Our work on this project has been motivated by our answer to one question – why is open access hybrid publishing important? We think that hybrid OA publishing deserves our consideration as a transitional pathway to a more open scholarly communication system because where it sits in relationships to author behaviors and the current journal publishing landscape. By consideration, we’re not talking about an endorsement but rather an unbiased evaluation of the business model and its potential. What we don’t think is helpful, is an outright dismissal of the model based on assumptions, however reasonable these concerns. This kind of investigation will produce better conversations with the different stakeholders, including authors, publishers, and librarians and librarians. So, if we take a look at author publication decision making patterns. There have been several recent studies – most recently from Bjork & Solomon, Swan & Brown – that have examined the factors authors look at when deciding where to publish. Above all, it was fit, quality and speed of publication that authors rated as most important when choosing where to publish. Openness is only a minor consideration. Fit is really about readership and not a numbers game, necessarily. Authors have reported that reaching their colleagues in specific, specialized field is sometimes more important than broad dissemination. I think this is important information, as I often “sell” open access as means for reaching a larger audience and this may not resonate with some researchers (Swan & Brown). Quality is also a decisive factor. For better or for worse a journal’s impact factor is often used as a proxy for quality. Impact factor is not just used by authors, but also decision making bodies, such as hiring committees, tenure review boards, funding bodies, etc (Schroter et all, medical journal authors). Finally, we also seen that journal quality – arrived at through these imperfect metrics are a decisive factor for an author’s willingness to pay publishing feeds (article processing charges). quality OA journals, it is still only a small slice of the pie and even smaller if we recognize the influence of the criteria I’ve noted above. relationship to author behaviors & preferences, existing publishing patterns, as a transitional pathway to open scholarly communication system. Author decisions: Openness only a minor consideration – fit, quality, speed of publication most important factors. (Swan & Brown; Bjork & Solomon). Fit/Readership – Not a numbers game, necessarily. Often more important to reach colleagues in their specialized field (Swan & Brown). Journal quality decisive factor for paying fees. Impact factor not just used by authors, but decision making bodies. (Schroter et al, medical journal authors). 2009 STM Report: OA 10% of all peer reviewed journals / 7.5% Scopus indexed journals.
It’s also important to contextualize OA hybrid publishing within the overall journal publishing landscape. First if we look at choice. As we know, there has been an explosion of high-quality, peer reviewed open access journals. But the slice is still small viewed from the author’s perspective, and in some disciplines, even smaller. OA journals represent about 10% of the titles in the JCR (2009 numbers) and about 10% of the titles indexed in Scopus. Additionally, while the APC’s associated with OA Hybrid publishing are high compared to the average APC for a gold OA journal, they are not significantly higher that the APC’s of the highest impact gold OA journals. Two titles important at my institution, Nucleic Acids Research and PLoS Biology have APC of 2,700 and 2,900 respectively. Next I want to take a closer look at OA publishing activity, using my institution Oregon Health and Science University as an example. While gold OA activity at OHSU is significant it is still relatively minor. Our authors are flocking to the high-impact, speedy OA journals – PLoS One. But only 53 of the 866 our authors published in in 2011 are list in the DOAJ. Moreover, our research administrators while friendly to open access publishing, care more about activity in Nature, Science, Cell, etc. Mandates: NIH- Starting July 1, 2013 delayed processing for non-competing renewals with non compliant pubs. OSTP Directive – Federal research agencies with extramural research budgets of 1 million or greater must create OA strategy, does not specify it has to be PMC model. RCUK and Wellcome Trust – April 1, 2013 – must published with approved publisher (Gold with APC (RCUK will fund with block grants) or green with no more than 6 month embargo and no APC). Heavily influenced by the Finch Report. New Models: PeerJ – author membership model, not APC, F1000 post publication peer review, Number of subscription journals offering hybrid option doubled btw 08 and 2011, with most of the major pubs now doing it. Low risk method for experimenting with OA and possibly making full transition to fully gold journal.
Library community has regarded hybrid OA publishing skeptically, at best…most often with many negative assumptions. Does this really serve us and the scholarly communication system well, with the understanding that most of us in the room want to help build a more open scholarly communication system.
To answer this question, need examine to evaluate the model. Asking questions to confirm/refute our assumptions and relate the model to our requirements/aspirations (a more open scholarly communication system). Grouped questions under three categories – business model, market, roles and management. Keywords serve as pointer to questions. Business Model: Is OA hybrid tool for converting subscription journals to OA? How do we ensure we’re not paying twice – define double dipping and highlight it as major concern. What costs does the average hybrid APC represent? Cost of production? Existing publisher revenue/profit? What “kind” of OA are we getting (watered down or full OA)? Market: Existing literature points to slow uptake. Will funder mandates have influence? If a transition full OA, what’s the tipping point? Roles & Management: Who should and can underwrite the cost of OA? Should libraries participate (bigger question than just hybrid). What role can third parties play, such as subscription agents? What is the cost to libraries of hybrid publishing, does it potentially represent a cost saving to libraries to the system?
Rcjeks halfway open
Halfway Open orHalfway Shut?OA Hybrid Journals in Academia
FitQualitySpeedAuthorNot So Easily DismissedWhere to Publish?Not a numbers gameOpenness a minor considerationImpact Factor(Influential + Imperfect)Willingness to pay APC journal quality
Subscription journals dominate thepeer reviewed, high impact pool.APC’s for high impact open accessjournals on par with hybrid fees.ChoiceOregon Health & ScienceUniversity:• 2011 7% OA• 2010 6% OA• 2009 7% OAActivity• Increased NIH PA enforcement• OSTP Directive• RCUK and Wellcome TrustMandatesPeerJ, F1000Research, eLifeHybrid Model = Low RiskNew ModelsNot So Easily DismissedPublishing Landscape
BusinessModelTransitional Double Dipping Sustainability Transparency CopyrightMarketFailed Experiment? Tipping Point Roles & ManagementUnderwriters Tracking Third Party Cost Savings?Questions Not Assumptions
Survey TeamRobin Champieux, ScholarlyCommunication Librarian, Oregon &Health Science UniversityJill Emery, Collection DevelopmentLibrarian, Portland State UniversityKasia Stasik, Regional SalesManager, HarrassowitzSarah Beasley, ScholarlyCommunication Librarian, PortlandState UniversityFrom the collections of the Mitchell Library, StateLibrary of New South Wales www.sl.nsw.gov.au
Original Questions★ Overview Questions★ OA Hybrid Costs★ OA Hybrid discounts offered★ OA Hybrid MarketingNumber of Articles & Growth Rates★ Licensing models★ Tracking Still Picture Records Section, Special Media Archives Services Division (NWCS-S),National Archives at College Park, 8601 AdelphiRoad, College Park, MD, 20740-6001.
Questions Begat QuestionsFollow-Up★ APC hybrid fee?What does the APCrepresent?★ Funding source?Copy of your copyrightagreement?
OA Hybrid OverviewPublishers Name of yourhybrid OA ProgramYear Began # of journalsParticipating (attime of survey)Cambridge UP Cambridge Open 2007 120 out of 297 totalElsevier Elsevier OpenAccess2006 1,500 out of 2,700Nature PG NPG Open 2007 47 out of 84Oxford UP Oxford Open 2005 110 out of 246Sage Publications Sage Choice 2006 200+ out of 632Springer B.V. Springer OpenChoice2004 1,400+ out of 1,945Taylor & FrancisGroupT&F Open Select 2006 685 out of 1,600Wiley/BlackwellPublishersOnlineOpen 2004 743 out of 1,500
OA Hybrid CostsPublishers OA Hybrid Costs Factors Track Source ofAPCCambridge UP STM: $2,700HSS: $1,350Production YesElsevier $3,000 Production/competitorsNoNature PG $2,620-$5,000 Production/rejection rates/CompetitorsNoOxford UP $3,000 Production/CompetitorsYesSage Publications $3,000 Varies by discipline NoSpringer B.V. $3,000 Production NoT&F Group $3,250 Production YesWiley/Blackwell P $3,000 Not Answered No
OA Hybrid Discounts OfferedPublishers Discount Offered When Consortia Discount?Cambridge UP Uptake has not impactedsub costNot applicable Not applicableElsevier Not explicitly given/argueOA still too small %Not applicable NoNature PG Global discount if over 10%or more of content inprevious year OAStarted in 2010 Site license appliedOxford UP 2013 is discounted basedon 2011 OApublishing/mitigation ofinflationStarted in 2009 Same as institutionaldiscountSage Monitoring uptake Not yet Not applicableSpringer Significant OA uptakemeans discount to aninstitutionNot given explicitly Each consortia discount isuniqueT&F Group Calculation related to % ofOA in previous yrNot given explicitly If negotiated forWiley/Blackwell No Not applicable Not applicable
Number of Articles & Growth RatePublishers # of OA Articles (attime of survey)Growth Rate Exclusion?Cambridge UP 363 since 2007 1% Society PreferenceElsevier 2,750 since 2007 ~8% Society PreferenceNature PG 822 since 2007 10% PartnerOrganizationsChoiceOxford UP 4,340 since 2007 10% in life sci3% in medicine1.5% in HSS2.5% in MathLaw Case ReportsDemand lackingSociety PreferenceSage Publications 116 since 2007 10% Society PreferenceSpringer B.V. 5,912 since 2009 1.1% Society PreferenceT&F Group 312 since 2007 6% Society PreferenceWiley/BlackwellPublishers1,864 since 2009 1.2% Society Preference
Hybrid OA MarketingPublishers Marketing Hybrid OACambridge UP Offered during article acceptance/Journal websiteElsevier Offered during article acceptance/Journal websiteNature PG Offered during article submission/Journal websiteOxford UP Offered during article submission/Journal websiteSage Publications Offered during article acceptance/Journal websiteSpringer B.V. Offered during article acceptance/Journal websiteT&F Group Offered during article acceptance/Journal websiteWiley/Blackwell Publishers Offered during article acceptance/Journal website
OA Hybrid LicensingPublishers License Used (at time of survey)Cambridge UP CC-BY-SA-NC v.3.0Elsevier Variety of CC-BYNature PG CC-BY-SA-NC 3.0 orCC-BY-SA-NN 3.0Oxford UP CC-BY-NC 3.0Sage Publications Similar to CC-BYSpringer B.V. CC-BYT&F Group OL-BY-NCWiley/Blackwell Publishers Similar to CC-BY-NC
Tracking of Hybrid OA PublishingPublishers How is TrackingAccomplished?How Long Has itOccurred?Can a Library getthe information?Cambridge UP Order form formain author2007 NoElsevier Uptake by journal/funding bodies2006 No, open todiscussionNature PG License tag onarticles2007 No, trying to getcounter 4 statsworkingOxford UP Usage tracking 2005 On demandSage Publications Uptake by journal 2009 NoSpringer B.V. Uptake by journal 2004 Use AuthorMapperT&F Group Article level 2012 Institutions notconsortiaWiley/BlackwellPublishersUptake by journal Not answered Not answered