Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Making Open Access Work for Ireland: Dr Julia M Wallace - IRC
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Making Open Access Work for Ireland: Dr Julia M Wallace - IRC

662
views

Published on

The Royal Irish Academy and the Irish Research Council held a forum on Open Access in May 2013. …

The Royal Irish Academy and the Irish Research Council held a forum on Open Access in May 2013.

More Details - http://www.ria.ie/about/our-work/policy/ria-initiatives/making-open-access-work-for-ireland.aspx

Published in: Education, Technology

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
662
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
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

Transcript

  • 1. Dr Julia M WallaceDr Julia M Wallace,Project Manager – PEERjulia@iglooe comjulia@iglooe.comRIA & Irish Research Council Forum:Making Open Access Work for IrelandMaking Open Access Work for Ireland2 May 2013Findings from the PEER ProjectFindings from the PEER ProjectSupported by the EC eContentplus programmePEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 1 www.peerproject.euSupported by the EC eContentplus programme
  • 2. Project origins & objectivesProject origins & objectives• Arose from impasse about embargo periods on Green open access• Arose from impasse about embargo periods on Green open access• PEER was set up to monitor the effects of systematic archivingof ‘stage two’ research outputs (NISO: accepted manuscripts)g p ( p p )– Large-scale ‘experiment’ regarding deposit of author manuscripts in an‘observatory’ of OA repositoriesR h t di i i d t th h d id t i f– Research studies commissioned to gather hard evidence to informfuture policies: Usage, Behavioural, Economic– Collaborative project of diverse stakeholder groups: Publishers,p j g presearch community and library/repository community• Duration: 09/2008−05/2012 (3 years plus 9 months extension)B d t/F di €4 2M 50% f th EC ( C t t l ) 50% t• Budget/Funding: €4.2M : 50% from the EC (eContentplus programme) 50% partners• Executive partners: STM (coordination), ESF, UGOE/SUB, MPG/MPDL, Inria(Technical partners: Uni Bielefeld, SURF)PEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 2 www.peerproject.eu
  • 3. Participating Publishers, Repositories &LTP hiLTP archivePEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 3 www.peerproject.eu
  • 4. The PEER Observatory & content levelsThe PEER Observatory & content levelsPublishers: 241Publishers submit 100% Publishers inviteauthors11,800invitationsPublishers invitedEligible participatingjournalsmetadataAuthors Self-deposit>53 000 mssinvitations170 mssEurope based"PEER authors" toparticipate insurvey forPublishers submit 50% + manuscriptsCentral Depositinterface>53,000 mss behavioural researchPublishers/ repositoriesdelivered usage data100% EU> 22,500 EU mssdelivered usage data(log files) forusage research/manuscripts& metadataLTP:KBeDepotPEER REPOSITORIESEmbargo expiredPublishers/ repositoriesqueried foreconomicsresearchSSOAR MPGHAL ULD TCDUGOEEmbargo expired~19,000 by project end>20,000 mss todayPEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 4 www.peerproject.eu
  • 5. PEER Challenges and Solutions (1)PUBLISHER CHALLENGES PUBLISHER / PEER DEPOTPUBLISHER CHALLENGES• Stage two (accepted manuscripts) notstandard extraction pointPUBLISHER / PEER DEPOTSOLUTIONSChange Process at Publishers• Author accepted manuscripts in avariety of file formatsOnly one file format allowed – PDFChecking mechanisms: journal/• All article types submittedChecking mechanisms: journal/articleISSN checkarticle type checkArticle kept until metadata• Metadata delivery in several batches– Article metadata are incomplete at acceptancetime; Publication date unknown, DOI notattributedExtraction of only EU“ authored manuscripts notArticle kept until metadatacompletionMetadata are accepted in eitherone step (on publication) or two passes (onacceptance and on publication)– Extraction of only „EU authored manuscripts notpossible at acceptance stage• Different metadata formatsNLM2 x NLM 3 0 ScholarOne proprietaryacceptance and on publication)EU author filter done at PEER DepotMapped onto single TEI structure– NLM2.x, NLM 3.0, ScholarOne, proprietary• Some Metadata elements deliveredwithin PDF documentExtraction done at PEER Depot(GroBID) in order to increasecontentPEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 5 www.peerproject.eu
  • 6. PEER Challenges and Solutions (2)REPOSITORY CHALLENGES REPOSITORY / PEER DEPOTREPOSITORY CHALLENGES• Varying metadata requirementsREPOSITORY / PEER DEPOTSOLUTIONSConvert TEI metadata into internallyd t d t t d d• Varying ingestion processesused metadata standardImplement SWORD protocol fortransfer between Depot &• Hosting PEER contentrepositoriesBuild dedicated PEER Repositorywithin framework of home institution• Not configured for accurate embargomanagementEmbargo management undertakenat PEER Depot (0 - 36 months)• Author authentication• Logfile provisionCentral deposit interface at MPDLthen transfer to PEER DepotSet up anonymisation process plusog e p o s o p y p pautomated transfer to Usage teamAn Additional PEER Challenge: Stage two versions were ‘messy’ – requiringl i t ti i h i / th t i l d dPEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 6 www.peerproject.eumanual intervention in cases where reviewer / author comments were included
  • 7. Behavioural research: Final ReportBehavioural research: Final ReportDepartment of Information Science and LISU at LoughboroughUniversity, UK (Two phases of Research between 2009 and 2011)University, UK (Two phases of Research between 2009 and 2011)• Researchers who associated Open Access with ‘self archiving’ were in the minority.(Physical sciences & mathematics and the Social sciences, humanities & arts - green; Lifesciences and the Medical sciences - gold)g )• Anecdotal evidence that some researchers consider making journal articlesaccessible via Open Access to be beyond their remit. (Also PEER experience)• Authors tend to be favourable to Open Access [ ] with the caveat that self archiving• Authors tend to be favourable to Open Access [..] with the caveat that self archivingdoes not compromise the pivotal role of the published journal article• Readers have concerns about the authority of article content and the extent to whichit can be cited when the version they have accessed is not the published finalit can be cited when the version they have accessed is not the published finalversion.• Academic researchers [..] do not desire fundamental changes in the way research iscurrently disseminated and publishedcurrently disseminated and published.• Open Access Repositories are perceived by researchers as complementary to, ratherthan replacing, current forums for disseminating and publishing researchPEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 7 www.peerproject.eu
  • 8. PEER Usage ResearchPEER Usage ResearchCIBER Research Ltd, UK• High volume of content in the project (>18,000 EU deposits publicly availableMarch 2012) supporting research with a high degree of confidence• Measure activity over 12 months starting March 2011• Measure activity over 12 months, starting March 2011• Log file collection & analysis 1 March - 31 August 2011• Randomised Controlled Trial: suppression of 50% PEER content at partnerf & 1 2011 29 2012repositories. Logfile collection & analysis 1 December 2011 – 29 Feb 2012Caveats:Caveats:The ‘PEER’ system is unlikely to have reached ‘steady state’ when studyundertakenObservations of effects within PEER cannot be extrapolated to the OpenObservations of effects within PEER cannot be extrapolated to the OpenAccess universePEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 8 www.peerproject.eu
  • 9. ‘No effect’ publisher hypothesis: key findingsp yp y gMaking preprints visible in PEER is associated with more traffic tothe publisher sites (significant if relatively modest increase)the publisher sites. (significant, if relatively modest increase)Publisher full text downloads increased by 11.4%95% confidence intervals: 7.5% to 15.5%, highly statistically significant at p <0.01g y y g pPublisher downloads went up in all subject areas, but with variation:Statistically significant increases in life sciences: up 20.3% (13.1% to 27.9%,p<0.01) ; physical sciences: up 13.1% (5.2% to 21.6%, p<0.01)p ) p y p ( p )Statistically insignificant findings in medicine: up 5.2% (-1.0% to 11.7%,p=0.10) ; social sciences and humanities: up 4.1% (-0.05% to 13.9%, p=0.38)PEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 9 www.peerproject.eu
  • 10. PEER Usage Research: results & observationsPEER Usage Research: results & observations• The likely mechanism is that PEER offers high quality metadata (includingDOI) allows a wider range of search engine robots to index its content thanDOI), allows a wider range of search engine robots to index its content thanthe typical publisher, and thus helps to raise the digital visibility of scholarlycontent.• There are variations as we zoom in on the detail and the jury is still out inmedicine, the social sciences and humanities, and for smaller publishers,for reasons we do not understand yet.yResults suggests that deposit in institutional repositories doesn’t seem tocause harm WITH JOURNAL SPECIFIC EMBARGOS• But, PEER does not tell us about the effects of deposit in SUBJECTrepositories. Recent research suggests a 14% reduction in usage statisticsfrom journal websites for research articles systematically deposited in PMCfrom journal websites for research articles systematically deposited in PMCwith 12 month embargo - NIH mandate. (See P Davis article in The Physiologist:http://www.the-aps.org/mm/Publications/Journals/Physiologist/2010-present/2012/October.pdf)PEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 10 www.peerproject.eup p )
  • 11. PEER Economics Research: ConclusionsASK research centre, Bocconi University, Milan, ItalyFirst detailed empirical study of cost drivers of publishers andrepositories (22 organizations)Cost structure of journals (excluding overheads):• Management of peer review: 250 USD per submitted article – nog p peconomies of scale• ‘Production’ costs : 170 - 400 USD (formatting, editing,typesetting, metadata)Cost of content management:• Investment in digital platform from USD 1 million up• Maintenance costs USD 170 k– 400kPEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 11 www.peerproject.eu
  • 12. Repositories: A lean cost structure ….Repositories: A lean cost structure ….• Cost of processing documents (including metadata creation)10 EUR max per reference10 EUR max per reference18 EUR max per full text43 EUR max per journal article43 EUR max per journal article• Positive impact of harvesting and mandates in the speed up offeeding processg p• Set up cost of repository was not determined;• Cost of technical FTE per itempbetween 2 and 50 EUR per referencebetween 2,5 and 53,2 EUR per full text journal article, , p j…. with a big impact of sunk andorganizational costsPEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 12 www.peerproject.euorganizational costs
  • 13. Executive Partners- Points of AgreementExecutive Partners- Points of Agreement• Building a large-scale infrastructure is organizationally and• Building a large-scale infrastructure is organizationally andtechnically challenging — even at a project level• Author self-archiving is unlikely to generate a critical mass of Greeng y gOA content• Version II archiving requires considerable manual oversight andi t tiintervention• Scholars prefer the Version of Record• Usage scenarios for Green Open Access are more complex thangenerally acknowledgedTh t d tilit f bli hi (“G ld”) h• The acceptance and utility of open access publishing (“Gold”) hasincreased rapidly (during the lifetime of the project)PEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 13 www.peerproject.eu
  • 14. For further information on PEER including finalresearch reports and presentations made at thePEER End of Project Conference visit:www.peerproject.eup p jPEER − Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 14 www.peerproject.eu