Lars Bjørnshauge's DOAJ presentation at the OASPA conference, Riga 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Lars Bjørnshauge's DOAJ presentation at the OASPA conference, Riga 2013

on

  • 2,665 views

An overview and update of what DOAJ has become since launch in 2003, the changes it has made since January 2013, and a quick look at the future.

An overview and update of what DOAJ has become since launch in 2003, the changes it has made since January 2013, and a quick look at the future.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,665
Views on SlideShare
2,511
Embed Views
154

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
14
Comments
0

4 Embeds 154

https://twitter.com 101
http://storify.com 49
http://tweetedtimes.com 3
https://storify.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Lars Bjørnshauge's DOAJ presentation at the OASPA conference, Riga 2013 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. DOAJ – where are we and what next? OASPA Conference September 18-20, 2013, Riga Lars Bjørnshauge
  • 2. Brief Background • Founded 2003 at Lund University – launched May 2003 with 300 journals. • Initially funded by minor project grants from SPARC and Open Society Institute. • Additional grants from among others SPARC Europe, INASP and OpenAccess.se. • Membership and Sponsor funding model introduced 2006.
  • 3. Growth • Constant growth during the years • End of 2012 - +8.000 journals • Increasing importance for the OA-movement • Slow but steady increase in support (funding from the community)
  • 4. Higher expectations • Situation 2010/2011: • Increasing expectations as OA gets momentum. • Difficulties in getting resources as expectations grow. • As OA matures demands from funders and libraries increase and become more differentiated and advanced. • Increasing backlog and lack of curation of the collection.
  • 5. Growing concerns • Stakeholders began more or less explicit expressing their concerns about the future of the DOAJ. • OASPA approaches Lund University to discuss possible scenarios. • After 2 years of discussions and negotiations (on and off) an agreement was in place between LU and IS4OA.
  • 6. www.is4oa.org Founded by Caroline Sutton, Alma Swan & Lars Bjørnshauge
  • 7. A not-for-profit Community Interest Company (C.I.C.), registered in the United Kingdom.
  • 8. Community Interest Statement We declare that the company will carry out its activities for the benefit of the community. Researchers, students in higher education, independent researchers, the education community, industry, innovative companies, small- and medium-sized (SME) companies, professionals, practitioners, civil servants and the general public are potential users of research results. Wide and open distribution and dissemination of knowledge will benefit society worldwide. During the recent decade research results (publications) have increasingly been published in … Open Access … However Open Access publications are not always easy to discover and locate. The activities of our company will facilitate easy access to Open Access resources … and … enable libraries to integrate Open Access publications in their services …
  • 9. What we said we would do! • IS4OA took over January 1st 2013: • We said we would: – Involve the community in the development and operations – Respond to demands and expectations by • Developing new tighter criteria • Reengineer the editorial back office work – Monitor for compliance and weed accordingly
  • 10. we also said we would …. • Develop the DOAJ into a significantly improved service by – introducing more functionality – extending the coverage of journals around the world and… – working more closely with publishers to improve the quality of the information about the journals listed. – Integrate with other infrastructure services – Develop sustainable funding
  • 11. Involving the community • What we have done: – Set up an Advisory Board – Done a survey (to learn more) – New criteria out for public comment – Reach out to organizations and initiatives to address general issues for open access journals
  • 12. Advisory Board Community/Consortia Kevin Stranack, PKP , Canada Tom Olijhoek, OKNF , The Netherlands Caren Milloy, JISC, United Kingdom Jean-Francois Lutz, Couperin, France Jan-Erik Frantsvåg, University of Tromsø, Norway David Prosser, RLUK , United Kingdom Iryna Kuchma, EIFL Italy Stuart Shieber, Harvard University, U.S.A.
  • 13. Advisory Board (contd.) Publishers/Aggregators Leslie Chan, Bioline International, Martin Rasmussen, Copernicus Publications, Paul Peters, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Cameron Neylon, PLOS, Bettina Goerner, Springer, Arianna Becerril-García, Redalyc, Susan Murray, AJOL, South Africa
  • 14. Improvements • New platform launched • Facets search: – language – publication year – license – business model (APCs or not) • Very good feedback!
  • 15. Streamlining back office • Journals added Jan-Sept 2013: 1686 • (Journals added 2012): 1248 • We are weeding as well: • August 1st – Sept 17th 2013: • Journals added: 228 • Journals removed: 247
  • 16. Survey • We did a survey among the publishers in the DOAJ (Spring 2013) • 3000+ e-mails • 1250 responses • 56% of journals represented in the response
  • 17. The long tail 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 Number of journals Responses
  • 18. A diverse collection • Rather few OA-publishers with 50 or more journals • Thousands of publishers publishing 1-2 journals • Several not for profit aggregaters in place: – PKP (Public Knowledge Project – OJS) – SciELO (Latin America) – Redalyc (Latin America) – INASP JOL (Journals on Line)
  • 19. Survey • Main Findings –Persistent Identifiers (DOIs) –Archiving –Metadata delivery to DOAJ –Benefits –Voluntary funding?
  • 20. Persistent Identifiers (DOIs) • Has your journal(s) implemented DOIs: • Yes: 35% • No: 55% • Don´t know: 10%
  • 21. Promoting DOIs • Discussions with – OASPA – INASP – PKP – Redalyc • as to how to work together on this and with CrossRef for efficient and affordable arrangements
  • 22. Archiving/Preservation • Does your organisation or your journal(s) have an arrangement for long term preservation and availability (LPTA) or partake in any LPTA program? • Yes: 14% • No – I´m not interested: 41% • Would you be interested in DOAJ providing/facilitating a fee-based LPTA service? • I´m interested. Tell me more: 49%
  • 23. The challenge related to archiving • Many, many journals – lack the financial & technical resources to go beyond just publishing the content. – haven´t adressed the archiving issue yet, but would like to do so, provided smart and cheap solutions are available. • Discussions with OASPA, INASP, PKP, Redalyc, CLOCKSS, Keepers Registry and approached by Portico
  • 24. Metadata delivery • Does your journal(s) provide DOAJ with article- level metadata for the journals listed in the DOAJ? • Yes: 55% • No: 24% • Don´t know: 21% • Actual figure 56% - up from 50% since January + 1250 journals and + 600.000 records (60% increase) – as of today 1.5 million
  • 25. The survey • Important/extremely important benefits of being listed: • Increased visibility : 97% • Increased traffic : 85% • Prestige : 86% • Certification : 87% • Eligibility for support from OA-publication funds: 64% • Better promotion : 80% • Increased submissions : 72%
  • 26. Supporting DOAJ • Would you/your organisation agree to a VOLUNTARY contribution towards the operation and development of the DOAJ? • Yes: 29% • No: 71%
  • 27. Why thighter criteria? • Better opportunities for funders, universities, libraries and authors to judge whether a journal lives up to standards – transparency! • Enable the community to monitor compliance • Addressing the issue of fake publishers or publishers not living up to reasonable standards both in terms of content and of business behavior. • DOAJ SEAL – promote best practice
  • 28. New criteria • New tighter criteria will address: • “Quality” • “Openness” • “the delivery” • They will be more detailed • Publishers will have to do more to be included • Criteria must be binary (either in or not in!)
  • 29. Quality! • This is tricky! • Funders, libraries and researchers want to be able to judge whether a journal is a quality journal. • No quick fixes – no clear, accepted definition! • Only proxy measures available. • ……
  • 30. Proxy indicators • QUALITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF THE EDITORIAL PROCESS • The journal must have an editor or an editorial board all members must be easily identified • Specification of the review process – Editorial review, Peer review., Blind peer review, Double blind peer review, Other (please specify) • Statements about aims & scope clearly visible • Instructions to authors shall be available and easily located • Screening for plagiarism? • Time from submission to publication
  • 31. Openness • CC-license – if Yes, which? • Reader rights • Reuse rights • Copyrights • Author posting rights
  • 32. ”The delivery” • Publisher • ISSN/eISSN • Journal Title • URL of Journal Homepage • Editor • Editor e-mail address • Editorial Board • Contact person • Contact person –email address • Country • Journals must publish 5 articles/year (rule of thumb & does not apply for new journals) • (name) • (e-mail address) • URL to info re editorial board • (name) • (e-mail address) •
  • 33. ”The delivery” • Article Processing Charges (APC)s (in relevant currency) • Whether the journal has article submission charges (in relevant currency) • Waiver policy (for developing country authors, etc) • Persistent Identifiers • Link to download statistics • Start year (since online full-text content is available) • Please indicate which formats of full text are available (PDF, HTML, ePUB, XML, other) • Article level: provision of metadata • Yes/No – if Yes: then currency and amount • Yes/No – if Yes: then currency and amount • Yes/No – if Yes: link to information on the journal homepage • Yes/No , • Yes/No • • Yes/No
  • 34. Public comment I • The first draft of new criteria were out for public comment – we received a lot of comments – and learned a lot! • ”Our” - Western European/North American services, standards and business models are not universal! • For instance:
  • 35. Public comment II • We had CC-licenses as mandatory – these are not universal – in fact several countries cannot as yet implement those – we are investigating this with CC and experts • Regarding author deposit rights we recommended listing in SHERPA/RoMEO – there are similar services out there – not as comprehensive – we accept these, while trying to convince those to exchange data • We promoted DOIs – there are other persistent identifiers out there – definetely not as good as DOIs – we will promote DOIs and make it more attractive for the journals to come on board
  • 36. Public comment III • We were asking for identification of archiving arrangements – we will clarify which achiving organisations we will endorse • We promoted machine-readable formats and indicated that PDFs would not qualify in that regard – now we just ask for specification of in which formats the full-text is published • APCs is not invented in Latin America & Africa – a minority of journals actually implements APCs • We promoted OAS – it is not well known – yet – we will work with PLoS/SPARC/OASPA on that
  • 37. A dilemma • The process highlighted the dilemma: • Respecting different publishing cultures and traditions • Not primarily exclude, but rather facilitate and assist the smaller journals from other continents to come into the flow • While at the same time promoting standards, transparency and best practice
  • 38. DOAJ SEAL • Promoting best practice (anno 2013/14) – qualifiers for the DOAJ SEAL: • DOIs • Article level metadata to DOAJ • Archiving arrangement with an archiving organisation (list to be developed and maintained • CC-BY (embedded machine readable in article metadata) • Authors retain copyright without restictions • Deposit policy registered in Sherpa/RoMeo and the likes
  • 39. Our road map • What next? • Oct 15th: Technical implementation of form ready • Nov 1st: Documentation and training material ready • Nov 15th: Training of current editors completed • Nov 15th: Call for 'associate editors' • Dec 1st: Selection of editors and associate editors • Jan 1st: Implementation of new application process • “Grace” period for currently-listed journals to make changes: 12-months ending December 2014 (subject to changes!)
  • 40. Resources • Staff: • 5 part time – 3 FTE • Maintenance & development outsourced to Sempertool (www.sempertool.dk) • Working from Copenhagen, Malmö & Stockholm
  • 41. Funding • Expected turnover 2013: £ 200.000 • Funding: • Libraries & Library Consortia: 65% • Commercial aggregators: 10% • Sponsors: 25% • Have to generate £ 40.000 for the rest of this year!
  • 42. To conclude! • We beleive that we are on track! • Lots of work ahead. • We will continue to contribute to the momentum of open access publishing by – carefully promoting standards, transparency and best practice – without losing the global view – collaborating • This will benefit all open access publishers!
  • 43. Our ambition: DOAJ to be the white list! and make other lists superfluous – that is: if a journal is in the DOAJ it complies with accepted standards
  • 44. Part of an emerging infrastructure for (Gold) OA
  • 45. Thank you for your attention! and Thank you for your support! lars@doaj.org