The future of scholarly publishing: where do we go from here?


Published on

Presentation from RIN hosted event on 'The future of scholarly publishing - where do we go from here?'

Part one of a series of events on the theme 'Research information in transition'.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

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

No notes for slide

The future of scholarly publishing: where do we go from here?

  1. 1. The future of scholarly publishing: where do we go from here? Research Information in Transition: a meeting organised by the RIN Monday, 11 th October, 2010 Robert Kiley, Head Digital Services, Wellcome Library, Wellcome Trust (
  2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Review how scholarly communication has changed over the last 5 years </li></ul><ul><li>Look at current landscape - OA publishing, repository development, peer review etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Consider what needs to change if we are to realise the ambition of providing open access to all funded research </li></ul>
  3. 3. A changing landscape (1) <ul><li>Growing number of mandates – at both funder and institutional level </li></ul><ul><li>Publishing landscape changing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Most publishers offer “funder compliant” OA options </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OA publishing becoming mainstream </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>PLoS One is one the biggest journals in the world – publishing over 4400 articles in 2009 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Raft of new OA titles - mBio , PLoS Currents , BMJ Open . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Starting to see a changes to the peer review process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EMBO – publish referees reports </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ASM mBio – authors identify 3 ASM members to handle review + 5 other people to review it </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>BMJ Open – will use “Open Peer Review” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reviewers will sign their reports and will declare competing interests to editors, and reviewers’ reports will be posted online </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  4. 4. A changing landscape (2) <ul><li>More funding available to meet author-pays costs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>At least 6 UK universities have an “institutional fund” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compact for Open Access Publishing Equity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>11 universities have signed the Compact including Harvard, Columbia, MIT </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RCUK </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Chief Executives of the Research Councils ..will support increased open access, by: extending their support for publishing in open access journals, including through the pay-to-publish model. [April 2009] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wellcome Trust </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. A changing landscape (3) <ul><li>Repository developments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All Russell Group Universities have established IR’s, as have most of the other UK universities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Central, subject-based repositories (like UKPMC) continue to develop </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>UKPMC has around 2 million full-text documents and a range of value-added functions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Projects, such as Repository Junction, are working to develop automated workflows to move metadata between repositories </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. UKPMC functionality: text mining Results of text mining the full-text
  7. 7. UKPMC functionality: citation services Cited-by and cited data + API to WoS
  8. 8. UKPMC functionality: FactFinder (goes live early in 2011) Answers extracted from the full text document Questions automatically generated in response to query
  9. 9. Grant Reporting tools “ My Impact Report” “ My Grant Report”
  10. 10. Usage at UKPMC
  11. 11. However, full potential of OA not realised.. Compliance with Wellcome OA mandate
  12. 12. Improving compliance with mandate: role of Funders <ul><li>Funders must be explicit about how researchers and institutions can access funding for OA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop guidance about inclusion of OA publications costs within indirect costs; include specific line in grant application forms to include publication costs (direct costs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Or, set up dedicated budget (e.g. the Wellcome approach) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Monitor compliance & enforce sanctions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Actively monitor compliance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Following letter from Wellcome to VC’s significant there was a 52% increase in author depositions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Trust also checks End of Grant Reports for compliance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Communication </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Demonstrate the benefits of OA to the researcher (as well as the research community more generally) </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Improving compliance with mandate: role of institutions & researchers <ul><li>Improve access to OA funds </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutions to ensure OA publishing costs are requested as direct and indirect costs when applying for research funds </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish dedicated budgets to meet OA costs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Better communication </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Arrangements for meeting OA fees to be effectively communicated </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Support from senior staff </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WT Sanger Institute has a compliance rate of 82% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Encouraging authors to self-archive </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2009 data shows that only 42% of Wellcome-funded papers – published in Science and Nature – were archived in UKPMC </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Improving compliance with mandate: role of publishers <ul><li>Simplify process for authors who wish to select an OA option </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Build OA option into manuscript submission workflow </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Make explicit the relationship between subscription costs and uptake of OA option </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This will give confidence that funders and institutions are not paying access fees twice (“double dipping) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Top tier titles ( Nature, Science) to consider developing OA publishing option </li></ul>
  15. 15. Access to “top-tier” articles remains an issue
  16. 16. Last slide.. <ul><li>OA has made significant progress over the last 5 years </li></ul><ul><li>However, the majority of research papers that will be published in 2010 will not be made OA </li></ul><ul><li>The primary actors (funders, researchers, institutions and publishers) need to continue to work together to realise the full benefits of OA </li></ul>