Open Access: Trends and opportunities from the publisher's perspective


Published on

Presentation given for "Scientific Publishing in Natural History Institutions" meeting sponsored by the European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy (EDIT), 22-23 June 2009, Bratislava, Slovak Republic.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Open Access: Trends and opportunities from the publisher's perspective

  1. 1. Open Access: Trends and opportunities from the publisher’s perspective Caroline Sutton Board Member, OASPA Co-founder, Co-Action Publishing Scientific Publishing in Natural History Institutions, sponsored by the European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy (EDIT), 22-23 June, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
  2. 2. OASPA - Background •Recognized needs •Founding
  3. 3. Background  OA publishers lacked a voice in public debates about scholarly communications and Open Access  Open Access had become an established part of the publishing landscape, it was time to address practical issues  Need to develop uniform standards and best practices  Need to bring together the Open Access publishing community  Need to share information and work collectively  OASPA represents both professional publishing organizations as well as scholar publishers and welcomes other organizations whose work supports OA publishing.
  4. 4. Established October 2008 by:  BioMed Central  Co-Action Publishing  Copernicus Publications  Hindawi Publishing Corporation  Journal of Medical Internet Research (Gunther Solomon)  Medical Education Online (David Solomon)  Public Library of Science (PLoS)  SAGE Publications  SPARC Europe  Utrecht University Library (Igitur)
  5. 5. OASPA Mission To support and represent the interests of Open Access (OA) journal publishers globally in all scientific, technical, and scholarly disciplines. To accomplish this mission, the association will:  Exchange information  Set standards  Advance models  Advocate for OA publishing  Educate  Promote innovation
  6. 6. Membership Criteria  Clearly identifiable ownership structure  Business address  Complaint policy  Clear publication charge policy (if any)  Regular content being published  Peer review/editorial control  Comply with the OASPA Professional Code of Conduct  Adhere to a common definition of Open Access publishing
  7. 7. Definition of Open Access
  8. 8. OASPA definition of OA  No subscription or license required to access the electronic edition of the journal  Licensing agreement that allows free use and re-use (downloading, sharing, printing copies, use of tables and figures, possibility for text-mining, etc.) at least for non-commercial/scholarly purposes.
  9. 9. OPEN ACCESS = Free Access + Re-use
  10. 10. Changing metaphors Knowledge as ”paper” Knowledge as ”product” and ”property” Created by scientists Owned by publishers Archived by libraries -- John Wilbanks, Science Commons, presentation at IATUL, June 2007
  11. 11. New Metaphors Knowledge = NETWORK Knowledge = infrastructure ”A better reflection of the reality of knowledge” -- John Wilbanks, Science Commons, presentation at IATUL, June 2007
  12. 12. ”A social network diagram”, Screenshot taken by Darwin Peacock, accessed through Wikimedia; distributed under a CCL 3.0.
  13. 13. Creative Commons Licenses Most common: Attribution 3.0 (CCBY or CCAL) Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 (CCBY-NC)
  14. 14. Copyright Notice Authors contributing to Global Health Action agree to publish their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 Unported license, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, that the work is not used for commercial purposes, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this license are made clear. Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to Co-Action Publishing. However, authors are required to transfer copyrights associated with commercial use to the Publisher. Revenues from commercial sales are used to keep down the publication fees. Moreover, a major portion of the profits generated from commercial sales is placed in a fund to cover publication fees for researchers from developing nations and, in some cases, for young researchers.
  15. 15. Trends affecting publishing • Shifts in how we measure impact
  16. 16. Measuring impact of research output Different levels of granularity for different purposes  Research groups / institutions - to know who to fund  Individual researchers - to know who to promote  Individual articles - to know what to read * Slide borrowed from slides prepared by Mark Patterson, PLoS
  17. 17. How do we measure impact? We judge the worth of a paper on the basis of the impact factor of the journal in which it was published. Recommended reading: Adler, R., Ewing, J. Taylor, P. Citation statistics. A report from the International Mathematical Union. Browman, H. I., Stergiou, K.I.Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, Theme Section. The Use and misuse of bibliometric indices in evaluating scholarly performance., Vol. 8, no. 8 * Slide borrowed from Mark Patterson, PLoS & adapted.
  18. 18. OA and Impact Factor  Many OA journals are new  Many still do not have an impact factor  Other OA journals have achieved very high impact factors  Research has investigated whether there is an ”OA advantage” with mixed results  OA content reaches audiences beyond the research community, who do not cite the journals.
  19. 19. Measuring Impact GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  20. 20. Measuring Impact SCOPUS SCImago Journal & Country Rank
  21. 21. Measuring impact BioMed Central ”Unofficial divide the number of times articles Impact Factor” published years 1 and 2 were cited in year 3, based on a search of the Science Citation Index database, by the number of articles published in the previous two years (years 1 & 2).
  22. 22. If the impact factor is how we have defined impact because of the tools available to us, how CAN we measure impact today? What tools are available?
  23. 23. WWW/Wikiworld *Reproduced from Wikemedia under the conditions of the GNU General Public License Exquisite-network.png
  24. 24. How can impact be measured?  Citations  Web usage  Expert rating  Community rating  Media/blog coverage  Policy development  Commenting activity  And more... * Slide borrowed from slides prepared by Mark Patterson, PLoS
  25. 25. Measuring Impact Article-level metrics PLoS •Usage data •Page views Article-level •Citations from Scopus Metrics Project •Citations from CrossRef •Social networking links •Press coverage •Comments •User ratings Not an alternative metric : ”Our idea is to throw up a bunch of metrics and see what people use.” (Binfield in The Scientist)
  26. 26. Next steps For article-level metrics  More sources for each data type  Citations, blog coverage  New data sources  F1000, Mendeley  Web usage data  Provide data and tools  Adhere to standards  Not a PLoS-only initiative * Slide borrowed from slides prepared by Mark Patterson, PLoS
  27. 27. The life cycle of a research article Research Submission Rejects Peer review Publication * Slide borrowed from slides prepared by Mark Patterson, PLoS, and adapted.
  28. 28. The life cycle of a research article Research Enhanced Article Submission More info on Rejects impact and Is it rigorous? relevance Based on Peer review activity of an entire community Publication * Slide borrowed from slides prepared by Mark Patterson, PLoS
  29. 29. Other trends/opportunities  Experiments with peer review  Social networking  Data mining  Literature mining  Sophisticated search tools  Open data  Multi-media  ”Hubs” vs. ”journals”
  30. 30. Thank you!