A one day conference held by SAGE and the LSE Public Policy Group to explore the issues of OA within the HSS sector. A video of the conference to accompany the slides can be found here - http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLg8Hz5Alt2FqQbkdZJmdtS5FIslB5pf6K

1. Open Access Futures in the
Humanities and Social Sciences
A one day conference for the humanities and social sciences sector
presented by SAGE and the LSE Public Policy Group
#HSSOA

2. Welcome
Ziyad Marar
Global Publishing Director, SAGE
@ZiyadMarar
#HSSOA

3. Opening Address
Professor Nigel Vincent
Vice President for Research & Higher
Education Policy, British Academy
#HSSOA

4. Open Access:
the problem space
Professor Nigel Vincent, FBA MAE
(The University of Manchester)
Vice-President Research, British Academy

5. The British Academy and OA
• national academy of Humanities
and Social Sciences
• fellows elected on basis of
distinguished published work
• funds post-docs & small grants
• publishes both monographs and
periodicals

6. RAE 2008 outputs by publication type:
Humanities
Books
Chapters
Journal Articles Other
English
39%
27%
31%
3%
History
40%
22%
37%
1%
French
Philosophy
Chemistry
37%
14%
0%
23%
20%
0%
39%
65%
100%
1%
1%
0%
Totals based on submissions drawn from the top 10 institutions for each field and with a GPA
of 2.5 or better

7. RAE 2008 outputs by publication type: Social
Sciences
Books
Sociology
Law
Politics
22%
18%
29%
Economics
1%
Chapters Journal Articles Other
10%
64%
3%
15%
65%
1%
9%
62%
0%
2%
89%
7%
Totals based on submissions drawn from the top 10 institutions for each field and with a
GPA of 2.5 or better

8. RAE 2008 outputs by publication type
One institution made two separate submissions to the Anthropology Panel:
Books
Biological
Anthropology
Social Anthropology
Chapters
Journal articles
Other
2%
4%
93%
0
31%
29%
37%
3%

9. 3 broad classes of discipline
• 3/3 journal articles: Natural Sciences, Economics
• 2/3 journal articles: Sociology, Law, Philosophy
• 1/3 journal articles: English, History, Mod Langs

10. HSS disciplines and OA
• HSS fields are not ‘exceptions’ but fit into a multidimensional disciplinary space
• different disciplines = different publication profiles
• profiles relatively constant over time & institution
• similar profiles also hold in Europe and the USA
and define the benchmark for international
research reputations

11. The international context
• dominant trend seems to be towards green OA
• absence of exercises like REF to force compliance
• many journals will remain non-compliant (not green
or only with 36+ month embargos; not CC-BY)
• what does this mean for UK academics whose
international standing relies on publishing in such
journals?

12. OA as it affects the 3 types of publication
• journal articles
• monographs (‘long-form’)
• book chapters

13. Journal articles
HEFCE and BA research project investigating discipline
by discipline:
• ‘half-lives’ of journal articles
• effect of embargo periods on library acquisition
• involvement in non-UK journal publishing
• commitment to OA overseas
PI: Prof Chris Wickham

14. Monographs
•
•
•
•
tend to be single-authored
not captured by usual bibliometric methods
international gold standard in some fields
difficult boundary between ‘academic’ and
‘trade’ lists for publishers

15. Status of monographs
‘There is no other medium that allows for the
depth of research, analysis and sustained
argumentation.’
[British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow, 2012]

16. Options for OA monographs
• gold with APC: subventions from the institution
or the funding agency BUT costly – cf Austria
FWF pays €14,000 and new Wellcome policy
• green:with an embargo period BUT how long?
• ‘mixed’: self-organizing co-operatives BUT how
sustainable?; e-version OA and print version for
a payment; etc

17. HEFCE group on monographs
• chaired by Geoff Crossick
• aims to explore and understand:
– scale/nature of problems for monographs
– place/purpose of monographs in the
academic context
– emerging models that accommodate OA

18. “The Wellcome Trust today announces that it is to
extend its open access policy to include all
scholarly monographs and book chapters written
by its grantholders as part of their Trust-funded
research … The Wellcome Trust will make funds
available for the payment of publishers' open
access monograph processing charges.”
30 May 2013

19. “The new policy does not apply to
textbooks, 'trade' books, general reference works
or works of fiction, or to collections edited but
not authored by Trust grantholders. It would not
affect, for example, a non-fiction work written by
a medical historian aimed at a general audience
and published by a commercial publisher.”

20. Book chapters: contra
‘If you write a chapter for an edited book, you
might as well write the paper and then bury it in
a hole in the ground.’
Dorothy Bishop
http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/howto-bury-your-academic-writing.html

21. Book chapters: pro
• a range of views come together in one volume
• benefits of mutual peer review by authors
• whole greater than the sum of the parts
http://peterwebster.wordpress.com/2013/01/14
/on-the-invisibility-of-edited-collections/

22. Book chapters and online publishing
• chapters can be rescued from ‘invisibility’
• option to access the whole collection or
individual chapters
• same issues as monographs for access and
sustainability

23. Licence type and text mining
• CC-BY preferred by Finch
• allows unlimited text and data-mining
• BUT text-mining less successful on free prose
• AND not guaranteed to detect quotation and text
in languages other than English
• Bioinformatics publishes under CC-BY-NC

24. OA and peer review (PR)
•
•
•
•
•
traditional journal and book publishing built on PR
PR as the guarantee of quality and reputation
PR as the foundation of RAE and REF
OA does not necessarily undermine PR
BUT some OA ventures also question the value of PR (cf
PLOS-ONE and the concept of post-publication review)

25. Panel One
Why OA? Which OA?
#HSSOA

26. Panel 1: Why OA? Which OA?
Chair
Professor Adam Tickell, Provost and Vice-Principal, University of Birmingham
@adamtickell
Panellists
Jonathan Gray, Director of Policy, Open Knowledge Foundation
@jwyg
Professor Peter Mandler, President, Royal Historical Society
Brian Hole, Founder and CEO, Ubiquity Press
@brian_hole
Professor Charlotte Waelde, Chair of Intellectual Property Law, University of Exeter

27. Open access
Brian Hole
LSE, Open Access Futures in the Humanities and Social Sciences, 24 October 2013

28. Overview
 Why publish?
 What is open access?
 Licenses
 Publishing vs. archiving
 Benefits vs.
disadvantages

29. The Social Contract
of Science
•
Dissemination
•
Validation
•
Further development
Scientific Malpractice
•
Results
•
Data
•
Software

30. What is Open Access?

31. Most simply:
No barriers to access or reuse

32. By “open access” to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public
internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or
link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to
software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or
technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet
itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for
copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of
their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.
Budapest Open Access Initiative
OA allows users to “copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and
to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible
purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship.”
Bethsida/Berlin statements
✔
✗
✗

33. OA publishing vs. archiving
‘Gold open access’ (publishing)
• Publisher makes content freely available
• Content has been through peer
review, anti-plagiarism checks, etc.
• Publisher may require an article
processing charge (APC)
‘Green open access’ (archiving)
• Institution makes a pre-publication
version of content freely available in
own repository, with no charge
• Content is released early and
immediately

34. Disadvantages vs. benefits

35. Often cited CC-BY disadvantages for the humanities
• “Humanities research involves reuse of copyright material
and therefore can’t use CC-BY”
Fair use and fair dealing still permitted. What we really need are copyright
exceptions, and to encourage the release of more material as OA.
• “I don’t want my work to be translated without my oversight
and quality control”
CC-BY: “You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author
or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your
use of the work).”
• “Open access will increase the likelihood of plagiarism”
Attribution is still required. Plagiarism is actually easier to detect when the
source is openly available.
• “I will lose royalties if my book is available for free”
It’s early days for OA books, but current indications are that royalties are
stable to higher. Publishers like UP don’t aim to profit from royalties.

36. • “Someone will create a derivative of my work and copyright it”
Derivatives are allowed, and if sufficiently original can also be copyright
protected. But this does not affect the copyright of the original work.
• “Open access means low quality peer review”
Peer review is completely independent of the distribution system. This has
not happened STM.
• “Citation metrics don’t work in the humanities”
Why not? Use of citation metrics alone is problematic in all fields. Halflives are longer and therefore metrics need to be looked at in context.
• “Open access is a threat to academic freedom”
Open access clearly increases freedom in very many areas. Mandates do
not have to restrict authors to certain journals only - publishers just need
to adapt.
• “Open access is too expensive for the humanities”
High fees and “double dipping” need to be discouraged. APCs don’t have
to be high – many OA journals don’t charge them at all, and publishers can
be sustainable at low cost (see next slide).

39. Questions?
For more information:
brian.hole@ubiquitypress.com
@ubiquitypress
http://www.ubiquitypress.com
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

40. Afternoon Address
David Sweeney
Director (Research, Innovation and Skills), HEFCE
@uhaa08
#HSSOA

41. #OAREF
IN A POST-2014 REF
• David Sweeney
• OA in HSS, 24/10/13

42. Introduction
• Funding bodies' proposals for open
access in a post-2014 REF
• Join the conversation at #OAREF
#OAREF

43. #OAREF
Some benefits of open access
• Wider and smarter access to more
information for research community
• Increased visibility, usage and impact for
researchers and institutions
• Increased economic and social impact of
public funding

44. #OAREF
Some issues...
• Embargo periods
• Learned Societies and Subject
Associations
• Monographs
• Licensing
• Academic freedom

45. #OAREF
2010: estimated 25,400 journals in STEM alone
2009: 1.5 million articles published
one every 20 minutes
Volume is part of the problem

46. #OAREF
Funders
£
Universities
Libraries
Repositories
Green
Publishers
Researchers
£
Advertisers Donors Others
Gold

48. February advice letter

49. #OAREF

50. #OAREF
Policy proposals
Definition
Outputs submitted to a post-2014
REF should be open access.
Exceptions
Criteria

51. #OAREF
Criteria: what do we mean by
open access?
=
• Accessible through a UK HEI
repository, immediately upon
either acceptance or publication
• Available as the final peerreviewed text

52. Criteria: what do we mean by
open access?
=
• Embargo periods to be
respected by the repository
• REF panel will follow embargo
period set by the appropriate
Research Council
#OAREF

53. #OAREF
Criteria: what do we mean by
open access?
=
• Allows search and re-use of
content (including downloading
and text-mining)
• Manual and automated re-use
• Subject to proper attribution
under appropriate licensing

54. #OAREF
Criteria: points for consultation
•
Appropriateness of criteria?
•
Role for institutional repositories?
•
Acceptance or publication?
•
Embargo periods varying by REF panel?
•
Licensing requirements?

55. #OAREF
Definition: which outputs will
need to meet the criteria?
=
• Journal articles or conference
proceedings only
• Published after a two year
notice period (i.e. 2016)
• UK HEI in address field

56. #OAREF
Exceptions: how should we
treat exceptions?
=
• On a case-by-case basis
OR
• A percentage approach to
compliance
‣
‣
consistent across all outputs, or
varying by main panel

57. #OAREF
Exceptions: a percentage
approach to compliance
=
• Consistent target across all
outputs within scope (70%)
• Vary by REF main panel
Main panel
A
B
C
D
Percentage target for
75% 75% 70% 60%
compliance

58. #OAREF
HSS Tensions (1)
• Thinking significantly impacted by
monographs
• Monographs ‘market’ is simply broken –
Missingham 2013
• Journals market is functioning

59. #OAREF
HSS Tensions (2)
• All monograph discussions underpinned by
OUP/CUP/Yale/Rutgers etc but
• Many scholars just can’t get published by
those esteemed publishers
• OA is an essential element in allowing more
work to be published in monograph form

60. #OAREF
HSS Tensions (3)
• Funder/researcher relationship is much less
settled in HSS than STEM
• ‘individualistic concepts of authorship that
may do more to advance academic careers
than collective public knowledge’ – Barron
2013

61. #OAREF
HSS Tensions (4)
• More published in foreign language journals
and transition to OA may take longer there
• Will international mandates
(EU, US, Australia) lead to overseas journals
making a transition?

62. #OAREF
HSS Tensions (5)
• Academic freedom – freedom of expression
doesn’t mean unconstrained freedom where
to express – already cost and quality
constraints
• However highly desirable for choice of
dissemination route to be by academics
helped by publishers and funders….

63. #OAREF

64. Panel Two
New Horizons? Open access and
the potential for positive change in
HSS research communication
#HSSOA

65. Panel 2: New Horizons?
Chair
Professor Patrick Dunleavy, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, LSE
@PJDunleavy
Panellists
Dr. Caroline Edwards, Lecturer in Modern & Contemporary Literature at Birkbeck, University of London
@the_blochian
Dr. Paul Kirby, Lecturer in International Security at the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex
@PabloK
Ian Mulvany, Head of Technology, eLife
@IanMulvany

66. What Does Open Access Mean for the
Humanities?
Dr Caroline Edwards
Lecturer in Modern & Contemporary Literature, Birkbeck
Director, Open Library of Humanities (OLH)
caroline.edwards@bbk.ac.uk
@the_blochian
www.drcarolineedwards.com

68. Lessons from the Sciences
(2) the GNU project,
MIT A.I. Lab, 1980s
(1) Hacker culture, California, 1960s
(3) arXiv, Cornell University Library, 1991• Founded by physicist Paul Ginsparg in 1991, Los Alamos
• Repository for pre-prints in
maths, physics, astronomy, computer science
• Circulating scientific papers prior to publication
• Developed out of informal professional networks (via
email)

69. Alluvium Journal:
Open access, short form articles published through WordPress

70. Innovation in Peer Review?
• Artificial scarcity no longer applies in digital environment
• Separate the “distinction phase” from “the publishing phase”
• Are alternative modes of peer review possible?
• Should peer review be “blind” (anonymous) or “open” (public)
• How does peer review differ from editorial labour?
• Could peer review take place post-publication?
• What about peer-to-peer review?

71. How do we fund open access?
 Open access is not free access
 Scale of open access publishing
(1) free labour & free submission
(2) advertising revenue
(3) pay on demand
(4) Article Processing Charge (APC)
(5) Library Consortia
Image by 401(k)2012 under a CC BY-SA license

72. International Challenges
 Addressing the problem of access gaps
 OA is not universal access
 UNESCO’s Global Open Access Portal (GOAP, 2011)
 International Conference of African Digital Libraries
& Archives (ICADLA, 2009)
 Scarcity of expertise and resources
 Issue of OA journals not being internationally recognised
Image by Ivan McClellan under a CC BY license

73. The Open Library of Humanities (OLH)
Humanities Megajournal & Monograph Pilot

74. Panel 2: New Horizons?
Chair
Professor Patrick Dunleavy, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, LSE
@PJDunleavy
Panellists
Dr. Caroline Edwards, Lecturer in Modern & Contemporary Literature at Birkbeck, University of London
@the_blochian
Dr. Paul Kirby, Lecturer in International Security at the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex
@PabloK
Ian Mulvany, Head of Technology, eLife
@IanMulvany

75. Panel Three
What next? Transition mechanisms
and next steps in HSS
#HSSOA

76. Panel 3: What next?
Chair – Dr. Paul Ayris, Director UCL Library Services and UCL Copyright Officer
@ucylpay
Professor Steffen Bӧhm, University of Essex and Mayfly Books
@SteffenBoehm
Ziyad Marar, Global Publishing Director, SAGE
@ZiyadMarar
Sally Hardy, Chief Executive, Regional Studies Association
@Sallyjhardy
Simon Kerridge, Director of Research Services at the University of Kent and Chair, ARMA (UK)
@SimonRKerridge
Professor Ian Walmsley, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and University Collections), University of Oxford

77. Open Access Futures in the
Humanities and Social Sciences
Thursday, 24th October 2013
Senate House, London
Sally Hardy
Chief Executive
Regional Studies Association
www.regionalstudies.org
sally.hardy@regionalstudies.org

78. OA Journal Launch

67% of RSA income comes from publishing receipts

Regional Studies, Regional Science responds to the shift
in publishing paradigm and is the next step in the
Association’s strategic development

RSRS fits RSA’s development planning goals – it will reach
into new markets and to younger and/or less traditional
group of researchers

The landscape for RSRS includes competitor hybrid
journals as well as interdisciplinary titles such as SAGE
Open and there are subject specific OA journals

79. RSA Journals and
Magazines

80. Regional Studies
Regional Science
Content
 Standard academic articles (6-8,000 words)
 Review papers
 Short briefings (3,000 word max)
 Regional policy reviews (3-5,000 words)
 Regional graphics
 Early career researcher (ECR) contributions
Publishing
Editorial Structure
 Two Editors in Chief, 25 Associate Editors, 50 editorial advisory board members
Review Process
 average paper turnaround of 28 days
 review criteria: quality, relevance, clarity of expression
 peer review panel not judging the significance or likely impact of any paper

81. Article Processing Charges

82. Key Messages

Open access remains a challenge to many societies

Societies need to rebalance their finances to future proof their research
ecosystem contribution

Time scales are important

Issues include: licensing, embargo periods, funding streams and the global
roll out of OA
BUT

There are opportunities for societies

We need to innovate and experiment, we need to think in the new
paradigm not the old

83. Thank You
Sally Hardy
Chief Executive
Regional Studies Association
www.regionalstudies.org
sally.hardy@regionalstudies.org

84. Panel 3: What next?
Chair – Dr. Paul Ayris, Director UCL Library Services and UCL Copyright Officer
@ucylpay
Professor Steffen Bӧhm, University of Essex and Mayfly Books
@SteffenBoehm
Ziyad Marar, Global Publishing Director, SAGE
@ZiyadMarar
Sally Hardy, Chief Executive, Regional Studies Association
@Sallyjhardy
Simon Kerridge, Director of Research Services at the University of Kent and Chair, ARMA (UK)
@SimonRKerridge
Professor Ian Walmsley, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and University Collections), University of Oxford

85. What Next? A University Perspective
Dr Simon Kerridge
Director of
Chair of ARMA
Research Services The Association of Research
University of Kent Managers and Administrators

86. Research Management and
Administration
– RMAs manage and support research…
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Information (including about research outputs)
Pre-award [proposals] (incl. OA costs)
Post-award [projects] (incl. APCs)
Development / Planning (incl. pre-payment deals)
Strategy / Policy (incl. OA, RDM policies)
Assessment (incl. REF)
Metrics (incl. Citations, etc.)
Research Students (incl. E-theses)
Page 91

87. Typical University Position
– Full Support for Open Access
• In principle
– Worry about… the details, eg:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Page 92
How to manage/enforce/comply with it
Particular licences (NC, ND)
Cost of Gold
Who pays / international collaboration
Providing support… academic freedom
The FUTURE implications of decisions made now…

89. Planning Ahead
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Reduction / redistribution of library subscriptions
Growing importance of IRs
Subject Areas repositories, eg SSRN, UKDS
Profile/influence/funding (HEI, Subject, UK)
Technical underpinnings: ORCID, FundRef, CERIF
Developing ideas: Diamond, Monographs, …
The next REF
International developments…
Page 94

90. A Typical? UK HEI Policy
– OA Policy
• Support OA (and ‘Open Science’) – prefer Green [libre?]
– Institutional Repository
• Mandatory meta-data. Full Text where allowable
– CRIS – ensure automated links
– Single process for Gold APC
–
–
–
–
Internal ‘top-up’ – how much?
Prioritise areas (eg RCUK, ring fenced funding) – how?
Prioritise high quality articles – how? Journal lists?
Managed by IS/RS? – independent?
– Encourage home grown OA Journals? (eg feminists@law)
– Central support for Research Data Management?

91. Kent ‘Simple’ Example

94. Current Issues
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Is your Policy equitable?
How much will/should the institutional top up be?
What about institutionally funded research?
Who judges the quality?
Academic Freedom?
Who (which HEI) pays?
How is the metadata stored (linked to projects) [CRIS?]
What about the underlying research data?
Can it be reported on to RCUK ROS?
Benchmarking of OA compliance?
Other purposes for the information?
• GtR, REF2020, RCUK funding, Impact, …?

95. In Summary… for the HEI
–
–
–
–
The landscape is changing, we want to:
Produce the best research
Best support our academic staff to do it
‘Manage’ the processes
• Have information (without asking for it… again)
• To make strategic decisions about… investment
–
–
–
–
Engage with all stakeholders
Expand eg GtR to include all UK outputs?
Developments: Open Peer Review, Social Media,
… Open Research
– https://www.arma.ac.uk/resources/research-communications-open-accessresearch-data
– http://www.researchinfonet.org/finch/quick-links/
– more@jiscmail.ac.uk [Managing Open REsearch]

96. Panel 3: What next?
Chair – Dr. Paul Ayris, Director UCL Library Services and UCL Copyright Officer
@ucylpay
Professor Steffen Bӧhm, University of Essex and Mayfly Books
@SteffenBoehm
Ziyad Marar, Global Publishing Director, SAGE
@ZiyadMarar
Sally Hardy, Chief Executive, Regional Studies Association
@Sallyjhardy
Simon Kerridge, Director of Research Services at the University of Kent and Chair, ARMA (UK)
@SimonRKerridge
Professor Ian Walmsley, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and University Collections), University of Oxford

97. Closing Remarks
Jane Tinkler
Public Policy Group, LSE
@janetinkler
#HSSOA