The document discusses open access publishing, detailing its history, options (gold and green), pros and cons, and current debates surrounding it. It highlights the shift towards open access due to government policies and funding bodies advocating for increased visibility and accessibility of publicly funded research. Key considerations for authors include choosing the appropriate publishing route, funding for article processing charges, and licensing issues.

1. Open access publishing
Chris Awre
Library and Learning Innovation
History Staff Development Day, 9th January 2014

2. To cover
• [History DMT update]
• Open access publishing
– Journals
– Books
• Pros and cons
• Current debate
• Policy developments
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 2

3. History DMT

4. History DMT
• History Data Management Training and Guidance
– AHRC project, in partnership with IHR and University of
Sheffield
– Feb 2013-Jul 2014
– Targeting PhD students and ECRs
• Producing training materials on research data management for
historians
– Three workshops being held
– Hull workshop successfully run on 12th December
• Doctoral training centre partners invited
– Content for training materials has been been collated, and is
being shaped by IHR for national online delivery
• RDM now incorporated locally as part of Research Methods
module
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 4

5. Open access publishing

6. „Traditional‟ publishing
• An article/book is written by an author
• The article/book is submitted to a publisher
– For articles, a copyright transfer assignment is frequently required
– For books a publishing agreement (contract) will be agreed
• The publisher edits, typesets and, where appropriate, gets the item peerreviewed
• The article/book is then published (in print or electronic form), for a fee
– Journals are sold via subscription
– Books are sold individually
• The content is often owned by the publisher, requiring their permission
to use it for purposes other than personal study
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 6

7. Open access
• What is open access?
– “Open access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of
charge, and free of most copyright and licensing
restrictions” (Peter Suber,
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm)
• Free of price barriers
• Free of permission barriers
• Open Access Implementation Group (OAIG)
– http://open-access.org.uk
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 7

8. Open access options
• Gold open access
– The publication of an article in a journal, where the
journal is freely available to the readers
– The publication of a book electronically, where the book is
freely available to readers
• Green open access
– The publication of an article/book in a digital repository,
which is freely accessible via the Internet
• Both routes may or may not involve a publisher
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 8

9. Open access distinction
• Anything published on open access can be either
– Gratis (Free as in beer), or
– Libre (Free as in speech)
• True open access is Libre, as it adheres to the broader definition of
„open‟
– “A piece of content or data is open if anyone is free to use,
reuse, and redistribute it — subject only, at most, to the
requirement to attribute and share-alike.”
• http://opendefinition.org/
• Much open access is Gratis
– It is important to be aware of what rights are involved when
publishing or accessing open access publications
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 9

10. Gold open access
• Article/book is published through an intermediary
– Publisher, Learned Society, University, Department, etc.
• The content is openly available to readers without charge
• Two models
– Use a completely open access route/intermediary
• No money involved, as funding is from a central source
– Pay an article or author processing charge (APC)
• Rates vary widely, £50 - >£3,000
• Third leg
– Hybrid open access
• Pay an APC for publication in a journal normally charging a
subscription, to open up your article within this
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 10

11. Gold OA services
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), http://www.doaj.org
• Open Library of Humanities, https://www.openlibhums.org/
• OAPEN, http://www.oapen.org / DOAB,
http://www.doabooks.org
– E.g., Open Book Publishers,
http://www.openbookpublishers.com
• See also all major publishers for their gold open access options
• Beware predatory publishers
– http://www.scholarlyoa.com/publishers
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 11

12. Green open access
• Depositing an article/book in a digital repository
– Directly (self-archiving) or via a local intermediary
• The article/book may have been published via a traditional route
as well
– Hence, there may be an embargo on open access through the
repository
– Version made open may be final accepted manuscript, not
published version
• The repository may be
– Institutional, subject, national, international
– Deposit can be in one or more, as required or found to be useful
• Repositories can also hold associated supplementary content
– E.g., Data, working papers, media files, etc.
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 12

13. Green OA services
• Local institutional repository, Hydra
– http://hydra.hull.ac.uk
– Deposit is through Converis
– Service is being further developed this year
• Subject repositories, e.g.,
– Social Sciences – Social Sciences Research Network
– Economics – RePeC
– Etc.
• All are crawled by Google
• International directory of open access repositories
– OpenDOAR, http://opendoar.org
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 13

14. Open access comparison
Intermediary
Publishe
r
A
Output
Article
U
T
H
R
E
££
Publishe
r
O
R
££
Article
D
E
££
Repository
A
Article
R
££
Organisation
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 14

15. Licensing
• Key to open access is stating clearly how the open content is
licensed
– This clarifies what can be done with the content
– Useful in protecting the content against mis-use
• Licensing vs. copyright
– Licensing tells you what you can do with the content
– Copyright tells you what you can‟t do with the content
• International approach to licensing is required
– Research is global
– Creative Commons is widely used for this
• http://creativecommons.org
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 15

16. Pros and cons

17. Why open access?
• Improved visibility of research
– Particularly to those unable to access all the journal or book
literature
• Greater impact through wider awareness
– Difference demonstrated through a range of studies
• Saves money
– Moves away from increasing journal subscription costs
• Easier to facilitate and manage use and re-use of outputs
– Use of Creative Commons licensing
• Demonstrate greater value of publicly-funded research
– Government(s) focused on this
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 17

18. Why not open access?
• Where using gold open access, the cost for authors can be
prohibitive, especially in lesser funded areas of research
• The sustainability of open access services
• Impact on Learned Societies and the income they receive
through journal subscriptions
• Uncertainty around peer review process
• Risk of open material being hijacked (albeit protected by
licensing)
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 18

19. Current debate

20. Areas of debate
• Cost
– Who pays, and how do they pay?
– Gold open access
• Shift from reader to author in paying for research dissemination
• Publishers benefitting from subscriptions and APCs
– Green open access
• Management and maintenance of repositories
• Peer review
– How should peer review be organised?
– Who should organise it?
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 20

21. Areas of debate II
• Copyright
– Who should own the content?
• SPARC author addendum can be used in negotiation
– Who needs what rights to be able to carry out their role in
the publication process?
• Re-use
– Should the content of an article or book be re-usable by
others in different ways?
• If so, what rights need to be stated?
• Is licensing the best way of addressing this? If not, what could
be?
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 21

22. Active debate
• British Academy published a collection of essays expanding on the
pros and cons of open access
– http://www.britac.ac.uk/openaccess/debatingopenaccess.cfm
• LSE and SAGE held a day in October 2013 to discuss open access
– Open Access Futures in the Humanities and Social Sciences
– http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/10/25/bro
wse-open-access-ecollection/
• History journal editors laid out conditions of publishing on open
access
– http://www.history.ac.uk/news/2012-12-10/statementposition-relation-open-access
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 22

23. Key points
• Open access generally accepted as being part of the landscape
– Therefore, how to enable it best for HSS?
• Green OA regarded as preferable to Gold OA
– More equable
– Simpler
– Cheaper
• But Green OA should come with long embargoes to allow for
slower peer review and longer audience reach
• Concern about licensing enabling re-use, but recognition that
plagiarism is not a major issue
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 23

24. Embargoes vs. access
• American Historical Association indicated a preference for a
six-year embargo on dissertations/theses, to protect them
• Recent AHA annual meeting saw active discussion on the
benefits of increased access vs. the benefits of an embargo
– Many preferred increased access from exploiting the
Internet
• Online publication offers scope for alternative forms of
output and publishing, using multiple media
• http://www.history.ac.uk/news/2012-12-10/statementposition-relation-open-access
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 24

25. Policy developments

26. Open access in the UK (and beyond)
• Government interest
• Finch Report
• Research Councils UK
• HEFCE
• European Union / Horizon 2020
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 26

27. Government interest
“The Government, in line with our overarching commitment to
transparency and open data, is committed that publicly-funded
research should be accessible free of charge. Free and open access to
taxpayer-funded research offers significant social and economic
benefits by spreading knowledge, raising the prestige of UK research
and encouraging technology transfer”
Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth
Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, 2011
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 27

28. The Finch Report
• Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to
research publications (July 2012)
• Explored the two open access options
– Addressed question: How to make open access work on a scalable
basis for all publicly-funded research?
• Recommendations:
– Gold OA (also Hybrid OA)
– Public funders should „establish more effective and flexible
arrangements to meet the costs of publishing in open access and
hybrid journals‟
– Policies to minimise restrictions on use and re-use of publications
– More work should be done to explore models for open access
monographs
– Repositories should be developed to complement Gold OA,
particularly in regard of associated data and grey literature
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 28

29. RCUK open access policy
• “Researchers, as the generators of all of the research papers
and responsible for much of their peer review, are expected
to publish any peer-reviewed research papers which
acknowledge Research Council funding in journals that are
compliant with the RCUK policy on Open Access.
• All papers must include details of the funding that supported
the research and, if applicable, a statement on how the
underlying research materials – such as data, samples or
models – can be accessed.”
• Came into force from 1st April 2013
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 29

30. RCUK policy overview
• Open to either Green or Gold, but prefers Gold
• Researchers must use a compliant journal
– SHERPA FACT service developed to advise on this
• http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/fact
• Gold open access
– Licensed to enable maximum re-use – CC-BY
• Green open access
– Embargoes should ideally be no longer than six months
• Many publishers insist on 12-48 months
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 30

31. Supporting Gold OA
• Gold OA is likely to incur an APC
– Finch estimate for average cost is £1,450 per article
• RCUK have contributed a small pot of funds towards
covering costs
– Money to spend by March 2014!
• No other central funds have been committed beyond this
– HEFCE QR allocation could be assigned for such use
– Grants to Research Councils can no longer include APC costs
• LLI (IM) will process claims against available fund
– Use form in the Library channel of the portal
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 31

32. HEFCE consultation
• HEFCE are consulting on behalf of all HE funding councils
on the mechanisms for making all post-REF 2014
submissions open access
– Focus on journal articles and conference proceedings, in
line with RCUK
– Neutral with regard to Green or Gold
– Will come into force in 2016
– Retrospective open access will not be acceptable
• Aim to facilitate access and re-use
• Investigating open access books for future REF assessments
– cf. Wellcome, which already mandates open access books
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 32

33. European Union / Horizon 2020
• “Open access will be mandatory for all publications
produced with funding from Horizon 2020, and
contributions to the costs for such publications will be
eligible for reimbursement. The nature of the open access
publications, whether through “gold” or “green” routes, will
be left to the discretion of the grant recipient.”
• Horizon 2020 starts in January 2014
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 33

34. Author considerations
• Is open access an option for disseminating research?
• Is there a funder requirement for open access?
• Which route is best suited/required?
– Gold open access
– Green open access
• What do I need to do to enable the preferred route?
– Where are funds available to support an APC?
– Which version of the research output can I put in the repository?
• If using a publisher, should I retain or cede copyright?
• How will the work be peer reviewed?
• Which license is best suited/required?
Open access publishing | 9 January 2014 | 34

35. Thank you