Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Open access and the Wellcome Trust UHMLG Spring Forum Monday, 10th February 2008 Robert Kiley, Head e-strategy, Wellcome Library, Wellcome Trust
  2. 2. Overview • Provide summary of the Trust’s OA policy and discuss why the Wellcome Trust supports OA • Highlight how grantees can comply with this policy • Consider how publishers have responded to the Trust’s OA policy • Provide initial data on compliance with the Trust’s OA policy • Discuss the funding of OA articles • Highlight next steps for UKPMC
  3. 3. OA at the Wellcome Trust: policy All research papers – funded in whole or in part by the Wellcome Trust – must be made freely accessible from the PubMed Central and UKPMC repositories as soon as possible, and in any event within six months of the journal publisher’s official date of final publication
  4. 4. UKPMC Funders’ Group: policy Funder Mandate? Max embargo (self archiving) OA costs legitimate research costs? arc Yes 6 mo. Yes BBSRC Yes ASAP Yes BHF Yes 6 mo. Yes CSO (Scot) Yes 6 mo. Yes CR-UK Yes 6 mo. Yes Dept Health Yes 6 mo. Yes MRC Yes 6 mo. Yes Wellcome Trust Yes 6 mo. Yes
  5. 5. Other funders: NIH, ERC and Harvard • NIH  Mandate effective from April 2008. Research must be deposited in PMC; 12-month embargo permitted • European Research Council  Papers must be deposited in centralised /or IR and be made freely available within 6 months • Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences  Each Faculty member grants to the President and Fellows of Harvard College permission to make available his or her scholarly articles and to exercise the copyright in those articles
  6. 6. Why the Trust is supporting open access to the research literature [1] 1.To improve the quality of research by maximising access to the research outputs  Access is still an issue. Analysis undertaken by the Trust showed that even researchers who have access to well-funded libraries still could not access between 10%-20% of Trust-funded research papers.  Research by BMC shows that 90% of NHS-funded research available online full text ; 30% immediately available to public; only 40% immediately available to NHS staff.
  7. 7. Why the Trust is supporting open access to the research literature? [2] 1.To improve the quality of research by maximising access to the research outputs 2.To improve the research process by ensuring greater integration between the research literature and its underlying data  e.g. articles linked to gene and chemical compound datasets  e.g. data mining and the semantic web - enables the extraction of new facts from the literature
  8. 8. Programmatic linking of text to data
  9. 9. Text mining: some examples • Textpresso new text-mining system for scientific literature  sites developed for literature relating to C. elegans, yeast, fungi etc • iHOP – a network of 1500 organisms, 80,000 genes, 12 million sentences • PubMeth – cancer methylation database • PepBank – database of peptide sequences • Most text-mined resources based on PubMed abstracts – not the full- text  Research in Nature Review Genetics, concluded that the lack of access to the full text of research papers was restricting the effectiveness of text-mining  The developers of Textpresso have shown full text access increases recall of biological data types from 45% to 95%  Cannot undertake new knowledge discovery with just abstracts
  10. 10. Text-mining and mash-ups Data mined from the research literature “Mashed-up” with Google earth
  11. 11. Why the Trust is supporting open access to the research literature? [3] 1. To improve the quality of research by maximising access to the research outputs 2. To improve the research process by ensuring greater integration between the research literature and its underlying data 3. Develop repository-based services to meet needs of UK research community  e.g. link articles in UKPMC to relevant UK resources (e.g. NICE guidelines, HTA assessments' etc 4. Long-term preservation  Articles deposited in PMC are marked-up in XML - future-proofing the record of medicine 5. Evaluation purposes - is our funding making a difference?
  12. 12. How can Wellcome grantees comply? • Compliance can be achieved by following one of two routes: • Route 1  Publish in OA/hybrid journal – preferred route • Route 2  Publish anywhere - but self-archive a version of the author manuscript and make that available from PMC/UKPMC within 6 months • If a publisher offers neither route then:  Author can suggest revision to the journal’s copyright agreement – boilerplate language provided on Wellcome website – and see if the publisher will accept this  Look for an alternative publisher
  13. 13. Route 1 – OA/hybrid journal • If publisher offers an OA option, Wellcome will encourage its authors to use it (and provide additional funding to meet OA costs) • In return for meeting these costs, publisher must provide the following services:  Deposit, on behalf of the author, the final version of the article - in PMC, where it must be made freely available at the time of publication  Licence these articles such that they can be freely accessed and re- used, subject to agreed limits  Allow these articles to be mirrored to PMC International repositories, such as UKPMC  Deposit article in SGML/XML, along with high-resolution images  Sign PMC Selective Deposit Agreement
  14. 14. Route 1 – OA/hybrid journal: licence • Articles published under an OA option must have a licence that allows the world at large the right to access and re-use published content subject to agreed limits  e.g. correct attribution is essential  e.g. commercial rights reside with publisher • Wellcome does not prescribe any particular licence  Examples of acceptable licences include:  The CC-BY-NC (used by Oxford Open, Springer’s Open Choice, Biophysical Society etc.)  Elsevier’s Sponsored Documents licence: see
  15. 15. Route 2: Self-archiving option • Least preferred option, because: -- no immediate access -- re-use rights are less clear -- additional burden on researchers • Authors self-archive, and make the author manuscript freely available in PMC/UKPMC within 6 months • No fee to the publisher is payable for this option • Working with publishers to clarify re-use rights on author manuscripts
  16. 16. Publishers response to the Wellcome OA grant conditions • Significant number of publishers now offer an author- pays option that is fully compliant with the Trust’s requirements  e.g. Elsevier, Wiley, PLoS, BMC, Springer, ASBMB, OUP, CUP, SfE, Am Psychol. Assoc etc.  UKPMC Publishers Panel: Statement of Principle • Other publishers allow the author self archiving – which meets the Trust’s requirements  e.g. Nature, AAAS, AAI, AACR, AMA, Am. Physiol Society • Small number of publishers do not have a “Wellcome- compliant” publishing option  e.g. ACS, Am. Thoracic Society, ASPET
  17. 17. 52% 6% 42% WT compliant policy No policy Non-compliant Source = RoMEO database (Jan 2008) STM publishers (all) – Wellcome compliant policy
  18. 18. 91% 4% 5% WT compliant policy No policy Non-compliant Source = Wellcome analysis based on cohort of papers published in May 2007. STM publishers used by Wellcome- funded authors
  19. 19. Are Wellcome grantee’s adhering to the mandate? • Still early days  Policy has only been fully implemented since October 2006  Long time-scale of publishing - e.g. 26% WT attributed papers, published in May 2007, had been submitted before mandate applied  Need to allow time lag (6 months) to accommodate the permissible embargo • Some encouraging signs….  In 05-06 only 31% of the available OA fund was spent; in 06-07 some 75% of the OA fund was spent (available funding was constant)  Publisher deposits increasing  Author manuscript self-archiving increasing (though still small)  Compliance analysis
  20. 20. OA compliance: results from a small scale study • Methodology  Analysis of articles associated with Wellcome Trust and added to PubMed in May 2007 (n=495).  44% (n=216) were excluded from the study because they were either submitted before the mandate (n=128), or no identifiable submission date could be determined (n=88).  Compliance analysis undertaken on 279 papers • Key Findings  27% of papers were accessible via PMC/UKPMC – in line with the policy  89% of deposited papers were deposited by the publisher  91% (n=255) of papers were published in a journal that had a Wellcome- compliant OA publishing policy
  21. 21. Compliance – headline figure 64% 5% 4% 27% In PMC Not in PMC - but in WT-compliant journal Not in PMC - no WT-compliant policy Not in PMC - unknown policy
  22. 22. OA compliance: results from a small scale study • Other findings: publisher deposition  Elsevier were the biggest single publisher, publishing 29% (n=80) of papers in this cohort  Of the papers published by Elsevier, only 14% of them were deposited in PMC • Other findings: author self-archiving  Around 8% (n=21) of papers were published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC)  JBC is happy for authors to self archive.  However, in this cohort not one of the papers published in this journal was self-archived in PMC
  23. 23. Improving compliance • Work more closely with publishers who provide a “author- pays” option to ensure that papers are deposited  Elsevier and Wiley, for example, have modified workflow to capture funding information at the point of article accepted for publication • Further encourage grant holders to self-archive their papers  Reinforce message that deposition should occur when manuscript has been accepted (and can then be embargoed for up to 6 months) • Currently perusing a persuasive rather than a punitive approach  Will undertake a much bigger study – looking at articles over a 6 month period – and decide whether the persuasive approach is still appropriate
  24. 24. Meeting the costs of OA? • Publication costs are legitimate research costs • Trust estimates that providing OA to all the research papers it helps fund will cost between 1%-2% of its annual research budget  Approx 4000 original research papers published every year. If every single one of those papers was published as an open access article, with an average cost of £1650 per article, the total cost to the Trust would be £6.64 million; just over 1% of our annual research budget.  Trust is rarely the sole funder of a research team, and more than 80% of papers that acknowledge our support also acknowledge the support of one or more other funders. • Working with UUK/RIN to explore potential of establishing “central funds” (at an institutional level) to meet OA costs
  25. 25. UK PubMed Central • Service has been up-and running for 14 months • Planning a programme of work to develop the service to make it unique, attractive, and useful for the UK research community  Enriching the literature (data/text mining)  Increasing the amount of content in UKPMC  Providing additional search services and access points
  26. 26. Next steps • Continue to work with publishers  Encourage development of Wellcome-compliant policies  Explore OA/re-use status of author manuscripts • Continue to monitor compliance • Continue to make additional funding available to cover OA costs  Encourage the establishment of central funds (at institutional level) to meet OA costs • Develop UKPMC  Need to demonstrate the benefits of OA – rich linking, semantic web etc.
  27. 27. Elsevier – capturing funder information Back
  28. 28. UKPMC Publishers Panel: Statement of Principle Back