$30 off During Our Annual Pro Sale. View Details »

The Tightwad's Guide to Open Access

Dorothea Salo
October 22, 2021

The Tightwad's Guide to Open Access

For "Open October" event at Washington University in St. Louis.

Dorothea Salo

October 22, 2021

More Decks by Dorothea Salo

Other Decks in Research


  1. The Tightw
    ad’s Guide
    to Open Access
    Dorothea Salo

    Information School, UW-Madison

    Open Access Week 2021
    Hi, folks, and thanks for inviting me here! I’ll be giving you my somewhat irreverent, very ranty, and not even slightly
    polite take on the current state of scholarly communication, with special reference to why it costs what it does and
    how we might be tightwads when it comes to those costs.

    View Slide

  2. First,

    some assumptions

    I’m making
    I’m assuming this is a crowd with a lot of librarians and some faculty in it; that’s pretty typical of the audience when I
    give talks like this, which I’ve been doing for
    fteen years or so, one way or another.

    View Slide

  3. Not everyone here knows how

    nancial side

    of scholarly publishing works…
    … much less

    how it’s been changing.
    But everyone here has heard

    some mis- or disinformation

    about it.

    View Slide

  4. Everyone here who publishes

    needs their publications

    to give them career prestige.
    But the rules around prestige

    are often outdated

    or even unethical.
    Navigating that

    while not rewarding price-gouging

    is a tough challenge.
    {read slide

    I publish in the journal literature too, I GET IT. When I’m working with a coauthor who’s up for tenure, they choose the
    publication venue and I don’t argue. When I can argue, though, I do, because pushing back on the current state of
    things is a tightwad move and I hope you’ll join me in it at least sometimes.

    View Slide

  5. I am not here

    to tell you

    where to publish.

    View Slide

  6. It’s not like y’all would listen

    if I did!
    I worked as a librarian

    doing scholarly-communication stuff

    for several years too long, sorry.

    I’ve promised myself

    this is the LAST TIME I do a talk about it.
    What I can do today

    is explain what’s going on,

    how it’s dysfunctional,

    how we can survive it anyway,

    and how we might even change it.

    View Slide

  7. The Good Ship
    our Library”
    Let’s start explaining where we’re at right now by envisioning the good spaceship Your Library,
    ying happily through
    the galaxy.

    View Slide

  8. The setup
    Classically, and by that I mean “in the print era,” here is how the Good Ship Library gets the journal literature to Planet
    Faculty. (And students, of course, but let’s be real here, faculty mostly drive how the Good Ship Library runs.) The
    Good Ship Library sends money to publishers, who send journals to Planet Faculty.

    I am of course making this sound a lot simpler than it is! I want to acknowledge that explicitly because I’ve met a lot
    of people who actually seem to think it’s this simple. It’s not. If I tell you it is, I’m insulting a lot of hardworking and
    skilled library folks, which would be wrong of me. So I’m not telling you that

    I’m just using this as an approximation, okay?

    View Slide

  9. Notice: Planet F

    is cost-clueless.
    One thing I want you to notice about this setup, though, is that Planet Faculty has no idea how much money is going
    from the Good Ship Your Library over to the publishing establishment. And I don’t want to just blame faculty here, I
    am also going to point the
    nger at both the publishers and the Good Ship Your Library on this. These days,
    publishers write non-disclosure agreements into journal licenses, so prices get kept secret, and straight-up, it was
    WAY too long before librarians started pushing back on those

    This is actually really problematic; ask any economist. Whenever the person who wants the stu
    is di
    erent from the
    person paying for the stu
    , whenever information about prices is kept secret by NDAs, it’s a recipe for price-gouging.

    View Slide

  10. Tightw
    ad Rule #1
    Do not sign NDAs.
    Make journal costs public.
    Enshrine “no NDAs, no way, no day”
    in library and institutional policy.
    So my Tightwad Rule Number One is simple, and aimed straight at libraries

    (policy…) And you need written policy on this because anything else is totally unfair to the librarians negotiating
    licenses. Any salesperson is going to steamroll a librarian who says “I don’t like NDAs.” It’s a lot harder to steamroll
    an actual written policy. So write one.

    View Slide

  11. Anyw
    ay, this
    But let me get back to my story here. What happened was, the publishers raised journal prices, as businesses will.
    And the Good Ship Your Library paid up. Because Planet Faculty needs the journals, right?

    View Slide

  12. Then this…
    Hot diggity dang, said the publishers, we can charge whatever we want, at least for our most prestigious and popular
    journals, and we’ll totally get away with it! So they demanded more money, and more money, and more money, until
    **CLICK** the outer hull of the Good Ship Your Library just totally blew out. Oh no, red alert, hull breach! Money just
    pouring endlessly out of the hull!

    View Slide

  13. This cost escalation is not new.

    The Internet did not create it.
    My father (anthropologist, retired)

    used to complain to the family

    about journal cancellations

    when I was a kid.
    I’m 50 years old next year.

    The web is half that age.
    Now, y’all need to ask older folks like me about journal cost escalation, because there’s this myth out there that The
    Internet Did It.

    No, y’all. Nuh-uh. My now-retired anthropologist dad ranted loudly at his family about journal cancellations when I
    was just a little kid, maybe seven or eight. What he thought we could DO about it I’m not sure, but hey, I grew up to
    be a scholarly-communications librarian for a while, so maybe it made a di

    Anyway, I’m hitting the big
    ve-oh next year. The web’s barely half that age. Journal cost escalation long pre-dates
    the Internet.

    View Slide

  14. did nothing.
    And what did Planet Faculty do when the Good Ship Your Library’s hull blew up

    Not a thing. Not one thing. I mean, other than complain to their partners and kids.

    View Slide

  15. (except blame

    And blame librarians. Whole lotta librarian-blaming going on

    I will return to this point.

    View Slide

  16. The big deal

    (term coined 2001)
    But the internet did in fact change things: it made the Big Deal possible. In the Big Deal, the Good Ship Your Library
    still sends money to publishers, and Planet Faculty still has no earthly idea how much, but instead of just one or a few
    journals, the publisher ships over a big huge wodge of journals

    Most of which Planet Faculty doesn’t even want, but y’know, more feels better than fewer, so here we are

    Wanna guess what happened next? I bet you can guess what happened next.

    View Slide

  17. Then this happened.
    Same cost escalation we saw before. Publishers demanded more money for Big Deals.

    View Slide

  18. Then this…
    Then LOTS more money. If you guessed this, good for you

    And the Good Ship Your Library searched the couch cushions, which in practical terms means cancelling independent
    journals that weren’t part of Big Deals, cutting book budgets, cutting capital budgets, even cutting sta
    and services
    when things got really bad

    Because Planet Faculty got hooked on the Big Deal, and the economists tell us that “loss aversion” is a thing. The
    Good Ship Your Library knew pretty well that if Big Deals went away, Planet Faculty would send the Good Ship to the

    View Slide

  19. Then this…
    So the Good Ship Your Library, not wanting to go to the scrapyard and not wanting another hull breach (hull breaches
    are bad), got together with other good ships to form a whole
    eet of library spaceships to be able to a
    ord Big Deals.
    eets are called “consortia” and these days every academic library belongs to one or two or
    ve of them

    I mean, you’d think the existence of library consortia would be obvious, but it’s the year twenty-twenty-one and I still
    run into faculty who tell me that libraries should band together to increase our purchasing power like it’s a new idea
    or something, so yeah.

    View Slide

  20. Then this.
    So what do you do about the library spaceship
    eets if you’re a publisher? Well, you just raise prices some more,
    obviously! It really wasn’t that long before library consortia started springing hull breaches and bleeding money out
    into the uncaring nothingness of deep space too. And nobody’s been able to repair the breaches, they just keep
    getting worse.

    View Slide

  21. did nothing.
    So, said Sherlock Holmes, what did Planet Faculty do in the night-time about all this

    Planet Faculty did nothing.

    View Slide

  22. (except blame

    Except blame librarians some more, and tell us to do things we were already doing.

    View Slide

  23. Here’s the thing about
    Pumping in more air
    (that is, money)

    won’t fix it.
    Now, I’m about to pay o
    this spaceship metaphor, okay? Here is where I pay it o
    . The thing about a hull breach in
    deep space is, you can’t
    x it or even expect to survive it if all you do is pump more air in. The air you pump in will
    just bleed out into space some more! That’s not a

    And pumping in more money will not
    x the situation we’re in with journal costs. Price gougers just suck the new
    money out of libraries and library consortia the same way they did the old money.

    View Slide

  24. Louder:

    No amount

    of money

    fixes this.

    View Slide

  25. The whole


    must change.
    So we gotta change the whole system here. We can’t keep trying to
    y the Good Ship Your Library with constant hull

    View Slide

  26. How?

    well, we’re kind of
    still working

    on that one.
    That’s the reason I’ve spent
    fteen years thinking and writing and talking about this stu
    . There aren’t any easy
    so we’re still working on the hard ones.

    View Slide

  27. What are
    publishers selling?
    So let’s think about this a slightly di
    erent way. What is it that publishers are selling when they sell Big Deals

    The easy answer is, “they’re selling journals!” **CLICK** But that answer doesn’t get us anywhere useful. Let’s try

    View Slide

  28. What are
    publishers selling?
    We could say “they’re selling journal BUNDLES,” and that’s closer, it opens up some interesting analogies like cable
    TV, but again, **CLICK** bundling by itself has not helped us
    x the money-hemorrhaging problem, so let’s move

    View Slide

  29. Publishers build
    Here’s how I think about it. Once journal publishing moved mostly-to-entirely electronic, publishers built walls
    between their journals and Planet Faculty. These walls are made of copyright, contracts, and NDAs, and that’s all I’m
    going to say about that — if you want to know more, you have librarians you can talk to

    This isn’t a new idea, of course, most people call these “paywalls” and they’re not wrong.

    View Slide

  30. Publishers sell
    So what publishers are actually selling when they sell Big Deals is a hole in their walls. That’s it, that’s all, that’s what
    they’re selling. Just a hole in the wall

    Nice work if you can get it, I guess.

    View Slide

  31. Publishers sell
    But there’s also an implicit sale going on that isn’t often discussed. Even I have only hinted at it a little bit so far. It’s
    the sale of academic love — often called prestige — to faculty. I mean, if faculty didn’t need to publish in and review
    for and edit journals to protect their careers, a whole lot of journals wouldn’t even exist, right?

    Faculty have lots of claims on their time, many wouldn’t do publishing-related work if they didn’t get something for
    it, and what they get for it is career advancement. So this is also a kind of sale — just not in money. It’s an exchange
    of prestige for labor

    And the prestige economy of journal publishing interacts with the actual money economy in some fairly unsavory
    ways. Planet Faculty, for example, will insist that the Good Ship Your Library purchase certain journals not because
    faculty read them, not because they’re actually any good even, but because faculty PUBLISH in them, or hope to
    publish in them, or think they lose prestige if the library doesn’t have them

    Which means whoever publishes that journal has a huge negotiation advantage over the Good Ship Your Library.
    Which in turn lets them price-gouge!

    View Slide

  32. Tightw
    ad Rule #2
    Using any version of

    Journal Impact Factor

    to judge individual scholars

    for tenure and promotion

    agrantly unethical.
    It also helps

    price-gouging wall-builders

    hold everyone to ransom.
    Which brings me to Tightwad Rule Number Two. Don’t you LET ME CATCH YOU using Journal Impact Factor in tenure
    and promotion. It’s
    agrantly unethical. It’s uninclusive, it’s de
    nitionally and mathematically indefensible, it’s just

    And for my purposes today, it also feeds the prestige system that helps Big Deal price-gouging wall-builders hold
    eets of spaceships to ransom.

    View Slide

  33. STOP IT.
    Stop it. Just stop. There is no excuse.

    View Slide

  34. Tightw
    ad Rule #2a
    Any “researcher productivity” tool

    relying on lists of Good Journals

    is just JIF through a back door.
    Don’t buy this pricey rubbish.

    Don’t use it.

    Protest its purchase and use.
    There’s a corollary to this rule that has to do with all the cute startup toys too many college and university
    administrators are buying to Measure Faculty Productivity, or Measure Faculty Impact. Days I’m so happy I’m
    academic sta
    instead of faculty, I couldn’t begin to tell you

    Y’all, don’t buy this garbage, especially if it’s relying on lists of Good Journals. Not only is it grossly punitive and once
    again uninclusive, it’s just Journal Impact Factor through a back door, and it just empowers the price-gougers again.
    Don’t buy it — hey, I said today was about being a tightwad, right? — don’t use it, and protest its use when you can.

    View Slide

  35. Allow me to introduce to you the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, which is explicit about dumping
    Journal Impact Factor out of tenure and promotion practices. Read this. Get all your colleagues to read it. Then get
    them all to sign it. Because the best time to stop this abusive and unethical use of Journal Impact Factor would have
    been before it started, but the second-best time is now, today.

    View Slide

  36. Tightw
    ad Rule #3
    Donating labor

    (reviewing, editing)

    to price-gouging wall-builders

    is amazingly self-defeating.
    There are plenty

    of non-price-gouging publications!

    Donate labor to them instead!
    Now, back to Planet Faculty. Hey, Planet Faculty! Don’t donate your editing and reviewing labor to price-gouging wall-

    I’m not saying “never edit, never review.” I’ve edited journals, and I absolutely review for journals. I just review for
    journals that aren’t run by price-gouging wall-builders, and I happily invite you to do the same

    Trust me, I haven’t been in any way scant of reviews to do.

    View Slide

  37. Publishers sell
    Okay. Let’s return to this idea that publishers sell holes in walls.

    View Slide

  38. Open Access asks:
    why is there
    a w

    at all?
    {read slide

    That’s it. That’s the whole point of Open Access. Who needs these walls, other than wall-builders? Who wants them?
    What would be di
    erent, what would be better, if we stopped building walls and tore down the walls we have?

    View Slide

  39. This is not a question

    that endears itself to
    The current system

    is galactically lucrative for big wall-builders!
    Including during the Great Recession

    and the COVID-19 pandemic!
    Publishers selling holes in paywalls do not love these questions, to put it mildly. I’ll spare you the details — ask your
    librarians — but please take my word that the current system of wall-building is galactically lucrative, mostly for the
    biggest players, and the Great Recession and the pandemic changed that in basically no way at all.

    View Slide

  40. Tightw
    ad Rule #4
    If they make their living

    off building or maintaining walls,

    do not uncritically trust

    what they say about open access.
    This goes for librarians too!

    And for university presses and scholarly
    and professional societies!
    So Tightwad Rule Number Four is be careful who you listen to about open access, okay? If somebody’s living depends
    on wall-building and wall maintenance, they’re quite likely to defend walls, I’m just saying

    And it’s not just the usual-suspect huge multinational publishers who act like this. Some librarians do, and is there
    anything at all as wildly panicky as a university-press director when the university moves toward open access to

    And a WHOLE LOT of scholarly and professional societies whose budgets have gotten fat o
    selling their journals to
    Big Deal publishers say some things that are just eyebrow-raising

    And I’m gonna just lay one thing out there, okay? If you get all your scholarly communication news from the Scholarly
    Kitchen website, you NEED to expand your information horizons. Scholarly Kitchen was founded by wall-builders,
    runs o
    wall-builders, and exists basically to defend walls. Gonna need y’all to read some other stu
    , ‘k? Try the
    Open Access Tracking Project.

    View Slide

  41. What about me?

    Good question. Glad you asked.
    I am out of the scholcomm biz.

    I’m done. I will never go back.

    It’s not how I make my living any more.
    My desire is the librarianly desire

    for more and better information

    for more people. Fewer walls.

    View Slide

  42. The mere existence
    of OA

    ves us here.
    Okay. The thing about open access is, it’s not a trumpets of Jericho solution — it doesn’t automatically break down all
    the walls. The walls are still there! There are still walls!

    View Slide

  43. We can take for granted

    that wall-builders

    don’t want us dismantling walls.
    And they do want us

    paying for holes in their walls.
    Or at least… paying for something!

    How do we break this stalemate

    in the tightwaddiest ways possible?
    (paying for something) One of the things we’re seeing the very biggest of the price-gougers do is buy up startups in
    other areas of research processes, like citation managers and electronic lab notebooks and stu
    like that. The hope is
    kind of Microsoft-like, I think? Be the One Place Where All Work Gets Done, and then you can charge out the wazoo
    for it

    It de
    nitely makes sense to be concerned about this strategy, but also remember how well it ultimately worked out
    for Microsoft. I tend to think that research has just too many processes within it to monopolize in that way. But we’ll

    And in the meantime, we have to break the CURRENT stalemate, so how do we DO that without emptying our wallets
    into the cold abyss between the stars?

    View Slide

  44. Option 1:

    Stay outside the w

    View Slide

  45. Tightw
    ad Rule #5
    Stash your OA pre/postprints

    in a non-pro
    t, non-tech-startup,

    ideally library-run or library-funded
    Not “your own website,” please.

    Not ResearchGate or academia.edu
    or even SSRN.
    (Stash…) Y’all who have open-access mandates from funders!Using a proper repository almost always ful
    lls the
    mandate, and it won’t cost a penny out of your grant! Tightwads rejoice

    Now, there are complexities to this, and after
    fteen years of doing these talks I’m absolutely bored senseless with
    explaining them, so I’m going to refer you to your librarians if you need more information. Hey, information is what
    librarians do

    (Not…) Yeah, yeah, “your own website,” when you retire that’s gone, and it won’t get indexed in Google Scholar

    And just MISS ME with these startups, and sites like SSRN that are owned by the Big Deal price-gougers! Just don’t,
    y’all! Or if you must, both/and it: put a copy wherever you’re going to put it AND put a copy in the local repository, so
    when the startup folds — and they do fold — you’re covered.

    View Slide

  46. Washington University! You have such a repository available to you right where you are, from the Good Ship Your
    Library! Full disclosure, it too is running on a service that got bought out by a Big Deal price-gouger, which is not my
    favorite thing, but I’m still willing to bet that the Good Ship Your Library will manage to keep your work available
    openly long after the price-gouger in question is space dust, may that day come swiftly.

    View Slide

  47. This improves your Googlejuice.

    And it often gets you cited more!

    It directly helps students, policymakers,

    indie scholars, and others.
    Bigger picture:

    open access (in all forms) ultimately

    reduces what wall-builders

    can charge for holes in their walls.
    Without getting laughed at,

    And because I don’t pretend everybody here is in this thing for the pure altruism, let me point out that posting your
    work to the repository improves your Googlejuice and stands a good chance of getting you cited more. True story, my
    rst published journal article had been cited FOUR TIMES by the time it actually appeared in print, because I posted
    the preprint to my local repository.

    And doing this also, y’know, helps people, which is not a bad thing

    In the bigger picture, open access in any form ultimately reduces the amount of material that’s walled o
    , which in
    turn reduces the value of holes in walls, which if we’re really lucky might help us plug the hull breaches in the Good
    Ship Your Library.

    View Slide

  48. Option 2:

    ay for publication
    without w
    Now, a thing that I have NOT SAID TODAY is that publishing costs nothing. Y’all, just MISS ME with that. I used to be a
    typesetter and a format-conversion practitioner and I’m currently a digital preservation expert. I assure you that
    “publishing is free!” is some kind of garbage and I do not want to hear it

    But we don’t have to pay for walls, is the thing. We can just pay for the actual work of editing and typesetting and
    conversion and website maintenance and proper metadata and indexing and information security and digital
    preservation and all that. The walls aren’t necessary, even though the other work is.

    View Slide

  49. On the level of an individual paper or author, this idea shows up as what are called author-side fees or article-
    processing charges. Which, as a lot of folks have noticed, can be nosebleed high

    It probably won’t surprise you that there’s a strong direct correlation between journals whose publishers are price-
    gouging wall-builders and journals with nosebleed-high author-side fees. So buyer beware, because…

    View Slide

  50. this is…

    not really better.
    … a scenario where Planet Faculty starts depending on paying author-side fees because that’s the only way to get
    academic love just opens the door yet again to price-gouging

    Faculty need to publish; not publishing is not an option, it’s a bit of a captive market. So letting the price-gougers
    own this game is just going to **CLICK** make Planet Faculty itself blow up.

    View Slide

  51. Tightw
    ad Rule #6
    If you’re staring at author-side fees,
    negotiate them, and

    see if somebody else will pay them.
    I mean, it’s just

    common sense, really.
    Tightwad Rule Number Six is that if you’re staring at author-side fees, try negotiating them — worst they can say is
    “no,” right? — and also see if your funder or your department or a fund at the institution will pay them. Just common

    I don’t hold with the idea that faculty should never have to worry about costs, though. Faculty SHOULD have to worry
    about costs, because faculty NOT worrying about costs is how the Good Ship Your Library blew a hole in its hull in the
    rst place.

    View Slide

  52. Now, a more collective approach to paying for everything except walls got started — gosh, coming up on a decade
    ago it must be by now, from university libraries in the Netherlands. It got picked up by Germany in an absolutely epic
    saga spanning three or four years, and on this side of the pond California and a few other places have been
    pioneering it

    And this approach is commonly known as “transformative agreements” or “read-and-publish” agreements, and the
    way they work is, along with paying for the usual hole in the paywall, the Good Ship Your Library pays for a certain
    quantity of, or price for, open access for articles published by your institution’s faculty

    And again, I’m glossing over A LOT of detail here, these negotiations are really complicated and really fraught. But
    that’s the basic idea.

    View Slide

  53. Transformative/read-and-publish

    deals are imperfect.

    (One problem: serious equity issues.)

    Inherently so? Maybe.
    I encourage all of us

    to see them for what they are:

    You may not love these deals…

    but it’s still on all of us to
    nd ways

    to break the stalemate and move on from it.
    There’s a lot of criticism of these deals out there, and I’m not gonna lie, a lot of it is warranted. The inclusion and
    equity issues around them are real and they’re serious and they may even be inherent in the model, though honestly I
    don’t think they have to be

    But the status quo is not an acceptable alternative here. We can’t go back to hull breaches! So I encourage thinking
    about these deals as stalemate-breakers — a chance to negotiate about something that isn’t just price, something
    that actually breaks down walls

    Maybe that still doesn’t make you warm to these deals, AND THAT’S FINE, but in that case I need you to be thinking
    about how YOU are going to help break this stalemate, because it’s gotta be broken somehow.

    View Slide

  54. Tightw
    ad Rule #7
    If your library and a wall-builder

    are in a tense negotiation or stalemate,
    support your library.

    Often. Loudly. In public.
    Your library can’t say “no”

    and stick to it

    without institutional backing.
    A library that can’t say “no”

    and stick to it

    can’t get a good deal. Negotiation 101!
    Tightwad Rule Number Seven: if there’s a Big Deal license or a transformative agreement or anything like that under
    negotiation, you NEED to SUPPORT the Good Ship Your LIBRARY, often and loudly and in public. Even if you DISAGREE
    with how the negotiation is going! Disagree in private, support in public

    And the reason for this is Negotiation 101. If the Good Ship Your Library can’t walk away from a deal because Planet
    Faculty is hassling them, that’s a recipe for more price-gouging. The price-gouger has the library over a barrel and
    they know it. And the Good Ship Your Library can’t walk away from deals if Planet Faculty undercuts them in public.
    So don’t DO that.

    View Slide

  55. Option 2a:

    ay for w

    literature production.
    And I just also want to point out the possibility of consciously and deliberately reallocating money to publications and
    publishers that don’t put up walls.

    View Slide

  56. Probably my favorite example — and I should disclose that I’ve done unpaid advising work for these folks — is the
    Open Library of the Humanities. Check them out, they’re amazing and they publish really excellent stu
    , and they’re
    making it work without building walls. It CAN be done

    When the money is there. I really want to see the Good Ship Your Library ensure that the money is there. Two percent
    solution, however you want to play it, but if open access is anything more than lip service to you, put your money
    where your mouth is.

    View Slide

  57. Option 3:

    Stop paying

    for w
    alled-off stuff.
    Which brings me to the third option for dealing with hull breaches: stop paying for walled-o

    And in a way this is nothing new? Like I said, journal cancellations are half a century old if they’re a day.

    View Slide

  58. But with Big Deals, it gets more complicated, as anything Big-Deal-related tends to do. Partly out of necessity, partly
    out of wanting to break the stalemate, though, we’re seeing more and more libraries and consortia busting up and
    working around Big Deals, and explaining how they did it so others can do it too

    SPARC, which is an initiative of the Association of Research Libraries, is keeping a public list of these, and there’s a
    growing journal-article and case-study literature on how to do it. So if you’re curious, check out SPARC and as
    always, talk to a librarian.

    View Slide

  59. Tightw
    ad Rule #8
    A library planning to trash Big Deals
    must have a communication plan.
    One that starts

    months, if not years,

    before cancellation.
    If not, the wall-builders

    can and will incite faculty

    to devour the library alive.
    But the most fundamental advice for doing this is so important that I’m turning it into Tightwad Rule Number Eight:
    communicate, communicate, communicate

    The Good Ship Your Library absolutely cannot, should not, and must not spring a major cancellation on everybody
    suddenly. They have to explain what’s going on and why

    We’ve seen what can happen if they don’t, there’s plenty of horror stories here — if Planet Faculty doesn’t start an
    insurrection all by itself, which it often does, the wall-builders go behind the library’s back to Planet Faculty to
    foment that insurrection.

    The only way to cut that o
    is to communicate early and often. We KNOW this by now.

    View Slide

  60. (except blame

    To Planet Faculty I say, don’t get taken in by the wall-builders, what is wrong with y’all? **CLICK** Don’t you let me
    catch you blaming your library for this mess. Blame the vendors, blame the vendors, blame the vendors. That’s the
    only viable road to
    xing the hull breaches.

    View Slide

  61. Tightw
    ad Rule #9

    (and last)
    Talk to the good folks

    at the Good Ship Your Library.
    Don’t talk AT or OVER them,

    talk WITH them.

    There’s a difference.
    We need all hands on deck

    x the hull breaches.
    Last Tightwad Rule before I sum up: Talk to the good folks at the Good Ship Your Library about all this

    Citizens of Planet Faculty! Some of you are probably feeling kind of attacked right now! I will not say that you are
    wrong to feel that way

    I will say, though, that the
    ak I’ve thrown at y’all today is NOTHING compared to the erasure, insults, condescension,
    and abuse that librarians routinely — ROUTINELY — hear from faculty, never mind wall-builders. It’s not okay, it will
    never BE okay, and it needs to stop.

    And I am saying this to you in the very confrontational way I am saying it because I’m an outsider — **CLICK** in our
    little planets-and-spaceships scenario here I’m a bug-eyed alien — so I CAN be confrontational. Planet Faculty can’t
    hurt me the way it can and does routinely hurt librarians

    Do not talk AT your librarians. Especially don’t talk OVER them. Talk WITH them, please. We really need all hands on
    deck to
    x these hull breaches.

    View Slide

  62. Tightw
    ad rules!
    ✦ Rule 1: Never sign NDAs.

    ✦ Rule 2: Do not use Journal Impact Factor
    to judge individual scholars for tenure
    and promotion.

    ✦ Rule 2a: Don’t buy “researcher
    productivity” tools that rely on lists of
    Good Journals.

    ✦ Rule 3: Donate labor only to publishers
    who are not price-gouging wall-builders.
    So. Summing up.

    View Slide

  63. Tightw
    ad rules!
    ✦ Rule 4: If they make their living off
    building or maintaining walls, do not
    uncritically trust what they say about
    open access.

    ✦ Rule 5: Stash your OA pre/postprints in a
    t, non-tech-startup, ideally
    library-run or library-funded repository.
    ✦ Rule 6: If you’re staring at author-side
    fees, negotiate them and see if somebody
    else will pay them.

    View Slide

  64. Tightw
    ad rules!
    ✦ Rule 7: If your library and a wall-builder
    are in a tense negotiation or stalemate,
    support your library.

    ✦ Rule 8: A library planning to trash Big
    Deals must have a communication plan.

    View Slide

  65. Thank you,

    fellow tightw
    This presentation is copyright 2021 by Dorothea Salo.

    It is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

    International license.

    All non-screenshot art

    from OpenClipArt.org.

    Support OpenClipArt! I have.

    View Slide