The Electronic Resources & Libraries conference is taking place from tomorrow in Atlanta, GA. This is the conference's third year, and it's sold out - no surprise, given that it's a packed schedule with some strong speakers. Our own Jeff Downing (library relations manager) will be part of a panel discussion about the ways in which consortial networks can help libraries to retain "market share" in an increasingly competitive landscape. Here's a précis of Jeff's paper (which we published in last week's eyetoeye newsletter).

---

It is no secret: libraries face daily and ever-increasing competition. Within this sea of competition, however, publishers and regionally-based consortial networks are forging partnerships to develop creative, long-term cost-effective business models for content delivery.

Where is the competition coming from?
Competition for traditional library services is coming from all directions, but most obviously from the web, where consumer information is widely available and in many cases freely accessible. Wikipedia, for all its faults, has become a destination reference resource while other less well-branded sources of information are made easily discoverable by search services such as Google. Thus users are now able to self-serve much of the information that historically has only been available via the library or other paid services. But, of course, users are largely untrained in the skills of assessing found materials for authoritativeness, and in forgoing library assistance they are at risk not only of missing out on valuable paid-for resources, but also of basing their studies on incorrect data or ill-formed arguments. The convenience of internet research is substituting for the credible sources to be obtained from the traditional library.

What effect does this new competition have?
Historically, libraries have had the good fortune of being a monopoly; if you wanted access to information, especially authoritative information, you went to the library. Libraries had no competition and thus had no need to operate like a commercial business. As other resources become more prominent, libraries are having to re-envision and re-tool to operate in a more competitive environment. This is an attitudinal shift to which not all librarians are ready to adapt; the rigours of competition in a free market are not necessarily a welcome environment for those who have opted for an altruistic career assisting researchers in their information quest.

Some people's reaction to the sea of competition?

How can libraries reinforce their value in the information supply chain?
Researchers continue to need to access quality, peer-reviewed information, and in providing this the library is making itself an essential tool in the academic arsenal. Libraries should take advantage of regional networks like Amigos and Palinet that can help by promoting libraries as information providers and community leaders, and by facilitating sharing of resources and development of innovative services. Networks may also be able to negotiate discounts of which members can take advantage when purchasing scholarly content from publishers or aggregators.

If you are attending ER&L, be sure to attend this session in order to add your voice to the discussion. If you would like to arrange an appointment with Jeff Downing during the event, please contact jeff.downing@ingenta.com - or stop by the Ingenta table at the sponsors' reception tomorrow night.

Labels: consortia, erl, Google, libraries, research, wikipedia

In a recent posting titled, "The two ways of web 2.0", Lorcan Dempsey explores an interesting view of the "2.0" discussion, introducing the notions of concentration and diffusion.

Dempsey applies the term diffusion as a label for the communication, social networking, data syndication aspects of Web 2.0. Whereas concentration is essentially the opposite: harvesting, combining and reusing data that has been "diffused" out onto the web. The two aspects are obviously complementary and, in truth, like much of Web 2.0 aren't new. As techniques for sharing information these are well-trodden paths. Think "Broadcast" and "Aggregation". But many concepts get a new lease of life when combined with the great levels of interactivity and socialization that the web now offers.

I've made several attempts myself to tease apart Web 2.0 into more manageable chunks. Most recently in a paper in Serials called "The Threads of Web 2.0" in which I tried to decompose the concept into several buzzword free trends. Speaking to the same notions of data flow, albeit with a slightly more technical angle, I've also explored the ideas of Streams, Pools and Reservoirs as a model for data publication and aggregation on the web.

I've seen a few discussions lately about whether there is a continuing role for aggregators on the web in these days of near ubiquitous search. I think Dempsey's notion of concentration addresses that point directly: there is a definitely a role for aggregators, but that role is changing from one of simply compiling large volumes of material, towards compilation of relevant subject-specific collections for specific communities. This is where in my posting I differentiated between Pools (simple aggregations) and Reservoirs (pools that support a community).

Dempsey observes that librarians need to begin thinking about concentrations of data and how this might benefit their mission. I think publishers would do well to do the same. It strikes me that societies and other member organizations are particularly well suited to creating and driving these new aggregation models.

Labels: "open data", "web 2.0", libraries, publishing

Just a quick post for anyone who's going to be at the Charleston Conference next week: we'll be there, soaking up the information industry news and views (not to mention the southern sunshine). We'll be imparting our own share of wit and wisdom, with three of our representatives presenting during the conference. Here are the hot topics we're covering in our sessions:

"Authoritative? What's that? And who says?"
Thursday Concurrent Session 1, 4.15-5pm, Rutledge Room, Francis Marion Hotel
Our Chief Technology Officer (and AME blogger) Leigh Dodds is teaming up with Laura Cohen of the University at Albany, SUNY (and Library 2.0 blogger) to explore what defines "authoritative" in the age of user-generated content, and to assess the respective benefits of both Web 2.0 technologies and traditional publishing processes such as peer review. Anyone who has seen Leigh speak will, I am sure, vouch for the high-quality of both his presentation style and subject matter, and in this case I think he's come up with another fascinating new perspective on the changes in scholarly publishing being wrought by new technologies.

"Publisher Consolidation: Where Does It Leave Us?"
Friday Lively Lunch, 12.15-1.45pm, Colonial Ballroom, Francis Marion Hotel
Janet Fisher, Senior Publishing Consultant at our sibling company PCG, will moderate a discussion led by Margaret Landesman of University of Utah Libraries and Diane Scott-Lichter of The Endocrine Society. They will explore the driving forces, repercussions and potential responses to ongoing consolidation within the publishing industry. Given how publishers seem endlessly to be merging with one another, I think this too will be a pretty pertinent panel.

"Best practices: improving librarian administration interfaces"
Friday Concurrent Session 1, 2-2.50pm, Pinckney Room, Francis Marion Hotel
Ingenta's Director of Library Services Claire Winthrop will participate in a panel discussion seeking ways to reduce the learning curve required for librarians to familiarise themselves with multiple publisher and vendor interfaces, and at the same time increasing the amount of control that librarians have over their users' interaction with content. This session will see representatives of the "big three" in scholarly content hosting all together on the same speaking platform for the first time - Claire will be sharing the stage with Atypon's Chris Beckett and Dan Tonkery of EBSCO (owners of Metapress) - so there is a real opportunity for collaborative progress to be made.

"Librarians, aggregators, and publishers: Can we all live together?"
Friday Concurrent Session 3, 4.15-5pm, Room 227, Addlestone Library, College of Charleston
Janet Fisher will take to the floor for a second time, joining with Todd Spires from Bradley University and Kate Duff from University of Chicago Press to explore the benefits of journal databases and consider whether librarians' purchasing choices allow aggregated databases to co-exist happily alongside publishers' other distribution channels. This issue has been widely debated in a number of fora but often without hard facts to underline the supposition, so the research underpinning this session should make for some evidence-based discussion at last.

If you're not going to make it to the event, then hopefully Leigh Dodds will be posting regular reports on its progress on this very blog.

Labels: "charleston conference", "librarian interfaces", "library administration", "peer review", "publisher consolidation", "web 2.0", aggregators, libraries, publishers