37
36
voluminously need the same deep pockets. Irrespective of the
impact on the research and publishing ecosystem as a whole
and of the involvement of publishers, free access (and conse-
quently free publishing) is not a realistic scenario.
What are the alternatives? First, not all information retrieval
will ever be entirely digital. Even the most digitized disciplines
still generate the majority of content non-digitally, i.e., in
printed format, and users still prefer reading printed formats
than electronic formats. This is true for most of us, when we
read novels, poems, and newspapers as well as for profession-
als, particularly those working with sources dating back more
than ten years. For the foreseeable future, I would not expect
this model to change fundamentally.
However, if all information were to be digitized, diferent ways
of how patrons would access information would still depend
on publishers and libraries. While the “big deal” will fade
away as majority of the content from smaller providers also
becomes available in print and digital format, alternative busi-
ness models are still needed. Publishers need to fnd the genet-
ic code of their oferings, ideally across all product types, to
provide access to any type of content. In addition, they must
be able to make proft, regardless of whether the customer
buys an individual article or the full collection. Consequently,
libraries must adapt their cataloguing to the article level.
The consequences would be signifcant for goals of both li-
braries as well as publishers. Although librarians would need
to cope with much greater complexity, partially ofset by the
merits of information technology, publishers would need to
implement a more detail-orientated content model, while
communicating it to authors. Everybody in a traditional pub-
lishing house knows that the major challenge is not IT but
authors. Already today, communicating the need for a new
type of marketing in publishing that emphasizes abstracting,
indexing and discoverability rather than colorful catalogues is
often challenging.
If all information were digital, the role of publishers and librar-
ies alike would have to be redefned. However, a redefnition
would not necessarily mean that their respective roles would
become obsolete. It seems to me that we are in the midst of
the process of redrawing the landscape, with options of either
one or both parties being obliterated from the drawing board,
to new elements being included.
I want to make the case for a radical reinvention of the exist-
ing structure, in which roles remain largely unchanged, but
the services and benefts to the system change. Both libraries
and publishers are essential because they constitute two nodes
in a rapidly changing environment in which the system must
perform. Publishers are needed to take economic risks for
the library system that is to a large extent risk averse. A large,
publicly funded library system cannot be exposed to placing
bets on the future. In contrast, publishers as entrepreneurs
must do so to create better products to diferentiate them-
selves from their competitors. Publishers, in most cases, are
drivers of innovation.
What’s ahead? Both libraries and publishers have experiment-
ed extensively over the past decade or so. Semantics, the open
access movement already mentioned, patron driven acquisi-
tion, article metrics, big data – there are very few trends in the
overall information industry that did not cause repercussions
in publishing and librarianship. The core remains the same:
Access to information matters, whereas it seems to me that
the relevance of content is gaining importance, particularly in
the digital age.
Usage is a good example for this hypothesis. For publishers
and libraries alike, the usage of content has become almost a
second currency, and it has become much easier today than
in the past to measure whether and how patrons use elec-
tronic resources. If content is not used sufciently, future ac-
quisitions are usually unlikely. But is usage really the right
criterion for measuring relevance? I doubt it. The participants
in the publishing ecosystem are investing heavily to increase
discoverability and visibility of content, and research indicates
that these measures have a signifcant impact. However, they
should not be misinterpreted as they work only in an asyn-
chronous landscape, in which some players use techniques to
increase discoverability and others do not. It divides the world
into Haves and Have-nots, but it does not increase relevance.
If all information were digitized, the ecosystem of making
research information available would change fundamentally.
Access is technically no longer an issue, and usage is easy to
measure. However, some things would not change: Access to
information – be it via open access or in traditional purchas-
ing models – costs resources. Surely, the key issue of relevance
will not be solved through technology alone. To attach rele-
vance to content and help researchers and scientists to retrieve
the exact information they need, it needs publishers and their
programs as well as librarians. The way they work may change,
and new, diferent players will enter the scene, but the funda-
mental roles will remain vital.
DR. SVEN FUND is Managing Director of De Gruyter, a global
scientifc publishing house and one of the largest open access pub-
lishing houses. Sven Fund teaches library and information sciences
as a guest lecturer at Humboldt University in Berlin and is a board
member of CrossRef.
Free access (and conse-
quently free publishing)
is not a realistic scenario.
HOW CAN LIBRARIES
BE GUIDED INTO
THE FUTURE?
Networks, standardization and digitization are the central challenges for
worldwide librarianship. What role does the close collaboration of large
national and academic libraries have in these cross-border projects?
Answers by
MICHAEL A. KELLER
In the summer of 2000, the Long Now Foundation and the
Stanford University Libraries sponsored an invitation only
conference entitled “The 10,000 year Library” to consider the
permanence of information and the need for long-term think-
ing about library functions assuring permanence. Elisabeth
Niggemann, relatively new to her post as Director General of
the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB), joined representa-
tives of the Vatican Library, the Council on Library and Infor-
mation Resources, IBM, the Rand Corporation, the Institute
for the Future, Wired Magazine, several universities, and sever-
al other foundations to focus for a few days on the challenges,
quandaries, and opportunities of the developing digital age,
the World Wide Web then being less than a decade old. There
was an anthropologist, a Babylonian scholar, and a science
fction writer along with professors, librarians, engineers, jour-
nalists, consultants, and philanthropists involved in the three
day conversation.
Niggemann’s appointment ffteen years ago to the leadership
role she has now was, one gathers, something of an eye opener
for many in Germany. With substantial credentials in biology
and Anglistik, the appointment of a mid-career woman to a
post that had previously been held by men, often with exten-
sive university library leadership experience, was a risk well
worth taking. Thus, Elisabeth Niggemann’s participation in
that Long Now conference could be seen as both avantgarde
and traditional.
The description of the conference provides an abstract with
implications and direct references to many of the concerns
facing the Director General of the Deutsche Nationalbiblio-
thek as well as leaders of many other research libraries. “In a
time of accelerating technology, accelerating history, and a
dangerous shortening of civilization‘s attention span, the role
of libraries becomes deeper than ever. Libraries need to be
rethought in the new context and in the light of civilization‘s
now-global and very long term responsibilities. Some new ini-
tiatives need to be set in motion. The conference participants
will address needed directions for such initiatives.” According
to Stewart Brand, co-chairman of the Long Now board, “we
want to jump-start some serious, collaborative thinking about
how to see information – the real narrative of civilization – in
very long-term ways. We‘re talking in part about technology,
but it goes much deeper, right to the root of why we are here,
what we‘re doing, and what kind of legacy do we want to leave
to our descendants and to their successors.“
“Stewardship of cultural content is the essential role of research
libraries. Serious players in this feld have always collected, or-
ganized, and preserved information – books mostly – on
g