The diversity of requirements and expectations for Scottish HE institutions responding to PlanS
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•72 views
Presented at the ShERIF event: 'Plan S: Exploring Perspectives' 25th February 2019 at CILIP Headquarters, Ridgmount Street, London
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
More from sherif user group
More from sherif user group (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The diversity of requirements and expectations for Scottish HE institutions responding to PlanS
- 1. Diversity and Requirements of Scottish HE to Plan-S Richard Parsons
- 2. Viewpoints
- 3. University – Publisher Partnership Richard Parsons, University of Dundee University VC Define strategy Maintain institution Delivery budget Enhance reputation University brand Research income $ University budget Publisher CEO Define strategy Maintain business Deliver profits Enhance asset value Publishing Editor Copy editing Type setting Design Quality standards Production management Research Administrator Policy compliance RQ administration Data management Audit and report Repository support Publisher sales force Market journals Client management Capture subscriptions Library Subscription Manager Manage access Select journals Review usage Promote resources Company asset value Company profit $ Journal Article Manuscript Library Repository Journal platform & archives Journal package Citation count Impact factor Subscription. cost Package value Research quality recognition Patron satisfaction Library budget Universities (5000) Publishers (500) University Librarian Select packages Pay subscriptions Pay APCs Deliver services Balance budget Student Read articles Learn Research Data Things PIs Actions Student experience Educational achievement Package sales Publishing costs APC cost Sales costs APC income Researcher Cite Author Choose journal Edit Peer review Read Library Consortia Combine purchasing Procurement process Define value Deliver savings Deliver service Publisher Management Maintain business Manage costs Achieve income Develop portfolio Research Funder Achieve research goals Sustain funding Report to funders Research evidence
- 4. SHEDL
- 5. SHEDL Consortium Characteristics • All-in (as opposed to opt-in) • 19 institutions • Can group by type • Respect disciplines • Communicate a lot • Reach accommodations
- 6. HPS AIP
- 7. SHEDL HSP to AIP -£400,000 -£300,000 -£200,000 -£100,000 £0 £100,000 £200,000 £300,000 £400,000 £500,000 aUniversity b University c University NLS NMS d University e University 1. Small Inst 2. Small Inst 3. Small Inst f University g University h University i University j University k University l University m University n University o University Total £ Change
- 10. Free!
- 11. Open – free as in beer? • Open community requires respect and contribution • Guidelines are followed • Commercial approaches may develop • Quality assurance (?) • Nothing is free
- 12. Open – free but alternatives exist • UK school education • UK dentists • Scottish HE students in England/Wales/NI • Motorways free but toll roads exist
- 13. Open Access – Quality Assurance • Why trust wiki, forum, trip advisor? • QA in items real concern • Micrometer example • Named drugs vs generic drugs • Value in a name (publisher brand) • Predatory journals exist • Fake news is real (propaganda) https://www.nwhn.org/generic-vs-brand-name-prescription-drugs/ Mitutoyo, Clarke, Carbon Fibre Composites
- 14. Plan-S fail?
- 15. Plan-S fail or delay • Hybrid journals essential to researchers • Transition is problematic • Funders purposely ignorant of publishing business models? • Author choice/influence diminished?
- 16. Read --> Publish
- 17. £ to Read £ to Publish • SHEDL stopped HPS to AIP transition • Expecting a £ to read to £ to publish transition • Two big questions: • QA in a pay to publish world? • Why should Read subscribers continue to pay?
- 19. Quality Assurance • High rejection journal model not sustainable under OA • Authors can buy influence • Highly plausible or marketed journals may be low quality • Whole of academic rigour may be challenged
- 20. Green-ReposAAM
- 21. Green repository route for AAM • Subscriptions continue (easy) • Plan-S (+ REF) requirements met • Quality assurance maintained • Require author engagement by funder or institutional mandate • Partnership with publishers maintained
- 22. Why would Teaching-Led institutions continue to contribute? • Secure PCA rights • Access via AAM may not be optimum • No access to indicators of quality • Value add, - search, personalisation, citations • An altruistic moral obligation
- 23. PublishandRead
- 24. Viewpoint by different countries, different publishers Wiley Journals Germany USAPublish and Read $$$ Read $$$ OA publish ($) Publish (free) UK NZ Read $$$ Publish $$$ Read $$$ OA publish ($) Publish (free)
- 26. SHEDL Transition in Contributions • Were considering HPS AIP • Now considering HPS RAP As publisher RAP engagement increases country by country (or by article). Likely tipping point at about 60-70% OA articles. • SHEDL would track Read Publish proportions • OA increase 5-10% per annum • Teaching-led institutions see saving 5-10% per annum • Research-led institutions see slightly higher than inflation increases
- 27. Cost/value changes during transition Teaching-Led APCs Package access (20 years) PCA rights (current year) OA articles Research-Led APCs Package access (20 years) PCA rights (current year) OA articles Teaching-Led APCs Package access (10 years) PCA rights (current year) OA articles Research-Led APCs Package access (10 years) PCA rights (current year) OA articles Now In 10 years £ £
- 28. Summary
- 29. Summary Plan-S may succeed: Successful strategy 1 may be Green/UK SCL style Successful strategy 2 may be Country by Country/ SCOAP3/Project Deal (All-in) Successful strategy 3 may be full disruption (unlikely)