Enabling smaller independent publishers to participate in Open Access agreements final
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•91 views
Webinar to introduce new tools available to support the automation of Open Access agreements between libraries/consortia and smaller independent publishers.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Enabling smaller independent publishers to participate in Open Access agreements final
Ähnlich wie Enabling smaller independent publishers to participate in Open Access agreements final (20)
Mehr von Alicia Wise
Mehr von Alicia Wise (15)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Enabling smaller independent publishers to participate in Open Access agreements final
- 1. Enabling smaller independent publishers to participate in OA agreements Shared Principles Data Template Example Licenses Workflow
- 2. The challenges for smaller independent publishers • The Information Power report published in June 2021, identified challenges that smaller independent publishers face in developing transitional, open access agreements. • The report recommended active cross- stakeholder alignment focused on enabling these smaller independent publishers to successfully transition to OA
- 3. The challenges for smaller independent publishers • In November 2021, four working groups were established to address these challenges, working under the auspices of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) and cOAlition S. • The membership of the groups had representatives from libraries, library consortia, small independent publishers, and intermediaries.
- 4. Four task and finish groups 1. Shared Principles 2. Example Agreements 3. Data Template 4. Workflow
- 5. Take-aways • As the sponsor of this work – in partnership with ALPSP – cOAlition S is delighted with the way the different stakeholders have come together with a shared goal to make it easier for smaller independent publishers to participate in transitional, Open Access agreements. • To ensure that the outputs from the working groups are actionable, there is a pressing need for the workflows to become fully automated.
- 6. Steering Group • Dominic Broadhurst (Salford University) • Curtis Brundy (Iowa State University) • Colleen Campbell (Max Planck Digital Library, OA2020) • Andrew Joseph (Wits University) • Robert Kiley (cOAlition S) • Rima Kupryte (EIFL) • Malavika Legge (Portland Press, Biochemical Society) • Nora Papp-Le Roy (European Science Foundation) • Antonia Pop (Toronto University Press) • Katharina Rieck (FWF) • Johan Rooryck (cOAlition S) • Judy Russell (University of Florida) • Glenn Truran (SANLiC) • Aria Tuuliniemi (University of Helsinki) • Anna Vernon (JISC) • Wayne Sime (ALPSP)
- 7. Thank you to all members of the Task & Finish Groups Thom Barnes-Wise Information Power Surina Bhatti Jisc Stacey Burke American Physiological Society Erin Calhoun University of Toronto Libraries Colleen Campbell Max Planck Digital Library Yvonne Campfens OA Switchboard Rod Cookson IWA Publishing Angus Cookson CAUL Rebecca Day Tucker EBSCO Anke de Looper John Benjamins Publishing Company Adam Der Max Planck Digital Library, ESAC Jill Emery Portland State University Lorraine Estelle Information Power Celeste Feather LYRASIS Ellen Finnie California Digital Library Sarah Fricker IOPP Beth Gibbs Oxford University Tejs Grevstad Consortia Manager Phillipp Hess Knowledge Unlatched Robert Kiley cOAlition S Sharla Lair LYRASIS Mark Lewis Intellect Ltd Andrea Lopez Annual Reviews Lisa Mackinder California Digital Library Debbie Martindale Rhodes University Claire Moulton The Company of Biologists Bongi Mphuti Wits University Wendy Newsham Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Michaela Olde University of New England Rita Penhasi University of Vienna Frances Pinter Central European University Press Gaynor Redvers-Mutton Microbiology Society Elin Reeves European Respiratory Society Judy Russell University of Florida Arjan Schalken UKB Consortium Eric Schares Iowa State University Bernhard Schubert University of Vienna Catherine Sharp University College London Adriana Sikora Max Planck Digital Library Rebecca Staatz University of Bristol Ben Taplin Jisc Nevena Tomic KAUST Andy Utterback PLOS Anna Vernon Jisc Timo Vilen University of Helsinki Lisa Walton BMJ Publishing Lucy Walton Western Sydney University Matthew Wilmont California Digital Library Alicia Wise Information Power
- 8. Setting Principles for the projects • The group – 11 librarians, consortia representatives, and publishers, along with Robert Kiley (cOAlition S), Anne Vernon (Jisc) and Coleen Campbell (OA2020). • Met through September and October 2021. • Identified 20 principles for transformative agreements – under ‘Price and cost allocation’ and ‘Licensing’. • Tried to balance the needs of all stakeholders – and produce a basis for practical planning. • At which point, over to the delivery groups...
- 10. How might the data template be used? Smaller Independent Publishers Libraries and consortia Presenting proposals Evaluating offers Presenting renewal proposals Comparing offers Reporting on agreements
- 11. Example Licenses
- 12. Workflow
- 15. Contract Finance Eligibility Compliance Process Negotiations Contract initiaton Implemen- tation Submission, acceptance OA approval Publication Reporting, evaluation WORKFLOW PHASES Contract Finance Eligibility Compliance Process INFORMATION TOPICS
- 17. Contract Finance Eligibility Compliance Process Negotiations Contract initiaton Implemen- tation Submission, acceptance OA approval Publication Reporting, evaluation WORKFLOW PHASES Contract Finance Eligibility Compliance Process INFORMATION TOPICS
- 19. Research & analysis & writing process Production process Peer review process Impact & reporting & analytics Discussion & feedback Multiple systems are in use throughout the publication workflow ‘ACCEPT’ DECISION PREPRINT PUBLICATION GRANT ASSIGNED MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION
- 20. Submission & Peer Review Systems e.g. for manuscript submission date Research & analysis & writing process Production process Peer review process Impact & reporting & analytics Discussion & feedback Multiple systems are in use throughout the publication workflow ‘ACCEPT’ DECISION PREPRINT PUBLICATION GRANT ASSIGNED MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION
- 21. Content Distribution Systems e.g. JATS-XML for author listing order, license type Submission & Peer Review Systems e.g. for manuscript submission date Research & analysis & writing process Production process Peer review process Impact & reporting & analytics Discussion & feedback Multiple systems are in use throughout the publication workflow ‘ACCEPT’ DECISION PREPRINT PUBLICATION GRANT ASSIGNED MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION
- 22. Content Distribution Systems e.g. JATS-XML for author listing order, license type Submission & Peer Review Systems e.g. for manuscript submission date Research & analysis & writing process Production process Peer review process Impact & reporting & analytics Discussion & feedback Multiple systems are in use throughout the publication workflow ‘ACCEPT’ DECISION PREPRINT PUBLICATION GRANT ASSIGNED MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION Journal Master Data Systems e.g. journal type (pure OA, hybrid, transformative), journal in DOAJ y/n
- 23. Research & analysis & writing process Production process Peer review process Impact & reporting & analytics Discussion & feedback PIDs and interoperability are crucial to deliver authoritative data from source in reporting ‘ACCEPT’ DECISION PREPRINT PUBLICATION GRANT ASSIGNED MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION • Direct alert upon VoR publication • Automatically generated reports • Standardised reports (across publishers) • Structured data format (JSON & Excel) • Fed straight into existing systems
- 24. The same data (and more?!) will inform OA deal-negotiations and OA agreements...! ‘Data Lake’ e.g. event-based metadata, post-publication usage stats
- 25. Research & analysis & writing process Production process Peer review process Impact & reporting & analytics Discussion & feedback Lessons from the OA Switchboard initiative ‘ACCEPT’ DECISION PREPRINT PUBLICATION GRANT ASSIGNED MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION 1. Critical for solving real problems (deal-making and reporting): • PIDs in article-level metadata • Interoperability between systems
- 26. Matching publication costs with publication funds (in case of a ‘direct publication funder’) Research & analysis & writing process Production process Peer review process Impact & reporting & analytics Discussion & feedback For OA publications, there are two relevant parallel tracks: research & content versus financial In case of an ‘indirect publication funder’ (e.g. diamond) possibly: matching publication costs with publication funds Article-level financial transaction (if any) ‘ACCEPT’ DECISION PREPRINT PUBLICATION GRANT ASSIGNED MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION
- 27. Matching publication costs with publication funds (in case of a ‘direct publication funder’) Research & analysis & writing process Production process Peer review process Impact & reporting & analytics Discussion & feedback For OA publications, there are two relevant parallel tracks: research & content versus financial In case of an ‘indirect publication funder’ (e.g. diamond) possibly: matching publication costs with publication funds Article-level financial transaction (if any) ‘ACCEPT’ DECISION PREPRINT PUBLICATION GRANT ASSIGNED MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION CRM Systems e.g. deal information E-commerce/ Billing & Collection Systems e.g. publication-level financial information
- 28. 2. There is a need to exchange metadata between the tracks, currently with lack of sufficient interoperability between relevant systems Lessons from the OA Switchboard initiative Matching publication costs with publication funds (in case of a ‘direct publication funder’) Research & analysis & writing process Production process Peer review process Impact & reporting & analytics Discussion & feedback In case of an ‘indirect publication funder’ (e.g. diamond) possibly: matching publication costs with publication funds Article-level financial transaction (if any) ‘ACCEPT’ DECISION PREPRINT PUBLICATION GRANT ASSIGNED MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION
- 29. Lessons from the OA Switchboard initiative 3. There is tension between providing a great author experience and an ‘ideal process’ (i.e. capturing data as early as possible in the workflow) 2. There is a need to exchange metadata between the tracks, currently with lack of sufficient interoperability between relevant systems 1. Critical for solving real problems (deal-making and reporting): • PIDs in article-level metadata • Interoperability between systems
- 30. Thank you Yvonne Campfens yvonne.campfens@oaswitchboard.org twitter.com/OASwitchboard www.oaswitchboard.org strategic partnership with
- 32. Report on feedback from the Research to Reader conference workshop Implementing OA Standards How best to support agreements between libraries, consortia and smaller independent publishers? Workshop A: Implementing OA Standards Facilitated by Judith Russell and Alicia Wise
- 33. Workshop A • Reviewed the work of 4 taskforces identifying Shared Principles, Example Agreements, a Data Template, and Workflows for OA Agreements* • Discussed use of the Data Template and how to get it widely adopted by librarians and publishers • Developed plans to mobilize stakeholders
- 34. Next Steps • To Ensure The Data Template Is Adopted By Both Libraries And Publishers: • Seek endorsement of the template from thought leaders and influencers among librarians and publishers. • Educate researchers about the need to provide consistent data including ORCID, ROR and Funder ID. • Encourage Crossref, ORCID, peer review systems (e.g. Editorial Manager, eJournal Press, ScholarOne) and other service providers to mobilise their publisher customers (large and small) to agree that these are the standard data that are needed and then to adapt their systems to facilitate delivery of data from their systems.
- 35. Suggestions for Moving Forward • Prioritize requiring data going forward (like ORCIDs) while recognizing that retrospective data acquisition or cleaning may not be realistic. • Develop standards while recognizing that if the standards are too rigorous it will be hard to get agreement. • Focus first on the author-provided and article data (e.g. ORCIDs, RORs, Funder IDs). • Clarify the metadata with a taxonomy to ensure consistent use of terminology particularly for article type – e.g. https://casrai.org/open-access-glossary/.
- 36. Questions for the panel • Are OA agreements here to stay, or are they a passing fad? • What are the key critical things that need to be automated to make OA agreements scale? • Who is responsible for driving automation forward?
- 37. Over to you • Is there a desire for automation from both libraries and publishers? • What should the priorities be when it comes to automation? • What would you need to automate, or to influence those who would need to implement for you?
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Workflow processes are sequential but there is also a loop. Improvement as part of contract management, renewal after the contract ends.
- During the contract life cycle there are several information topics that need to be addressed.
- Based on the workflow phases, working group 4 has outlined roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, information that needs to provided and, where possible links to the output of the other working groups, ESAC check lists, etc.
- Example of the result of working group 4
- The dots represent data like institutions, article types, license info, budget, etc. The question is, how to connect the dots?
- It’s not a minimum requirement (photo 1), it’s not ‘just a playground’ only to experiment (photo 2), it want to create a common view for institutions/consortia and publishers on how to move forwards (photo 3) and hopefully a starting point for service providers to connect the dots.