Illustration by Daniel Pudles“Academic journals generally get theirarticles for nothing and may pay little toeditors and peer reviewers.They sell to thevery universities that provide the cheaplabour”2011
SCONUL: Libraries spent £682 million onresources in 2010/2011Average budget of a library is £4.6 millionTrinity College’s Library budget was cut by€792,645 in 2012 according to their UniversityTimes.In TheJournal of Academic Librarianship inSeptember 2010, nearly 42 percent of U.S.university libraries reported budget cuts
Elsevier: £724 million profit on revenues of £2billion, that’s 36% profit in 2010Springer: €250 million profit in 2010 and was forsale for 2.5 billion in 2011
Journals now consume 65% of library budgets.So if the library budget is the average 4.6million, then almost 3 million of thatexpenditure is on journals.
Karlsruhe Institute ofTechnology in Germany Biochimica & Biophysica Acta: 20,019.70 – Elsevier Chemical Physical Letters: 16,507.96 – Elsevier Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry:14,116.85 – Springer Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry:14,116.85 – Springer Journal of Organometallic Chemistry: 13,966.71 –ElsevierElsevier, Springer &Wiley = 42% of journal articles
What is happening to change this situation? How are libraries dealing with the cost ofjournal subscriptions?
« pay-to-publish » model Article openly accessible to all Used by PLoS, Hindawi, BioMedCentral... Waving fees for authors in developingcountries
Subscription + author pays for openaccess Rights transaction Quite popular especially in fields likebioinformatics and molecularmicrobiology
Conference gathering members from thepublishing industry, academia, highereducation, scholarly societies & libraries Gold Open Access encouraged Publisher-friendly report
Long-term sustainability Equitable, free, public access to readers= universality Emphasis on QUALITY
Ethical dilemmas on the author’s side –notion of imbalance Pressure on institutions Not representative of the real distribution ofscholarly talent According to Price, decrease in competitivity
Far from being unilaterally open access Green open access as the « standard route inthe EU »
“Accessibility, sustainability, excellence:how to expand access to researchpublications.” Outcome: even though both sides whererepresentedGold has been favourite withinthese conclusions!WHY??
It has opened up a dialogue A conclusion was considered too early in theconversation. Green OA is a method of self-archiving, itallows an author to deposit the final peer-reviewed paper in a repository The above has been implement within UCLDiscovery & is the largest institutionalrepository in UK.
Houghton & Swan took both sides andfocused on the financial aspects of OAGreen OA self- archiving represents“costing the sample institutions around one-fifth the amount that Gold OA might cost”(2013)
GREENOA: already has existing foundationslike UCL’s repositories to build upon so theywill grow evenly at a global, national andinstitutional level. GOLD OA: does not have these foundationsat a national or institutional level, as it asksfor up front costs.
Mounier 2011 describes the topic of OA as a quotefrom Ghandi “first they ignore you, then they laugh atyou, then they fight you, then you win” The debate surrounding OA is very unclear withvarious different countries establishing various way toachieve open access. Embedded in this geographical view is the manydifferent disciplines and how their outlook on OA MikeTaylor (2013) illustrates that by engaging in thisGreen and Gold we are dividing researchers into anupper and lower class, and states “a two-class systemto retain a notion that they are ‘in’ when others are‘out’”.
Converting the scientists to OA hasbeen effective if not slow Cause: a 2 way incentive First is economic (science- publishing industrygenerated $9.4 billion in revenue in 2011,VanNoorden, 2013) Second the paper they aresubmitting to has high –prestige (Bio-Med)
Split into two teams One group will look at Green OpenAccessand one group will look at Gold Open Access Write up points for your choice and againstthe opposite group. Choose someone to present for you. (2 mins) Then we’ll vote!