UKSG webinar slides: What Is Open Access? An Introduction 27_11_13
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•516 views
What is “open access” and how is it different (and the same)? What are the benefits? For the author, reader, library, institution and publisher. Green OA - What is it and what are the issues? Gold OA – What is it and what are the different models? Mandates and compliance.
Recommended
More Related Content
More from UKSG: connecting the knowledge community
More from UKSG: connecting the knowledge community (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
UKSG webinar slides: What Is Open Access? An Introduction 27_11_13
- 1. Welcome James Pawley Sales Manager SAGE Publications Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 2. Open Access at SAGE (est 2006) (est 2010) Meeting Name Here (modify 23/05/12 UKSG Open Access Seminar under View/Master/Slide Master) Traditional Subscription Models Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 3. Today: Meeting Name Here (modify 23/05/12 UKSG Open Access Seminar under View/Master/Slide Master) Traditional Subscription Models Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 4. What is Publishing? Registration / Validation / Dissemination Meeting Name Here (modify 23/05/12 UKSG Open Access Seminar under View/Master/Slide Master) Traditional Subscription Models Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 5. ● Anyone can read it for free* *Disclaimer – understanding may require a masters degree, or a working knowledge of statistics ● ● ● ● Open Access is cheaper – maybe. Almost certainly will increase usage Could increase citation Green or Gold? Meeting Name Here (modify 23/05/12 UKSG Open Access Seminar under View/Master/Slide Master) Traditional Subscription Models Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 6. Green Submission Pre-Print Refereeing/Reviewi ng Post-Print Editing and Typesetting GREEN Final PDF Meeting Name Here (modify 23/05/12 UKSG Open Access Seminar under View/Master/Slide Master) Traditional Subscription Models Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 7. £ £ ££ ££ Meeting Name Here (modify 23/05/12 UKSG Open Access Seminar under View/Master/Slide Master) Traditional Subscription Models Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 8. Mandates and Licenses Meeting Name Here (modify 23/05/12 UKSG Open Access Seminar under View/Master/Slide Master) Traditional Subscription Models Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 9. Research Funded Publically YES Gold OA Option ? NO YES APC Funding available YES Immediate Gold OA Meeting Name Here (modify 23/05/12 UKSG Open Access Seminar under View/Master/Slide Master) Traditional Subscription Models 6/12 Month Embargoed Green NO 12/24 Month Embargoed Green Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC The RCUK Decision
- 10. Conclusions: Meeting Name Here (modify 23/05/12 UKSG Open Access Seminar under View/Master/Slide Master) Traditional Subscription Models Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 11. Thank you! James Pawley James.pawley@sagepub.co.uk Meeting Name Here (modify 23/05/12 UKSG Open Access Seminar under View/Master/Slide Master) Traditional Subscription Models Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
Editor's Notes
- SAGE’s involvement with Open Access – SAGE a facilitator and an enabler of scholarly communication. Actively engaged with the Open Access debate for many years. OA as another way of supporting academia. range of Open publishing options: SAGE Choice – which is our Hybrid OA programme, SAGE Open, the first pure Open Access journal across the social & behavioural sciences and humanities. Recently launched fully open access journals in Engineering and Medicine to complement SAGE Open. All in all, SAGE publishes 15 completely OA titles. Active voice in the debate on OA – particularly in social sciences community http://www.uk.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/pdf/Library-OAReport.pdf http://www.slideshare.net/sagepublications/open-access-futures-in-the-humanities-and-social-sciences-a-one-day-conference-by-sage-and-the-lse-public-policy-group
- Today: basic introduction to Open Access. Understand a bit more about what OA is; what it does and doesn’t do, as well as understand some of the jargon. Idea of some of the areas still being debated, and practical problems that still need to be worked on. Start by discussing what publishers actually do, and how OA is different to subscription purchasing. I’m going to talk about types of Open Access, and a little bit about mandates and licenses.
- To understand Open Access Publishing, need to understand publishing in general; what it achieves and where the costs are Publishing is a service industry. Provides services to authors, societies, and libraries – all to facilitate access to research. 3 key functions: registration of research, validation of work quality, and dissemination of research outcomes. Registration : Protects authors’ discovery. Important for career, intellectual property, and standing in the community. Technology provides possibility for alternatives to Publisher registration. Validation : Key is Peer Review: Is this paper good science. Filters out most fraudulent claims, unsupported conclusions and “bad” science. Has to be impartial if reader is able to trust. Possible for an extended reviewer/author dialogue to improve work, check conclusions or suggest extra research needed. Reviewers donate time. Publisher is an expert administrator. Expensive and time consuming. Technical edit: graphs, references, tables, notation, typesetting and standardization. Helps readers, and facilitates author getting their point across. Traditionally behind closed doors for author privacy. Interesting Open developments in Open Peer Review driven by social web. Dissemination. Huge deal for researchers. Historic reader pays journal. Internet changed methods, but not models. E-Journals massively more used/useful than paper. Concept of “journal” is entrenched. Dissemination starts with technical edit. Metadata (author name, keyword tagging etc) key to article discovery. Technical standards of content and platform essential for operability with library and intermediaray systems. Very expensive.
- Open Access Publishing not that different. Tchnology presenting new possibilities. Open Access not new – BOAI 2002 – Now entering a second phase of adoption and pragmatic considerations. http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/ “that research at the point of publication is free to access” – althouygh would be disputed. OA means many things to many people. Primary research material available to anybody widely accepted as good thing. Increased scrutiny, potential public benefit of knowledge, although most is unattainable. May drive down costs, although risks of losing valuable services in a race for “cheap” publishing. Many Publishing activities are essential and sticking something on the web is not sufficient. Benefits in increased usage - well accepted, but some OA platforms better than others at discoverability. OA could increase citation. Conflicting views. Possible selection bias – see below for contradictory research. Links & references:Davis, P.M., Lewenstein, B.V., Simon, D.H., Booth, J.G., Connolly, M.J.L. (2008) "Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: Randomised controlled trial", BMJ, 337 (7665), 343-345.9. Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Lariviére, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., Brody, T., Harnad, S. (2010) “Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research”, PLoS ONE, 5 (10), art. no. e13636. Current OA forms - Green and Gold.
- Green OA Balancing act between open-ness of Green copy and the value of publisher copy. Currently can’t exist without the subscription business. Author publishes in a subscription journal. Publishing costs met by subscriptions. Author deposits one version in an OA repository. Could be institutional repository, or external like ARXIVE or Pub Med Central. Key differences of opinion around which version deposited, and what delay/embargo between publication Green availability. Mandates are real battlefields. Most publishers allow pre-print (manuscript pre review) archiving . A lot allow post-print ( accepted draft including reviewer comments) archiving. Few allow final PDF archiving. Embargos means a forced delay between published/opening Green version. Lots of disagreement on Embargo period. Some argue and some evidence that low Embargo periods don’t affect subscriptions. Including PEER project showing increase in publisher usage after Green is available. http://www.peerproject.eu Publishers wary. Believe if enough research is freely available & easy to find/use, cancelled subscriptions inevitable. Argue there won’t be evidence until repositories are more discoverable and useable. Argument, supported by many academics in the SSH - some subjects may require longer embargoes than others as impact is delayed. Summary of publishers and their versioning/embargo information found at RoMEO - http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/
- Gold OA. Publication of an article made free-to-use immediately, for a fee. Fee’ usually called “Article Processing Charge” or APC. Complete change in model –point of payment shifted from point-of-use to point-of-production. Re-establishes a link from research output to publishing costs. OA advocates hope costs will be more transparent to academics. Choice of different services at different prices. Concerns: What motivates academic's choice in where to publish – cost or prestige? Prestige is affected by highest editorial standards most powerful dissemination, which are expensive. Academics to ask question – what do I get for my money –can only be good. Bewildering options: Variation of APCs from free to $0000s. Can be published in born-Open Access journals or within traditional subscription journals via hybrid models (most major publications offer). Some publishers offer “institutional subscriptions” or packaged APCs to reduce costs, but no universally accepted models. Complex charges and administration disenfranchises many academics. Libraries or Research Centres taking over and centralising. Many academics want to choose blind of costs. Could negate many benefits of Open Access. Academics will defend freedom to choose publication and big concerns over financial restrictions on that freedom under OA. “double dipping” – publisher charging twice – APC AND Subscription without moderating price. Most responsible publishers, including SAGE, made declarations against. Basic assumption: more content is OA, the cheaper the subscription. It sounds simple, but isn’t. Offset subscription price based on proportion of OA articles / pages / revenue? How do you deal with fluctuations – fluctuating price? Increase in the number of articels published may still increase in price. Hard to make transparent. Concern is over access to Gold OA in poorer countries. Not fully addressed but most responsible publishers have waivers. Green route also could be preferred. Whole community concern over rise of predatory publishers –prioritise accepting articles without care to legitimacy of the science. Damages trust.
- OA proved a difficult sell for many academics. Perception of extra cost, work and risk to academic freedoms. Mandates can push engagement. Mandates cutting edge of the Green debate. Interesting resource: ROARMAP –Southampton University project mapping l OA mandates. http://roarmap.eprints.org/ US. First big mandate made by the National Institute of Health –NIH. NIH introduced mandate late 2007. All NIH funded research – post-print to be deposited in PubMed Central within 12 months.. Federal government reviewed/reviewing several bills First was FRPAA Federal Research Public Access Act introduced in 2006, 2009 and 2012. Replaced by modified version: FASTR Fair Access to Science and Technology Research. FASTR silent on Gold open access; mandates Green OA - post-print deposit and maximum embargo of 6 months. Embargo reduced to nil for works by government employees. Alternative bill called FIRST (that’s Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology) also being debated. FIRST proposes a 3 year embargo for green deposition.
- UK - One of the oldest mandates - Wellcome trust. All funded research deposited into PubMedCentral UKPMC. Prefernce for Gold OA and provides funding specifically. Compliance of researchers increasing but only 55% in 03/2012. Looking at linking future funding to compliance. Finch report. Finch group is a cross sector Working Group. Lots of difference of opinion in the group. Concluded a clear policy for OA. Recommended RCUK made funding available– i.e. a preference for Gold OA. This has drawn the ire of many Green OA advocates. Dubbed the Finch report a sell-out to publishers. Finch recognises an increase in costs during the transition, but doesn’t say where that funding will come from. http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-executive-summary-FINAL-VERSION.pdf RCUK : response to Finch - set out mandate with balance between Gold and Green. RCUK providing institutions with limited funding for APC payments. Will cover some research, but not all. Academics in SSH have particular conmcerns over funding available. Decision Tree: Journal has no Gold OA option, then green OA with an embargo of 6 months in STEM and 12 months in SSH applies. If there is a gold option, but no funding, then Green deposit with 12/24monbths would apply. RCUK won’t enforce for 5 years to help transition. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUKOpenAccessPolicy.pdf HEFCE or REF proposed mandate. Requirement for IMMEDIATE Green OA deposit upon acceptance to be eligible for the REFArticle can be held “closed” until embargoes are met. The rest of Europe - mixed. Spain has clear Open Access policy, driving Green OA / Institutional repository deposition with 12 month embargo. Denmark / Switzerland have clear open access mandates from funders supporting Green. Other countries are less far on in the debate. Green seems to be emerging preference.
- Range of benefits and risks to everybody involved with Open Access. The list below is not exhaustive. For Authors (Benefits) More people can read your work Possibly more citations as well May be the only way to further your career if REF changes (Risks) Administration – time and complexity Publishing choices based on cost not preference GOLD OA Funding may not be possible Green OA may not be the final version PDF Cheaper options may not provide the service needed. For Readers (Benefits) Access to research (Risks) Identifying the version of record, Locating articles across multiple repositories For Libraries (Benefits) Possibly cheaper Engages Academics with costs More research is avaliable Curator of Institutional output. (Risks) Complexity of thousands of new platforms to index Identifying “good” resources Educating academics Reduced role if some APC functions are managed by the research offices. Double dipping For Publishers: (Benefits) More understanding of publishing from Academics More transparent costs Wider use of publications (Risks) Damage to underlying business models if wrong (Green) Complexity of different mandates Double dipping As with all new ideas and models, the trick is making it work. Open Access, is going to need Academics, Funders, Libraries and Publishers to work together. As an industry, we still have a lot of concerns to address, myths to de-bunk and solutions to work out. My plea, as a publisher, is to make sure that we keep an eye on what’s important and make decisions and policy based on evidence during times of change!
- Thank you!