Hello and thank you for coming….In todays session, we will first give a brief overview of the project and what we are working towards and then we will, for the very first time, be sharing some of our initial findings with you. OAPEN-UK is a 4-year research project, which is gathering evidence to help stakeholders make informed decisions on the future of Open Access (OA) scholarly monograph publishing in the humanities and social sciences (HSS). JISC Collections is managing and it is funded by JISC and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC).It is a very much a collaborative project, working with publishers, research councils, authors, researchers and institutions to gather a range of qualitative and quantitative data which will be analysed as we go through to help us understand what thechallenges are and what developments are required to support open access scholarly monographs.
So why are we doing this project?The academic monograph is very important to HSS researchers – it is one of the key ways that they share their research and is also closely linked to prestige and career progression. But over the last decade, there is a concern that the dissemination of the monograph, in print format, is being restricted and readership reduced. Sales to libraries have been in decline and costs have risen, to the point that some academics are suggesting that what is being published is being driven by financial pressures, and that as a result, important, but unprofitable research, is being ignored.At the moment, there is a lot of activity around the monograph, with a push to making electronic versions the key format for dissemination. We have seen a lot of collaboration and shared platforms being developed - the launch of UPCC Book Collections on Project Muse, the launch of OUP and CUP’s scholarly platforms are all examples, and these new models may be the way to support the future of the monograph. But they do continue to rely on library budgets which are themselves under pressure and there are still limits on dissemination and readership to those subscribing institutions and individual purchases. Open access publishing doesn’t limit dissemination or readership and given the current financial pressures of the market we think it is worth exploring to see if it is a model that is financially viable, that could be adopted by researchers and whether it would support a vibrant research environment in the HSS.OAPEN-UK is going to do just that - explore the challenges, risks and potential opportunities of an open access model for scholarly monographs. The projectisnt going to be able to prove open access, but it will provide us with a wealth of data and understanding to enable stakeholders to make some informed decisions about a move to an open access model. So how are we going to do it?
We are piloting the model used by the OAPEN project whereby a grant is paid to the publisher who publish a PDF of the monograph available under a creative commons licence but can also generate revenue through sales of print and ebook device friendly editions such as epub.What we have done though is set up two groups in our pilot – the open access group and the control group. Publishers were invited to submit titles for inclusion in the pilot but they had to submit pairs of titles matched on subject area, publication date, sales etc. The pairs were then selected by the project’s Steering Group and one from each pair randomly selected to go into the experimental group and one into the control group.The titles in the OA pot are made available under a CC licence from the publishers website, the OAPEN Library website and IRs. The control group titles are made available for sale under the publishers normal route such as for sale to libraries as part of packages, via aggregators.All the titles, whether OA or Control are available for purchase in print format and some are also available in epub or specific e-formats such as amz. We have 60 tiles from Palgrave Macmillan, Taylor & Francis, Berg Publishers, Liverpool University Press and University Wales Press and over the next three years we will gather and compare sales and usage data for each group to measure the effects on OA.The pilot is just one part of OAPEN UK, we are also running a large programme of research which Graham is now….
A core part of OAPEN-UK is data gathering. We have learnt from previous projects that it is necessary to gather data over at least a three year period if you are going to have anything useful to say, especially when dealing with citations and research. We have condensed the research into three questions: 1. How policies, processes and mechanisms need to change in order to enable OA publication of monographs?Business model will include looking at prices, variation in prices by publisher, e-only OA as a viable strategy and the potential ongoing need or demand for print, the most effective way to manage OA fees, licensing regimes, IPR and reuse rights and royalties.Organisational policies will include changes that funders make to their OA policies, that libraries make to their purchasing and selection policies, that repositories make to their depositing policies and that institutions make to comply with all of the above.Technical changes will include back- and front-end system changes made by publishers, integration into existing library systems, changes to funder systems for awarding grants and discoverability2. What are the measurable effects of a move to OA monographs?On readership/ usage, sales, citation - These issues should all be covered by the hard data that we are collecting – they are about things that can be measured by counting something. Changes in attitudes and perceptions should be covered in question 3.3. How do perceptions of OA monograph publication change among participants during the project?Perceived risks and benefits might include issues such as business models, readership, academic reward, discoverability, quality, depending upon who we are talking to.
The qualitative packages began with a series of six focus groups with key stakeholders to understand how they might be affected by open access monograph publications. The stakeholders were academics; institutional staff including librarians, repository managers, and research managers; publishers; learned societies; e-book aggregators; and research funders. A series of exercises were used to identify the risks, opportunities and questions that each group might experience in moving towards a more open access system for publication.Talk about the post it notes and how had to identify challenges, questions and opportunities in the following areas… administrative, financial, perceptions….Helped us identify key themes and areas that need further testing
Do they even want OAReward and recognitionAttitudinal barriers are central to OA but it seems that our authors in the benchmarking are becoming more accepting of electronic and actually the OA awareness seems quite high. Difference in reading and disseminating – prefer to read in print but happy to publish in electronic
Questions about standards, metadata and preservation underlay the discussions in all focus groups. In order to enable the effective discovery of open access monographs, institutional representatives, publishers and the e-book aggregators were particularly concerned with what metadata needs to be provided and to what standard. In addition the research funders were keen to see that metadata contains fields pertaining to the origin of the research funding to support auditing and data collection. Metadata for open access monographs will need to include a number of fields including licensing information, version and through application of correct identifiers, ensure that the OA version is connected to the enhanced versions available in the supply chain. The question of who would be responsible for the creation and maintenance of metadata was central to many of the discussions. Traditionally the publisher is responsible but depending on the OA model applied, this could fall into the hands of the author or librarian or perhaps the e-book aggregators if they are to integrate OA monographs into their institutional offerings and gain from this.A strong thread of the focus groups was that standards need to be developed and implemented if there is to be any consistency. Perhaps one of the largest areas of discussion, particularly for the researches, was around the version of record. Depending on the business model and the Creative Commons licence applied, it may be possible for the monograph to be deposited in institutional repositories pre-publication or for a reader to re-purpose the monograph to support their research. Establishing, most likely within the metadata, what the official published version is was felt important to the researchers. Linked closely to versioning, were discussions around preservation and archiving. The need for some method, by which OA monographs (in all formats) are preserved, was discussed across all focus groups as was who might undertake this role. In the print model there are the legal deposit libraries, but in an open access model, should this be a centralized shared service or should it be devolved to individual institutions or subject repositories and is it even required? If there is no centralized system, there was a concern that open access monographs could disappear into the ether and that if a publisher or e-book aggregator no longer existed, archival access would not be supported. These discussions clearly showed the need for standards to be developed and applied consistently by whoever take on that role and becomes responsible – which remains a major question that is being explored in more detail in the interviews and surveys.
Metadata is critical to the discovery of a book. In our researcher survey we are asking them how they found the last book from which they read. This pie chart shows that the largest chuck found it throughSearchingCitationsAnother person
This slide asks another question about discovery – after they had become aware of a book, how did they obtain it?The two largest chunks are that they bought it or got it through their university library.However the found out about the book, or however they obtained it – it is critical to have metadata to support discovery at all points in the supply chain.Metadata become even more critical in an open access model – readers will need to be able to find it online and it could be in multiple places and they will need to be able to find the related print and ebook versions.Those that pay, such as research funders will want
And if we do it all right, all our dreams will come true
The other area that many of the participants spoke about, was who would do what in an open access model. Who would be responsible for metadata creation and maintenance, who does the preservation, who does the marketing? And not just who, but whether some aspects of the publication process and associated standards should be undertaken centrally or devolved, for example, should the version of record be saved centrally to a ‘deposit library’ like print or should there be a central platform for all OA monographs. And if it is done centrally, who takes on this responsibility?One area of discussion was around the value that publishers provide to authors and if in an OA environment, authors may take on more of the design, copy editing and marketing. In exploring a new model, there is the opportunity to rationalise the roles and responsibilities that stakeholders take on in an open access environment – we don’t have to roll everything forward.To find out more about this, we are asking researchers about what they value and how they feel towards taking on new roles.
Why do authors pick certain publishers?Taking just the responses which receive over 40%, we can see that researchers are either chosen by the publishers, or they focus on trusting their quality assurance and dissemination and are the best in their academic field.There are therefore critical roles of the publisher.
The survey also asks researchers what are the services that publishers provide to authors and how important are these?If you add together the ‘important’ and ‘very important’ categories, we see indications that the top 5 are:Distribution and salesMarketing and promotionCopy editingCoordination of peer reviewPrint copy of final book
Where are they most satisfied with these roles?Very satisfied with print version, design and layout, distribution and sales, marketing and promotion and copy-editing, so it appears that these are the core roles that publishers provide and should continue to roll forward into an open access model.But in the move towards open access, there is also the possibility that roles could be taken on by other groups. For example, librarians could perhaps take on more the of the metadata and usage analysis work, or e-book aggregator could…In the survey we are also asking researchers about what roles they might feel comfortable undertaking.
So far researchers suggest that they would feel most comfortable taking on the roles associated with copy editing and design and layout. They are least prepared to take on marketing and promotion and distribution and being responsible for archival is a possibility but expect that they are not sure what this really involves.
We are also asking researchers if they would consider self publishing to see if this is an alternative route that they may start to consider.As we progress through the interviews with publishers and the survey with institutional representatives, we will hopefully gain a better idea about what roles should be rolled forward and which ones, perhaps may be left behind or provided by others in an OA model.
There is still a lot of questions, challenges and opportunities to explore, we haven’t even touched on the costs and business models and wont do so until we have the baseline usage and sales data to work with.Our key objective at the moment is to gather as much data as possible so that we have a good evidence base to work with. So my request to you all is to continue to help us do this by:Promoting and sharing the researcher survey to your HSS academicsParticipating in our survey of institutional representatives and our publisher interviewsWorking with us to explore some of the key themes such as metadata, licensing in our second year
Thank you for listening, further information is available at and we look forward to answering any questions that you may have.
1330 mon morar milloy
Caren Milloy, Head of Projects, JISC Collections & Graham Stone, Information Resources Manager, University of Huddersfield @oapenuk #oapenuk
‘Scholars do not work in a vacuum;research is based on work from others and new discoveries must be disseminated in order to be used.’Snijder,Ronald. 2010. The profits of free books - an experiment to measure theimpact of Open Access publishing.http://sites.google.com/site/theprofitsoffreebooks/home @oapenuk #oapenuk
60 HSS titles: 2006 - 2011Experimental Group (30 titles) Control Group (30 titles) OA with CC licence Standard e-book OAPEN Library agreements Publishers website Publishers website Institutional Repository E-book aggregators ????? Print version available for sale E-book device friendly version available for sale @oapenuk #oapenuk
The research programme1.How policies, processes and mechanisms need to change in order to enable OA publication of monographs?2.What are the measurable effects of a move to OA monographs?3.How do perceptions of OA monograph publication change among participants during the project? @oapenuk #oapenuk
Research process Initiation OAPEN-UK Research Plan Year 1 end Ellen Collins, Research Information Network Year 2 end Project end http://www.flickr.com/photos/stewart/461099066/
Focus groups 1. Institutional representatives including librarians, institution al repository staff, research managers 2. Publishers 3. Learned Societies 4. Researchers (as both authors & readers) 5. E-book aggregators @oapenuk #oapenuk 6. Research Funders
Authors and what they want?• Monetary reward – Concern in focus groups about loss of royalties for authors (Funders, Librarians, Publishers) @oapenuk #oapenuk
Motivations for publishing 40 35 30 25Count 20 Very important 15 Important Neither unimportant nor important 10 Unimportant Very unimportant 5 0 Communication Career Claiming research Financial Releasing with peers advancement findings and new compensation information for ideas social progress and knowledge in society Motivation for publishing @oapenuk #oapenuk
Authors and what they want? Percentage of authors’ publications made Percentage of authors publications made available in electronic format available via open access 16 30 15 14 25 25 12 20 10Count Count 8 15 7 7 6 6 10 4 5 2 5 4 2 2 1 0 0 0-25% 25%-50% 50%-75% 75%-100% Dont know 0-25% 25%-50% 50%-75% 75%-100% Dont know Percentage of respondents publications Percentage of content made available via open access @oapenuk #oapenuk
Content published in electronicformat 25 23 20 17 15 Count 10 9 5 3 2 0 e-articles e-chapters e-books No e-publications Dont know Type of e-publication @oapenuk #oapenuk
Ways of reading electronicscholarly books Ways of reading electronic scholarly books 25 22 21 20 20 15 13 Count 10 10 5 4 0 I read online (using a I download a copy to I read on my I read on my mobile I print and read I print and read the web browser) a computer or a computer/laptop device or e-reader relevant sections on whole book on device paper paper Way of reading book @oapenuk #oapenuk
The last book respondents read @oapenuk #oapenuk
The last book respondents read @oapenuk #oapenuk
Please help usOAPEN-UK Researcher Survey is available at:http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/oapenukresearcherParticipate in our institutional representativesurvey and publisher interviewsExplore with us key issues aroundmetadata, business models – have your say @oapenuk #oapenuk
Thank you & Further InfoOAPEN-UK website: Caren Milloyhttp://oapen- firstname.lastname@example.org/ collections.ac.ukTwitter: Graham Stone@oapenuk G.Stone@hud.ac.ukDiigo Group: Ellen CollinsOAPEN-UK ellen.collins@researchinfo net.org @oapenuk #oapenuk