Transitions to open access


Published on

Presentation by the RIN's Director, Michael Jubb, at the Spanish Research Council's (CSIC) workshop on the politics of the promotion of open access in Barcelona in March 2010.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Science and innovation investment framework a key document in the development of Govt policy in UK, and underpins the increases in research funding that have taken place since then It was key because it was based on the assumption that there are indeed very positive returns on public investment in research. And the OECD report is important because it articulates the case for OA on the grounds that it will maximise those returns
  • There are 2 kinds of research funders in the UK funding councils which supply block grant to universities to underpin both their teaching and their research activities (with research block grant allocated in accordance with the results of the RAE) research councils (seven of them) , which provide grants to individuals and teams to enable them to undertake specific research projects and programmes this is the famous “dual support” system. If you look at their strategies, they are remarkably consistent They all talk about research excellence, and they all talk about dissemination, knowledge transfer, economic and social impact and so on. (will say more in a moment about all these)
  • Remarkable similarity with strategies and related documents coming out of research funding bodies overseas even in the medical field
  • Research Excellence key theme for Governments, funders and universities national and institutional rankings and league tables influence of research assessment regimes Research Excellence and OA means of enhancing research speed and efficiency showcase for high-quality research But quality assurance through peer review has to be maintained Assessment and evaluation relentlessly-growing feature of most funding regimes assessing and evaluating research productivity, performance and quality impacts on institutions’ and researchers’ behaviours Research Assessment and OA bibliometrics and game-playing (chasing the citation advantage, and gaming the KPIs) universities’ interest in managing research activity and in maximising assessment scores “ managing the university’s research information assets” “ to ensure that research outputs are prepared and curated in a way which helps maximise the value that they have for the university eg in league tables” Dissemination and Access Governments, funders and universities all want to maximise dissemination increasing tendency to see dissemination as an integral part of the research process visibility, exploiting the full potential of the web, including speed of dissemination and access enhance visibility, accessand engagement beyond the research/academic communities publicly-funded research as a public good(?) frustrations with subscription toll barriers attractions of OA as a means of addressing all these issues Socio-economic impact desire to translate new knowledge into innovation to support economic growth, public policy, national well-being (maximise returns from public investment in research) some tension between desires to make research results available as public goods and to ‘exploit’ IPR But, attractions of OA as part of the means of addressing these issues (see OECD statement) Stewardship and Preservation role of universities and the research community as stewards of scholarly information and knowledge helping researchers to maintain up-to-date records of their publications (and OA can help in that) Costs and Sustainability past decade of increases in investment in research, and in volumes of research outputs rise in unit costs of research too, giving rise to sustainability concerns fears arising from current, and foreseeable, financial pressures impacts on research, and on library budgets Costs, Sustainability and OA incomplete understanding of costs and benefits of moving to OA intuitively it looks as if the benefits should outweigh the costs but winners and losers in different parts of the research landscape will say more about costs of transition later, but will say now that there are tensions between doubts about the sustainability of the current system vs doubts about the sustainability of OA (particularly the green route)
  • Seven different Research Councils in UK, covering different subject areas. Sometimes they try to work together……. Principles drafted in 2004, in response to a Parliamentary (not a Govt) enquiry into scientific publishing. Promulgated in 2006
  • deposit “ as soon as possible” but no challenge to copyright and licensing regimes
  • emphasis on author choice on where to publish requirement for deposit of metadata passes the buck to institutions on payment of publication fees again no challenge to copyright and licensing
  • linking of access to research mission authors should seek to retain copyright payment of publication fees UKPMC (will say more in a moment) unrestricted use as well as access
  • When principles and related policies published in 2006, RCUK committed itself to reviewing their impact Study undertaken in 2008, but not published till April last year Chief Execs made very bald statement about increasing support for both green and gold OA, but since then nothing has happened (various working groups established, but not much progress)
  • Trust has been in the lead in promoting open and unrestricted access to research results as part of its core mission requirement since 2006 crucially, has put funding in place specifically to support OA
  • And Trust took lead in establishing UKPMC in 2007 eight funders now in place, inc MRC and BBSRC, as well as other major research charities Aim for it to be the place of deposit for all biomed research outputs Trust is not in favour of institutional repositories, for the reasons set out at the foot of the slide
  • But there are still challenges Trust has put great efforts into working with publishers to make sure that they allow deposit in UKPMC but still only a third of researchers are complying some work to simplify process, as well as improving communications at all levels RIN has produced a guide to the arrangements for payment of publication fees (but this not a good time to be telling universities to set up special funds for that purpose and still work to do to persuade researchers that this is a good thing
  • Lots of fine words here about dissemination as an integral part of the research process, about sharing research findings and so on But no action, tho its agent JISC, whose fundamental job is to support the use of IS in the HE community, has taken a lead in promoting OA.
  • Repositories highly-varied profiles of content in repositories peer reviewed journal articles, conference papers, still and moving images,datasets, reports, interviews, learning and teaching materials and in some repositories, such as Cambridge, a significant proportion of the articles are held in the dark archive, and not accessible other than to the depositors OA fees relatively little development of systematic arrangements for the payment of fees, and financial pressures are leading to some cutbacks. One interesting development recently has been the Compact on OA Publishing Equity involving major US universities, agreeing to set up arrangements to pay OA fees to OA journals only (not hybrid journals). Publishers don’t like this, on grounds that it doesn’t actually help a transition. Similar move in Germany by DFG; but no similar moves in UK
  • So what’s been happening in the publishing world?
  • some dispute about the extent of the growth of OA publishing, but it’s probably now about 10-15% of the global no of peer reviewed titles BioMed Central a key player in the UK, alongside PLOS University presses, particularly Oxford, have played a key role too, developing both OA and hybrid options but take-up of OA option in hybrid journals is low (latest OUP figures show 5% and lower, depending on subject area) As for monographs, no real moves apart from Bloomsbury Publishing (Harry Potter); and no results there as yet
  • But of course in publishing and dissemination nowadays, we are not just talking about journals and books
  • So, £175bn for the system as a whole, the vast majority for the doing of research itself; just under £60bn (£58.9bn) for everything else, from publication to reading of journal articles Research costs covers that part of overall R&D investment as recorded by the OECD that is conducted by active researchers and authors who are part of what in the UK is called the research base (mainly in universities). So what we are trying to capture here is only that part of the investment in research that results in papers in journals.
  • Key point here is that this work involves active participation of funders, universities, libraries, and publishers those in italics are actually putting money into the projects
  • First three projects now getting under way
  • Transitions to open access

    1. 1. Transitions to Open Access Michael Jubb Research Information Network Politicas de promocion del accesso abierto Barcelona 3-5 March 2010
    2. 2. Political and policy context <ul><li>“developing the UK’s knowledge base and translating this knowledge into business and public service innovation” </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>UK Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>“Governments would boost innovation and get a better return on their investment in publicly-funded research by making research findings more widely available ……….And by doing so they would maximise social returns on public investments” </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OECD Report on Scientific Publishing, 2005 </li></ul></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Policy context: research funders <ul><li>to develop and sustain a dynamic and internationally competitive research sector that makes a major contribution to economic prosperity and national wellbeing and to the expansion and dissemination of knowledge. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) Strategic Plan </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>to strengthen the impact of arts and humanities research by encouraging researchers to disseminate and transfer knowledge to other contexts where it makes a difference </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Arts and Humanities Research Council Strategic Plan </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>accelerating the translation of research outputs into business and policy applications to increase social and economic impact </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Strategic Plan </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>advance and disseminate knowledge to improve the quality of life and economic competitiveness of the UK </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Medical Research Council Strategic Plan </li></ul></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Non-UK Funder Missions and Strategies <ul><li>NIH (USA) </li></ul><ul><li>expand the knowledge base in medical and associated sciences in order to enhance the Nation’s economic well-being and ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research </li></ul><ul><li>NWO (Netherlands) </li></ul><ul><li>enhancing researchers' awareness of research utilisation by integrating communication and knowledge dissemination in programme development </li></ul><ul><li>ARC (Australia) </li></ul><ul><li>capturing and quantifying the outcomes of research and knowledge transfer and the contribution of research to the economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being of Australians </li></ul><ul><li>CSIC </li></ul><ul><li>el fomento, la coordinación, el desarrollo y la difusión de la investigación científica y tecnológica, de carácter multidisciplinar, con el fin de contribuir al avance del conocimiento y al desarrollo económico, social y cultural. Además se ocupa de la formación de personal y del asesoramiento a entidades públicas y privadas en estas materias. </li></ul>
    5. 5. Some Themes <ul><li>research excellence </li></ul><ul><li>assessment and evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>dissemination and access </li></ul><ul><li>socio-economic impact </li></ul><ul><li>stewardship and preservation </li></ul><ul><li>costs and sustainability </li></ul>
    6. 6. Funders’ policies on open access 1. Research Councils
    7. 7. Research Councils UK (RCUK) Four Principles <ul><li>ideas and knowledge derived from publicly-funded research must be made available and accessible for public use, interrogation, and scrutiny, as widely, rapidly and effectively as practicable. </li></ul><ul><li>effective mechanisms to ensure that published research outputs must be subject to rigorous quality assurance, through peer review. </li></ul><ul><li>the models and mechanisms for publication and access to research results must be both efficient and cost-effective in the use of public funds. </li></ul><ul><li>the outputs from current and future research must be preserved and remain accessible not only for the next few years but for future generations. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Natural Environment Research Council <ul><li>NERC requires that, for new funding awards, an electronic copy of any published peer-reviewed paper, supported in whole or in part by NERC-funding, is deposited at the earliest opportunity in an e-print repository. </li></ul><ul><li>full implementation of these requirements requires that current copyright and licensing policies, such as embargo periods, are maintained by publishers and respected by authors. </li></ul>
    9. 9. Arts and Humanities Research Council <ul><li>it is the AHRC’s position that authors choose where to place their research for publication. </li></ul><ul><li>the AHRC requires that funded researchers: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ensure deposit of a copy of any resultant articles published in journals or conference proceedings in appropriate repository wherever possible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ensure deposit of the bibliographical metadata relating to such articles, including a link to the publisher’s website, at or around the time of publication </li></ul></ul><ul><li>it is for authors’ institutions to decide whether they are prepared to use funds for any page charges or other publishing fees. Such funds could be part of an institution’s indirect costs under the full economic costing regime. </li></ul><ul><li>full implementation of these requirements must be undertaken such that current copyright and licensing policies, for example, embargo periods and provisions limiting the use of deposited content to non-commercial purposes, are respected by authors . </li></ul>
    10. 10. Medical Research Council <ul><li>The MRC supports unrestricted access to the published outputs of research as a fundamental part of its mission and a public benefit, and this is encouraged wherever possible. </li></ul><ul><li>basic principles </li></ul><ul><li>authors should maximise the opportunities to make their results available for free and, where possible, to retain their copyright. </li></ul><ul><li>MRC will pay OA publication fees where these have been included in grant proposals and where the costs fall within the period of the grant. Anticipated costs beyond then should be calculated as part of an institution’s indirect costs under the full economic costing regime. </li></ul><ul><li>copies of papers accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal should be deposited into PubMed Central (PMC) or UKPMC, to be made freely available as soon as possible and in any event within six months of final publication. </li></ul><ul><li>where an open access fee has been paid papers must be licensed so that they may be freely copied and re-used for purposes such as text and data mining, provided that such uses are fully attributed.   </li></ul>
    11. 11. Developments in RCUK Policy? <ul><li>Report in 2008 on impact of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RCUK policies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>open access more generally and its impact on ‘traditional’ scholarly communications processes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>in response, Chief Executives agreed that over time the UK Research Councils will support increased open access by: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>building on their mandates on grant-holders to deposit research papers in suitable repositories within an agreed time period </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>extending their support for publishing in open access journals, including through the pay-to-publish model. </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Funders’ policies on open access 2. Wellcome Trust
    13. 13. Wellcome Trust <ul><li>policy on open and unrestricted access originally published in 2004, became mandatory for all grant-holders in October 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>all research papers – funded in whole or in part by the Wellcome Trust – must be made freely accessible as soon as possible, and in any event within six months of the publication </li></ul><ul><li>commitment to meet costs (estimated 1-2% of total spend) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>funds for universities and individuals for payment of publishing fees </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. UK PubMed Central <ul><li>UK PubMed Central launched in January 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>by December 2009, it housed over 1.7m research full-text papers </li></ul><ul><li>phase 2 launched January 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>aims to become the information resource of choice for UK biomedical & health research communities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>comprehensive & sustainable repository for research outputs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>improved information retrieval & knowledge discovery through text & data-mining technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>additional content (inc. 19m indexed papers, patents, etc) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>comprehensive analysis & reporting tools for researchers & funders </li></ul></ul><ul><li>UK PMC funders’ group </li></ul>
    15. 15. UKPMC Challenges <ul><li>improving compliance: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>currently, around one-third of Wellcome-funded papers in UKPMC within 6 months </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>although 95% of journals used by Wellcome authors have a policy- compliant option </li></ul></ul><ul><li>communications and simplifying processes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>funders must clarify how support is provided </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>publishers must have clear open access policies and processes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>institutions need to improve communication and processes for payments </li></ul></ul><ul><li>persuading researchers of the benefits… </li></ul>
    16. 16. Funders’ policies on open access 3. University Funding Councils
    17. 17. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) <ul><li>Objectives from strategic plan </li></ul><ul><li>to retain more of the benefits of research undertaken in the UK, we need to ensure that effective dissemination and application of research findings are accepted as integral parts of the research process. ……… ensuring that knowledge and expertise …. are made rapidly and effectively available to potential research users, both in industry and public services, and across the wider community. </li></ul><ul><li>we will continue to encourage the effective sharing of research findings, both to support research and teaching within HE and to inform the wider public. </li></ul><ul><li>we will work with partners to improve systems for researchers to share information and disseminate outputs as widely as possible, including through new technology. </li></ul>
    18. 18. Institutional policies and strategies
    19. 19. University policies: 1 <ul><li>repositories </li></ul><ul><ul><li>c 100 UK institutional repositories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cambridge (210k records) to Swansea Metropolitan (4 records) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>influence of REF (new version of RAE) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>publication databases and IRs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>records of RAE submissions loaded into IRs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>open access fees </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3-4 universities have co-ordinated arrangements for payment of publication fees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>some evidence that membership of BMC and other OA publishers is falling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>no UK equivalent as yet to the US “Compact on OA Publishing Equity” </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. University policies: 2 <ul><li>c 18 universities now have policies requiring deposit (4 Russell Group) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>some distinguish between deposit and access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>subject to copyright and other restrictions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>influence of RAE and REF </li></ul><ul><ul><li>citation advantage and bibliometrics </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Universities UK </li></ul><ul><li>‘ supports the move toward ‘open access’ of research outputs and…… would encourage the REF guidance to require that all submitted outputs are available through some form of open access mechanism’ </li></ul>
    21. 21. Publisher policy and practice
    22. 22. Open Access Publishing <ul><li>growth of OA journals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>c4,500 (DOAJ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>c 3,500 (peer reviewed) OpenJ-gate) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>c2,250 (Ulrich’s) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>DOAJ lists 395 journals published in UK </li></ul><ul><ul><li>206 by BioMed Central </li></ul></ul><ul><li>major publishers all offering OA options </li></ul><ul><ul><li>growth of hybrid journals, but low take-up </li></ul></ul><ul><li>estimates suggest 2-4% of peer-reviewed articles are freely available on publication </li></ul><ul><li>few developments as yet in open access monographs </li></ul>
    23. 23. Publishing and disseminating through channels other than journals and books
    24. 24. Sharing and disseminating data: ownership, protection and trust <ul><li>data: responsibility, protectiveness and desire for control </li></ul><ul><ul><li>lack of rewards for data sharing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>concerns about inappropriate use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>preference for co-operative arrangements and direct contact with potential users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>decisions on when and how to share </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>commercial, ethical, legal issues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>belief that only researchers themselves can have the knowledge necessary to take care of their data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>intricacies of experimental design and processes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>data management plans required by funders, but not much sign of adoption </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>role of publishers? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>trust in other researchers’ data? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ I don’t know if they have done it to the same standards I would have done it” </li></ul></ul>
    25. 25. Web 2.0?
    26. 26. Transitions?
    27. 27. The big picture: overall costs of the current system
    28. 28. UK researcher publications by type 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 Biosciences &-medicine Physical sciences Engineering Social sciences Humanities Education Total Article Book Book chapter Proceedings Book review Editorial Meeting abstract Other
    29. 29. Importance of different types of output
    30. 30. Researchers’ views of the future?
    31. 31. Transitions to OA? <ul><li>Portfolio of projects being sponsored by RIN plus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) , </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Publishers Association (PA) , </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>International Association of Scientific , Technical & Medical Publishers (STM) , </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) , </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>British Library (BL) , </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research Libraries UK (RLUK ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SPARC Europe </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research Councils UK (RCUK) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Universities UK (UUK ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wellcome Trust </li></ul></ul>
    32. 32. Transitions portfolio <ul><li>Transitions to e-only publication , to investigate the barriers – from the perspectives of libraries, publishers and users – to moving to e-only publishing, and how those barriers might be overcome; </li></ul><ul><li>Gaps in access , to investigate the extent to which journal articles and other research outputs are available, or not, to different parts of the research and other communities; and to identify priorities in seeking to fill gaps in access, barriers to filling them, and actions that might be taken to that end; </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamics of improving access to research papers , to develop a better understanding of the dynamics of transition towards some plausible end-points, and the costs and benefits (cash and non-cash), opportunities and risks involved. The end-points will be associated with four broad models: open access publishing (gold OA); open access repositories (green OA); extensions to licensing; and transactional solutions. </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Futures  for scholarly communications , to develop a series of challenging scenarios for scholarly communications in ten years’ time, bearing in mind current trends and underlying drivers in user cultures, needs and expectations; and likely developments in  technologies and services. </li></ul>
    33. 33. Conclusions? <ul><li>OA in principle ticks lots of boxes for Governments, funders, and universities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the momentum towards OA is likely to increase </li></ul></ul><ul><li>transition requires significant change in </li></ul><ul><ul><li>research cultures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>funding regimes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>unanswered questions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>who pays, how much, and how? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>how can we promote and organise a transition? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>how can we make an OA system sustainable? </li></ul></ul>
    34. 34. Thank you Michael Jubb