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.
OPEN ACCESS MANDATES: COMPLIANCE BY FUNDERS Cassidy R. Sugimoto Vincent Larivi�re csugimot@nsf.gov vincent.lariviere@umont...
Brazil: paving the way for OA 2005: several declarations of support OA 2007: bill presented to parliament proposing nation...
Why OA as a success metric? (Ashton University Library Services)
Funding driven initiatives
Routes to open access Non-subscription Subscription APC / subsidy Self-archiving Gold OA Green OA Toll access
OA miners
Unpaywall (Apr. 2018: 95M)
Unpaywall analysis (Piwowar et al., 2018)
Rise in mandates (ROARMAP, 2018)
Effect of mandates (Gargouri et al., 2012) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Mand...
Mandating open access Higher flexibility Greater heterogeneity Higher restrictions Use of embargos Evaluate faculty (e.g.,...
Characteristics of mandates Required Embargo Repository Dark/Ope n Copyright Opt-out
Sample of funder mandates
Policy effective dates
Calculating compliance Document object identifier (DOI) % COMPLIANCE
Number of funded papers Funder 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2009-2017 NSF 29,420 35,850 39,647 41,753 43,6...
Share of OA by funder 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 %ofOApapers...
Gold v. Green: N. America 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 SSHRC Green Only Green and ...
Effect of international partners 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% NSERC CIHR SSHRC EPSRC Wellcome trust BBSRC N...
Gold v. Green: UK/Europe Effect of Finch Report (2012)? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 20...
APCs and gold OA options Springer: $2,093 Elsevier: $2,249 SciELO: $500
Cultures of compliance Funder Biomedical Research Clinical Medicine Health Mathematics Earthand Space Psychology Physics B...
Recommendations 2 3 1 Embargos Infrastructure Culture 4 APCs
Cassidy R. Sugimoto Vincent Larivi�re csugimot@nsf.gov vincent.lariviere@umontreal.ca @csugimoto @lariviev Questions?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cassidy Sugimoto - Open Access Mandates: Compliance by funders

29 views

Published on

Open Access is increasingly a determining part of the structures and processes of scholarly communication, particularly in the emerging open science modus operandi, which presupposes the opening of all research components. Currently, most scholarly communication instances, products and services refer to open access in some way. The bibliographic indexes started to identify open access articles. New publishers were created, most commercial publishers started to publish open access journals or offer authors the possibility to publish open access articles in subscription journals. Open access mega journals have appeared. In developing countries, open access journals predominate, with emphasis on the pioneering SciELO Program, publishing open access journals from 1998, four years before the Budapest Open Access Initiative declaration. The preprints modality with open access availability of manuscripts before evaluation and publication in journals grows and new tools appear. Several innovative models have emerged in recent years to promote open access to journal articles, such as library consortia or crowdfunding. There is still difficulty and resistance from publishers in developing financial models that enable open access, and the calculation of article processing charges (APC) remains opaque. But the main force that can make the universalization of open access viable is public policies, the best example being currently the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 program.

Before this landscape, this panel will analyze progress already achieved, the promising solutions and the persistent barriers in the routes towards the universalization of open access.

Syllabus
The classical open access modalities – gold route journals, green route, new models of open access financing, metrics on the status of open access, barriers to the universalization of open access, and open access policies.

Published in: Science
no profile picture user

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Cassidy Sugimoto - Open Access Mandates: Compliance by funders

  1. 1. OPEN ACCESS MANDATES: COMPLIANCE BY FUNDERS Cassidy R. Sugimoto Vincent Larivi�re csugimot@nsf.gov vincent.lariviere@umontreal.ca @csugimoto @lariviev
  2. 2. Brazil: paving the way for OA 2005: several declarations of support OA 2007: bill presented to parliament proposing national policy for mandatory OA 2016: 97% of Brazilian journals are OA 2018: highest number of OA journals one-third of Brazilian articles immediately available free to read
  3. 3. Why OA as a success metric? (Ashton University Library Services)
  4. 4. Funding driven initiatives
  5. 5. Routes to open access Non-subscription Subscription APC / subsidy Self-archiving Gold OA Green OA Toll access
  6. 6. OA miners
  7. 7. Unpaywall (Apr. 2018: 95M)
  8. 8. Unpaywall analysis (Piwowar et al., 2018)
  9. 9. Rise in mandates (ROARMAP, 2018)
  10. 10. Effect of mandates (Gargouri et al., 2012) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Mandated Institutions PercentageofOA 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Non-Mandated Institutions
  11. 11. Mandating open access Higher flexibility Greater heterogeneity Higher restrictions Use of embargos Evaluate faculty (e.g., University of Li�ge) Withhold funding (e.g., NIH) DESCRIPTION LEVERS
  12. 12. Characteristics of mandates Required Embargo Repository Dark/Ope n Copyright Opt-out
  13. 13. Sample of funder mandates
  14. 14. Policy effective dates
  15. 15. Calculating compliance Document object identifier (DOI) % COMPLIANCE
  16. 16. Number of funded papers Funder 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2009-2017 NSF 29,420 35,850 39,647 41,753 43,630 39,566 45,351 44,527 42,417 362,161 NIH 35,624 41,212 44,881 44,844 44,355 37,585 40,932 38,559 38,013 366,005 NSERC 9,037 10,527 11,693 12,250 12,422 11,203 13,229 12,927 12,868 106,156 EPSRC 4,577 5,512 5,966 6,304 6,623 5,824 7,163 7,682 8,231 57,882 CIHR 4,552 5,256 5,743 5,995 6,043 4,923 6,185 5,870 5,514 50,081 ERC 160 392 775 1,465 2,353 2,978 4,495 5,047 5,000 22,665 MRC 2,429 3,132 3,372 3,646 3,898 3,300 4,054 4,183 3,988 32,002 Wellcome trust 2,393 2,918 3,069 3,257 3,531 2,980 3,650 3,766 3,591 29,155 Gates 453 785 987 1,116 1,354 1,223 1,846 1,927 1,952 11,643 ESRC 336 452 566 631 713 634 1,544 1,764 1,683 8,323 SSHRC 194 269 284 355 337 349 1,318 1,375 1,415 5,896
  17. 17. Share of OA by funder 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 %ofOApapers Publication year United States Gates NIH NSF Others US 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 %ofOApapers Publication year Canada CIHR NSERC Others Can SSHRC 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 %ofOApapers Publication year United Kingdom Wellcome trust MRC EPSRC ESRC Others UK 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 %ofOApapers Publication year EU ERC Other EU papers
  18. 18. Gold v. Green: N. America 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 SSHRC Green Only Green and Gold 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 NSERC Green Only Green and Gold 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 CIHR Green Only Green and Gold 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 NIH Green Only Green and Gold 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 NSF Green Only Green and Gold 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Gates Green Only Green and Gold Green Only Green and Gold Gold Only
  19. 19. Effect of international partners 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% NSERC CIHR SSHRC EPSRC Wellcome trust BBSRC NSF ESRC NIH MRC National corresponding author Foreign corresponding author
  20. 20. Gold v. Green: UK/Europe Effect of Finch Report (2012)? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 ESRC Green Only Green and Gold 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 EPSRC Green Only Green and Gold 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 ERC Green Only Green and Gold 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Wellcome Trust Green Only Green and Gold 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 MRC Green Only Green and Gold 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 BBSRC Green Only Green and Gold Green Only Green and Gold Gold Only
  21. 21. APCs and gold OA options Springer: $2,093 Elsevier: $2,249 SciELO: $500
  22. 22. Cultures of compliance Funder Biomedical Research Clinical Medicine Health Mathematics Earthand Space Psychology Physics Biology Professional Fields Social Sciences Chemistry Engineering and AllDisciplines Wellcome trust 92% 84% 87% 96% 71% 80% 73% 88% 93% 74% 73% 79% 87% NIH 93% 86% 79% 87% 73% 75% 84% 76% 74% 59% 81% 71% 87% MRC 88% 75% 79% 87% 62% 62% 47% 83% 77% 73% 59% 50% 79% Gates 89% 81% 83% 95% 50% 47% 51% 57% 28% 44% 52% 46% 79% BBSRC 83% 71% 77% 90% 57% 44% 58% 68% 92% 52% 49% 52% 74% ESRC 92% 76% 72% 70% 66% 60% 69% 60% 59% 63% 60% 56% 69% ERC 80% 64% 59% 75% 82% 50% 75% 66% 46% 46% 36% 46% 67% CIHR 71% 51% 52% 73% 43% 22% 36% 57% 47% 26% 25% 22% 56% EPSRC 76% 64% 70% 78% 59% 54% 60% 68% 58% 62% 39% 49% 55% NSF 76% 70% 52% 69% 54% 34% 48% 46% 35% 26% 24% 23% 47% NSERC 57% 38% 42% 55% 31% 18% 40% 28% 14% 8% 10% 12% 30% SSHRC 78% 35% 25% 40% 33% 17% 27% 36% 14% 16% 0% 17% 23% All funded papers 85% 79% 73% 67% 57% 56% 56% 51% 42% 39% 35% 29% 66%
  23. 23. Recommendations 2 3 1 Embargos Infrastructure Culture 4 APCs
  24. 24. Cassidy R. Sugimoto Vincent Larivi�re csugimot@nsf.gov vincent.lariviere@umontreal.ca @csugimoto @lariviev Questions?

×