European Universities roles in fostering Open Science - Lidia Borrell-Damián, Director for Research and Innovation, European University Association Lidia's talk focused on the open access agenda and how we might collectively work together on the implementation of Plan S.

1. 11 June 2019
European Universities’ roles in fostering
Open Science
#ResearchAssessment
#OpenScience
Dr Lidia Borrell-Damián
Director for Reserach and Innovation

2. © EUA 2019
Open Science:
key objectives
and conditions
Key objectives:
• Sharing of research-generated knowledge
• Quality of research and research ethics and integrity
• Transparency of the research process and outcomes
publication
• Easy and affordable accessibility to research publications
and data
Conditions:
• Investment in Open Access business models (cost of
publications)
• Investment in e-infrastructure (deposit and access – FAIR
principles)
• Policies fostering Open Access to research publications
and data
• Researchers motivation and careers
2

3. © EUA 2019
Main challenges
for the future of
scholarly
publications
Publishing models – Open Access /
suscriptions
Open Access Policies for research
publications and research data
(institutional, national, supra-national
– Plan S)
Scholarly quality and Research
Assessment
3

4. © EUA 2019
Constraints for
Open Science:
Limited
engagement of
a large part of
researchers for
many reasons
Necessary (although not sufficient) conditions to make
Open Science a reality
• Clarification of legal issues concerning sharing and
reuse of publications and data – copyright regulation
• Original authorship respect – ethical considerations
• Reputation and research career progression – linked to
research assessment and outputs
4

5. Share of Scholar Publications in Open Access worldwide is far
from 100%

6. © EUA 2019 6
Share of
Open
Access
scholarly
publications
is far from
100%
Estimation OA < 35 % of the total of scholarly
publications
EUA Open Access Survey 2017-2018 :

7. © EUA 2019
Main challenges
for the future of
Open Science
(1)
Publishing models – Open Access /
suscriptions
Open Access Policies for research
publications and research data
(institutional, national, supra-
national – Plan S)
Scholarly quality and Research
Assessment
7

8. • Data collection: August-November 2018
• Respondents:
• 31 Consortia negotiating on behalf of the
university sector and other higher education
and research performers
• Focus: Periodicals
• 5 major publishers (Elsevier,
SpringerNature, Taylor & Francis, Wiley,
American Chemical Society)
• Data analysed in aggregated fashion
• Most data refers to big deal contracts ongoing
in 2017 or 2018
Key information

9. © EUA 2019
Big Deals Survey 2018
Main points of
concern for higher
education and
research
institutions in the
negotiation
process
9n= 31/31
81%
65%
65%
58%
42%
32%
29%
26%
26%
16%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Cost control
Cost reduction
Inclusion of subscriptions and open access in one
agreement
Maintain content (journals) across contracts
Early termination rights
Preservation and access via local, consortium or
national infrastructure
Set embargo periods in accordance with funder
requirements on regional, national or European level
Service-level agreements on open access services
provided by publishers (e.g. CC-BY)
Provisions for text and data mining
Number of open access articles in hybrid journals (as a
percentage of total articles published)
Percentage of consortia

10. © EUA 2019
EUA Big Deals Survey 2018
Total annual expenditure on big deals
10
For all subscriptions to electronic resources (including periodicals, databases, e-books) by
national consortia:
Total (30 European countries) = ~ 1 025 253 055 EUR (estimate 2018, 3.5% yearly increase)
This is a conservative figure not including:
- Article Processing Charges (APCs)
- Consortia other than those participating in the Survey
- Individual institutional contracts with publishers
For periodicals only in the surveyed consortia:
Total (31 consortia, representing 30 European countries) = ~ 726 350 945 EUR (average yearly
increase 3.6%)
Proportion of costs covered by universities in the consortia = 519 973 578 EUR (~72%)

11. © EUA 2019
Big Deals Survey 2018
Origin of funds for big deals
11
n= 31/31
Is information on expenditure on
electronic documentary resources
publicly available?
n= 31/31
61%
39%
Yes
No
16%
42%
7%
36%
Only universities
Universities and
government/government
agency
Only
government/government
agency
Other

12. © EUA 2019
Big Deals Survey 2018
Is there a national
Open Access strategy
or policy?
12
n= 31/31
Yes 68%
No 32%
Provisions for OA
Currently
(%)
In the future
(%)
No 55 0
Yes, only for green open
access
10 10
Yes, only for gold open
access
7 10
Yes, for both green and
gold open access
13 64
Other 16 16
Do current big deal contracts include specific
provisions for open access?

13. © EUA 2019
Big Deals Survey 2018
13
n= 30-31/31
APCs and subscriptions in same contract
Currently
(%)
In the future (%)
Yes 19 65
No (subscriptions and
APCs in different
contracts)
55 7
Other 26 3
Not yet decided 26
Are APCs and subscriptions included in the same contractual framework?

14. © EUA 2019
Big Deals Survey 2018
When APCs and subscriptions are
included in the same contract,
is there any provision or policy
to prevent “double dipping”?
14
n= 6/6
Yes 67%
No 33%
When APCs and subscriptions are not included in the same
contract,
are there any monitoring systems in place to collect
data on the funds spent on APCs?
n= 16/17
Yes 31%
No 69%

15. © EUA 2019
Big Deals Survey 2018
Are there laws facilitating the
transparency of contracts?
15
n= 31/31
Do Freedom of Information laws
exist?
n= 31/31
71%
29%
Yes
No
74%
26%
Yes
No

16. © EUA 2019
Big Deals Survey 2018
Division of costs by
publisher
(periodicals only)
16
Total reported = 475 267 400 EUR
(data for 29 countries) 56%
18%
16%
7%
3%
Elsevier (incl. Cell Press)
Wiley
Springer (incl. Nature)
Taylor & Francis
American Chemical Society
Typically, the publishers’ annual increase varies between 3.3% - 4.7%. On average, the annual increase is 3.6%.

17. © EUA 2019
Big Deals Survey 2018
Relationship between amount spent on five big publishers
per year and GDP per capita
17
Calculation: Amount spent annually
on 5 big publishers / GDP per capita
Interpretation: the result represents
the number of people that need to
work for one year (person/year),
given a certain GDP per capita, in
order to reach the same monetary
value as the cost of the five big
publishers in that country.
GDP per capita: source Eurostat
(data from 2016)
** Data for 2 publishers
*** Data for 3 publishers
**** Data for 4 publishers
500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500 3 000 3 500
C2
C9
C1
C14
C20****
C18
C17****
C5
C11
C24
C8
C7****
C21
C28
C19
C22
C6****
C10
C25
C4
C13
C3***
C30
C32**
C16
C31****
C15***
C12
Person/year

18. © EUA 2019
Key messages
• There is wide coverage of European countries and their
situations on big deal negotiations.
• University leadership is increasingly involved in big deals
(strategy and/or negotiation), but there are still major
differences across countries.
• There are different levels of knowledge on the total spent on
big deals and other related publication costs (APCs) across
countries.
• Most contracts do not have provisions on open access
(currently).
• Many countries want to combine subscriptions and APCs in
the same contract; other countries think this is not yet
advantageous for their situations.
• There are stark variations in big deal costs across countries
compared to GDP per capita.
18

19. © EUA 2019
Main challenges
for the future of
Open Science
(2)
Publishing models – Open Access /
suscriptions
Open Access Policies for research
publications and research data
(institutional, national, supra-
national – Plan S)
Scholarly quality and Research
Assessment
19

20. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
Key info Focused on the degree of implementation of institutional
policies on:
• Open Access to research publications
• Research Data Management
• Open Access to research data
Data collection between February-April 2018
Respondents
• 321 institutions from 36 countries
20
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018

21. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
21
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Country breakdown
Total: 321 institutions from 36 countries

22. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
22
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Number of respondents: 318/321 Number of respondents: 319/321
Institutional characteristics

23. © EUA 2018
Open Access (OA) to Research Publications
EUA Open Access institutional survey
Key results 2018
23
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Key results 2018

24. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
24
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Number of respondents: 320/321 Number of respondents: 317/321
Institutional policies on OA to research
publications

25. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
25
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Number of respondents: 193/198. Question only applicable to institutions who indicated having an OA policy in place.

26. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
26
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Number of respondents: 320/321
Note: *this refers normally to a certain percentage of publications deposited in the
repository or published in OA journals.
*

27. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
27
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Number of respondents: 320/321 Number of respondents: 193/198. Question only applicable to
institutions who indicated having an OA policy in place.
Institutional repositories (green OA)

28. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
28
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Number of respondents: 320/321 Number of respondents: 319/321
Monitoring the number of publications

29. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
29
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Number of respondents: 320/321

30. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
Research Data Management (RDM) and
Open Access (OA) to Research Data
EUA Open Access institutional survey
Key results 2018
30
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018

31. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
31
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Number of respondents: 319/321
Number of respondents: 66/67. Question only applicable to institutions who
indicated having an RDM policy in place.
Institutional policies on RDM

32. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
32
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Number of respondents: 318/321
Number of respondents: 34/42. Question only applicable to institutions who
indicated having a policy on OA to research data in place.
Institutional policies on OA to research data

33. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
33
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Number of respondents: 316/321

34. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
34
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Number of respondents: 317/321

35. © EUA 2018
Key results 2018
35
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018
Number of respondents: 310/321

36. © EUA 2018
Summary Existence of institutional policies
• OA to research publications: 62% of universities
• Research and data management (RDM): 21% of
universities
• OA to research data: 13% of universities
Existence of institutional repositories: 89% of universities
After the adoption of an OA policy: 75% of universities saw
an increase in publications’ deposit rates in the repository
Monitoring the number of publications in OA:
• Green OA: 69% of universities
• Gold OA: 43% of universities
36
Key results 2018
OPEN ACCESS SURVEY 2017-2018

37. © EUA 2019
Main challenges
for the future of
Open Science
Publishing models – Open Access /
suscriptions
Open Access Policies for research
publications and research data
(institutional, national, supra-
national – Plan S)
Scholarly quality and Research
Assessment
37

38. © EUA 2019
The dominance of the journal impact factor leads to two main
problems:
1. the quality of an article produced by researchers is not evaluated
directly, rather through a proxy, i.e., the reputation of the journal it
is published in;
2. this situation reinforces the dominant position of commercial
academic publishers and disproportionately adds to their power in
shaping the way research is funded and conducted.
EUA commitment
Raise awareness and support universities in the improvement of
research assessment approaches that focus on research quality,
potential and future impact, and that take into account Open Science
practices.
38
Source:
EUA (2018) EUA Roadmap on Research
Assessment in the Transition to Open
Science

39. © EUA 2019
Researchers, universities and other research performing
organisations, research funders and policymakers are
revisiting their approaches to research assessment:
• Current approaches related to negative trends in
academia
• Discussion about the current state and future direction of
scholarly research, as well as technical discussions
• Sprawling field involving a wide variety of actors, creating
the need for a concerted approach
39
Source:
EUA (2019) Reflections on University
Research Assessment: Key concepts,
issues and actors

40. © EUA 2019 40
Preliminary outcocmes of the 1st EUA Worskhop on Rseearch Assessment for
researchers careeers , Brussels 14 May 2019
Towards a concerted approach
Revisiting research assessment procedures is a shared responsibility and requires a concerted approach uniting
the main actors. Researchers, universities and other research performing organisations, research funders and
policymakers to work together on developing and implementing more accurate, transparent and responsible
approaches to research evaluation.
Clear communication and dialogue between actors were highlighted as key factors. Individual actors have
different priorities and often feel unable to act on their own. Starting dialogue is crucial to start building a shared
agenda for an evolution of research assessment systems.
Taking a first step towards a concerted approach, EUA and Science Europe presented a joint statement on
combining their efforts to improve scholarly research assessment methodologies. Martine Rahier, Vice-President
of EUA, and Stephan Kuster, Secretary General of Science Europe, presented the statement highlightling their
commitment to working together on building a strong dialogue between their members.

41. © EUA 2019
EUA Actions
with its
univeristies
and other
stakeholders
41
More information:
Briefing: http://bit.ly/EUARAbriefing
Survey: http://bit.ly/EUA2019RAsurvey
Workshop: http://bit.ly/EUA_RAworkshopT
Gathering and
sharing
information
• Briefing on key concepts, issues
and actors (Apr-19)
• EUA surveys (Institutional
Polices, Big Deals, Research
Assesment
• Pubish & Read Study
(Technopolis & Van de Vooren)
Engaging in
dialogues
• Workshop on institutional researchers’
assessment and careers (14-May, Brussels)
• Dialogue with other actors, e.g. Science Europe,
Open Science Policy Platform, EOSC, MPDL, etc.
• Partner in VSNU Event on (15 November 2019)
Developing policy
and good practice
recommendations
•Joint statement EUA-Science
Europe
• Policy/Political Positions
(e.g. input to Plan S)
•Support to university
leadership: rectors and vice-
rectors, deans, heads of
laboratory, etc.

42. © EUA 2019
Key messages
– Outlook at
European
systemic level
• Transparency of costs and conditions – research
investments, research publication costs, related
transparency laws
• Evolution of research assessment exercises in a
context of Open Science
• Reinforcement of application of Open Science policies –
institutional, national, supranational (e.g. Plan S).
• Investment in research infrastructures – national,
EOSC.
• Engagement, at system level, of researchers and
university leaders, and research organization leaders,
funders – They are essential !
42

43. Thank you for your attention
© EUA 2019