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.

Where you should publish


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Where you should publish

  1. 1. (Where I get off telling you…) Where you should publish: Open access, NIH public access, and ‘Green’ Journals can affect journal article impact Jason Price PhD, Life Science Librarian Libraries of the Claremont Colleges Howard Hughes Medical Institute Summer Research Seminar Series Claremont Colleges, July 2006
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>OA Definition and personal motivation </li></ul><ul><li>Why Open Access? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Availability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Impact </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Roads to OA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OA Journals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OA backfiles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NIH Public Access Policy & FRPAA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-Archiving articles in ‘ Green ’ journals </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Anti-Outline <ul><li>What I won’t tell you: </li></ul><ul><li>that you must publish in an OA journal to get this advantage </li></ul><ul><li>that this data argues you need to change where you publish </li></ul><ul><li>that you need to pay to publish your articles </li></ul>
  4. 4. Open Access definition and delivery <ul><li>OA Articles are: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>digital, online, free of charge to reader </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>free of most © restrictions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Removes barriers of PRICE & Permission </li></ul><ul><li>Delivery requires: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Copyright holder’s consent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Infrastructure to make articles electronically available </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Delivered thru: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OA Journals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OA archives/repositories </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Why Open Access? (Theory) <ul><li>‘ Costs’ of article production </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research & Writing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reviewing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding </li></ul></ul><ul><li>‘ Benefits’ of article production </li></ul><ul><ul><li>$$$ to profit maximizing publishers/shareholders </li></ul></ul>
  6. 7. Why Open Access? <ul><li>‘ Costs’ of article production </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research & Writing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reviewing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding </li></ul></ul><ul><li>‘ Benefits’ of article production </li></ul><ul><ul><li>$$$ to profit maximizing publishers/shareholders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>$ to societies and their members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication of results (but to whom?) </li></ul></ul>
  7. 8. Local access to CC author’s articles
  8. 9. Hypothetical Access w/o Seaver fund
  9. 10. Article Impact <ul><li>Impact = Times cited </li></ul><ul><li>Forthcoming measures </li></ul><ul><ul><li># of downloads ? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Intensity of discussion ? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But for now = Times cited </li></ul>
  10. 11. Open access articles have higher impact Steve Lawrence NEC Research Institute Princeton, NJ Computer Science (Impact)
  11. 12. OA Impact Advantage Physics & Mathematics Harnad et al 2004 (Physics and Mathematics)
  12. 13. Effect of arXiv 2003 - Davis and Fromerth, 2006
  13. 14. Test of an alternative hypothesis Data from Lawrence Citation # (Impact) Within Venue (N = 1494) Top Venues (N = 20) Not freely available = 2.74 Freely Available = 7.03 Increase 157% = 336% = 158% = 286% = 284%
  14. 15. Critics Say… <ul><li>Can’t assume equality of article value within a journal: 15% of the articles get 50% of citations, and 50% get 90% of citations </li></ul>50% 90%
  15. 16. Trophy Effect? Davis and Fromerth, 2006
  16. 17. Importance effect? Wren 2005 BMJ
  17. 18. <ul><li>Statistically rigorous study found an significant effect of OA status for articles in PNAS </li></ul>
  18. 19. Impact Conclusions <ul><li>Evidence suggests that freely available articles are cited more frequently </li></ul><ul><li>Not clear whether there is a bias in availability which could be due to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Demand/Trophy Effect </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Earlier dissemination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Research 1’ effect </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple copy/Prevalence effect </li></ul></ul>
  19. 20. Roads to Open Access
  20. 21. Gold Road : Open Access Journals Advantages Limitations <ul><li>OA from birth </li></ul><ul><li>Does not rely on commercial publishers for peer review </li></ul><ul><li>Direct indexing in usual places </li></ul><ul><li>Authoritative copy </li></ul><ul><li>Author-pay model common ($2000) </li></ul><ul><li>Business models still uncertain </li></ul><ul><li>Still limited selection/ prestige </li></ul>
  21. 22. Open Access Journal IF 2005 Impact Factor
  22. 23. Yellow Road: Embargoed Open Access journal backfiles <ul><li>Many journals make ‘their’ content freely available 6 mos – 3 years after publication </li></ul><ul><li>Good lists of these journals are hard to find </li></ul><ul><ul><li>large and in constant flux </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Publisher interest in keeping it a secret (from subscribers) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Changes are coming which should make these more apparent in our ejournal list </li></ul>
  23. 24. NIH Public Access Policy (May 2005) <ul><li>Who: Authors supported by NIH grants (Voluntary, but…) </li></ul><ul><li>What: Final peer-reviewed author’s copy (MS) </li></ul><ul><li>Where: PubMed Central </li></ul><ul><li>When: ASAP (and within 12 months) </li></ul><ul><li>Why: “Archive, Advance Science, Access” </li></ul><ul><li>Cost: $3.5mil/year -- .0125% of NIH budget and 10% of what they currently spend on page charges & other journal subsidies </li></ul>
  24. 25. An example
  25. 27. Is it working? <ul><li>Rate of author compliance: below 4% (as of Jan 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Some publishers offering to deposit for their NIH funded authors (but not till 12 month limit) </li></ul><ul><li>Nov 2005 NLM board of regents endorsed recommendations to strengthen to requirement within 6 months </li></ul><ul><li>Applies to 65,000 papers per year (but this is just 10% of annual biomedical articles) </li></ul>
  26. 28. FRPAA: a big next step? (05-2006) <ul><li>Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 (S.2695) Sponsors Cornyn (R-TX) and Lieberman (D-CT) </li></ul><ul><li>Requires every govt. agency w/ extramural research budget >$100 Mil to: </li></ul><ul><li>1) require each wholly or partially govt funded researcher to submit peer-reviewed version of MS </li></ul><ul><li>2) preserve in stable digital repository that permits free public access, interoperability, long-term preservation </li></ul><ul><li>3) Require that free online access be available ASAP no later than 6 mos. after publication in peer-rev. journal </li></ul>Alliance for Taxpayer Access American Association of Law Libraries American Library Association Association of College and Research Libraries Association of Research Libraries BioMedCentral Chemists without Borders CPTech Genetic Alliance GNU EPrints Greater Western Library Alliance International Mosaic Down Syndrome Association Medical Library Association Public Knowledge Special Libraries Association University of Florida Student Senate
  27. 29. Steinbrook 2006 NEJM
  28. 30. Self-Archiving: The green road 94% of 9300 journals processed allow Self-Archiving
  29. 34. Assistance in Self-Archiving <ul><li>The CCDL (Claremont Colleges Digital Library) is ready to build an institutional repository </li></ul><ul><li>We can work together to make as many of your articles freely available as possible </li></ul><ul><li>Next steps </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify articles that are eligible for self-archiving </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Locate appropriate manuscript/copy-edited version </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sign forms & deposit </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Please sign sheet indicating interest level </li></ul>
  30. 35. Yes, I a want to self-archive As many as possible as soon as possible I would be interested in archiving my new articles as they come out I would willingly self-archive if my institution required it I object to the idea or work involved in self-archiving
  31. 36. ArXiv example Your name here!
  32. 37. McVeigh (ISI) 2004
  33. 38. McVeigh (ISI) 2004
  34. 39. Critics say… <ul><li>Among OA/nonOA Journal approach ignores diffs in: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Acceptance rates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality of Peer Review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Editorial Policy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Novelty </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Better to test among articles within a journal that allows choice (e.g. PNAS…) </li></ul>