"Open access to knowledge: The role of funders in focus" at at the Global Research Council Asia-Pacific Regional Meeting, Sendai on December 6, 2012

420 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
420
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

"Open access to knowledge: The role of funders in focus" at at the Global Research Council Asia-Pacific Regional Meeting, Sendai on December 6, 2012

  1. 1. Open  access  to  knowledge:   the  role  of  funders  in  focus Syun  Tu9ya  Na9onal  Ins9tu9on  for  Academic  Degrees  and  University  Evalua9on    at  the  Global  Research  Council  Asia-­‐Pacific  Regional  Mee9ng,  Sendai   on  December  6,  2012
  2. 2. The  year  2012 •  Ten  years  aOer  BOAI,  so  the  new  BOAI10   –  Budapest  Open  Access  Ini9a9ve,  February  14,  2002   –  First  defini9ons  of  the  basic  no9ons,  including  green  and   gold  roads  to  open  access  •  How  far  have  we  come  since  then?   –  No  prints  any  more,  at  least  in  STM   •  Open  access  is  only  possible  in  the  Internet  environment   •  Success  of  big  deals  and  apprehension  about  future  sustainability –  Increased  reality  of  open  access   •  Ins9tu9onal  repositories  mushrooming  all  over  the  world       •  “Realis9c,”  i.e.  commercial  viability  of  open  access  publishing     –  Talk  of  open  data,  altmetrics,  “ar9cle  of  the  future,”  open   review,  etc.   •  I.e.  a  completely  new  phase  of  scholarly  communica9on,  but  no   discussion  of  that  today  
  3. 3. A  quote  from  BOAI10,  for  funders •  1.3.  Every  research  funding  agency,  public  or  private,  should  have  a  policy   assuring  that  peer-­‐reviewed  versions  of  all  future  scholarly  ar9cles   repor9ng  funded  research  are  deposited  in  a  suitable  repository  and   made  OA  as  soon  as  prac9cable.   •  Deposits  should  be  made  as  early  as  possible,  ideally  at  the  9me  of   acceptance,  and  no  later  than  the  date  of  formal  publica9on.   •  When  publishers  will  not  allow  OA  on  the  funder’s  terms,  funder  policies   should  require  grantees  to  seek  another  publisher.   •  If  funder  policies  allow  embargoes  before  new  work  becomes  OA,  the   embargoes  should  not  exceed  six  months.  Policies  should  allow  no   embargoes  at  all  for  uncopyrightable  work.   •  Funders  should  treat  publica9on  costs  as  research  costs,  and  should  help   grantees  pay  reasonable  publica9on  fees  at  fee-­‐based  OA  journals.   •  When  possible,  funder  policies  should  require  libre  OA,  preferably  under  a   CC-­‐BY  license  or  equivalent.   •  A  repository  is  suitable  for  this  purpose  when  it  provides  OA,  supports   interoperability  with  other  repositories,  and  take  steps  toward  long-­‐term   preserva9on.  The  funder’s  choice  should  be  determined  by  ongoing  research   into  ques9ons  such  as  which  choice  best  fosters  the  deposit  of  covered   ar9cles,  the  u9lity  of  deposits,  the  convenience  of  funders  and  authors,  and   incen9ves  for  the  further  growth  of  OA.  
  4. 4. But  ten  years  ago, •  No  men9on  of  funding  agencies  •  So  what  happened?   –  US  NIH  Public  Access  Policy  enforced   –  UK  RCs  manda9ng  green  deposit  with  ins9tu9onal   repositories,  and  then  Finch  Report   –  MPG,  which  actually  is  not  a  funder  per  se,  acted   aggressively  toward  open  access   –  No  effec9ve  moves  in  Asia,  but  why?   •  Scholarly  informa9on  as  imported  goods   •  Lack  of  “interna9onally  acclaimed”  Asian  journals  
  5. 5. The  case  of  Japan •  Approached  by  SPARC  in  2001  to  collaborate  in  improving  scholarly   communica9on  •  ShiO  of  SPARC  aOer  BOAI  toward  open  access  •  But,  in  Japan,  there  was  perceived  need  for  the  promo9on  of  subscrip9on   based  society  journals,  which  was  not  successful    aOer  all.    The  idea  of   “ins9tu9onal  repositories”  were  liked  •  Japanese  funders  did  not  care  so  much  about  the  accessibility  of  the  results  of   funded  research  then  •  Now  so  many  ins9tu9onal  repository  at  universi9es,  but  as  is  the  case   everywhere  it  is  not  very  efficient  •  Awareness  of  the  recent  “progress”  of  open  access  journals,  including  PLoS   ONE,  Scien9fic  Reports/NPG  etc  •  A  reconsidera9on  at  the  Ministry  level,  resul9ng  in  a  proposal  published  in  July,   2012,  which  recommends,  backed  up  by  Science  and  Technology  Basic  Plan  for   years  2011  thru  2016,   –  open  access  to  fruits  from  research   –  journals  published  with  open  access  arrangement   –  enhancement  of  ins9tu9onal  repositories  as  essen9al  part  of  the  infrastructure  for   knowledge  society   –  collabora9on  among  interested  stakeholders,  including  funding  agencies  •  Funders,  viz  JSPS  and  JST,  are  being  looked  at!  
  6. 6. Rela9ve  success  of  repositories:  Over  1M  full  texts  on  over  200  repositories,  but  … 160,000  green  deposits 50%  are  bulle9n  ar9cles
  7. 7. Ins9tu9onal  repository  has  its  own  ra9onale •  We  are  proud  that  librarians  on  campuses  all  over  the   country  have  collected  the  ar9cles  to  this  extent,   without  any  mandate  anywhere,  and  we  know   ins9tu9onal  mandate  may  not  work.    See  the  graph.  •  But  the  progress  is  slow,  and  the  efforts  are  not   reasonably  rewarding  •  Bulle9n  ar9cles,  which  accounts  for  almost  a  half,  are   now  virtually  “published”  there,  hence  almost  golden   open  access  funded  by  ins9tu9ons  •  Yes,  ins9tu9ons  need  repositories  to  prove  the   accountability  of  higher  educa9on  ins9tu9ons  at  any   rate,  so  don’t  bother  them  to  operate  them  and  take   advantage  of  their  existence  –  the  gist  of  the  MEXT   proposal  
  8. 8. Even  if  mandated,  deposits  are  gekng  less?
  9. 9. Gold  open  access  is  no  longer  utopean •  Success  of  PLoS  ONE,  an  online  megajournal   –  published  almost  14,000  ar9cles  in  2011   –  s9ll  has  Journal  Impact  Factor  over  4   –  charges  $1,350  for  an  ar9cle  published   –  has  saved  PLoS  ONE  from  poten9al  bankruptcy  •  Other  commercial  publishers  have  followed  with   –  NPG’s  Scien1fic  Reports,  SpringerOpen,  Sage  Open,    •  The  lesson  is  that  now  open  access  publishing  is   no  longer  an  “ideal”    but  just  a  business  model,  at   least  for  publishers  •  I.e.,  funders  must  not  be  naïve  talking  of  open   access,  given  that  12%  of  journal  ar9cles  are   open  access  as  of  now  
  10. 10. What  must  not  be  forgonen? 1.  Open  access  to  research  results  is  good  for  humankind  as   regards  advancement  of  knowledge  and  welfare  2.  So  everybody  agrees  that  it  must  come  true  3.  As  far  as  publishing  of  research  results  in  the  form  of   journal  ar9cle  is  concerned,  open  access  to  them  is  made   possible  either  by  self-­‐archiving  or  open  access  publishing  4.  Self-­‐archiving  is  not  very  efficient,  but  repositories  have   ins9tu9onal  reason  for  them  to  be  5.  Although  nobody  knows  the  future  for  sure,  open  access   publishing  paid  by  authors  seem  to  work  to  a  larger  extent   than  we  once  thought  6.  So  funders’  role  is  very  important:  their  decisions  may  not   only  change  scholarly  communica9on  but  the  way  science   is  done  as  well  7.  And  there  are  things  to  consider  before  you  decide
  11. 11. Some  warnings •  Assuming  that  more  research  will  be  done  with  increased   funding  on  science  and  technology  resul9ng  in  a  lot  more   ar9cles  to  be  published,  a  total  cost  of  making  them   accessible  will  increase,  so  we  need  to  consider  if  any  open   access  model  can  live  with  that  increase  •  Ar9cles  are  made  open  access  by  the  authors  who  pay,   more  rigorous  assurance  of  quality  than  by  current  peer   reviewing  might  be  necessary,  due  to  predictable  conflicts   of  interest  •  Ar9cles  can  be  only  made  open  access  by  the  authors  if   they  hold  copyrights.  Think  of  the  case  of  using  CC  licenses.   Copyright  will  not  go  away  with  open  access  but  rather  it   will  be  more  important.    Plagiarism  and  duplicate   submission  must  be  avoided    •  All  in  all,  research  integrity  will  have  to  be  at    issue  again   with  the  progress  of  open  access  environment

×