Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Impacts, consequences and outcomes of open policies in Europe

241 views

Published on

The past few years have been extremely active ones for all things ‘open’ in Europe. The UK OA mandates have changed the publishing landscape, resulting in several subscription experiments with varied success. Over the past couple of years the number of European countries which have held out on their Big Deal negotiations continues to rise, and there are many examples where negotiations have completely broken down. The impact of this on libraries and researchers is still being assessed. And of course Plan S looms large, prompting huge debate and discussion across the sector. No-one is completely happy with Plan S but some players are more agitated than others. One of the outcomes has been a strong increase of interest in and signatories to DORA, and research culture itself is under scrutiny. The ‘post-truth’ political reality further emphasises the need for science to be above criticism, something being addressed by the UK Research Integrity Enquiry and the US Committee on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Meanwhile large academic publishers have seen the writing on the wall and are rapidly diversifying, resulting in a highly concentrated infrastructure market that threatens to shut down and monetise all aspects of the research process other than the final ‘open’ research output.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Impacts, consequences and outcomes of open policies in Europe

  1. 1. Impacts, consequences and outcomes of open polices in Europe Webinar for AOASG 30 May 2019 Dr Danny Kingsley Scholarly Communication Consultant @dannykay68
  2. 2. Five things to discuss today • Cascading cancellations • Credibility crunch-point • Metric management • Policy pandemonium • Being blindsided
  3. 3. Cascading cancellations Offsetting agreements were only able to take us so far….
  4. 4. Considerable activity in past year Country/organisati on Publisher activity Date Links Norway Cancelled Elsevier subscription March 2019 https://www.editage.com/insights/norway-joins-the-ranks-of- germany-and-sweden-cancels-subscription-with-elsevier University of California Cancelled Elsevier subscription February 2019 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00758-x Hungarian Consortium EINZ Did not renew Elsevier subscription December 2018 http://eisz.mtak.hu/index.php/en/283-hungarian-consortium- terminates-negotiations-with-elsevier.html Bibsam Consortium - Sweden Cancelled agreement with Elsevier 16 May 2018 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05191-0 French national consortium Coupe rin.org Cancelled subscriptions to SpringerNature 30 March 2018 http://couperin.org/breves/1333-couperin-ne-renouvelle-pas-l- accord-national-passe-avec-springer Dutch consortium VSNU No agreement with Royal Society of Chemistry 12 March 2018 https://www.vsnu.nl/en_GB/news-items/nieuwsbericht/394-no- agreement-with-the-royal-society-of-chemistry- publishing%C2%A0.html SPARC maintains a Big Deal Cancellation Tracking list - https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-cancellation-tracking/
  5. 5. Outcomes • Feb 2018 - Germany estimated to be saving £8.7million per year – https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/will-other- countries-follow-germany-battle-elsevier • July 2018 - Elsevier cut off access to Sweden and Germany – https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05754-1 • Feb 2019 - “Thousands of scientists run up against Elsevier’s paywall” – https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00492-4 – Researchers: some articles are impossible to get, causes “unnecessary delays” to work, “This is damaging to research, and punishes researchers, not publishers.” – Libraries: most of these article requests are fulfilled within a working day, suspects that scientists are turning to other articles or journals
  6. 6. Outcomes https://www.the-scientist.com/news- opinion/elsevier-and-norway-agree-on-new- open-access-deal-65789 https://www.thebookseller.com/news/cup-oa- partnership-university-california-988666 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/german- institutions-and-wiley-reach-open-access-publishing-deal- 65327
  7. 7. Different models • Norway and Elsevier meet a nine million Euro agreement including a Gold Open Access clause (including a three percent price increase): https://www.scidecode.com/2019/04/norway-and-elsevier-meet-a-nine-million- euro-agreement-including-a-gold-open-access-clause/ • In France the Couperin Consortium reached a price reduction of more than 13% over four years in an agreement with Elsevier - without Gold Open Access but with built-in Green OA. https://www.scidecode.com/2019/04/does-the-french-couperin-consortium-beat- the-german-wiley-deal/ • University of California’s CUP agreement means the subscription "reading" fee will go down as UC's OA publishing goes up, the university will see no "significant" overall increase to the cost of its contract. https://www.uksg.org/newsletter/uksg- enews-443/cup-uc-publishing-deal • The German annual fee will be based on the number of papers they publish in Wiley journals which should roughly equal what these institutes had previously been paying Wiley https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/groundbreaking- deal-makes-large-number-german-studies-free-public
  8. 8. Implications • Do you know what your institution (university, funder etc) is spending on OA? (even in the UK where block grants are centrally managed, there is still huge additional APC spend) • Do you have any idea how many of your institution’s publications with a specific publisher are OA? In gold OA journals vs hybrid? • Why isn’t ‘institutional contribution’ part of the discussion? Authoring, peer review and editing are all un-quantified gifts from the academy – and should be counted in these negotiations
  9. 9. Credibility crunch-point This is our new reality https://thenorwichradical.com/2017/01/12/post-truth- politics-and-the-war-on-intellect/
  10. 10. During the pre-Brexit vote discussion https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c
  11. 11. Who is the expert? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/opinion/pruitt-attack-science-epa.html “Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has announced that he alone will decide what is and isn’t acceptable science for the agency to use when developing policies that affect your health and the environment.” Mr Pruitt is a lawyer. He resigned in July 2018. His replacement, Andrew Wheeler, is a former coal lobbyist.
  12. 12. This morning https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/selling-science-in-trust-deficit-days/
  13. 13. The credibility of science is under threat • “Speaking as a scientist, cherrypicking evidence is unacceptable,” Hawking said. “When public figures abuse scientific argument, citing some studies but suppressing others, to justify policies that they want to implement for other reasons, it debases scientific culture.” • https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/14/i-would-not-have-survived- nhs-enabled-stephen-hawking-to-live-long-life
  14. 14. We have to be above criticism • “Incipient and actual attacks upon the integrity of science have led scientists to recognize their dependence on particular types of social structure. Manifestos and pronouncements by associations of scientists are devoted to the relations of science and society. An institution under attack must re-examine its foundations, restate its objectives, seek out its rationale. Crisis invites self-appraisal. Now that they have been confronted with challenges to their way of life, scientists have been jarred into a state of acute self-consciousness: consciousness of self as an integral element of society with corresponding obligations and interests.”
  15. 15. We have to be above criticism
  16. 16. Normative Structure of Science Robert K Merton, “The Normative Structure of Science”, 1942 essay in The Sociology of Science edited by Norman W Storer, published 1973 http://www.collier.sts.vt.edu/5424/pdfs/merton_1973.pdf
  17. 17. These are eroding • The four Mertonian norms of science (1942) – universalism: scientific validity is independent of the sociopolitical status/personal attributes of its participants – communalism: all scientists should have common ownership of scientific goods (intellectual property), to promote collective collaboration; secrecy is the opposite of this norm. – disinterestedness: scientific institutions act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for the personal gain of individuals within them – organized scepticism: scientific claims should be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted: both in methodology and institutional codes of conduct.
  18. 18. Fightback - Reproducibility
  19. 19. Fightback - Integrity https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a- z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/parliament- 2017/research-integrity-17-19/publications/
  20. 20. Fightback - Replicability https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a- z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/parliament- 2017/research-integrity-17-19/publications/
  21. 21. Fightback - (back to) Reproducibility https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a- z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/parliament- 2017/research-integrity-17-19/publications/
  22. 22. Implications • The reproducibility/integrity/replicability agenda is a positive one • It identifies causes of problems (hint – the academic reward structure) • It identifies potential solutions (study registration, CredIT taxonomy etc). Many of these relate to the Open Research agenda • It owns the issues – that’s the strongest place to be • But why is this happening?
  23. 23. Metric management https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and- analysis/research-policy/open- science/Pages/forum-for-responsible- research-metrics.aspx https://responsiblemetrics.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/02/2015_metrictide.pdf
  24. 24. One of eight priorities for EC https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscienc e/pdf/integrated_advice_opspp_recomme ndations.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none
  25. 25. All over the UK and Europe https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/research/managingyourpublicat ions/publicationsandresearchreputation/indicators/responsibleme trics/ https://www.cwts.nl/research/research- themes/responsible-metrics https://www.bristol.ac.uk/research/environment /responsible-metrics/
  26. 26. Note these are mostly library webpages http://www.surrey.ac.uk/library/research/openr esearch/understandingmetrics/responsible_use _of_metrics.htm https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/support/publishing/r esponsible-use-of-metrics/ https://www.dur.ac.uk/library/research/evalu ate/responsiblemetrics/
  27. 27. DORA is now *linked* to funding https://wellcome.ac.uk/news/wellcome-updating-its-open-access-policy
  28. 28. Australian signatories to DORA https://sfdora.org/signers/ But surely all institutions have to do is ‘sign up’? It doesn’t mean anything has to change - does it?
  29. 29. Incentives for publication are not in themselves problematical https://www.notredame.edu.au/research/research-at-notre- dame/research-development/publication/publication-incentive https://informatics.sydney.edu.au/news/sihincentive/
  30. 30. However… not all incentive schemes are equal “The University will also continue to provide financial incentives for publications in the prestige journals Nature and Science which contribute significantly to the University’s performance in international ranking schemes. Consideration will be given to expanding this scheme where it can be demonstrated that such publication measurably enhances the University’s ranking or reputation.” https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/00 34/169873/research-and-innovation-plan.pdf UNSW is also offering cash incentives. A lead UNSW author will get $500 for published papers that appear in selected prestige publications. There is $1000 for each paper identified in the Times Higher and QS five-year windows as a “highly cited paper” appearing in the Web of Science. UNSW corresponding authors of articles published in Nature and Science will receive $10 000 from the university, with “sliding amounts” for other authors. https://campusmorningmail.com.au/ news/unsw-pays-for-performance/
  31. 31. Why this matters: Risk averse research • Scientists we interview routinely say that they dare not propose bold projects for funding in part because of expectations that they will produce a steady stream of papers in journals with high impact scores. • Our analysis of 15 years' worth of citation data suggests that common bibliometric measures relying on short-term windows undervalue risky research – Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics : Nature News & Comment. 26 April 2017 – http://www.nature.com/news/reviewe rs-are-blinkered-by-bibliometrics- 1.21877 • Research today is driven by last year’s publications. • Scientists write to influence reviewers and editors in the process. … They use strategic citation practices. • The greater the novelty of the work the greater likelihood it is to have a negative review … Scientists understand the novelty bias so they downplay the new elements to the old elements. – Professor James Evans, 2015 Researcher to Reader conference – https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.ca m.ac.uk/?p=539
  32. 32. Why this matters: Attrition crisis? Hard work, little reward: Nature readers reveal working hours and research challenges, Nature News, 4 November 2016, http://www.nature.com/news/hard-work-little- reward-nature-readers-reveal-working-hours-and-research-challenges-1.20933
  33. 33. Implications • Increased focus on metrics perverts goals of research institutions and researchers • It has gone too far, to the detriment of research itself and those who are doing the research • We need to move away from ‘publication of novel results in high impact journals’ as being the only thing that counts. • Have I mentioned Open Research yet?
  34. 34. Policy pandemonium From Bill Hubbard Getting the rights right: when policies collide http://www.slideshare.net/UKSG/hubbard-uksg-may2015-public
  35. 35. It begins 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1st online journals arXiv started Los Alamos Subversive Proposal Stevan Harnad 1st Big Deal WWW begins Commercial restrictions lifted on WWW
  36. 36. The noughties 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 DSpace MIP & HP Labs ePrints project Instigated by Stevan Harnad Systemic Infrastructure initiative Australia 1st Open Repositories Sydney 1st OA Policy QUT Costs & Business Model Report Wellcome Trust Sci Publishing - Free for all? UK Parliament Position statement on OA RCUK OA Policy Wellcome Trust OA Policy NIH (replacing voluntary 2005 one) 1st Repository Fringe Edinburgh ResearchGate May 2008 Mendeley August 2008 Academia.edu September 2008 BASE starts Economic Analysis Report Wellcome Trust
  37. 37. The teens 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 RCUK Policy starts 1 April 2013 Google Scholar citations November 2011 Strengthen policy Wellcome Trust Finch Report July 2012 UK Govt invests £10mil Sept 2012 CHORUS Publisher-led initiative SHARE University-led initiative SciHub start Elsevier wins court case Against SciHub HEFCE REF policy starts 1 April 2016 Original end RCUK policy 31 March 2018 (now Coalition for responsible sharing vs ResearchGate CORE starts AOASG starts Plan S 4 Sept 2018 EPSRC Start checking data sharing May 2015 Birth of UKRI 1 April 2018 Plan S feedback 8 Feb 2019 Wellcome Policy 5 Nov20182014 REF
  38. 38. Open Science Monitor - European Commission. 28 March 2017 http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=home&section=monitor Meanwhile the focus has moved on
  39. 39. Statements on Open Research https://www.cam.ac.uk/6000thThesis https://osc.cam.ac.uk/open-research/open-research-position- statement https://www.reading.ac.uk/research/research- environment/open-research.aspx
  40. 40. What do we mean?? Statement/declaration Year link San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment 2012 http://www.ascb.org/dora/ Force11 Joint Declaration on Data Citation Principles 2014 https://www.force11.org/datacitation FAIR data principles 2015 https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciples Science International - (draft) Accord on Open Data 2015 http://www.icsu.org/news-centre/news/science-international-to- agree-international-accord-on-open-data Leiden Manifesto for research metrics 2015 http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-the-leiden-manifesto- for-research-metrics-1.17351 Science Europe Principles on Open Access publisher services 2015 http://www.scienceeurope.org/uploads/PressReleases/270415_O pen_Access_New_Principles.pdf European open science cloud for research - position paper 2015 http://libereurope.eu/wp- content/uploads/2015/11/OSC_Position_Paper-final-30.10.15.pdf The Hague declaration on Knowledge Creation in the Digital Age 2015 http://thehaguedeclaration.com/ Principles of the Scholarly Commons 2017 https://www.force11.org/scholarly-commons/principles > 90 declarations and position statements from around the world http://tinyurl.com/scholcomm-charters There are so many different definitions of Open Research/Science that now there is an attempt to define the definitions https://im2punt0.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/defining-open- science-definitions/
  41. 41. Oh yes, that Plan S thing • Plan S announced – 4 Sept 2018 • Implementation guidelines released – 28 Nov 2018 • Feedback responses due - 8 Feb 2019 (over 600 responses from 40 countries) • Robert-Jan Smits departs as European Commission’s special envoy for OA – 28 Feb 2019 • Robert Kiley (Wellcome Trust) starts as interim cOAlition S coordinator – Mar 2019 • Nominal ‘start date’ of Plan S – 1 Jan 2020 https://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/cOAlitionS.pdf
  42. 42. Plan S – much discussion https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=2433 67 items to 1 April 2019 and 51 in 2018 - and these are the ones I found. There are many others.
  43. 43. Mixed response from researchers https://forbetterscience.com/2018/09/11/response-to-plan- s-from-academic-researchers-unethical-too-risky/ http://eurodoc.net/joint-statement-plan-s.pdf
  44. 44. Feedback was consistent • Theme 1: Clear support for the transition to open access and the goals of Plan S. • Theme 2: Concern that the implementation guidance reflects models that work for STEM but will negatively impact HSS scholars. • Theme 3: The technical requirements for publication, repository, and other platforms are poorly thought out. • Theme 4: The predicted effects on small, independent, and society publishers raise concerns for the viability of these publishers. • Theme 5: Setting a fair and reasonable APC sounds fair and reasonable but it is also likely impossible. • Theme 6: Scholars and organizations in the Global South object to being told what they want. • Theme 7: The timelines are not feasible. Taking Stock of the Feedback on Plan S Implementation Guidance (published 11 Feb) https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/02/11/with-thousand-of-pages-of-feedback- on-the-plans-s-implementation-guidance-what-themes-emerged-that-might-guide-next- steps/?informz=1
  45. 45. Outcome - embargo breakthrough https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/meet-plan-s-open-access-mandate-journals- mull-setting-papers-free-publication NOTE: If you care about this at all, there is an explanation of why there is NO (nothing whatsover) evidence to support the argument that without embargoes libraries will cancel subscriptions here: “Half life is half the story” https://unlockingresearch- blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=331
  46. 46. One policy so far - Wellcome Trust Any paper resulting from work funded by Wellcome Trust submitted for publication after 1 Jan 2020 must be compliant (fully gold, or in transformative journal) and in PubMed Central under a CC-BY license https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/win-open- access-two-major-funders-wont-cover-publishing- hybrid-journals Useful information here: “Advice for Oxford authors on the new Wellcome Trust OA policy” http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/2019/04/11/ad vice-for-oxford-authors-on-new-wellcome- trust-open-access-policy/
  47. 47. UK policy landscape is even more complicated now http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/2019/05/16/open-access-policy-timeline-may-2019/
  48. 48. Endless amounts of discussion
  49. 49. Implications • The policy landscape is fast moving and confusing across the world • Australia is not immune • Plan S has ‘focused the minds’ of some in this ecosystem • We need to broaden our focus and language to include Open Research / Scholarship / Science
  50. 50. Being blindsided Vertical integration resulting from Elsevier’s acquisitions, from Alejandro Posada and George Chen, (2017) Rent Seeking and Financialization strategies of the Academic Publishing Industry - Publishers are increasingly in control of scholarly infrastructure and why we should care- A Case Study of Elsevier http://knowledgegap.org/index.php/sub-projects/rent-seeking-and-financialization-of-the-academic- publishing-industry/preliminary-findings/
  51. 51. Note how it is pitched https://www.coimbra-group.eu/wp-content/uploads/Burgelman2018-OS-COIMBRA- december.pdf
  52. 52. Elsevier – ‘not a commercial product’* https://datasearch.elsevier.com/faq#/ * ‘At the moment’
  53. 53. Elsevier is not alone https://www.digital-science.com/researchers/
  54. 54. Why use your institutional services? https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/me ndeley-data-platform/for-institutions https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/res earch-data-policy/ - £265 per dataset
  55. 55. Who needs an Office of Research, a Library or Student Services? https://researcheracademy.elsevier. com/ https://edservices.wiley.com/why- partner/services-and-solutions/
  56. 56. Implications • Publishers are muscling in (and they are better resourced than libraries… actually they are resourced *by* libraries) • We need a global view of the infrastructure landscape across whole institutions • There is a big risk that all the research outputs OTHER than the final published paper end up behind a paywall • Did I mention Open Research?
  57. 57. Summary & Suggestions • Cascading cancellations – We need much better data • Credibility crunch-point – Take the front foot in this area • Metric management – The rules determine behaviour. Question the rules. • Policy pandemonium – Open access is the end point, but the journey needs to be open too • Being blindsided – Take a global view. Oh, and get procurement involved
  58. 58. Thanks and questions Dr Danny Kingsley Scholarly Communication Consultant Email: danny@dannykingsley.com Twitter: @dannykay68

×