Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Where you should publish
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Where you should publish

793

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
793
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Start with general defr’n and my motivation for OA advocacy Then present some data relating to AA & OAI in an attempt to stimulate your interest in OA After thoroughly convincing you that your past, present, and future articles should be freely available on the web, I’ll describe 4 roads to OA and touch on advantages & limitations of each
  • Knowing that prophets are LEAST welcome in their hometown, I want to assure you that:
  • Notice definition at article level– restricting to OA journals excludes what I think is the most important path to OA Price barrier is bulk of the problem, but permissions must go beyond fair use… For a work to be OA, the copyright holder must consent in advance to let users "copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship...." Bethesda & Berlin In practice OA is often used to refer to any freely available journal article that has been accepted for publication Delivery thru 2 venues: OAJ vs OAR: journals conduct peer review, archives do not (BUT…)
  • My passion for OA is based on the fundamentals The WORK of article production is borne by researchers who: The COSTS of article production are borne by Taxpayers who fund govt agencies Current and former students who support institutions through tuition & donation
  • “ Journal prices have risen four times faster than inflation since the mid-1980's, From 1990 to 2000 journal unit cost increased an average of 12.8% per year vs ~3.5% cpi Note that price increases began BEFORE the rise of the internet, but it is this technological advance that can allow the removal of price barriers that had already begun to develop. the purpose of OA is not to punish or undermine expensive journals, but to provide an accessible alternative and to take full advantage of the internet for widening distribution and reducing costs. Moreover, for researchers themselves, the overriding motivation is not to solve the journal pricing crisis but to deliver wider and easier access for readers and larger audience and impact for authors.”
  • Quick study of articles published by Claremont Faculty Dataset: 2006-1996 WOS abstracts of art, rev, lett that had a CC resident author (1156 in total) Determined accessibility of every 10 th article (ordered by pub date) 70% available throuh paid licenses, an additional 14% through OA 2% journal, 6% backfile, 6% repository Just 16% NA 3% because not online at all, and 13% not licensed (meaning available but not purchased) Conservative estimate of OA b/c if licensed, didn’t check Google Scholar or Google This though is a view of a community of researchers whose access is supported by a large endowment.
  • If we were to remove the 2/3 of our journal budget that comes from Seaver funds, our access would look more like this, which is more typical of smaller, younger liberal arts institutions. To say nothing of what unaffiliated people can’t access. No OA is a represents a much bigger chunk of the access So what I would like to see it the self archiving of the majority of claremont faculty papers grow to fill the access gap. More on that later… Now I’ll move from the importance of OA for ACCESSIBILITY by others to the related effects on the impact of your work OA may be slightly larger for ‘formerly’ licensed that are OA
  • Usually measured by the number of times cited Downloads – challenges of multiple locations President of blackwell
  • 120000 computer science conference articles (formal papers Hi prestige 10% acceptance rate) X-axis is # of citations per paper (or impact category) y axis is percentage of the pool of articles in each impact category that were freely available online in 2001 Each data point represents a pool of 100 papers or more each cited within the range of times indicated on the x axis So of the 100 or more papers published in 89-90 that have been cited more than 64 times each, 34 % were freely available online, whereas less than 10% of those cited 4-7x were freely available Later lines higher on axis meets intuitive expectation that more recent articles have greater online availability “ clear correlation between the number of times an article is cited and the probability that the article is [freely available] online”
  • 500 Physics and Math Journals indexed in WOS Figure 1. Open Access (OA) vs. Non-Open Access (non-OA) Citation Impact Comparisons for All (Physics/Mathematics) Fields. Gray curve is OA + non-OA = "Total Articles" per year (scale on right) Green bars are "OAP," the proportion OA/(OA + non-OA) of articles that have been made OA, by year. The red bars show the "OAA," the OA/non-OA citation advantage, per year, relative to an even ratio of 1/1 (100%) in the number of citations to articles appearing in the same journal and year (scale on left).
  • All articles in 4 math journals
  • HA : Papers from more prestigious conference papers get cited more, and are more likely to be freely available on line (leading to an apparent OAA) Based on same data, average citation numbers for all 120K articles… For all venues that had at least 5 FA and 5 NFA articles (about 1500), Lawrence calculated OAA by Ave the ave C# in each group, e.g. 2 v 4 =100% “ If we assume that articles published in the same venue are of similar quality, then the analysis by venue suggests that online articles are more highly cited because of their easier availability.” Because the assumption of similar quality is more likely to be true in the elite venues, an acid test this same calc in the most prestigious venues For the top 20 venues, this calc revealed a similarly large advantage (with a more normal distribution): Almost a 3 fold higher average citation rate for freely available articles
  • 15000 journal articles in 13 journals published between Jan 1994 and July 2004 Journals with higher impact (2002 IF in paren) had a greater percentage of pdfs available on non-journal web sites Journal club effect? (wrote program to interface with google from pubmed recs)
  • Found higher rate of citation for OA papers at every sample date despite: Mere 6 month difference in availability period & testing citation status Y/N at 0-6mos, 4-10, and 10-16 mos. after publication Controlling for first and last author's lifetime publication count, first and last author's lifetime average citations per paper, number of days since publication (categorized), number of authors (categorized), country of the corresponding author (12 most common countries and “other”), funding type, subject area (14 most common subjects and “other”), and submission track. My main problem with this paper is its focus on the first citation, and within such a short period of time, as someone who has published articles in plant evolutionary ecology…
  • Chicken/egg: it is impossible to discriminate whether they are on the Internet because they are important, or whether they are highly cited because they are on the Internet Multiple copy – e.g. Elsevier Articles not indexed in scholar One significant way it can help: Links to full content from personal web pages
  • Medical Focus
  • Percentile rank –percent of journals in their category that they outrank PLOS bio listed 2x because in 2 categories (Bio general) and Biochem & Mol Bio where it beat out Nature Struct & Mol Bio and EMBO ) BMC Dev biol beat out Dev Biol and BMC Evol Bio beat out evolution Thus there are many ‘high impact’ OA journals
  • Advantages– long term free availability wider choice authoritative copy Limitations Delay to access Visibility to authors Affordability for Small Publishers
  • Road with a stick? Called public access b/c usually still under copyright—fair use only • Submitting a manuscript fulfills the grant requirement that all NIH-funded manuscripts be submitted to NIH.
  • Argument against: both large and small “ Do not oppose OA Publishing, only its premature and unwarranted imposition through government mandate” Relatively small list of supporters
  • Both the prior road (Govt-funded Archives) and the next road (institutional archives) require full text access from outside of traditional article databases This data on where people come from to access highwire journals suggests that we don’t have far to go, and WOS is adding an Inst. Repository collection
  • May be the most important slide in the lot When archived in a repository w/ OAI compliance & partnerships ensure Google indexing 94% of journals and 80% of publishers already permit author-initiated OA archiving . SUBER: “Since self-archiving is a bona fide form of OA, authors who fail to take advantage of the opportunity are actually a greater obstacle to OA than publishers who fail to offer the opportunity.” So instead of asking you to change where you publish, I am asking you to ADD to where you publish.
  • Top 22 Green publishers (By number of journals) Green publishers allow self-archiving of POST-Prints- Meaning post-peer review but usually PRE-copy editing (EXCEPTIONS)
  • All of the pale green pre-print only publishers Only allow pre-review MS, except nature oks postprint with 6mo embargo
  • Grey publishers none allowed or no statement of self-archiving policy
  • The impact of OA can also be assessed at the JOURNAL level, using impact factor Roughly 200 journals (and dated) Impact factor is the relative citation rate of the journals (in red) and immediacy index determines how rapidly articles are cited Percentile rank on x-axis indicates where journals fall within their category, so if bars of the same color were of equal height, there would be no diff between ISI ranked OA Journals from DOAJ, JSTAGE, and SciElo Early b/c many PLOS & BMC journals not yet ranked
  • Transcript

    • 1. (Where I get off telling you…) Where you should publish: Open access, NIH public access, and ‘Green’ Journals can affect journal article impact Jason Price PhD, Life Science Librarian Libraries of the Claremont Colleges Howard Hughes Medical Institute Summer Research Seminar Series Claremont Colleges, July 2006
    • 2. Outline
      • OA Definition and personal motivation
      • Why Open Access?
        • Availability
        • Impact
      • Roads to OA
        • OA Journals
        • OA backfiles
        • NIH Public Access Policy & FRPAA
        • Self-Archiving articles in ‘ Green ’ journals
    • 3. Anti-Outline
      • What I won’t tell you:
      • that you must publish in an OA journal to get this advantage
      • that this data argues you need to change where you publish
      • that you need to pay to publish your articles
    • 4. Open Access definition and delivery
      • OA Articles are:
        • digital, online, free of charge to reader
        • free of most © restrictions
      • Removes barriers of PRICE & Permission
      • Delivery requires:
        • Copyright holder’s consent
        • Infrastructure to make articles electronically available
      • Delivered thru:
        • OA Journals
        • OA archives/repositories
    • 5. Why Open Access? (Theory)
      • ‘ Costs’ of article production
        • Research & Writing
        • Reviewing
        • Funding
      • ‘ Benefits’ of article production
        • $$$ to profit maximizing publishers/shareholders
    • 6.  
    • 7. Why Open Access?
      • ‘ Costs’ of article production
        • Research & Writing
        • Reviewing
        • Funding
      • ‘ Benefits’ of article production
        • $$$ to profit maximizing publishers/shareholders
        • $ to societies and their members
        • Communication of results (but to whom?)
    • 8. Local access to CC author’s articles
    • 9. Hypothetical Access w/o Seaver fund
    • 10. Article Impact
      • Impact = Times cited
      • Forthcoming measures
        • # of downloads ?
        • Intensity of discussion ?
      • But for now = Times cited
    • 11. Open access articles have higher impact Steve Lawrence NEC Research Institute Princeton, NJ Computer Science (Impact)
    • 12. OA Impact Advantage Physics & Mathematics Harnad et al 2004 (Physics and Mathematics)
    • 13. Effect of arXiv 2003 - Davis and Fromerth, 2006
    • 14. Test of an alternative hypothesis Data from Lawrence Citation # (Impact) Within Venue (N = 1494) Top Venues (N = 20) Not freely available = 2.74 Freely Available = 7.03 Increase 157% = 336% = 158% = 286% = 284%
    • 15. Critics Say…
      • Can’t assume equality of article value within a journal: 15% of the articles get 50% of citations, and 50% get 90% of citations
      50% 90%
    • 16. Trophy Effect? Davis and Fromerth, 2006
    • 17. Importance effect? Wren 2005 BMJ
    • 18.
      • Statistically rigorous study found an significant effect of OA status for articles in PNAS
    • 19. Impact Conclusions
      • Evidence suggests that freely available articles are cited more frequently
      • Not clear whether there is a bias in availability which could be due to:
        • Demand/Trophy Effect
        • Earlier dissemination
        • ‘ Research 1’ effect
        • Multiple copy/Prevalence effect
    • 20. Roads to Open Access
    • 21. Gold Road : Open Access Journals Advantages Limitations
      • OA from birth
      • Does not rely on commercial publishers for peer review
      • Direct indexing in usual places
      • Authoritative copy
      • Author-pay model common ($2000)
      • Business models still uncertain
      • Still limited selection/ prestige
    • 22. Open Access Journal IF 2005 Impact Factor
    • 23. Yellow Road: Embargoed Open Access journal backfiles
      • Many journals make ‘their’ content freely available 6 mos – 3 years after publication
      • Good lists of these journals are hard to find
        • large and in constant flux
        • Publisher interest in keeping it a secret (from subscribers)
      • Changes are coming which should make these more apparent in our ejournal list
    • 24. NIH Public Access Policy (May 2005)
      • Who: Authors supported by NIH grants (Voluntary, but…)
      • What: Final peer-reviewed author’s copy (MS)
      • Where: PubMed Central
      • When: ASAP (and within 12 months)
      • Why: “Archive, Advance Science, Access”
      • Cost: $3.5mil/year -- .0125% of NIH budget and 10% of what they currently spend on page charges & other journal subsidies
    • 25. An example
    • 26.  
    • 27. Is it working?
      • Rate of author compliance: below 4% (as of Jan 2006)
      • Some publishers offering to deposit for their NIH funded authors (but not till 12 month limit)
      • Nov 2005 NLM board of regents endorsed recommendations to strengthen to requirement within 6 months
      • Applies to 65,000 papers per year (but this is just 10% of annual biomedical articles)
    • 28. FRPAA: a big next step? (05-2006)
      • Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 (S.2695) Sponsors Cornyn (R-TX) and Lieberman (D-CT)
      • Requires every govt. agency w/ extramural research budget >$100 Mil to:
      • 1) require each wholly or partially govt funded researcher to submit peer-reviewed version of MS
      • 2) preserve in stable digital repository that permits free public access, interoperability, long-term preservation
      • 3) Require that free online access be available ASAP no later than 6 mos. after publication in peer-rev. journal
      Alliance for Taxpayer Access American Association of Law Libraries American Library Association Association of College and Research Libraries Association of Research Libraries BioMedCentral Chemists without Borders CPTech Genetic Alliance GNU EPrints Greater Western Library Alliance International Mosaic Down Syndrome Association Medical Library Association Public Knowledge Special Libraries Association University of Florida Student Senate
    • 29. Steinbrook 2006 NEJM
    • 30. Self-Archiving: The green road 94% of 9300 journals processed allow Self-Archiving http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
    • 31.  
    • 32.  
    • 33.  
    • 34. Assistance in Self-Archiving
      • The CCDL (Claremont Colleges Digital Library) is ready to build an institutional repository
      • We can work together to make as many of your articles freely available as possible
      • Next steps
        • Identify articles that are eligible for self-archiving
        • Locate appropriate manuscript/copy-edited version
        • Sign forms & deposit
      • Please sign sheet indicating interest level
    • 35. Yes, I a want to self-archive As many as possible as soon as possible I would be interested in archiving my new articles as they come out I would willingly self-archive if my institution required it I object to the idea or work involved in self-archiving
    • 36. ArXiv example Your name here!
    • 37. McVeigh (ISI) 2004
    • 38. McVeigh (ISI) 2004
    • 39. Critics say…
      • Among OA/nonOA Journal approach ignores diffs in:
        • Acceptance rates
        • Quality of Peer Review
        • Editorial Policy
        • Novelty
      • Better to test among articles within a journal that allows choice (e.g. PNAS…)

    ×