As a member of OCLC’s Publisher Relations Team, my colleagues and I serve as intermediaries, representing the needs of libraries in the publishing world and vice versa. This can feel like mediating between squabbling roommates or sometimes like pairing up lost gloves—a perfect fit, a meant-to-be. While it may be tempting to see only a dichotomy, two sides of a story, a chasm to be bridged (I could go on with the metaphors), we choose to focus on the commonalities between libraries and publishers, building connections instead of dwelling on the gap.
Much easier said than done.
Occasionally, we get the opportunity to put our idealistic views to the test and bring the publisher’s perspective to a seemingly library-specific issue, as we did in the recent OCLC Research report Improving Open Access Discovery for Academic Library Users. I consulted with the report’s authors throughout the research process, offering alternative readings from a non-library view. This project shed light on common challenges, emphasizing that no single entity can tackle the enormity open access discovery on its own. The outcome is a report that is valuable to open access (OA) stakeholders outside the library, as well.
“Truly improving the discoverability of OA publications requires all of the stakeholders involved to consider the needs of others within the lifecycle.”
Libraries, publishers, technology providers, and aggregators all play a role in the lifecycle of OA publications. These many OA content workflows and responsibilities don’t exist in a silo, but rather integrate with and augment each other. Focusing solely on the library’s role would lose the assistance and efficiencies offered to the library by the others. As the penultimate line of the report states, “Truly improving the discoverability of OA publications requires all stakeholders involved to consider the needs of others within the lifecycle.”
Although the report is primarily aimed at librarians, the authors have thoughtfully identified significant findings from the study and emphasized key takeaways for publishers and other non-library stakeholders. These important points are visually highlighted using magenta boxes throughout the report. However, to provide even greater clarity for this specific audience, I have extracted a few of the most relevant points under the categories of Metadata, Access, and Trust, and offered brief explanations of their significance.
Metadata
Consider the metadata that library staff identified as important for the discoverability of OA publications when identifying potential improvements in how metadata can be created, shared, harvested, and displayed.
We all (should) know that metadata is important for all content discovery. Metadata that is used to discover traditional publications, such as author name, title, abstract, keywords, journal name, volume, issue, publication date, and subject are also important for the discoverability of OA publications. However, librarians also stated an additional need for persistent identifiers such as ISSN, ISBN, DOI, ISNI, ORCID, and ROR, to allow library systems to potentially make linkages between resources to further aid discovery and “reduce confusion among their users”(Improving Open Access Discovery, 13). Moreover, adding persistent identifiers into metadata for all types of content is good practice, as the recent report recommending a US national PID strategy describes. Not only do PIDs improve discovery, but they also support interoperability and automation, reduce administrative burden, improve research assessment and research integrity efforts, and save money when widely adopted.1 So, if you have any PIDs, add them in. If not, go get one… and add it in.
Users evaluate resources concurrently and iteratively as they search and access them. Both metadata and system capabilities need to support these simultaneous processes of discovery, evaluation, and use.
The absence or presence of metadata is the differentiator for discovery. Librarians asked that publishers include metadata about the use of peer review, publication version, and OA status (through the inclusion of license information) to help systems differentiate the content and enable users to better evaluate their resources of choice. OA publications may have multiple versions (such as the version of record, author accepted manuscript, or preprint), and these versions may be aggregated across various repositories, with only metadata available to differentiate them in search results. The completeness of the provided metadata will influence users in selecting a version. For instance, if one version clearly indicates that the content has undergone peer review and is the OA version of record, users may be inclined to choose it over a result with minimal context.
OA content that isn’t discovered doesn’t get used, and OA content that doesn’t get used doesn’t get supported by libraries. Therefore, publishers should provide the most complete metadata possible about OA content as well as partner with library staff to understand what metadata they would like to receive and help “authors understand the role that quality metadata plays in the discovery of their work.” (Improving Open Access Discovery, 35)
To find out more about how publishers can better create metadata about open access books, see EDItEUR’s application note “Open Access Monographs in ONIX” (both text and video).
Ensure that article-level metadata is provided by all publishers, regardless of size. This makes it easier for library staff to add these OA publications to their collections to meet users’ needs.
Even the smallest OA publishers of either books or journals should ensure their metadata is thorough and shared with trusted aggregators such as DOAB or DOAJ. Those Open access platforms and others provide aggregated metadata to libraries in standardized formats that allow systems providers to efficiently index the content. These aggregators may require publishers to apply and be accepted before adding their metadata and content to the repository, but they also provide general advice to all publishers on creating high-quality metadata. Seek it out and follow it. These aggregators see metadata of all levels of quality every day and know what works.
When adding OA publications to knowledge base collections, clearly name the collection and identify what types of OA resources are in the collection and how much of it is OA. Provide this information consistently to help libraries identify the content they are looking for within the potentially duplicated records.
Knowledge bases are largely managed through the use of the KBART, or Knowledge Base and Related Tools file. NISO provides more detailed information about the KBART format, but in general, the KBART file is the special sauce that keeps the metadata record connected to the hosted content and the library’s catalog. This very library-centric data format can sometimes prove mysterious to publishers who focus on the title- or article-level metadata, but it is crucial in making collection development and management workflows run smoothly for libraries.
To help understand KBART, imagine a shipping container full of individual copies of physical books being sent to a warehouse. There is a shipping manifest pasted to the outside of the container that lists what books are found within. Without this manifest, the warehouse staff would have no idea what they are dealing with when they open the container, resulting in inefficient check-in processes and some unhappy staff. The KBART acts as this shipping manifest, itemizing the contents of a publisher’s digital collection and allowing the libraries to expediently add it to their catalog.
As the OA Discovery report points out, the choice to add OA content to a library catalog is not necessarily simple. Librarians weigh many factors when considering this work. So, make their job easier by providing thorough and consistent KBART files, and name your collections as clearly as possible. If the collection contains only open access content, then please say that in the collection name. Otherwise, the collection might be overlooked for consideration. Unclear labeling can lead to unhappy librarians, which is something nobody wants.
Access
Providing seamless authentication to content behind a paywall saves users and library staff time and effort.
Studies about Information-seeking behaviors always get librarians excited, and the Open Access Discovery report doesn’t disappoint. You can see complete details within the report, but it finds, among other things, that users are most likely to search for scholarly peer-reviewed content first on a search engine, with the library catalog coming in third. The publisher’s website was further down the list in fifth place. So going straight to the publisher is not a common practice.
After users navigated their search results and tried to access the digital full text they were seeking, they often faced barriers that had a negative impact on their experience. These barriers included the requirement for payment, unavailability through their library, and the need to log in—three barriers that are directly related to the traditional paywalled access model for scholarly publications.
Publishers should take note that the users’ most common response when hitting the barrier was to seek an OA version of that content. While logging in and accessing the content behind the paywall was a close second, it is significant that users chose to instead pivot to another version of the content. Of course, it’s also worth noting that users were more likely to give up on the content altogether than to ask a librarian for help or find the content in a physical format.
Publishers should support seamless authentication to their paywalled content to not only save the user and librarian time and effort, but to also ensure that the content they host is being used and found of value. Users don’t care about the business model supporting the content. They just want ready access to the content they are seeking. After taking the effort to make content discoverable, publishers need to make those last mile connections possible and support authentication through to their content, regardless of how that content is funded.
Trust
This takeaway was highlighted for library staff, but is relevant to publishers as well:
Provide users more guidance about how to evaluate whether a scholarly publication is trustworthy, including reasons why it’s important to consider the journal, publisher, and author’s reputation in addition to whether the publication has been peer-reviewed.
Trustworthiness and reputation are important. Publishers, you know this. Librarians make a choice about what OA content they bring into their collections. They do not just have an open-door policy. If you support the publication and discoverability of high-quality open access content, make sure that you also support the libraries’ collection development processes around OA by following these three recommendations:
Be transparent. Make it easier for your reputation to be evaluated. Avoid marketing language that may sway the evaluator away from your intention. Fill your metadata with all the PIDs, funder information, and peer review information that you possibly can.
Be helpful. The Open Access Discovery report calls on libraries to educate users on how to publish OA as well as offer more holistic instruction on OA, like how “licensing and versioning work throughout the publication lifecycle, what different publishing models mean about how OA publications are created and funded, and how to determine what OA publications are trustworthy” (Improving Open Access Discovery, 31). Support libraries by communicating about your OA efforts more broadly. OA interactions should go beyond negotiating transformative agreements and include information to support user awareness of your OA efforts. This can help foster library-wide conversations around OA and lend credence to your trustworthiness.
Be trustworthy. The need to establish trust is a repeated refrain within this report. Trust is earned and libraries take actions based on this intangible feeling by analyzing tangible actions. By being transparent, providing helpful information, and building trust with library partners, you increase the likelihood of your OA content being readily added to their catalogs.
Final thoughts
As publishers, librarians, and discovery partners continue to navigate the evolving landscape of open access, the myriad of publishing models and methods to discover content will continue to strain the sometimes-tenuous bonds between library and publisher. But collaboration remains key. All sides of the story are really just focused on getting the right information to the right user at the right time. Ultimately, improving metadata, streamlining access, and building trust are foundational in ensuring OA content is both discoverable and valued.
But how do we measure the impact of these efforts? Usage data plays a crucial role in understanding how OA publications are accessed and utilized. In a follow-up post, we’ll delve into the significance of usage reporting, exploring how better analytics can help publishers and libraries alike make informed decisions that enhance discoverability and engagement.
Claire Holloway is Manager of Publisher Relations for OCLC and the chairperson of the Book Industry Study Group’s Metadata Committee. Before making a mid-life decision to turn her focus to the library space, Claire had worked in editorial and production roles throughout the Publishing Industry. Claire loves books of all genres (except thrillers), metadata of all flavors, and sharing information about both to anyone who wants to learn.
By submitting this comment, you confirm that you have read, understand, and agree to the Code of Conduct and Terms of Use. All personal data you transfer will be handled by OCLC in accordance with its Privacy Statement.