UK and US positions on open access – Steven Hill, HEFCE and Sarah Thomas, Harvard University
University of California and university digital library costing models – MacKenzie Smith, UC Davis
Total cost of ownership and flipped OA – Liam Earney, Jisc
Jisc and CNI conference, 6 July 2016
The metric tide – Stephen Curry, Imperial College London, and Ben Johnson, HEFCE
Open infrastructures - Clifford Tatum, Leiden University
Open citation – Cameron Neylon, Curtin University
Jisc and CNI conference, 6 July 2016
Incentives for sharing research data – Veerle Van den Eynden, UK Data Service
Incentives to innovate – Joe Marshall, NCUB
Incentives in university collaboration - Tim Lance, NYSERNET
Giving researchers credit for their data – Neil Jefferies, The Bodleian Digital Library Systems and Services (BDLSS)
Jisc and CNI conference, 6 July 2016
Open science framework – Jeff Spies, Centre for Open Science
Active research from lab to publication – Simon Coles, University of Southampton
Managing active research in the university – Robin Rice, University of Edinburgh
Making research available: FAIR principles and Force 11 - David De Roure, Oxford e-Research Centre
Jisc and CNI conference, 6 July 2016
The metric tide – Stephen Curry, Imperial College London, and Ben Johnson, HEFCE
Open infrastructures - Clifford Tatum, Leiden University
Open citation – Cameron Neylon, Curtin University
Jisc and CNI conference, 6 July 2016
Incentives for sharing research data – Veerle Van den Eynden, UK Data Service
Incentives to innovate – Joe Marshall, NCUB
Incentives in university collaboration - Tim Lance, NYSERNET
Giving researchers credit for their data – Neil Jefferies, The Bodleian Digital Library Systems and Services (BDLSS)
Jisc and CNI conference, 6 July 2016
Open science framework – Jeff Spies, Centre for Open Science
Active research from lab to publication – Simon Coles, University of Southampton
Managing active research in the university – Robin Rice, University of Edinburgh
Making research available: FAIR principles and Force 11 - David De Roure, Oxford e-Research Centre
Jisc and CNI conference, 6 July 2016
Researcher data management shared service for the UK – John Kaye, Jisc
Hydra - Tom Cramer, Stanford University and Chris Awre, University of Hull
Addressing the preservation gap at the University of York - Jenny Mitcham, University of York
Emulation developments - David Rosenthal, Stanford University
Jisc and CNI conference, 6 July 2016
Figshare for institutions - Jisc Digifest 2016Jisc
In May 2015 the EPSRC policy framework on research data came into effect. Salford University partnered with figshare to not only answer the mandate but to enhance the visibility of the research generated at the institution. All public facing research outputs are freely available to the wider public at salford.figshare.com.
Learn more about University of Salford’s approach and get a high level overview of the latest figshare functionality.
Sitations are the way that researchers communicate how
their work builds on and relates to the work of others and
they can be used to trace how a discovery spreads and is
used by researchers in different disciplines and countries.
Creating a truly comprehensive map of scholarship,
however, relies on having a curated machine-readable
database of citation information, where the provenance of
every citation is clear and reusable. The Initiative for Open
Citations (I4OC), a campaign launched on 6 April 2017,
sought to make publisher members of Crossref aware that
they could open up the citation metadata they already give
to Crossref simply by asking them. With the support of
major publishers and the endorsement of funders and other
organisations, more than 50% of citation data in Crossref
is now freely available, up from less than 1% before the
campaign. This provides the foundation of a well-structured,
open database of literally millions of datapoints that anyone
can query, mine, consume and explore. The presenter will
discuss the aims of the campaign, the new innovative
services that are already using the data, what more still
needs to be done and how you can support the initiative.
Catriona J MacCallum, Hindawi
Open access (OA) to research publications brings with it significant benefits for UK institutions, researchers and research funders.
After several years of concerted effort to implement OA following the Finch report in 2012, we have learned, and continue to learn, a great deal about what works well, and what works less well. In this workshop we’ll present examples of good practice to support implementation from our nine pathfinder projects.
The case for learning analytics - Jisc Digifest 2016Jisc
Jisc is developing a learning analytics service in consultation with universities and colleges, suppliers and key stakeholders. The rationale is to provide universities and colleges with a basic solution that can form the basis of a complete solution to all you learning analytics requirements.
We believe Jisc are uniquely placed to provide a national infrastructure that can support the future development of learning analytics within the UK.
This session will explore the case for learning analytics, does it work and do you need it?
Today’s publishing environment is evolving. New University
Presses (NUPs) and Academic-Led Presses (ALPs) play an
increasing role in the shift in scholarly communication. In 2016
Jisc conducted a landscape study to provide a unique view of the
motivations, models, policies and future direction of these new
presses. This session will report on the findings of the research.
It will also discuss the next steps Jisc are taking to provide
support in this rapidly developing area, such as new methods
of publishing and scholarly outputs and advice and best practice
for existing and new presses.
Making sense of open scholarly communications data - Jisc Digifest 2016Jisc
The transition to open access (OA) is being accompanied by opening up financial data about the scholarly communications system. The costs of both journal subscriptions and open access article processing charges (APCs) – along with the revenues of the publishers who receive them – are now subject to great scrutiny.
This session will describe how and why this is happening and discuss the potential impact of the ‘new normal’ of financial transparency for publishers, librarians, and intermediaries.
Researcher data management shared service for the UK – John Kaye, Jisc
Hydra - Tom Cramer, Stanford University and Chris Awre, University of Hull
Addressing the preservation gap at the University of York - Jenny Mitcham, University of York
Emulation developments - David Rosenthal, Stanford University
Jisc and CNI conference, 6 July 2016
Figshare for institutions - Jisc Digifest 2016Jisc
In May 2015 the EPSRC policy framework on research data came into effect. Salford University partnered with figshare to not only answer the mandate but to enhance the visibility of the research generated at the institution. All public facing research outputs are freely available to the wider public at salford.figshare.com.
Learn more about University of Salford’s approach and get a high level overview of the latest figshare functionality.
Sitations are the way that researchers communicate how
their work builds on and relates to the work of others and
they can be used to trace how a discovery spreads and is
used by researchers in different disciplines and countries.
Creating a truly comprehensive map of scholarship,
however, relies on having a curated machine-readable
database of citation information, where the provenance of
every citation is clear and reusable. The Initiative for Open
Citations (I4OC), a campaign launched on 6 April 2017,
sought to make publisher members of Crossref aware that
they could open up the citation metadata they already give
to Crossref simply by asking them. With the support of
major publishers and the endorsement of funders and other
organisations, more than 50% of citation data in Crossref
is now freely available, up from less than 1% before the
campaign. This provides the foundation of a well-structured,
open database of literally millions of datapoints that anyone
can query, mine, consume and explore. The presenter will
discuss the aims of the campaign, the new innovative
services that are already using the data, what more still
needs to be done and how you can support the initiative.
Catriona J MacCallum, Hindawi
Open access (OA) to research publications brings with it significant benefits for UK institutions, researchers and research funders.
After several years of concerted effort to implement OA following the Finch report in 2012, we have learned, and continue to learn, a great deal about what works well, and what works less well. In this workshop we’ll present examples of good practice to support implementation from our nine pathfinder projects.
The case for learning analytics - Jisc Digifest 2016Jisc
Jisc is developing a learning analytics service in consultation with universities and colleges, suppliers and key stakeholders. The rationale is to provide universities and colleges with a basic solution that can form the basis of a complete solution to all you learning analytics requirements.
We believe Jisc are uniquely placed to provide a national infrastructure that can support the future development of learning analytics within the UK.
This session will explore the case for learning analytics, does it work and do you need it?
Today’s publishing environment is evolving. New University
Presses (NUPs) and Academic-Led Presses (ALPs) play an
increasing role in the shift in scholarly communication. In 2016
Jisc conducted a landscape study to provide a unique view of the
motivations, models, policies and future direction of these new
presses. This session will report on the findings of the research.
It will also discuss the next steps Jisc are taking to provide
support in this rapidly developing area, such as new methods
of publishing and scholarly outputs and advice and best practice
for existing and new presses.
Making sense of open scholarly communications data - Jisc Digifest 2016Jisc
The transition to open access (OA) is being accompanied by opening up financial data about the scholarly communications system. The costs of both journal subscriptions and open access article processing charges (APCs) – along with the revenues of the publishers who receive them – are now subject to great scrutiny.
This session will describe how and why this is happening and discuss the potential impact of the ‘new normal’ of financial transparency for publishers, librarians, and intermediaries.
The greatest possible impact: The Wellcome Trust and open researchUoLResearchSupport
Research funders are increasingly recognising the importance of open research practices, to increase the reach and impact of their funded research and to ensure the integrity of research results.
The Wellcome Trust have been leading efforts to make research more open for more than 20 years, ever since working to make sure the results of the Human Genome Project were released immediately into the public domain. They were also the first research funder to introduce a mandatory open access policy, with more than 150 global research funders having since followed their lead. More recently, they have developed the Wellcome Open Research platform, which allow their researchers to rapidly publish and share their findings openly and transparently, and encourage researchers to cite preprints in their grant applications.
On Thursday 17th June we welcome Sonya Towers, Grants Adviser - Immunobiology and Infectious Disease at the Wellcome Trust, to discuss Wellcome’s approach to open research including their Output Management Plan pilot on which they are liaising with the University of Leeds.
Summary of the requirements for compliance with the new public access plans from US federal agencies under the Office of Science and Technology Memo. This talk was presented to the Research Administration & Compliance group at VCU.
Many thanks to Rebecca Reznik-Zellen for the HHS slides that were developed for the eScience Symposium.
Thanks to Amanda Lea Whitmire for her one memo to rule them all slide.
OSFair2017 Training | Designing & implementing open access, open data & open ...Open Science Fair
Eloy Rodrigues, José Carvalho & Pedro Príncipe talk about designing & implementing Open Access, Open Data & Open Science policies.
Workshop title: Fostering the practical implementation of Open Science in Horizon 2020 and beyond
Workshop overview:
This workshop will showcase some of the elements required for the transition to Open Science: services and tools, policies as guidance for good practices, and the roles of the respective actors and their networks.
DAY 2 - PARALLEL SESSION 4 & 5
Australian Research Council (ARC) & National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) overview
Open Data - Whole of Government Approach
ARC and NHMRC Data Management Requirements
Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
The Indian economy is classified into different sectors to simplify the analysis and understanding of economic activities. For Class 10, it's essential to grasp the sectors of the Indian economy, understand their characteristics, and recognize their importance. This guide will provide detailed notes on the Sectors of the Indian Economy Class 10, using specific long-tail keywords to enhance comprehension.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
How to Split Bills in the Odoo 17 POS ModuleCeline George
Bills have a main role in point of sale procedure. It will help to track sales, handling payments and giving receipts to customers. Bill splitting also has an important role in POS. For example, If some friends come together for dinner and if they want to divide the bill then it is possible by POS bill splitting. This slide will show how to split bills in odoo 17 POS.
The Art Pastor's Guide to Sabbath | Steve ThomasonSteve Thomason
What is the purpose of the Sabbath Law in the Torah. It is interesting to compare how the context of the law shifts from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Who gets to rest, and why?
Model Attribute Check Company Auto PropertyCeline George
In Odoo, the multi-company feature allows you to manage multiple companies within a single Odoo database instance. Each company can have its own configurations while still sharing common resources such as products, customers, and suppliers.
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
7. UK Government Policy
• Independent reports
– Dame Janet Finch – 2012
– Professor Adam Tickell – 2016
8. UK Government Policy
“I am confident that, by 2020, the UK will be
publishing almost all of our scientific output
through open access. The advantages of
immediate ‘gold’ access are well recognised,
and I want the UK to continue its preference
for gold routes where this is realistic and
affordable. I also accept the validity of green
routes, which will continue to play an
important part in delivering our open access
commitments.”
Jo Johnson, Minister for Universities and Science
Image: Public Domain (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jo_Johnson_Photo_Speaking_at_the_British_Museum.jpg)
9. UK Government Policy
“I am confident that, by 2020, the UK will be
publishing almost all of our scientific output
through open access. The advantages of
immediate ‘gold’ access are well recognised,
and I want the UK to continue its preference
for gold routes where this is realistic and
affordable. I also accept the validity of green
routes, which will continue to play an
important part in delivering our open access
commitments.”
Jo Johnson, Minister for Universities and Science
Image: Public Domain (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jo_Johnson_Photo_Speaking_at_the_British_Museum.jpg)
10. UK Policy Landscape
• Research Councils UK
– Journal articles and conference proceedings
– Preference for immediate, CC-BY access
– Accept access after 6 months (STEM) or 12 months (AHSS) with CC-BY-NC
– Block grant to HEIs for APCs (pure OA and hybrid)
• Charity Open Access Fund
– 7 major medical research funders (including Wellcome Trust)
– Journal articles, conference proceedings and monographs
– Deposit in PubMedCentral or EuropePMC
– Require immediate, CC-BY access
• Research Excellence Framework
– Journal articles and conference proceedings
– Deposit in institutional or subject repository
– Accessible for read and download at least 12 months (STEM) or 24 months (AHSS)
– Encourage: immediate access, liberal licencing, monographs
16. Wellcome Trust compliance analysis
• 2014/15: 30% of articles for which APC paid not compliant
with policy
• E.g. 392 articles not deposited in PMC/EuPMC - £765,000
APC value
• Hybrid journals main source of non-compliance:
Source: https://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2016/03/23/wellcome-trust-and-coaf-open-access-spend-2014-15/
18. Prospects
• REF policy – significant increase in open content
• Possible action by funders on hybrid journals (see DFG, Norwegian Research
Councils)
• Offsetting deals
• The effect of Sci-Hub?
• Further developments on policy/implementation; 4 working groups of
Universities UK OA group:
– Efficiency
– Service standards
– Repositories
– Monographs
20. Thank you for listening
s.hill@hefce.ac.uk
@stevenhill
openaccess@hefce.ac.uk
21. U.S. Positions on Open Access
Sarah Thomas
Vice President for the Harvard Library
July 6, 2016
22. U.S. Legislation and National Initiatives
• PubMed Central (NIH, 2009)
• FRPAA (Federal Research Public Access Act) (2006, 2009, 2012)
• FASTR (Fair Access to Science and Technology Research) (2013,
2015)
• White House Executive Order/ Office of Science and
Technology Policy (2013)
• Open Government Data Act (2016)
23.
24.
25. Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)
• Introduced in Congress in 2006, 2009, and 2012
• Never made it out of Committee
• Superseded by FASTR
Law
27. FASTR• Introduced as a bill in the Senate in 2013 and 2015.
"Breakthroughs in technology, science, medicine and dozens of other
disciplines are made every year due to the billions in research funding
provided by the American people. Making those findings available to
all Americans is the best way to lead the next generation of discovery
and innovation or create the next game-changing business. The FASTR
act provides that access because taxpayer funded research should
never be hidden behind a paywall." Senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon
28.
29. FASTRThe Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs unanimously approved the bill on July 29, 2015. It was the
first time that the bill or any of its predecessors had gained
committee approval and been forwarded to a full house of
Congress
30. Key Elements of FASTR
• Agencies over $100 million
• Embargo capped at 12 months, earlier deposit encouraged
• Mandate free public access through Green OA
• Require final version of author’s peer-reviewed manuscript
33. Executive Order/OSTP
• Signed by Chief Science Advisor (Holdren) but issued under
Barack Obama
• Executive action complements legislative activity
• Agencies spending $100 m on R & D
• Embargoes capped at 12 months
• Requires OA for articles
• Requires OA for data
• Requires OA for metadata concurrent with publication
34. Executive/OSTP Directive
• Directs "a strategy for leveraging existing archives, where
appropriate" (2.a). Section 3 adds that "Repositories could be
maintained by the Federal agency funding the research,
through an arrangement with other Federal agencies, or
through other parties working in partnership with the agency
including, but not limited to, scholarly and professional
associations, publishers and libraries."
35. OSTP Directive
• ) a strategy for leveraging existing archives, where appropriate, and
fostering public - private partnerships with scientific journals
relevant to the agency’s research;
• b) a strategy for improving the public’s ability to locate and access
digital data resulting from federally funded scientific research;
• c) an approach for optimizing search, archival, and dissemination
features that encourages innovation in accessibility and
interoperability, while ensuring long-term stewardship of the results
of federally funded research;
36. • d) a plan for notifying awardees and other federally funded
scientific researchers of their obligations (e.g., through guidance,
conditions of awards, and/or regulatory changes);
• e) an agency strategy for measuring and, as necessary, enforcing
compliance with its plan;
• f) identification of resources within the existing agency budget to
implement the plan;
• g) a timeline for implementation; and
• h) identification of any special circumstances that prevent the
agency from meeting any of the objectives set out in this
memorandum, in whole or in part.
37. Executive Order/OSTP Directive
• Requires Green OA
• "each agency plan shall...[e]nsure that publications and
metadata are stored in an archival solution
that...provides...access to the content without charge..." (3.f).
41. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Implementation Plan to Increase Public Access
to Results of USDA-Funded Scientific Research
(PDF), November 7, 2014
ARL Summary of USDA Plan, February 20,
2015
Department of Defense (DoD)
Public Access Memo (PDF) , July 9, 2014
Plan to Establish Public Access (PDF), February
2015
ARL Summary of DoD Plan, March 19, 2015
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science
DOE Public Access Plan, July 24, 2014
Statement on Digital Data Management, July
28, 2014
Cover memo (PDF), July 28, 2014
ARL Summary of DOE Plan, July 31, 2014
Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)
Guiding Principles and Common Approach for
Enhancing Public Access to the Results of
Research Funded by HHS Operating Divisions,
February 27, 2015
http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/
public-access-policies/federally-
funded-research/2696-white-house-
directive-on-public-access-to-federally-
funded-research-and-data#.V1xrD9IrLIV
ARL tracks policy developments
43. Gold OA versus Green OA in the US
Recent ARL Discussions
• Won’t Gold APCs cost research-intensive universities more
than subscriptions?
• Can we transform scholarly publishing while maintaining the
same players?
• What are the constraints on publishers in a subscription-free
world?
• What is the impact on the humanities?
44. Flipping Journals
Office for Scholarly Communication
Harvard Library
• Transitional subsidies
• Government subsidies
• Funding agency subsidies
• Reduction of operating costs
• Membership fees
• Discounting APCs in initial phase of flipping or for categories of
submissions
45. University of California and university
digital library costing models
Mackenzie Smith, University of California, Davis
14/07/2016
46. MacKenzie Smith
University of California, Davis
Ivy Anderson
California Digital Library
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
47. Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
Why this project, why now?
North America Europe / UK
Increasing disconnect between European and North American
approaches to open access
• Finch Report
• OA2020
• APC Offset Agreements
• Tri-Agency OA Policy
• NIH OA Policy
• OSTP Directive
• FASTR
• Faculty OA Policies
48. Pay It Forward
Investigating a Sustainable Model of Open Access Article Processing
Charges for Large North American Research Institutions
“build a set of financial scenarios, or models, depicting the
financial implications an APC-based system of scholarly journal
publishing, for the conversion of the current system of scholarly
journal publishing to an APC-based system, for large North
American research institutions.”
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
49. Scope
North American research institutions (U.S. and Canada)
Library partners: University of California, Harvard, Ohio State University,
University of British Columbia
Scholarly journals and conference proceedings only
Models APC-funded scholarly journal publishing system at
100% scale
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
50. Carol Tenopir, University of Tennessee, Knoxville (authors)
Greg Tananbaum and ALPSP (publishers)
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
51. Large-scale Author Study
10 focus groups of 77 faculty, postdocs & grad
students, across all disciplines
2,020 survey respondents: faculty, graduate students,
postdocs, across all disciplines
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
52. Importance of Factors in Selecting
Where to Publish
1. Quality and reputation of journal
2. Fit with scope of journal
3. Audience
4. Impact Factor
5. Likelihood of acceptance
6. Time from submission to publication
7. Editor or editorial board
8. Open Access
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
“Taken together, it is evident that reputation building within a specific field
is at the heart of what matters most to academic scholars.”
53. Author Willingness to Pay
Personal Funds [Humanities: $0, Life Sciences: $250]
Discretionary Research Funds [Humanities: $100, Life Sciences: $1000]
Library OA Funds [Humanities: $100, Life Sciences: $2000]
Grant Funds [Humanities: $100, Life Sciences: $2000]
Observation:
author discretion → incentive to economize
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
54. Solomon & Björk
Mark McCabe
Greg Tananbaum
Mat Willmott
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
55. Lots of Data!
Library journal expenditures over 5 years (2009-2013)
Publication data from Web of Science and Scopus over 5
years (2009-2013)
Research funding data from HERD (except UBC)
APC data from multiple sources
Publisher revenue data
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
56. What Does it Cost to Publish?
Cost Per Article: ~$500 to ~$2500
Depends on how it’s calculated, what’s included in publishing costs,
and publisher ‘fixed effects’
plausible minimum CPA is $1,103 (including 13% surplus)
$1,864 emerged as a defensible CPA, based on current OA
expenditures at partner institutions
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
57. Current APCs
APCs for fully OA journals (in which our authors
published) averaged $1,775 USD
APCs for converted OA journals of major subscription
publishers averaged $1,825 USD
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
Solomon & Björk
58. Current APCs not very useful
still fluctuating (new offsetting deals)
driven by a few large OA publishers
few large commercial publishers
few in humanities & social sciences
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
59. Break-even Costs: Example Library
Sample year = 2013
Journal subscription budget: $4.02MM
Published papers: 3,593
with associated grants: 2,492
without grants: 1,101
Break-even APC Level
library budget only: $1,119
including grant funds: $3,651
Current average APC = $1,775 - $1,825; average CPA = $1,864
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
60. Break-even Costs: Library Budgets
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
Institutions with high break-even level are smaller, less research-intensive universities with
lower ratio of grad students to undergraduates, higher ratio of teaching to research faculty,
more students per faculty member
$1775: Average APC for partner institution publications in full OA journals
Institutions with lower break-even level are more research-intensive universities with higher
ratio of grad students to undergraduates, higher ratio of research to teaching faculty, fewer
students per faculty member
Demographic data from IPEDS http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
61. Break-even APC: Grants Pay First
$1775: Average APC for
partner institution
publications in full OA
journals
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
62. Future APC Estimation
Two distinct publisher types
No correlation between “quality” and APC levels (lots of these now)
Strong, positive correlation between “quality” and APCs (fewer but most major publishers)
Assume publishers will set APCs in relation to journal “quality”,
use IF/SNIP as “quality” proxy
Estimated APC = 1147 + 709.4 * SNIP
Baseline journal (SNIP=1.0) APC = $1,856
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
63. Redirecting Library Budget
(example library, sample year)
Journal subscription budget: $4.02MM
Estimated APC Expenditure for 3,593 papers: $7.49MM
Estimated APC Expenditure for 1,101 papers without
grants: $2.22MM
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
64. How to Achieve Sustainability?
“funding a journal with APCs is acceptable if authors do not have to pay the
money themselves.”
…
“I think this [OA Big Deals] is beginning to happen, and that publishers are finding
ways to create an APC-based market that will be as dysfunctional as the
subscription-based market is. The basic problem with APCs is that publishers can
charge what they like, knowing that if universities start to tell academics that they
must publish in cheaper journals, there will be an uproar about the perceived threat
to academic freedom. I have never seen a convincing explanation for how a
properly free market in APCs could work.”
Sir Tim Gowers, interview with Richard Poynder, 2016
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
65. How to Achieve Sustainability?
Behavioral Objective:
Authors choose the “best” platform for their article, given the price of access, publication funding,
platform readership, quality of editors, etc.
Publishers respond to elastic author demand by competing for submissions.
Claim:
Under ideal conditions competition in an OA environment lowers cost of scholarly communication
Many mitigating factors, e.g. platform ownership concentration, delegation of APC payment responsibility,
etc.
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
66. Financial Model, Example 1
Set Library subsidy up to $1,164 (break-even cost)
Library pays $4MM in subsidies (3,593 papers)
Grant funds cover $2.5MM (2,492 papers)
Author discretionary funds cover $1MM (1,101 papers)
$1M increase to institution (+25%)
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
67. Financial Model, Example 2
Set Library subsidy up to $1,857 (SNIP=1.0 journal APC)
Library pays $6.4MM in subsidies for 3,593 papers (fully covers 1,188 papers)
Grant funds cover $.8MM (1,739 papers)
Author discretionary funds cover $.3MM (666 papers)
$2.7MM increase to institution (+66%)
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
68. Some Conclusions
Future APCs not perfectly predictable, nor disciplinary
differences.
But we can build crude estimations and improve them
over time
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
69. Some Conclusions
In North America, library journal budgets alone won’t
cover all APCs for research-intensive institutions
But grant funding of authors at those institutions
could cover the difference
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
70. Conclusions So Far
Attitudes toward open access and APCs vary widely
between disciplines.
But all authors are price sensitive and exhibit the
behavior we want, if they have discretion to choose
where to publish based on cost/quality.
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
71. Some Conclusions
Giving authors discretionary funds introduces APC
price competition, without interfering with author
choice in where to publish.
This is the best chance to encourage a competitive
journal market, drive costs down over time.
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
72. Future Work
Concerns about under-resourced authors
Disciplines without research funding
Young scholars
Global South
Stakeholder involvement, e.g., library role in ensuring
preservation, mining rights, etc.
Lack compliance tracking mechanisms
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
73. Project Report, Bibliography, Data,
Tools
http://icis.ucdavis.edu/?page_id=713
Report: bit.ly/29dJcCv
Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016
74. Total cost of ownership and flipped OA
Liam Earney, Jisc
14/07/2016
75. Total Cost of Ownership and Flipped Journals
Waiting for theGreat Leap Forward
14/07/2016
Jisc CNITCO and Flipped Journals 75
76. »Background
› APC based gold and the total cost of ownership
› Offsetting agreements
»Challenges
»Opportunities
› Indicators
› Sustainability and how we might promote it?
› The importance of international collaboration
»BeyondAPC based gold open access?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 76
77. The total cost of ownership
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 77
£0
£10,000
£20,000
£30,000
£40,000
£50,000
£60,000
£70,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
APCs
Subscription
79. Offsetting agreements
»Priorities
1. Cost efficiency - minimise/remove additional costs to institution
2. Compliance - help/enable institutions to comply with funder
policies regardless of whether they are choosing gold or green
3. Administrative efficiency - minimise the burden on institutions of
implementing and managing OA payment schemes
4. Transition - implementing schemes that facilitate a real and
sustainable transition to open access
One response to the actual increase in expenditure
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 79
83. Challenges
»PR exercise or genuinely effective on costs and admin?
»Transparency or just a bigger big deal?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 83
84. Bigger big deal?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 84
28 institutions
39 institutions
40 institutions
£0.00
£500,000.00
£1,000,000.00
£1,500,000.00
£2,000,000.00
£2,500,000.00
£3,000,000.00
£3,500,000.00
2013 2014 2015
Total APC expenditure
Elsevier Wiley-Blackwell Nature Publishing Group Oxford University Press
Springer PLOS BioMed Central American Chemical Society
BMJ Taylor & Francis Frontiers
85. Challenges
»PR exercise or genuinely effective on costs and admin?
»Transparency or just a bigger big deal?
»Too many and/ineffective workflows
› Too much human interaction
› Poor communication – both to authors and OA managers
»Cost allocation within and across institutions
»Is there any evidence of price sensitivity from authors?
»What penalties are there for no offsetting agreement?
»Tensions between efficiency/transparency/cost?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 85
88. Indicators of a market
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 88
28 institutions
39 institutions
40 institutions
£0.00
£500,000.00
£1,000,000.00
£1,500,000.00
£2,000,000.00
£2,500,000.00
£3,000,000.00
£3,500,000.00
2013 2014 2015
Total APC expenditure
Elsevier Wiley-Blackwell Nature Publishing Group Oxford University Press
Springer PLOS BioMed Central American Chemical Society
BMJ Taylor & Francis Frontiers
94. Steps to promote sustainability?
»Limit use of research funding to pure gold?
› Or place conditions on use of funds in hybrid journals
»Encourage greater participation in negotiations
»Preference in negotiations/purchasing for models that shift to OA
»Greater support for Green in OA policies
»Development and adopt a fuller range of quality indicators
»Support small, society publishers, close to the academic
community, explore innovative business models
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 94
95. The importance of international cooperation
From open access in one country to international
sustainability?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 95
96. Market
transformed
(Open Access)
After an OA
transformation
Global level view
96
The global scholarly journal market
and its financial dimensions
Scenario of transformation based on current global operating numbers per year
An OA transformation seems to be possible without financial risks
Market today
(subscription)
Total budget
7.6 bn €
1.5 M scholarly
articles in WoS;
up to ~2 M overall
5,000 €/article WoS;
3,800 €/article overall
Base budget
4 bn € plus
~45% buffer
2 M scholary articles 2,000 €/article1)
based on realistic APC expectations1)
available for new & improved services, remaining subscriptions etc.
Jisc CNI TCO and FlippedJournals
14/07/2016
97. 7.6 bn EUR
Remaining subscription
budget 10%(~0.8 bn EUR)
Open Access volume:
~14% of articles;
~4% of budget
Global level view
97
Transformation means re-allocation of budgets and conversion of
journals and processes
2.8 bn EUR buffer for
new & improved
services etc.
(without remaining
subscriptions)
Global
open access journal
base budget
4 bn EUR p.a.
(2,000 €/article)
Assuming 90% conversion
Global
subscription journal
budget
7.6 bn EUR p.a.
(≥3,800 EUR/article)
14/07/2016
Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals
98. Should APC-based Gold open access be the target?
»One target in the near/medium term
»Is APC narrative and experience harmful to OA?
»Should APCs be regarded as transitional/experimental?
»Do APCs address the fundamental issue of ‘control’?
»Could membership models be more sustainable and
attractive?
› What does membership include?
› How do ‘we’ participate in governance?
14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 98
NSF Repository hosted by DoE/ grant can cover APCs
Not that useful -- still fluctuating, driven by precedent of a few large OA publishers, not many in humanities & social sciences, not many large commercial publishers
In my dealings with consortiums in Europe and the US, I have been struck by the perception that Europe is solely focussed on offsetting and hybrid, whilst the US is focussed on green. I personally find such binary perceptions unhappy.
All European countries have profound concerns about hybrid and offsetting, they are also equally committed to initiatives such as Open Library of Humanities and Knowledge Unlatched, as well as investing considerable amounts in green OA infrastructure
In my presentation this morning I hope to briefly examine the reasons behind our engagement with offsetting agreements, look at the challenges, but then look at the potential opportunities, how those might be promoted and the need for more and deeper international cooperation.
Finally I’ll briefly pose some questions around moving beyond APCs
Research during the latter half of 2013 indicated that without any controls, research intensive institutions implementing RCUK policy were likely to see a huge increase in their expenditure on the combination of journal subscriptions and APCs in hybrid journals
was backed up by our data gathering in 2014 which showed a rapid increase in the number of APCs being purchased and the amount of money being spent.
In this context offsetting arrangements appear more reasonable response to actual expenditure, rather than a foolhardy mechanism for distributing more funds to publishers.
One might also hypothesise that this data demonstrates what happens without any central mediation either at the institutional or supra-institutional level - asymmetric information leads to an increase in overall spend without any limiters.
Working on offsetting proposals since start of 2014
A range of agreements in place:
De Gruyter
Institute of Physics
Royal Society of Chemistry
Sage
Springer
Taylor and Francis
Wiley
Agreements are pilots
Need to monitor changing environment
Schol comms/funders/government
Need to see how effective the agreements are
Need space to consider unintended consequences
We are not triumphalist
Progress made, much to be done!
This is a completely non-exhaustive list of the challenges associated with offsetting agreements.
Under the flipped model we have negotiated with Springer, our previous expenditure has been converted into a publishing pot to fund APCs, whilst we retain full access and rights to subscribed content via a transition fee which should decrease over time as the amount of global OA increases.
Whilst it is true to say that this doesn’t cut costs in the first instance, it caps our total costs, which as we have seen have been growing over time at a strong rate – albeit one that is likely to flatten off.
Increases amount of OA – so APCs with a price tag of nearly €3.75million have been published under the scheme – over 1600 since it’s launch
Simplifies administration/compliance
Ceiling on payments to publisher (for UK total spend reduced from 15 to 16)
Provides basis for the move away from Historical Print Spend
100% of articles have CC-BY licence
Service levels and penalties for failure
Consortiums meeting together and with editorial to review workflows, critique implementation, agree development
But that is just one example of one agreement, in its first year, with one publisher – it represents an opportunity, not real change and there is still always the risk of gains being lost.
So what other steps might we take to promote and embed sustainability. Earlier this year, Jisc together with ARMA, RLUK and SCONUL issued a thought piece looking at the problems and frustrations our members were experiencing in and with the legacy journals market alongside the transition to OA.
As part of that we made a number of suggestions for interventions that could help make the transition to OA quicker and cheaper for everyone.
If the experience of working on this agreements tells us anything it’s that achieving open access through the actions of one country is incredibly difficult.
Seeking standardisation of workflow and practice
Developing innovative business models with widespread applicability
Presenting requirements about acceptable levels of service in a unified and consistent manner
Undertaking some of the fundamental discussions about how in a new model based on research outputs costs are going to be allocated
Learning from what has gone wrong or right in negotiations
All of these benefit from cooperation and information sharing across institutions and consortiums
This is particularly true of open access and scholarly communications, which are contested spaces, with strong differences of opinion and a tendency to question the motivations, capabilities and oftentimes, intelligence of other parties.
One such initiative is the Max Planck inspired Open Access 2020.
Through an analysis of current global expenditure on subscriptions and the number of articles published annually globally Max planck has calculated that it should be possible to transform the entire subscription market to open access well within the current level of global expenditure.
They suggest that there should be a considerable buffer remaining, which could fund new services, or just cost reductions.
Some of the important aspects of this idea are that it is seriously considering sustainability:
- it wants to transform the underlying business model – which means that we are talking about using hybrid and offsetting as a means to an end, not ends in themselves.
- it recognizes that budgets will need to be reallocated and processes changes if this is to be achieved.
- it opens the door to answering questions about how any transition can occur which relies on the most research intensive institutions taking on all the costs. This challenge has been dogged by fact that it takes as its assumption that the current level of financial outlay is appropriate!
- if we accept though that it could be reduced then we can see a mechanism for reducing costs for all and creating spaces for new innovative models.
Which brings me to my final slide