‐and‐jon‐christensen/

VanNoorden,Richard.2013.“OpenAccess:TheTrueCostofSciencePublishing.”Nature495:426‐429.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/495426a

Waltham,Mary.2009.TheFutureofScholarlyJournalsPublishingAmongSocialScienceandHumanitiesAssociations:ReportonastudyfundedbyaPlanningGrantfromtheAndrewW.MellonFoundation.NationalHumanitiesAlliance.AccessedDecember16,2014.http://www.nhalliance.org/bm~doc/hssreport.pdf

Wittenberg,Kate.2010.“ReimaginingtheUniversityPress.”JournalofElectronicPublishing13(2).AccessedDecember16,2014.http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0013.203

vertically integrated research alliances: a digital ... · katherine skinner christina drummond...

Documents