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.
Open Access
(from one librarian’s
perspective)
@OpenResLDN – 19 January 2015
Chris Banks
@chrisbanks
Director of Library S...
A note about this presentation
This is generalised and personalised view formed through experience
working at two UK HEIs,...
The traditional funding / finding / publishing / using cycle
• Funder/institution funds research
• Researcher writes up fi...
Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002)
“An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make
possible an unprecede...
Definition of Open Access
• Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free
of most copyright and...
OA is not new – it is 20 years old
Open access is usually described by colour
Gold
• Open access immediately
on publication
• Publisher’s version via the
pub...
Many journals have gold and green options
Gold = immediate availability to the world,
easily found via publisher/journal w...
POLICY ENVIRONMENT
Research Councils UK (RCUK) Policy
• From 2005 RCUK sought to encourage open access
publishing
• The focus was on the acad...
Wellcome Trust and Open Access
• From 2006 Wellcome fund APCs
• Also mandate deposit in PubMedCentral
• Currently complian...
Accelerating OA in the UK: the Finch Report
• 2011: Dame Janet Finch was commissioned to lead a group to explore
how to ac...
Followed swiftly by: HEFCE policy for post REF2014
• HEFCE REF policy published on 31st March 2014
states that for any jou...
HEFCE policy eclipses all other policies for UK academics
Image courtesy of John Norman, CUL
There is good news (HEFCE)
• Repositories can respect embargo periods – academics can create a
compliant “closed deposit” ...
HEFCE and RCUK policies seen together
• From 2016, for a Journal/Conference proceeding publication to be
eligible for subm...
INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES
• Senior academic leadership is essential to effect behavioural change
• High level committees drawn from Research VP, Res...
Many Universities have established OA mandates
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/library/subjectsandsupport/spiral/oamandate
ACADEMIC RESPONSES
Responses vary by discipline but broadly speaking look like this:
• Sciences & Medicine likely most engaged
• Engineering ...
PUBLISHER RESPONSES
A different (and threatening?) business model
• Even with the
development of the
technology, the journal
publishing model ...
Anxious to protect and grow revenue streams
• UK funding is “transitional” but some evidence suggests publishers are
welcoming a growth in hybrid gold
• Challenge wit...
LIBRARY ACTIVITIES
Library roles to support OA
• Contributing to the work of institutional implementation groups
• Awareness raising amongst ...
Open Access Funds managed at Imperial 2013-14
• Wellcome £216,000
• RCUK fund: £1,150,458
• Imperial College Fund: £650,000
Library support by type of OA
Gold
• Management and allocation
of the publication funds
• Supporting academics to
ensure f...
Open Access workflow: a pre-HEFCE example
Metrics and the demonstration of the impact of OA
Article level metrics
The Library goal: making it as easy and attractive as
possible for authors to comply, deposit and get cited
People
• Be mo...
Challenges
• Scalability of processing, both for gold and to support
green self-deposit
• Creating a touch point with the ...
Picture sources
Slide 1: Having the cake too soon? slubdresden, CC BY
Slide 14: John Norman, Cambridge University Library....
Open access for the inaugural @OpenResLDN meeting 2015 01 19
Open access for the inaugural @OpenResLDN meeting 2015 01 19
Open access for the inaugural @OpenResLDN meeting 2015 01 19
Open access for the inaugural @OpenResLDN meeting 2015 01 19
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Open access for the inaugural @OpenResLDN meeting 2015 01 19

2,860 views

Published on

Slides that I will speak to at the inaugural meeting of OpenResLDN on 19th January 2015. January 2015 sees the 350th anniversary of the first ever journal publication - the Journal des Savants. We are now in the 21st year of the Open Access movement and the UK and European policies are really beginning to drive change and innovation. That change is not fast enough for some, and for others - particularly those covered by the policies, or seeking to implement policy - just a little too fast sometimes.

Open access for the inaugural @OpenResLDN meeting 2015 01 19

  1. 1. Open Access (from one librarian’s perspective) @OpenResLDN – 19 January 2015 Chris Banks @chrisbanks Director of Library Services Imperial College London
  2. 2. A note about this presentation This is generalised and personalised view formed through experience working at two UK HEIs, through involvement in national and international discussions, and from my readings of a tiny fraction of the OA literature out there The presentation attempts to look at things in the round: from the policy perspective, that of academics in different disciplines, from the institutional perspective (everything from operational to academic reward systems), from the perspectives of publishers and learned societies. It also looks briefly at standards and systems developments Today’s focus is on the publication research findings. We can cover research data another time!
  3. 3. The traditional funding / finding / publishing / using cycle • Funder/institution funds research • Researcher writes up findings of research • Researcher chooses best journal to publish • (other) researchers undertake (free) peer review of article • Journal editor says “yes, we’ll publish” • Researcher says “yippee” • Publisher says “sign this before we publish” • Researcher says “Oh, all right then” and all too frequently signs away © • Publisher publishes research • Publisher sells research to institutions, funders, and to other academics • Researcher cannot (legally) • Make research available on their website or through their repository • Distribute copies to class • Etc. • Research is not openly available. Top publishers (and shareholders) benefit and also further exploit rights obtained through © assignation
  4. 4. Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) “An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment, for the sake of inquiry and knowledge. The new technology is the internet. The public good they make possible is the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer- reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds. Removing access barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge” http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read
  5. 5. Definition of Open Access • Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions • OA removes price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) and permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions) Peter Suber, Open Access Overview http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
  6. 6. OA is not new – it is 20 years old
  7. 7. Open access is usually described by colour Gold • Open access immediately on publication • Publisher’s version via the publisher’s website • May be a hybrid journal or a wholly “Pure Gold” OA journal • A payment normally is made – APC (article processing charge) Green • Author’s version (should be the final peer reviewed text) • Published in a disciplinary or institutional repository • Time elapse between publication of publisher version & OA version anything up to 36 months
  8. 8. Many journals have gold and green options Gold = immediate availability to the world, easily found via publisher/journal website. Hybrid Gold = subscription journal with both Green and Gold (APC) options Green = (potentially) delayed publication to the world and not (currently) always easy to find. Normally not the publisher’s version
  9. 9. POLICY ENVIRONMENT
  10. 10. Research Councils UK (RCUK) Policy • From 2005 RCUK sought to encourage open access publishing • The focus was on the academic • Article Processing Charges could be paid from grants • But • Low take up by academics.
  11. 11. Wellcome Trust and Open Access • From 2006 Wellcome fund APCs • Also mandate deposit in PubMedCentral • Currently compliance sits at around 70% (only) • Wellcome are now implementing sanctions for those non compliant academics seeking further grants
  12. 12. Accelerating OA in the UK: the Finch Report • 2011: Dame Janet Finch was commissioned to lead a group to explore how to accelerate the adoption of Open Access to publicly funded research • Summer 2012 “the Finch Report” Published • Author-pays model preferred and Publication Fund set up to encourage adoption of OA by explicitly funding APCs for immediate CC-BY publication where possible • September 2012: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) endorses the report (and allocates £10m pump prime funding) • Autumn 2012 RCUK announces new policy to take effect April 2013 • Institutions awarded funding on the basis of Research Council grant income to support the payment of APCs on journal articles and conference proceedings where RCUK acknowledged as funder • Target 45% in the first year- assumed APC £2000
  13. 13. Followed swiftly by: HEFCE policy for post REF2014 • HEFCE REF policy published on 31st March 2014 states that for any journal article or conference proceeding accepted for publication in a volume with an ISSN from 1 April 2016 to be eligible for the next REF [REF2020?] the Final Author Version/Accepted Author Manuscript must have been deposited in an institutional or subject repository and made discoverable within three months of acceptance for publication.
  14. 14. HEFCE policy eclipses all other policies for UK academics Image courtesy of John Norman, CUL
  15. 15. There is good news (HEFCE) • Repositories can respect embargo periods – academics can create a compliant “closed deposit” on acceptance. • “Closed deposits must be discoverable” – i.e. the metadata must be discoverable • “Closed deposits will be admissible to the REF”
  16. 16. HEFCE and RCUK policies seen together • From 2016, for a Journal/Conference proceeding publication to be eligible for submission to the next REF it must meet the following minimum criteria: • Have a discoverable metadata record in a repository within 3 months of acceptance for publication • Have a closed deposit FAV/AAM in the repository within 3 months of acceptance for publication • BUT if the research was funded by RCUK/Wellcome/Horizon2020 then the following criteria must also be met: • Output must be available as an Open Access publication (either Gold or Green). • If Gold: immediately upon publication, and with the relevant license (e.g. CC-BY) • If Green: within the embargo period set by the funder
  17. 17. INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES
  18. 18. • Senior academic leadership is essential to effect behavioural change • High level committees drawn from Research VP, Research Office, Policy, Strategy, Library, ICT + relevant academic representation • Advocacy, Advocacy, Advocacy – the message is still not widely understood • Challenges with multiple policies which are not wholly aligned, particularly cross-border policies
  19. 19. Many Universities have established OA mandates http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/library/subjectsandsupport/spiral/oamandate
  20. 20. ACADEMIC RESPONSES
  21. 21. Responses vary by discipline but broadly speaking look like this: • Sciences & Medicine likely most engaged • Engineering and Maths less so • Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences – even less so Individual responses • On a spectrum between passionately engaged and unaware/disinterested/opposed • Academics are still rewarded by publication in high impact journals, so minimal motivation to change behaviours • Academics (and their institutions) like the elitism of publishing in high impact journals • Beleaguered: yet more constraints, more reporting requirements, perceived less time for research, perceived less funding for research
  22. 22. PUBLISHER RESPONSES
  23. 23. A different (and threatening?) business model • Even with the development of the technology, the journal publishing model has evolved relatively little in the last 350 years!
  24. 24. Anxious to protect and grow revenue streams
  25. 25. • UK funding is “transitional” but some evidence suggests publishers are welcoming a growth in hybrid gold • Challenge with license applications – some publishers will accept APC payments but allow the academic to choose a non compliant license • New publishing business models are emerging = exciting as well as temporarily disruptive • “Pure Gold” does not necessarily mean low impact factor (e.g. PLoS) • New government-led research into monograph publishing • Some quality monograph publishers actively engaging in OA schemes (e.g. Knowledge Unlatched)
  26. 26. LIBRARY ACTIVITIES
  27. 27. Library roles to support OA • Contributing to the work of institutional implementation groups • Awareness raising amongst colleagues • Awareness raising amongst academics and students • Working with other departments, including ICT and Research Office, on the requirements for management of the process • Maintenance of web pages, FAQs and links • Running the service to manage the payment of Article Processing Charges (and learning from that process) • Working collectively to influence publishers • Working collectively to develop shared resources • Working collectively to develop/ implement standards (e.g. ORCID, FundRef, DataCite, RIOXX) • Working with systems developers to simplify and integrate processes
  28. 28. Open Access Funds managed at Imperial 2013-14 • Wellcome £216,000 • RCUK fund: £1,150,458 • Imperial College Fund: £650,000
  29. 29. Library support by type of OA Gold • Management and allocation of the publication funds • Supporting academics to ensure funder compliance • Record keeping and reporting • Working with colleagues on workflows and systems to manage many transactions • Checking whether the publisher has published OA and attached correct license Green • Support for self-archiving in the institutional repository • Repository developments to ensure metadata is discoverable • Metrics (downloads, altmetrics, etc) • “request” button for closed deposits
  30. 30. Open Access workflow: a pre-HEFCE example
  31. 31. Metrics and the demonstration of the impact of OA
  32. 32. Article level metrics
  33. 33. The Library goal: making it as easy and attractive as possible for authors to comply, deposit and get cited People • Be more pro-active about collecting author versions of papers (e.g. at time of request of APC) • Consider a mediated service Engage via Symplectic notifications • Encourage academics to challenge publishers about the green options • Consider in-house publishing options • Institutional subscription to ORCID – making automation of processes much simpler - now rolled out to all Imperial researchers • Consider which licensing options might increase flexibility of deposit Systems • Consider making Symplectic Elements the single point of deposit, and simplify the interface • Automated population of SPIRAL with metadata and harvested articles • Development of SPIRAL to support the next REF (e.g. working with publishers) • Develop and visualise metrics and bibliometrics • Interoperability between systems is necessary, as are version control tools • Upgrade Sherpa Romeo to: • Standardise publishers’ license texts to deliver meaning • Develop a Institutional Repository Specific API
  34. 34. Challenges • Scalability of processing, both for gold and to support green self-deposit • Creating a touch point with the repository for FAV/AAM to meet the new HEFCE requirements – easy for those applying for APCs but challenging for those with no intention to publish Gold OA • Working with publishers to achieve “offsetting” deals • Enduring hybrid gold – affordability question • Academic reward systems not contributing to behaviour change
  35. 35. Picture sources Slide 1: Having the cake too soon? slubdresden, CC BY Slide 14: John Norman, Cambridge University Library. Used with permission. Slide 24: Le Blog du Bibliophile, des Bibliophiles, de la Bibliophilie et des Livres Anciens

×