Editor’s note: Today’s post is by Gwen Evans, an independent consultant with over 20 years of experience in academic library strategy, scholarly communication, and cross-sector collaboration across research infrastructure stakeholders.
This continues the conversation with two senior-level publisher-librarians from Part 1, Emily McElroy (EM), Vice President of Academic Relations at Taylor & Francis, and Robert Hilliker (RH), Director of Library Relations (North America) at Springer Nature.
What do you wish librarians understood about publishing economics and workflows?
RH: I wish librarians understood how much of what they pay to publishers is reinvested in the infrastructure to support scholarly publishing and scholarly communication, especially the integrity of the scholarly record. It’s been mind-boggling to see, but we’re at this inflection point with AI where a person can flood the field with a lot of crap, and some of it floats to the top, and even makes it past the first skim, and it’s really, really difficult and labor and computing-intensive to try and protect against that. Certainly, stuff makes it through; that’s what everybody sees, and the focus becomes, “oh, you’re doing such a terrible job.” Instead of, “wow, look at all this stuff that you kept out!” It’s the spam that makes it through that attracts your attention in your inbox, not all the stuff that got stopped.
I’ve presented what Springer Nature is doing around research integrity and protecting the academic record, both in terms of human beings that we have on staff and in terms of AI tools. We received 2.3 million submissions last year, and we’re investing in technology and tools to help identify suspicious content. If we can weed out fraudulent papers early in the process, the burden falls less on editors and reviewers at a time when there’s a lot of burden falling on those folks.
The second thing I’d add is that a lot of folks overlook that the volume of publications is increasing at a greater rate than the increase in costs associated with paying, whether it’s reading, publishing, or whatever agreement you have. People see a title list and think in terms of, oh, you’re cramming in more titles. New titles exist because there’s demand for them in new disciplines or disciplines that haven’t been properly supported in terms of venues for publication. I appreciate when librarians are open to learning more, but I do think some of them feel like you’re just making excuses for high costs.
EM: I agree with Rob 100%. Publishers should be much more transparent about those costs. When our Head of Research Integrity and Ethics presents the volume and complexity of their investigations, it is clear why we need to invest in her team. The same is true with technology investments. I think back to when I was a dean and the increased demand on our technology budget, whether for preservation, data storage, or cybersecurity protections. Maintaining and updating systems to meet industry standards is critical to everyone’s success.
I admit I get frustrated when I hear comments that all publishers need to do is upload a PDF to a website, because I always knew a lot of work went into the editorial process. We have numerous dedicated professionals working behind the scenes to assist authors, including post-publication efforts to promote their publications. Yes, a lot of this work comes from universities, but it is carried out with plenty of support.
I think back to a panel I was on years ago with two publishers on DDA programs and the costs associated with short-term loans. As they talked about specific publishing expenses and how short-term loans were putting pressure on different disciplines, I realized, as a librarian, that I had no idea about the upfront costs. It made me think about what might happen if publishing in some of those disciplines became unsustainable. If I make collection decisions that lead to declining scholarship without understanding the entire ecosystem, what are the unintended consequences? Sharing that information changed my perspective. Publishers need to do more of it.
Libraries sometimes overlook this perspective, but we work for global companies. We must consider all the geopolitical issues the company faces worldwide. In this role, that’s been a helpful reminder that there are many opportunities as well as challenges.
Any specific advice to publishers from the librarian’s perspective?
EM: A very quick fix is to stop sending so many emails! When you do send them, make sure they’re to the right people. Internally, if someone is frustrated because they haven’t heard back from a librarian, I ask them to step back and consider all the different emails coming from Taylor & Francis, the various account managers, marketing, and customer service. Then, multiply that by all the publishers and vendors that a library works with. Add in all the emails within the library and on campus, and it’s no wonder there are delays. Seriously, people are inundated.
RH: I try to link library perspectives to publishing and editorial perspectives. When I talk to an SN publisher, what do they need to know from me, and what do I need to know from them? Those functions can feel very distant, but I think the connection is increasingly important.
I’m just back from a trip to universities with a couple of our publishers. We were talking with librarians and mostly graduate students as early-career researchers about opportunities to publish in our journals. One of the striking things was the lack of awareness that there was a read-and-publish agreement on their campus.
The Library Leader Perspective
Library leaders often feel cynicism or frustration with many publisher library advisory boards they attend, often described as “dog and pony shows,” experienced as a one-way street in which senior executives talk at the board rather than with them. Multiple participants indicated that they had spent years on some boards providing feedback and never seeing action. Librarians see the publisher-librarian roles as opportunities to create enduring relationships and greater impact by focusing internally on publisher follow-through with existing boards. One librarian pointed out that these roles could address the “poor cousin syndrome”, as advisory boards and publisher attention focus overwhelmingly on research-intensive institutions, while the perception from smaller and emerging research institutions is that they face disproportionate impacts from publisher pricing and policy decisions.
How is your position distinct from traditional advisory board structures, and what’s the intersection?
EM: I’ve faced frustrations as a member on various publisher advisory boards. I’ve collaborated with others in T&F to improve our board. Gwen, you can quote me on this, but I learned a lot from how you led the Elsevier Library Advisory Board and from your approach to your role. I aimed to create a board that reflected the best of my experiences and would be worth the time commitment from librarians and T&F colleagues.
I paid close attention to the membership, because a successful board depends on its members. A mix of institutional sizes, geographic diversity, and roles within the library was a key factor. I wanted to ensure we had people who would respectfully challenge us, because we don’t need to hear from those who think everything is perfect. The agenda centers on strategic topics that promote discussion. We are there to listen. The response has been positive both inside and outside the organization. I also wanted to engage with the Library Advisory Board more than once a year. We share what we learned, have a mid-year check-in, and reach out on different topics. Internally, we reflect on the feedback and collaborate on action items.
I share information every day about what is happening in libraries. At least once a week, someone internally contacts me to ask for the librarian’s perspective on something. I’m always clear that I approach situations from the perspective of a U.S. librarian with various experiences, but I can tap into that network to fill any gaps. I recently finished an internal library and institutional handbook for the U.S. The best section features contributions from some advisory board members on best practices and myths about libraries and librarians.
Another important aspect, and something I learned from you, Gwen, is understanding who the future leaders are. Attending conference sessions and hearing about new initiatives is critical because the longer I am out of libraries, the more I will lose that perspective of what it is like on the ground.
RH: The Library Advisory Board is not something I own. And I wouldn’t want to own it, because I think the folks who run it had learned the lessons that Emily shared about making it a participatory event. It was one of the first big meetings I took part in, and the focus was very intentionally on a high degree of interaction, and ending with a clear list of “this is what we heard, and this is what you’re going to hear back on.” There was already a shift in the membership from strictly collections people to include others, either the university librarian or someone in a different role beyond acquisitions. Many of the Springer Nature senior leadership team participated, presenting company strategy, vision, and direction.
Trust and Transparency
All library leaders emphasized that publisher-librarians must build genuine trust by being transparent about their purpose and limitations. Who is in the role and how can they be reached? The bigger and more complex the company, the more important continuity is. Library leaders want to know the scope of the position and what publisher-librarians can influence. Library leaders consistently stressed that these publisher-librarian positions lose value if they’re perceived as purely performative or as just another communication position. As one librarian said, “I think ultimately that mission needs to be to make things better. It boils down to: ‘I’m here to make things better.'”
Do you have a mission or tagline?
EM: “Trusted Networks, Lasting Influence.”
RH: I know it sounds cheesy, but I’m a Library Champion…. It’s literally in my job description.
