2013 11 sci-oa

382 views
292 views

Published on

This paper provides a brief definition of open access, describes where we are at now in terms of open access prevalence and where we might expect to be in the near future. The author differentiates between gold and green open access, describes the growth or diminution of those two forms of OA around the world, provides examples of each form, and describes existing and emerging gold open access funding models. The author also touches on the emergence of federal, state and institutional open access policies with a focus on institutional policies, what they entail and their potential impact. Potential implementation scenarios for the White House Office of Science and Technology open access policy memorandum and the FASTR legislation are also reviewed.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
382
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Here is what I’m planning to cover in the next 20 minutes or so, and I hope this doesn’t duplicate too much what we’ve already heard and what we’ll be hearing in later presentations.  I’ll begin with a brief definition of what is OA, including a discussion of what is green vs. gold OA. I’ll talk about gold OA publishing and green OA with a focus on institutional policies since federal and state policies were already covered in an earlier presentation. I’ll conclude with some slides about where we’re at now and where I see us going with regard to gold and green OA.  So, I’ll be touching on a lot of different aspects of OA briefly in my talk and hope that in the question and answer session we can get into more specifics about whatever you are interested in.
  • What is OA? I don’t want to spend too much time defining this. An article is open access if it meets certain conditions: it is freely available, full text, to anyone with a web browser and Internet access. It is immediately upon publication and permanently. These things constitute what is known as Gratis open access, articles that are freely available online.
  • The frequently cited definition of open access from the Budapest Initiative includes a condition that the article has unrestricted reuse rights associated with it. This is often referred to as “libre” open access. The Creative Commons CC-BY attribution license is the primary mechanism for authorizing others to reuse and build upon OA research. A frequently cited benefit of libre OA is that computerized text mining and content mining of journal articles can be accomplished through computer analysis of natural language. The more content that is available, the more effective text mining can be to analyze and identify links between things like medicine and genes, as one example.
  • I’m stealing this slide by permission from Peter Binfield, a co-founder of PeerJ, a bioscience and medicine OA publisher, because it so clearly demonstrates the benefits of OA in terms of potential reach. The tiny red box in the middle of the slide represents the number of people who have the potential to access an average article available in a toll journal. Many toll journals have as few as a couple dozens or even fewer, total subscriptions. When you publish with a toll journal it is clear that you have a very limited reach. The yellow box represents the potential audience of all the science and knowledge workers around the world, most of whom are not associated with universities that have subscriptions. This potential audience does not have the ability to access articles available in most toll journals. And the big green box represents all the people in the world, potential readers around the world who are unable to access articles published in toll journals, except by begging, borrowing or stealing them. From my perspective as a librarian at a land-grant institution, I often describe OA in terms of citizen access to the research of our institution and other institutions. Open access allows the fruits of research to be read and used by the people who paid for it, the taxpayer, as well as any decision-makers, practitioners and scientists, teachers and students, as well as faculty worldwide, not only those who are fortunate enough to be associated with research institutions able to afford expensive journal subscriptions. And we know from Tim Jewell’s talk earlier, there is no institution that can afford subscriptions to even a substantial portion of the literature any more because of the rate of journal inflation over the last three decades.
  • Aside from offering the broadest possible dissemination of research, OA demonstrably increases the impact of research. Countless studies show that articles available open access are cited more often than those available only through toll subscriptions.  http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14418/ In 2010, Alma Swan looked at 31 articles that had been published up to that date, analyzing citation rates for articles available OA vs. articles available in toll journals only and found that in nearly every study the authors found a positive OA citation advantage. There does appear to be a difference in the amount of advantage depending on the discipline.
  • Gold open access is immediate access to articles via an open access journal, regardless of the business model behind that journal.  As of yesterday, the Directory of Open Access Journals lists over 10,000 gold OA journals. Three of the best-known OA publishers, PLoS, BioMedCentral and Hindawi, publish a substantial percentage of all of the gold OA articles available.  PLoS was initiated by Harold Varmus, a Nobel prize winner and former director of the NIH, Michael Eisen, a biologist at UC-Berkeley and Patrick Brown, a Stanford biochemist. PLOS One, one of seven journals published by PLoS, is now the largest journal in the world and responsible for publishing hundreds of articles every week. BioMedCentral publishes hundreds of open access peer review journals and Hindawi, out of Egypt, publishes over 500 journals and is adding dozens of new OA journals each year. Hindawi began as a subscription publisher and moved entirely to an author pays gold open access model within 3 years, perhaps demonstrating what other subscription publishers will do eventually, although many will clearly transition to gold OA kicking and screaming if they do it at all. It is interesting to note that a handful of OA journals now publish more than 1,000 articles per year and thousands of other OA journals publish only a few articles annually. Gold OA is increasingly dominated by the aforementioned publishers.
  •  There are currently three primary funding models for gold OA publishing.
  • Publisher fees. Under the publisher fees model, also known as author processing charge or author pays, authors are charged an article processing fee anywhere from $300 to $5000 per article. PLOS One charges $1350 per article and some of its specialty journals charge $2900. BioMedCentral charges authors around $500 and Hindawi charges authors between $300 and $1500.  According to the comprehensive Study of Open Access Publishing project funded by the European Commission two years ago, approximately 59% of article processing fees are paid by funding agencies. 24% of author fees are paid either entirely by universities or the university pays a portion of author fees. Only 12% of the time are fees paid entirely by authors out of pocket. A recent Guardian article suggests that this may be a good reason to stop using the term "author pays" for the fee-based business model.  An important emerging funding source for gold OA that I expect to grow substantially in the coming years is Campus Open Access Funds. The way these funds work is that a pool of money is set aside by an institution specifically to reimburse article processing charges for articles published by faculty in open-access journals.  Libraries are increasingly covering a portion of these fees redirected from collection budgets. We’ve begun this in a limited way at Oregon State University where we have a membership to PLoS and BioMed Central that pays for a portion of affiliated author OA processing charges.
  • A second model, and the one that is in effect at 2/3s of the journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, does not charge author-processing charges at all. Instead, journal costs are sustained through financial or staffing support usually associated with a university. University libraries, including our operation in the Center for Digital Scholarship at Oregon State University, are increasingly hosting/publishing OA journals.  I’m on the board of the open access Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, which is hosted by Pacific University and falls under this model. Copy editing, layout, peer review administration, design and even marketing for the journal are all done voluntarily by faculty.  Some societies are beginning to fund their journals using membership and/or conference fees, rather than relying on libraries to fund the activities of the society through journal subscriptions, which has been the model for most society publications.
  • A growing number of toll journals are adopting “hybrid models”. Under this model, the author can pay for an article available in a toll journal to be made available open access. The basic business model and source of funding for these journals remain library subscriptions, but author OA fees supplement that money. The term double dipping is used to describe this because publishers are receiving money through both the subscriptions already paid by university libraries and from the author’s OA fees. The Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity has a policy not to pay publication fees at hybrid journals for this reason. Most libraries that reimburse authors for article processing charges, do not reimburse authors who wish to make an article available in a hybrid journal. Article processing charges for hybrid journals usually run around $1500/article.
  • An emerging funding model for gold OA is the membership model adopted by PeerJ, a biomedical science OA journal publisher. Under this model, authors become members of PeerJ at different levels, between a one-time fee of $99 which gives the author the right to publish one article a year to $299 which entitles the author to publish as many articles as he or she wishes. Members must also agree to peer review or comment on a certain number of articles/year. This model is being adopted by societies as well and other models for sustaining OA journal publishing are appearing.
  • Even though publishing open access journals does cost money, it costs much less than publishing toll journals. OA journals do not have to maintain legacy operations such as printing. There are also savings from not maintaining or migrating off of legacy software. With OA, you also don’t have to pay a sales force to travel around the world, staff booths at conferences, take clients out to dinner or host parties. You also dispense with significant legal fees such as those mentioned earlier by Robin Champieux in enforcing copyright!
  • Interesting developments in publishing like open peer review and open annotation are largely happening with OA journals. The focus is clearly on the article now, not the journal or the issue. Alt metrics focuses on article use and citations in social media and other venues, and demonstrates the impact of articles on readers not necessarily associated with research institutions. Articles available open access are more likely to be discussed in social media venues like blogs and twitter simply because more people are able to read the article and comment on it.  The recent Science magazine news story about OA entitled the “Wild West of Open Access” was pitched to the press as an indictment of oa publishing, and that is how it is being picked up by a number of anti-OA commentators. For this article, the author sent a hoax article to oa journals that charge an author fee and found that a percentage of those journals published the article, apparently with little or no or faulty peer review. It exposed the problem of predatory publishers among OA publishers who charge author fees and publish articles without conducting proper peer review. But it is important to note that the study included no control of non-OA publishers, and so subscription journals, which also accept questionable articles all the time, were not included. The main thing the story exposed is that peer review is broken.  The hoax article was published not only by predatory publishers with apparently no fixed address, the journal equivalent of the Nigerian banking scheme, but also by more established OA journals. PLoS and Hindawi did not publish the article, but a Sage and Elsevier OA journal did. Some, including one of the founders of PLoS, Michael Eisen, and the founder of PeerJ, peter Binfield, have said that open peer review would solve the problem that the article brings to light on day one. Open peer review is conducted transparently and the names of peer reviewers are given. Open peer review is also based solely on methodology and not expected article impact. So, for journals that use open peer review, and they are few but a growing number, that article would not have passed muster.
  • So far I’ve described gold open access, the immediate availability of an article in an OA journal. Green open access is open access available through a repository, either an institutional repository like SA@OSU (slide) or UW’s ResearchWorks (slide) or a disciplinary repository like PubMed (slide). Repositories hold peer-reviewed literature, and often include other literature such as theses and dissertations, technical reports, university publications, data sets, and other materials. Articles available in repositories have also been published in a journal.  One huge advantage of green over gold OA, at least in terms of funder and institutional policies and mandates is that green can be mandated without violating academic freedom in any way. Gold OA mandates require that authors publish in a set of compliant journals whereas green OA allows authors to publish in any journal so long as they make a version of the article available in an open access repository.   
  • The Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) lists more than 250 subject-based open access repositories and more than 2,300 institutional open access repositories. Nearly every open access policy at a university or funding agency is a green policy, that is, a policy requiring deposit in an open access repository rather than submission to open access journals. 63% of toll journals allow authors to deposit the final manuscript version of articles (the peer-reviewed version minus the final publisher formatting and copy editing) into an open access repository.  If we buy into the idea that gold OA, in whatever form, is the future and toll journals are on their way out, and I do believe that, there are still clear advantages to green open access. One is that, until that time when gold oa is the norm, the research published by toll journals will continue to be restricted to the scientists associated with universities able to afford access to those journals, unless the articles are also deposited in oa repositories. And even after gold OA becomes predominant and after subscription journals have shifted to gold OA, there is no guarantee that the journal back issues will also be made available OA.
  • Institutional OA policies are being passed that demonstrate a faculty’s commitment to the broadest possible dissemination and impact of the research conducted at their institutions. The language and components of Oregon State University’s policy, for example, is basically the same as the language of policies passed at MIT, Harvard, Georgia Tech, the UC system, Stanford, and many others. This increased standardization will benefit universities and faculty by signaling a unified stance about the open access that authors and institutions value.
  • The rise of funder OA policies such as the NIH Public Access policy and other federal, state and university OA policies are resulting in increasing numbers of articles being made available in repositories. I list some examples of public access policies here on this slide. We’re at a point now where most publicly funded research in this country, and in the UK and other countries is required to be open access, even if implementation of these policies is lagging. Argentina joined Peru today in legislating a mandate that requires OA for government funded research.  Currently there are over 80 funder open access mandates in place around the world. Again, the strong argument in their favor is that research that is taxpayer funded, as all research that is funded by federal and state agencies is, should be made available to the taxpayers who funded it. Peter Suber, the long-standing OA advocate now with Harvard, has said: Today policy makers agree that the question is not whether to make the shift to OA, but how.”
  • The White House Office of Science Technology and Policy memorandum issued in February 2013 was the result of information gathered by the White House as a result of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 which called upon OSTP to coordinate with agencies to develop policies that assure the widespread public access of research resulting from federal grants. They received an overwhelming response in favor of the proposition that citizens deserve easy access to the results of scientific research their tax dollars have paid for.The policy memorandum directs federal agencies with more than $100 million in annual research and development expenditures to work with stakeholders to make articles and research data associated with federally funded research freely available to the public. The policy is similar to the NIH public access policy passed in 2008 (http://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm) except that whereas the NIH policy makes clear the repository to which research should be made available and makes clear that embargoes associated with that research are not to exceed 12 months, the OSTP memorandum leaves open the question of implementation and embargoes. There is no existing infrastructure, like PubMed, that can handle the huge number of articles and data that is generated from all U.S. federal agencies, and, the directive is an unfunded mandate so there is no money given to federal agencies to build such a platform or system.  Funding agencies were given a deadline of August, which they seem to have missed, to develop implementation plans with key stakeholders including publishers and universities.  Two key stakeholders have stepped up with implementation proposals. A consortium of publishers has proposed CHORUS the Clearinghouse for the Open Research of the United States, that would use publishers’ existing infrastructure to identify and eventually provide free access to peer-reviewed articles based on publicly supported research.  Meanwhile, the Association of Research Libraries has proposed SHARE , the Shared Access Research Ecosystem (SHARE), which proposes a network of cross-institutional digital repositories based in research universities as the digital home for the finished papers and the underlying data sets resulting from research produced with federal funds. These repositories already exist, already contain data sets and can be made interoperable fairly easily using existing technologies already in place such as the Open Access Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting.
  • It is estimated that 25% of all peer-reviewed research articles published today are available open access.  The growth is a result of both green and gold OA.
  • http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/124/figure/F2 You can see from this graphic, which appeared in a BMC Medicine article in 2012, the overall growth of gold open access since 2000. You can also see that the publisher fees funding model is rising at a higher rate than the other models.   David Lewis, in a well-known article that appeared in College & Research Libraries, using a method defined by business theorist Clayton Christensen, predicts that Gold OA could account for 50 percent of published journal articles sometime between 2017 and 2021, and 90 percent of articles as soon as 2020 and more conservatively by 2025. My experience working with faculty to pass an OA policy at OSU, is that most researchers really don’t think much about why their articles are behind a subscription barrier and have no idea how much those journals charge libraries for subscriptions. It does not feel wrong or odd to put your papers behind a subscription wall that is controlled by a publisher perhaps because most articles are behind a subscription barrier. But if a large fraction of papers are published on an open access basis the situation may flip, at which time researchers may object to having their papers behind a subscription barrier that limits their dissemination and impact. This could well result in a default expectation from authors that their articles will be open access.  The funder and institutional mandates and policies are bringing to light publisher pricing practices and beginning to establish an understanding and appreciation of Open Access vs. subscription publishing among faculty, even though there remains a great deal of misunderstanding.
  • As I already noted, many subscription publishers offer hybrid open access and many such as Elsevier and Sage seem to recognize hybrid as a transitory step towards all oa paid by publishing fees. We’re also witnessing the rapid growth of green OA with the development of federal mandates and institutional policies. With these requirements in place, deposit of articles to repositories will increasingly become the norm and recognized by authors as a natural step of the publishing process. When this happens, it makes sense that universities will begin to cancel subscriptions and rely on the free availability of scholarship and use collection funds formerly dedicated to paying subscriptions for funding article publishing fees for OA journals.  This is a guess, but I estimate that this will indeed begin to happen in the next five years. Subscription journals will be forced to shift to all OA or will go under. Even longer term, as open peer review becomes more established, it is likely that the journal itself will become increasingly less important and publishing will take place on the web in any number of new ways. Articles and there equivalents will not necessarily be associated with what we know as journals at all.
  • As I already noted, many subscription publishers offer hybrid open access and some see hybrid as a transitory step towards all oa paid by publishing fees. Many subscription publishers like Springer, Sage and Elsevier are experimenting with gold open access journals. We’re also witnessing the rapid growth of green OA with the development of federal mandates and institutional policies. With these requirements in place, deposit of articles to repositories will increasingly become the norm and recognized by authors as a natural step of the publishing process. When an increasing percentage of articles becomes available green, it makes sense that universities will begin to cancel subscriptions, rely on the free availability of scholarship and use collection funds formerly dedicated to paying subscriptions to fund article publishing fees.  I estimate that this will indeed begin to happen in the next five years as the funder policies are actively implemented. Subscription journals will increasingly shift to all OA. Even longer term, as open peer review becomes more established, it is likely that the journal itself will become increasingly less important and publishing of articles will take place on the web in any number of new ways. Articles and their equivalents will not necessarily be associated with what we know as journals at all.
  • 2013 11 sci-oa

    1. 1. Michael Boock, Center for Digital Scholarship, Oregon State University Science Communication Institute, Seatlle, WA, 15 November 2013
    2. 2.  What is Open Access?  Green vs. Gold  OA Prevalence  Gold OA examples, funding models, new services  Green OA examples and policies  Mandates
    3. 3. Gratis Open Access  Free  Full Text  Online  Access  Immediate  Permanent
    4. 4. Libre Open Access  Reuse  Creative Commons licenses
    5. 5. The potential audience for an Open Access Article… Red Box is 350 subscribing institutions x 500 faculty = 175,000 people Yellow box is 15 million knowledge workers The Green box is 7 Billion potential readers on the planet Used by permission, Peter Binfield
    6. 6. Alma Swan. 2010. The Open Access Citation Advantage: Studies and Results to Date. Research on Institutional Repositories. http://works.bepress.com/ir_research/31/
    7. 7. Gold Open Access  Immediate access  Via an Open Access journal  Over 10,000  PLoS  BioMedCentral  Hindawi
    8. 8. Gold OA Funding Models Funding Models: 1. Publishing fees 2. No publishing fees 3. Hybrid
    9. 9. Publishing Fees  AKA Author Pays  1/3 of OA journals, but most articles  Article Processing Charge: $300-$5000/article  Paid by funding agencies as part of grants  Increasingly paid by universities • • Study of Open Access Publishing, http://project-soap.eu/highlights-and-data-ofthe-soap-survey-now-available/ SPARC Campus Open Access Funds, http://project-soap.eu/highlights-anddata-of-the-soap-survey-now-available/
    10. 10. No Publishing Fees  2/3s of OA journals  Supported by universities/libraries  Scholarly societies
    11. 11. Hybrid Model  AKA Author Sponsored OA  Commercial journals that offer authors OA for individual article for a fee  Double-dipping
    12. 12. Other Funding Models  Membership model  PeerJ  Membership entitles author to publish  Must provide additional assistance (peer review, approval)
    13. 13. Open Access Publishing Costs  Less than commercial publishing  No legacy operations  No printing  No sales force  Less marketing  No legal fees
    14. 14. New Developments  Article focus in terms of impact measures  Alt Metrics  “Wild west of OA publishing”  Open Peer Review  Post Publication Peer Review
    15. 15. Green Open Access  Article available in an open access repository  Often with other scholarship  Articles also published in journals
    16. 16. Open Access Repositories  250 subject-based OA repositories  More than 2300 institutional OA policies  Green OA predominantly  63% of toll journals allow deposit to repositories
    17. 17. Funder Policies  NIH  RCUK  White House Office of Science and Technology Policy  State of California  Research funded by taxpayer, should be available to taxpayer
    18. 18. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Directive  America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010  Overwhelming positive public feedback  Articles and research data resulting from funding from federal agencies with more than $100 million in annual research and development expenditures to be open access  No implementation strategy adopted yet  CHORUS publisher proposal vs. SHARE library proposal  Unfunded mandate
    19. 19. Growth of Open Access  25% of all peer-reviewed research is OA  Green and Gold
    20. 20. Growth of Gold OA
    21. 21. Future  Commercial publishers adapting  Continued growth of green OA  Repository deposit becomes part of publishing workflow  Universities cancel subscriptions  More funds available for Gold OA APCs
    22. 22. Thank You! Michael Boock, Associate Professor/Head of the Center for Digital Scholarship Oregon State University Libraries & Press

    ×