Quelques rapports sur les livrels (OCDE, DOABooks et France)
Avec l’annonce du Amherst College aux USA annonce la création une presse universitaire exclusivement en accès libre, j’ai compilé une liste de rapports pertinents sur les livres numériques ou électroniques (ou livrels pour les amoureux du français, sur recommendation de l’Office québécois de la langue française).
Dans un premier temps, l’OCDE annonce le rapport suivant sur les livrels :
Réalisée en vue d’une réunion en 2011 et diffusé librement en 2012, ce texte présente l’industrie internationale des livrels (environ 8% du marché du livre aux USA, 2-3% au Royaume Uni et environ 1% ailleurs, voir p. 4). Intéressant, il traite de la question du prêt/accès aux livrels dans les bibliothèques :
E-books offer libraries a number of important benefits including savings on storage, handling, ordering and distribution. The growing emphasis on online services also enhances the visibility of the larger public libraries which have built up extensive collections of digital resources. On the other hand, cost implications of the need to purchase multiple licenses for e-book versions of texts traditionally shared through interlibrary loans may need to be considered, particularly for smaller libraries. Costs may also be affected if territorial digital rights management (DRM) restricts libraries to purchasing geographically specific editions of books.
The DRM generally embedded in the vast majority of e-books being produced today does not allow for the kind of free and open access provided by, for example, public libraries. Nor does it allow the use of books as learning resources provided for children in school libraries; nor the research goals of university / academic libraries.
There are also concerns about royalty payments for e-books in libraries. “Public Lending Rights (PLR)”110 is an internationally used system for ensuring that authors are financially compensated for the (unpaid) use of their books in public libraries. There are various options for calculating the amount due to an author and libraries rely on public funding to make these payments. It is not clear in a number of countries whether governments will support the extension of the system to cover e-books. [p.57]
The question of how to integrate e-books into public libraries, school libraries and university libraries, raises important social and public interest concerns. Potential future research could focus on the
specific ecosystem for authors, publishers and libraries in the developing digital-text environment. Key questions for policy-makers which could be addressed include:
i. The extension of “public lending rights” to e-books.
ii. Ensuring efficient, fair and socially beneficial processes for mass digitisation of copyright protected texts.
iii. Economic consequences of different policy models for authors, publishers, libraries and the public. [p. 59]
Ensuite, le Directory of Open Access Books (ou DOABooks) annonce la publication d’un rapport sur l’évaluation des besoins des divers intervenants dans un projet d’accès libre à des livres. Voici le sommaire exécutif de l’étude :
This final evaluation and recommendation report is based on the user experiences, needs, and expectations as they emerged from the data collected as part of the DOAB User Needs Analysis. This report aims to advise in the establishment of procedures, criteria and standards concerning the set-up and functioning of the DOAB platform and service and to devise guidelines and recommendations for admissions to DOAB and for its further development, sustainability and implementation.
The report gives an overview of the main aims and objectives of the user needs analysis, which are summarised in two main research questions:
What are the functional requirements, or needs, which different users have with respect to the platform, the protocols and the procedures that DOAB wants to establish?
What kind of recommendations can we extract from the users’ experiences with the beta-platform and their expectations of a future DOAB service?
The research design has been structured around defining user (librarians, academics, publishers and funders) needs, experiences and expectations with respect to the DOAB platform and system as it is currently set up, paying special attention to users perceptions and needs with respect to Open Access, Open Access books, and a directory of Open Access books; quality and peer review procedures; copyright policies; platform usability; and potential business and funding models both for Open Access books and for DOAB. This study has used a variety of qualitative data collection tools (surveys, online discussion platform and panel discussion) to capture these needs, experiences and expectations.
The findings are divided into 5 themes:
1. Perceptions concerning Open Access and Books.
The awareness of Open Access amongst the participants of our survey is high. Users are on average positive about the influence Open Access has on the values underlying scholarly communication, which is important especially because communication with one’s peers and releasing information to the wider society are seen as the most important motivations for publishing research findings amongst academics.
2. Quality and peer review.
A majority of the users declared the importance of quality control and peer review for Open Access book publishing, to ensure the quality and trustworthiness of Open Access books. Requirements and standards concerning quality control are warmly welcomed, as is more transparency about procedures used, as long as these standards remain flexible and open to a variety of quality control mechanisms, from editorial control to open peer review and post publication review.
There is a big disparity in opinions with respect to which Open Access license should be used and promoted. Nonetheless, it seems that most people are satisfied with the current requirements defined by DOAB. The availability of a wide array of open access licenses must be preferred to enable experiments with different business models and in anticipation of academic insecurities with respect to reuse. To enable experimentation and reuse of content and data and to stay open for future change, DOAB should strive to promote the use of CC-BY licenses as much as possible and should remain open for new forms of licensing.
4. Platform Usability.
DOAB seems to be on the right track with its platform. The feedback is positive and the user needs seem to concur with services that are already available in the DOAB Beta version, except for full-content search and information about the peer review procedures, which would be useful future services for DOAB to explore.
5. Business models.
Although many experiments with Open Access publishing are taking place there is a lot of concern with respect to sustainable funding from reliable, ‘non-controlling’ sources. It remains unclear who should fund Open Access books, and, related to that, who should fund a directory of Open Access books. However, there are possibilities for DOAB to attain funding from publishers, librarians or funders, as there was some willingness amongst these stakeholders to pay a fee either to take part in or to support DOAB.
Based on these findings a number of recommendations have been devised, focusing amongst others on DOAB’s role in establishing standards for peer review and licensing, standards and requirements that should both ensure trust and quality but at the same time should remain flexible and open to change. It was recommended that DOAB:
– Consult regularly with stakeholders to monitor needs and developments in these areas.
– Use a variety of Open Access licenses, although the CC-BY license should be promoted as much as possible.
– Make quality, which is seen as essential, more transparent by using for instance an icon system.
– Remain open to other forms of quality control such as open and post peer review and editorial control, where the focus should be on the outcome, not on the procedure used.
– Improve the information available on the DOAB website.
– Explore the future development of services for which a clear need was felt: full-content search and information about the peer review procedures.
– Try out asking a (voluntary) fee for its services in order to ensure its sustainability and future development.
Le texte complet du rapport est disponible ici: DOAB User Needs Report (PDF, EN, 77 p.)
J’ai découvert deux listes très intéressantes d’études françaises sur les livrels. La première se trouve à la note infrapaginale no. 23 de la page 4 du récent livre Droit d’auteur et bibliothèques aux Éditions du cercle de la librarie (excellent soit dit en passant, j’en ai fait la critique pour la prochaine livraison de Documentation et bibliothèques). La seconde, se trouve sur le site LeMotif.fr. Voici une sélection des titres pertinents :
– 2008, Bruno Patino, Rapport sur le livre numérique – Le Ministère de la culture ;
– 2010, Christine Albanel, Pour un livre numérique créateur de valeur ;
– 2010, Marc Tessier, La Numérisation du patrimoine écrit ;
– 2010, Patrick Zelnik, Jacques Toubon, Guillaume Cerutti, Création et Internet ;
– 2010, Bruno Racine, Schéma numérique des bibliothèques
– 2010, Benhamou, Modèles économiques d’un marché naissant : le livre numérique
– 2010, Gaillard, la politique du livre face au défi du numérique, Sénat
– 2011, Pierre Carbone, Commission bibliothèques numériques, rapport 2011.
(Peut-être d’intérêt, cette étude intitulée “Coûts, bénéfices et contraintes de la mutualisation des ressources électroniques : éléments de comparaison internationale et propositions” 2010 et “Optimisation des coûts de la documentation électronique dans les établissements d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche français” 2011 également sous les soins de Pierre Carbone).
-2012 synthèse du Centre d’analyse stratégique du Premier ministre de la France: auteurs et éditeurs ; les librairies ; les bibliothèques publiques
– 2012, Cremisi, Soutenir la librairie pour consolider l’ensemble de la chaîne du livre :une exigence et une responsabilité partagées