Slides from a presentation on open access given at Europic 2014 (the 18th International Picornavirus Meeting). Will hopefully provide further stimulus to the conversation on this important topic.

1. Why
should
you
care?
Stephen
Curry
Europic
2014
Blankenberge,
Belgium

2. Academic
Journals
were
a
great
idea…

3. …but
the
web
changes
everything
3

4. What
is
Open
Access?
Budapest
Declara5on,
2002
“free
availability
on
the
public
internet,
permiHng
any
users
to
read,
download,
copy,
distribute,
print,
search,
or
link
to
the
full
texts
of
these
arJcles,
crawl
them
for
indexing,
pass
them
as
data
to
soKware…”
hMp://www.opensocietyfoundaJons.org/openaccess/
Gold
OA:
Immediate
availability
via
the
journal
(OA
or
'hybrid')
May
require
an
arJcle
processing
charge
(APC)
!
Green
OA:
Available
via
a
repository
(insJtuJon
or
subject-­‐based)
Author's
peer-­‐reviewed
version
(or
pre-­‐print)
May
require
a
delay
(embargo
period)
Gra5s
OA:
Free
online
access
!
!
Libre
OA:
Free
online
access
with
some
addiJonal
usage
rights
(e.g.
reproducJon,
text
mining
—
license-­‐dependent)

5. Open
Access
is:
‣ a
natural
consequence
of
the
internet
‣ good
for
research
faster
exchange
of
ideas
fosters
inter-­‐disciplinarity
enables
text
mining
stronger
sense
of
community
ownership
‣ good
for
the
taxpayer
beMer
cost
control
(eventually)
access
to
the
research
they
paid
for
changes
dynamic
of
public
engagement
‣ affecJng
&
affected
by
many
aspects
of
academic
life…
Open
Access
is
not:
‣ free
(or
the
same
as
‘file-­‐sharing’)
‣ the
end
of
peer
review
or
synonymous
with
low
quality
‣ easy
to
implement

6. Why
are
we
not
there
yet?
Funder
&
Govt
Policies
have
been
too
meek
‣ New
(revised)
RCUK
policy
(April
1st,
2013):
‣ Prefers
gold
(and
CC-­‐BY)
but
allows
green
‣ Block
grant
funding
‣ 5
yr
roll-­‐out
to
include
review
&
flexibility:
a
‘journey'
‣ HEFCE:
immediate
OA
deposit
will
be
required
for
next
REF
‣ Changes
happening
in
US
&
EU…
hMp://blogs.rcuk.ac.uk/2012/09/28/rcuk-­‐open-­‐access-­‐policy-­‐when-­‐to-­‐go-­‐green-­‐and-­‐when-­‐to-­‐go-­‐gold/

7. OpposiJon
of
some
publishers
‣ worried
about
‘sustainability’
(aka
profits*)
‣ Elsevier:
36%
(£724m/£2,000m)
‣ Springer:
34%
(£294m/£866m)
‣ John
Wiley
&
Sons:
42%
($106m/$253m)
‣ Informa
plc:
32%
(£47m/£145m)
‣ NB:
Hindawi:
52%**
($3.3m/$6.3m)
‣ Are
these
reasonable
given
the
input
from
researchers?
Why
are
we
not
there
yet?
*Figures
for
2010.
Source
—
hPp://poe5ceconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/enormous-­‐profits-­‐of-­‐stm-­‐scholarly.html
**hPp://scholarlyoa.com/2013/04/04/hindawis-­‐profits-­‐are-­‐larger-­‐than-­‐elseviers/

8. Researchers
are
ill-­‐informed
and
conservaJve
‣too
few
aware
of
how
publishing
works
‣concerns
of
learned
socieJes
8
Why
are
we
not
there
yet?
hMp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/01/29/why-­‐open-­‐access-­‐is-­‐beMer-­‐for-­‐scholarly-­‐socieJes/
Stuart
Shieber

9. We
fear
damage
to
established
models
‣addicted
to
impact
factors
—>
mistrust
of
new
journals
9
Why
are
we
not
there
yet?
"when
assessing
proposals
for
research
funding
RCUK
considers
that
it
is
the
quality
of
the
research
proposed
and
not
where
an
author
has
published…
that
is
of
paramount
importance."
hMp://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/category/open-­‐access-­‐2/

10. To
realise
the
vision
of
OA,
we
need
to
replace
the
apparatus
of
the
Impact
factor
Vale,
R.
D.
(2012)
Mol
Biol
Cell
23,
3285–3289.
Lawrence,
P.
A.
(2007)
Curr.
Biol.
17,
R583–5.
hMp://am.ascb.org/dora/

11. Remaining
Challenges
and
QuesJons
‣ Convincing
academics
&
learned
socieJes
of
the
merits
of
OA
‣ APC
payment
mechanisms
that
are
fair
&
visible
to
researchers
‣ Withdraw
support
for
hybrid
OA?
‣ Compliance
enforcement
from
funders
and
insJtuJons
‣ Disavowal
of
Impact
Factors
‣ Market
innova5ons
from
publishers
—
level
playing
field
for
new
OA
journals
‣ DuraJon
&
cost
of
transiJon?
(When
will
subs
money
be
released?)
Thanks
for
listening