PEER End of Project Report

PEER Conference 29th May, 2012 Andrew Dorward

Project overview• Large-scale EC-funded project (€4.2 million, 3 year, 9 months) to model impact of Green OA on STM publishers• 5 main consortium members: STM, ESF, Uni Göttingen, Max Planck Group, INRIA) plus input from SURF, Uni Bielefeld plus Advisory Board• Involved 12 STM publishers (Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, IoP, OUP, Sage, BMJ, CUP, NPG, T&F et al); 6 repositories (mix of IRs – TCD, Uni Göttingen; national repositories – INRIA, KBN; subject repositories – MPG – no UK IRs involved.• 53,000 pre-prints (ie Author Final Copy peer –reviewed) from 241 journals (tertiles 1,2,3, >40% EU-sourced content) placed in repositories and publisher websites and downloads measured• Uni Göttingen/INRIA -developed DRIVER tools – PEER Depot, PEER Observatory – used for large-scale publisher deposit, and infrastructure created• Appears to demonstrate that IRs and publisher sites can happily co-exist for Green OA• Health warnings: • Driven by STM, so may erect further barriers to Green OA (Peter Suber) • Only provides a snapshot over a very limited time period with many variables, so should not be taken as conclusive proof – needs longer study (CIBER, Paul Ayris, UCL) 2

The Publisher’s View (STM, MPG) 3

Implications for RepNet• Like RepNet, PEER started out as Green-OA focussed, but overwhelming opinion from PEER study is that future direction will follow Gold route• Consensus from PEER is that Green will exist as hybrid to cover switch in business processes to gold model• The PEER Depot and Observatory infrastructure will support both green and Gold OA – next stage would be to build a financial infrastructure to support the business model (Uni Bocconi)• For the RepNet project to be relevant in 12 months, we must develop an infrastructure and processes to support both Green and Gold OA models• What we need to do: • Create a new WP to model and support a Gold OA infrastructure • Build on excellent work done by Uni Bocconi (Milan) to model cost drivers for publishers and repositories to work on requirements of funders 4

The Repository View (MPG)• 11,400 invitations from publishers to authors to deposit pre-prints in IRs resulted in only 170 deposits – why?• OA IRs are no threat to publishers, results show IR deposit complements publisher downloads, BUT IRs “not key to optional scholarly information delivery systems” (MPG) – why?• Repositories should “concentrate on research data archiving and curation which is essential” (STM) – why?• The PEER Depot is essential as a ‘clearing house’ for complex, unstructured content and as a ‘dark archive’ – a feature of Green OA of pre-prints• What does this mean for RepNet? • Self-archiving will not drive Green OA as we want • Clear STM agenda for publishers to control content delivery, not IRs – should we support this? 5

The Infrastructure View (INRIA)• PEER Depot and PEER Observatory based on DRIVER tools produced by SURF and Uni Göttingen• PEER and DRIVER: PEER populates DRIVER repositories and DRIVER facilitates access for the user community – Uni Göttingen co-ordinates• Infrastructure now stable, proven and can be used to support Gold OA with add- ons to support financial and business processes• Immense technical/organisational problems around: formats (TEK, LATEK, etc); publisher processes; publisher metadata (NLM 2.0, 3.0, Scholar 1); metadata interchange standard (TEI); deposit (SWORD/SONEX); extracting metadata from PDF (Grobid) – caused project to overrun by 9 months and consequent 3- month ‘snapshot’ of download behaviour from publishers and repositories• The PEER Depot functions – metadata consolidation and curation; embargo and withdrawal procedures; dark archive• PEER Observatory functions – workflow, filtering• What does this mean for RepNet? • RJ-Broker is vital component • Keep open mind on Open Depot 6

PEER End of Project Report

by EDINA, University of Edinburgh on Jun 06, 2012

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

PEER End of Project Report Presentation Transcript