Open Access - why should you care? (Europic 2014)

  • 1,293 views
Uploaded on

Slides from a presentation on open access given at Europic 2014 (the 18th International Picornavirus Meeting). Will hopefully provide further stimulus to the conversation on this important topic.

Slides from a presentation on open access given at Europic 2014 (the 18th International Picornavirus Meeting). Will hopefully provide further stimulus to the conversation on this important topic.

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • Glad to see new-kid-on-the-block ScienceOpen on the list of OA publishers!
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,293
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
1
Likes
3

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

Transcript

  • 1. Why  should  you  care? Stephen  Curry       Europic  2014   Blankenberge,  Belgium
  • 2. Academic  Journals  were  a  great  idea…
  • 3. …but  the  web  changes  everything 3
  • 4. What  is  Open  Access? Budapest  Declara5on,  2002     “free  availability  on  the  public  internet,  permiHng  any  users  to  read,  download,   copy,  distribute,  print,  search,  or  link  to  the  full  texts  of  these  arJcles,  crawl  them   for  indexing,  pass  them  as  data  to  soKware…” hMp://www.opensocietyfoundaJons.org/openaccess/ Gold  OA:     Immediate  availability  via  the  journal  (OA  or  'hybrid')   May  require  an  arJcle  processing  charge  (APC)   ! Green  OA:     Available  via  a  repository  (insJtuJon  or  subject-­‐based)   Author's  peer-­‐reviewed  version  (or  pre-­‐print)   May  require  a  delay  (embargo  period) Gra5s  OA:     Free  online  access   ! ! Libre  OA:     Free  online  access  with  some  addiJonal   usage  rights  (e.g.  reproducJon,  text   mining  —  license-­‐dependent)  
  • 5. Open  Access  is:   ‣ a  natural  consequence  of  the  internet   ‣ good  for  research   faster  exchange  of  ideas   fosters  inter-­‐disciplinarity   enables  text  mining   stronger  sense  of  community  ownership   ‣ good  for  the  taxpayer   beMer  cost  control  (eventually)   access  to  the  research  they  paid  for   changes  dynamic  of  public  engagement   ‣ affecJng  &  affected  by  many  aspects  of  academic  life… Open  Access  is  not:   ‣ free  (or  the  same  as  ‘file-­‐sharing’)   ‣ the  end  of  peer  review  or  synonymous  with  low  quality   ‣ easy  to  implement
  • 6. Why  are  we  not  there  yet? Funder  &  Govt  Policies  have  been  too  meek   ‣ New  (revised)  RCUK  policy  (April  1st,  2013):   ‣ Prefers  gold  (and  CC-­‐BY)  but  allows  green   ‣ Block  grant  funding     ‣ 5  yr  roll-­‐out  to  include  review  &  flexibility:  a  ‘journey'   ‣ HEFCE:  immediate  OA  deposit  will  be  required  for  next  REF   ‣ Changes  happening  in  US  &  EU… hMp://blogs.rcuk.ac.uk/2012/09/28/rcuk-­‐open-­‐access-­‐policy-­‐when-­‐to-­‐go-­‐green-­‐and-­‐when-­‐to-­‐go-­‐gold/
  • 7. OpposiJon  of  some  publishers   ‣ worried  about  ‘sustainability’  (aka  profits*)   ‣ Elsevier:  36%  (£724m/£2,000m)   ‣ Springer:  34%  (£294m/£866m)   ‣ John  Wiley  &  Sons:  42%  ($106m/$253m)   ‣ Informa  plc:  32%  (£47m/£145m)   ‣ NB:  Hindawi:  52%**  ($3.3m/$6.3m)   ‣ Are  these  reasonable  given  the  input  from  researchers? Why  are  we  not  there  yet? *Figures  for  2010.  Source  —  hPp://poe5ceconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/enormous-­‐profits-­‐of-­‐stm-­‐scholarly.html   **hPp://scholarlyoa.com/2013/04/04/hindawis-­‐profits-­‐are-­‐larger-­‐than-­‐elseviers/
  • 8. Researchers  are  ill-­‐informed  and  conservaJve   ‣too  few  aware  of  how  publishing  works   ‣concerns  of  learned  socieJes 8 Why  are  we  not  there  yet? hMp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/01/29/why-­‐open-­‐access-­‐is-­‐beMer-­‐for-­‐scholarly-­‐socieJes/ Stuart  Shieber
  • 9. We  fear  damage  to  established  models   ‣addicted  to  impact  factors  —>  mistrust  of  new  journals 9 Why  are  we  not  there  yet? "when  assessing  proposals  for  research   funding  RCUK  considers  that  it  is  the   quality  of  the  research  proposed  and   not  where  an  author  has  published…   that  is  of  paramount  importance." hMp://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/category/open-­‐access-­‐2/
  • 10. To  realise  the  vision  of  OA,  we  need  to  replace  the  apparatus  of  the  Impact  factor   Vale,  R.  D.  (2012)  Mol  Biol  Cell  23,  3285–3289. Lawrence,  P.  A.  (2007)  Curr.  Biol.  17,  R583–5. hMp://am.ascb.org/dora/
  • 11. Remaining  Challenges  and  QuesJons ‣ Convincing  academics  &  learned  socieJes  of  the  merits  of  OA   ‣ APC  payment  mechanisms  that  are  fair  &  visible  to  researchers   ‣ Withdraw  support  for  hybrid  OA?   ‣ Compliance  enforcement  from  funders  and  insJtuJons   ‣ Disavowal  of  Impact  Factors   ‣ Market  innova5ons  from  publishers  —  level  playing  field  for  new  OA  journals   ‣ DuraJon  &  cost  of  transiJon?  (When  will  subs  money  be  released?) Thanks  for  listening