MOA 2014, Open Access Barometeret: en kortlægning og visualisering af Open Access til dansk forskning

1. Open Access Barometer: a mapping
and visualisation of open access to
Danish research
Mikael K. Elbæk
Senior Project Officer
@melbaek

2. A manometer on a steam-engine. Manufactured by Söderströms gjuteri- och mek. verkstads A.-B. in Norrköping,
Sweden.
Photo: Zaphod Februari 6, 2005.

3. Project info
• Project title: DEFF Dansk Open Access Barometer (Danish Open Access
Barometer)
– en undersøgelse af den aktuelle Open Access situation i Danmark og kravspecifikation til
et web baseret Open Access barometer
– (a survey of the current status for Open Access in Denmark and the specification of a
web based Open Access Barometer)
• Project coordinator: Mikael Elbæk, DTU Bibliotek
• Participating institutions: Copenhagen University Library, DTU Library,
Roskilde University Library, University Library of Southern Denmark
• Funded: By DEFF (Denmark’s Electronic Research Library)
Supported by DEFF with DKK 434.000
• Wiki:
https://infoshare.dtv.dk/twiki/bin/view/OpenAccessBarometer/WebHom
e

4. Partners
• Anne Thorst Melbye, University of Southern Denmark
• Tove Juul Hansen, Univeristy of Southern Denmark
• Sidse Schelde, Roskilde University
• Asger V. Larsen, University of Copenhagen -> now
University of Southern Denmark
• Bertil F. Dorch, University of Southern Denmark
• And more did help out…

5. Vision
”To let the world know how Open Access to
science is progressing”

6. Vision
”Measuring open access effects behaviour
towards more open access”

7. The Practice of Typography: Modern Methods of Book Composition (1904), New York: The Century Co., p. 406. Digital scan available at
http://archive.org/details/practiceoftypogr1904devi

8. Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, LC-DIG-highsm-02029 (original digital file), uncompressed archival TIFF version (103 MB), cropped and
converted to JPEG with the GIMP 2.4.5, image quality 88.

9. Strategy
• Utilize available data sources
• To visualize the (current) state of Open Access
• To demonstrate relevant and interesting data
views i.e. comparing and showing trends
• To make a userfriendly tool that can give
incentives to move Open Access forward
• Create methods and software to repeat the
process again and again.

10. Background
Institutional policies
Universitet Grøn
OA
Gylden
OA
Publiceringsfond Berlin
declaration
Aarhus Universitet Ja Nej Nej Nej
Aalborg Universitet Ja Ja Nej Ja (2012)
Copenhagen Business
School
Ja Nej Nej Ja (2008)
Roskilde Universitet Ja Nej Nej Ja (2006)
Danmarks Tekniske
Universitet
Ja Nej Nej Nej
IT-universitetet Nej Nej Nej Nej
Københavns Universitet Nej Nej Nej Nej
Syddansk Universitet Ja Nej Nej Nej

11. Background
Funder policies
– All major public funders unified policy
– Funder policies since June 2012
– Green policy
– Peer review journal articles
– Opt-out
http://ufm.dk/forskning-og-innovation/samspil-mellem-viden-og-innovation/open-
science/open-access-politik-for-offentlige-forskningsrad-og-fonde

12. This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 030506-N-5862D-128

13. Platform
• Data:
– BFI (latest dataset 2011)
– Danish National Research Database (for links to
full texts)
– SHERPA/ROMEo (for potential)
– DOAJ.org for OA-journals
– Review (to complement machine data)

14. Bibliometric Research Indicator
• Or just BFI
– B for Bibliometric
– F for Forskning = research
– I for Indicator
• Funding allocation model based on points given
to institutions based on publishing in
– A number for “expert” selected publication channels:
journals and selected publishers for books
– A common data model, all institutions have focus on
providing as correct and full data as possible, because
it means money…

16. Demarcation of data
• The data set from BFI was 38.672
• We limited to publications that has relevance
to the research funders OA-policies, i.e.:
– Peer reviewed research articles, including
– Peer reviewed conference proceedings,
chapter/articles in books and articles.
• Result 16.808 records
• Peer reviewed BFI-credit giving articles alone
12.808 records

17. Two parallel tracks
Mapping of Open Access 2011
• Collecting data from
authoritative sources
• Review resultat, and get
additions from universities
• Analyse results
• Produce report
• Distribute for stakeholders
and decision makers
Prototyping an OA Barometer
• Use data from authoritative
sources
• Automate data collection
– To enable repetition on a
frequent basis
• Identify wanted and possible
features
• Create prototype
• Present results to stakeholders
• Document lessons learnt at
use for the next gen of the
National research database

18. Universities/institutions
Media/Public
Policy makers
Researchers

19. PRESENTING THE RESULTS
Mapping open access to Danish research 2011

20. Open Access baseline
• To peer review BFI-credit giving articles
11 %

21. After Review
• Open Access to peer review articles
11 % 22 %

22. Open Access to BFI-articles
10641; 79%
2745; 21%
Total Open Access share of BFI articles
No
Yes

23. Open Access per university
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aalborg
University
Aarhus
University
Copenhagen
Business School
IT-University Roskilde
University
Technical
Univeristy of
Denmark
University of
Copenhagen
University of
Southern
Denmark
Non-OA
Open Access

24. Open Access potential
5556; 43%
7390; 57%
The total OA potential for BFI articles
No
Yes

25. OA-potential per university
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aalborg
University
Aarhus
University
Copenhagen
Business
School
IT-University Roskilde
University
Technical
Univeristy of
Denmark
University of
Copenhagen
University of
Southern
Denmark
No OA-potential
OA-potential

26. Unused OA-potential
5218; 71%
2172; 29%
Total unused OA-potential for BFI articles
Yes No
Yes Yes

27. Unused OA-potential per university
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aalborg
University
Aarhus
University
Copenhagen
Business
School
IT-University Roskilde
University
Technical
Univeristy of
Denmark
University of
Copenhagen
University of
Southern
Denmark
OA potential not used
OA potential used

28. But take note! Sherpa/Romeo data
blue; 674
gray; 983
green; 8102
white; 1621
yellow; 3993
(blank); 1435
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total
(blank)
yellow
white
green
gray
blue

29. Open Access by type
1096; 8%
1632; 13%
10218; 79%
Golden (OA-journals)
Green (parallelpublishing)
Not-OA

30. Open Access types per university
72 367 25
8
33 175 6 410
78 50
2
17
17
772
12
684
1103 3975 376
20
333
1316
55 3040
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aalborg
University
Aarhus
University
Copenhagen
Business School
IT-University Roskilde
University
Technical
Univeristy of
Denmark
University of
Copenhagen
University of
Southern
Denmark
Non-OA
Green
Golden

31. 71 %

32. 5.218

34. Other types of Access

35. Delayed access

36. Hybrid Open Access

37. Some are greener than others

38. Perspectives
• Open Access metadata / vocabularies
– What kind of Open Access (other types of access)
– Dates / embargoes
– Licenses
– Payments (what, when and who?)
• ORCID – to identify researchers
• FundRef and unique IDs for grants – to identify
grants and links to output

39. Publishing the data
• How open can we make the data?
• Basically we are not doing anything that a kid
with some Phyton skills could do in a day or
two!
• We wish to be as OPEN as possible

40. OA Census
• Three use cases
including
– Pop in your ORCID and
get a report
• OA Hackaton 26-27
August 2013
• http://ananelson.github
.io/oacensus/