• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
16,55 17,10 h. 2011-eblida-abadal-anglada-v2
 

16,55 17,10 h. 2011-eblida-abadal-anglada-v2

on

  • 402 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
402
Views on SlideShare
402
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

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

    16,55 17,10 h. 2011-eblida-abadal-anglada-v2 16,55 17,10 h. 2011-eblida-abadal-anglada-v2 Presentation Transcript

    • Open access in Southern European countries: the current situation and its implications for libraries Ernest Abadal. Universitat de Barcelona Lluís Anglada. CBUC
    • Contents
      • Introduction
      • The action
      • Results
        • Journals
        • Repositories
        • Policies
        • Alhambra Declaration
      • Future
      • References
    • 1 Introduction
      • Vision
        • Open access will contribute to better scientific communication.
      • Main problem:
        • Lack of institutional policies.
      • Agents
        • Authors: according to SOAP report, 90% are pro-OA.
        • University managers: they don’t know a lot about OA.
        • Librarians:
          • Have been major proponents of the movement, have created repositories, etc.
          • But are limited due to lack of political power within their institutions (universities, research centers, etc.).
    • 1 Introduction (ii)
      • What can librarians do?
        • Advocacy, create a lobby
        • Promote
      • How?
        • Working in cooperation.
      • At what level?
        • National (through library consortia)
        • Regional (Southern European countries)
          • They share some features of library management and scholarly communication.
          • Precedent: Nordic countries
    • 2 The action
      • Who?
        • SELL
        • National delegations (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey)
      • Where?
        • Granada (2010)
      • What goal?
        • Create a network
        • Contribute to promoting policies in each country
    • SELL ( Southern European Libraries Link )
      • SELL ( http://www.heal-link.gr/SELL )
        • ANKOS (Turkey)
        • Heal-Link (Greece)
        • CIBER, CILEA, CASPUR (Italy)
        • CBUC, CSIC (Spain)
        • Couperin (France)
        • b-on (Portugal)
      • Actions
        • Exchange of information
        • Statements and common positions
        • One multiconsortia license (ALPSP)
        • Open access iniciative
    • 2.1 Steps
      • Design of the action
        • SELL board.
      • Preparation of national reports (2009-2010)
        • France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey.
      • Discussion (Granada, 2010)
        • Consensus methodology.
        • Alhambra Declaration.
      • Publication:
        • Open access in Southern European countries (2010)
          • National reports
          • Global conclusions
          • Alhambra Declaration
    • Fig. 1. National delegates (Granada, 2010)
    • Fig. 2. The report
    • Authors
      • France: Francis André, Rachel Creppy, Emile Barthet, Jean-François Lutz, Mariette Naud, Anne-Marie Badolato, Jean-François Nominé, Christine Weil-Miko
      • Greece: Panos Georgiou, Fiori Papadatou
      • Italy: Paola Gargiulo, Maria Cassella
      • Portugal: Ricardo Saraiva, Eloy Rodrigues
      • Spain: Ernest Abadal, Lluís Anglada, Remedios Melero, Francisca Abad, Miquel Térmens, Josep-Manuel Rodríguez-Gairín
      • Turkey: Ata Turkfidani, Aynur Moral, Gultekin Gurdal
    • 3 Results
      • Structure of each report
        • Journals
        • Repositories
        • Policies
      • Common data
        • Ulrich’s
        • DOAJ
        • Scopus, JCR
        • Juliet, Roarmap, Melibea
        • National directories
    • Fig. 3. Directories
    • 3.1 Journals
      • Total numbers
        • 7,248 titles.
        • 9% of world total.
        • Italy, France and Spain at the top (90% of the titles).
      • Digital
        • 39% (on average).
        • Turkey, at the top (75%).
      • Open access
        • 10% (on average).
        • Turkey (31% of titles), Portugal (24%), at the top.
    • 3.1 Journals (ii)
      • Impact
        • 5% in JCR, 15% in Scopus (important differences between countries).
        • France, at the top.
      • Language
        • S ignificant presence of their own languages in journals.
        • France, Italy, Spain and Portugal (over 75% of titles).
      • Subject
        • Predominance of publications in Social Sciences and the Humanities.
      • Publishers
        • Low proportion of commercial publishers.
    • 3.2 Repositories
      • Total number
        • 223 in DOAR and 225 in ROAR.
        • 10 % of the world total.
        • Spain at the top (30%).
      • Model
        • Centralised: France, Portugal.
        • Descentralised.
      • Harvesters in each country
        • Pleiadi, HAL, Recolecta, RCAAP, Greek digital libraries, MITOS.
    • Fig. 4. Harvesters
    • 3.3 Policies
      • In general, “bottom-up” actions.
      • Berlin Declaration
        • Italy: all universities have signed.
        • Turkey: no institutions have signed.
      • Mandates
        • Univ. Minho, the oldest mandate (2005).
        • Universities: Spain at the top.
        • Government
          • Spanish Law Science and Technology (approved 12/05/2011).
    • Spanish Law of Science, Technology and Innovation
      • Research personnel whose research activity is financed mainly by national public funding will make available a digital version of the final version of the contents that have been accepted for publication in scholarly journals, as soon as possible, but in no case longer than 12 months after the official date of publication.
      • The electronic version is to be made available in open access repositories recognised by the subject field in which the research was carried out or in OA institutional repositories.
      • The digital version made available publicly can be used by the Public Administration in its evaluation processes.
      • The Ministry of Science and Innovation will facilitate centralized access to repositories and connection to similar national and international initiatives.
    • 3.4 Alhambra Declaration - Lines
      • Implementing  policies for fostering Open Access to scientific information.
      • Enhancing  advocacy initiatives to promote Open Access among researchers, policy makers, etc.
      • Building sustainable alternative business models for publishing.
      • Assuring  quality of Open Access publications.
      • Fostering  repositories.
    • 3.4 Alhambra Declaration – Action plan
      • Dissemination
        • Disseminate the “Alhambra Declaration”.
        • Publish the national reports in a single document with recommendations.
        • Translate the “Alhambra declaration” and the seminar document.
      • Task force and national plans
        • Creating national task forces for Open Access (based on seminar national delegations and including representatives of all the agents).
        • International coordination of the national task forces in harmony with related European projects.
        • Creating national plans and road maps for the next three years.
    • 4 Future
      • There is a space for working on OA at the supranational level.
      • Goal:
        • Select best practices of each country and try to apply them to the rest.
      • Continuation in an European funded project.
    • 5 References
      • Abadal, Ernest; Melero, Remedios; Abad, Maria Francisca; Villarroya, Anna (2009) . “Políticas institucionales para el fomento del acceso abierto: tipología y buenas prácticas”, Bollettino AIB , v. 49, n. 2, p. 159-170. ( http://eprints.rclis.org/16825/ )
      • Furnival, Ariadne Chloe (2010) Open access to scholarly communications: advantages, policy and advocacy. ( http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1419/2/OpenAccess-Advantages-Policies-Advocacy.pdf )
      • Ghosh, Maitrayee (2011). “Advocacy for open access: a selected review of the literature and resource list”. Library Hi Tech , no. 2
      • Hedlund, Turid; Rabow, Ingegerd (2007). Open access in the Nordic Countries: a state of the art report. Nordbib. (http://www.nordbib.net/Initiatives---Reports/Reports/OA-in-the-Nordic-countries.aspx).
    • 5 References (ii)
      • Open access in Southern European countries (2010) . Lluís Anglada, Ernest Abadal (eds). Madrid: FECYT.
      • Pinfield, Stephen (2010) . "Paying for open access? Institutional funding streams and OA publication charges". Learned Publishing , vol. 23, no 1.
      • SOAP Study of Open Access Publishing (2011). Report from the SOAP Symposium [2011: Berlin]. SOAP Study of Open Access Publishing. < http://project-soap.eu/report-from-the-soap-symposium/ >.
      • Suber, Peter (2007). “ What you can do to promote open access”. (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/do.htm#administrators).
      • Suber, Peter (2009). “Open access policy options for funding agencies and universities”. SPARC Open Access Newsletter , no. 130. (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/02-02-09.htm)
      • Thanks