DigitalKoans

Here we highlight the most striking key findings from our research:

1. There are enormous disconnects between the library and publisher communities on academic monograph publishing. While the two have come together on a variety of important open access initiatives, beyond this there are very different conceptualizations of a shared reality. For example, while university presses and other academic book publishers are experiencing an enormous squeeze in the transition to digital production and distribution, libraries are concerned that digital distribution is resulting in acquisition models that are unsustainable or unreliable to manage.
2. Many libraries procure e-book content through a mix of acquisition methods that meet their local demands for content, budgeting and staffing needs. Faculty and researcher demand remains paramount for institutions, and libraries remain committed to ensuring both perpetual access and preservation.
3. The majority of librarian interviewees believe that evidence-based acquisition models provide an especially efficient way to allocate money. Several libraries reported that they have moved away from demand-driven acquisition models due to the significant maintenance required for libraries to engage with these programs. Traditional item selection as facilitated by subject liaisons, however, still accounts for a significant volume of monographic acquisitions at some institutions.
4. Some libraries identified that a major challenge to acquiring e-monographs was the lack of experienced staff who understand how to navigate the complexities of acquisitions across publishers and aggregators. Standardization across publisher contracts and licenses would help streamline the acquisitions processes and reduce the amount of staff capacity required to facilitate acquisitions. A few librarians said that since e-books are being licensed so differently and under so many different models to present, they have defaulted to print. Libraries have not invested in talent development for monograph strategy to the same extent they have for journals under the banner of scholarly communication.
5. Publishers and librarians see value in open monographs initiatives. Several publishers spoke about the importance of these initiatives, including Direct to Open, Fund to Mission, Opening the Future, Path to Open, and University Press Library Open, although at present they have not yet been able to scale to cover all academic book production. Librarians see real promise in these models to increase access to open scholarship, support small and university presses, acquire diverse content, open content to broader readership, and promote responsible financial models.
6. Moving towards more open content is a strategic priority for some institutions. While libraries generally indicate that higher portions of their budgets are being spent on purchased content at present, several participate in one or more flip to open programs. As it remains difficult to acquire and to ascertain quality of open monographs outside of these programs, however, institutions are not always able to fulfil this strategic goal in practice.
7. Consortia are viewed as increasingly critical by publishers in equalizing opportunities for readership and publication. Several publishers mentioned the importance of working with consortia, especially those that represent a range of institutions including community colleges, to ensure broad access to publications. Publishers are also pursuing closer collaborations with library consortia to implement read and publish-style agreements for monographs.
8. Across our interviews, perspectives were mixed on whether authors place value on their e-monographs being openly available. While a number of interviewees say that increasing numbers of authors are prioritizing publishing open access and want to reduce barriers to readership, particularly to researchers located in other parts of the world, author opinions on open access are often field- or discipline-specific. Some believe that open access content is lower in quality.
9. Introducing new models and advocating for adoption requires significant time investment on the part of publishers. Publishers reported that new business models require concerted and cyclical efforts to bring awareness and adoption to the library market. In addition, balancing financially sustainable operations while making e-books available to a wide range of libraries with variable staffing and budgetary configurations is difficult.
10. New business models introduce new challenges—both pragmatic and ideological—for publishers and libraries. Over the course of this research, Clarivate announced that it was moving away from transactional sales and towards a bundled subscription model for e-book sales. It is clear that the business models for how books will be distributed going forward will have an enormous effect on the sustainability of scholarly publishers and their ability to continue producing monographs of the type that this report examines.
11. Interviewees believe that generative AI will likely have a large, but as of yet unknown, impact on electronic monographs in the future. While interviewees did not speculate on what this impact would look like, there was a sense that it would be transformative and affect how readers engage with long-form electronic content.

https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.323373

| Artificial Intelligence |
| Research Data Curation and Management Works |
| Digital Curation and Digital Preservation Works |
| Open Access Works |
| Digital Scholarship |