Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Open Access - Current Themes

247 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Presentation from our AGM and afternoon of talks on the theme of Open.
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/mmit-2016-agm-and-free-talks-on-open-libraries-research-and-education-tickets-28552110130#
Stephen Pinfield - Professor of Information Services Management at University of Sheffield - @StephenPinfield

Veröffentlicht in: Bildung
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Open Access - Current Themes

  1. 1. Open Access: Current Themes Stephen Pinfield University of Sheffield, UK MmIT AGM, London, 9 January 2017
  2. 2. Aims 1. Review major current open access developments 2. Reflect on the current UK policy position 3. Discuss possible futures for OA and scholarly communication Key terms: • ‘Green’ OA – deposit in OA repositories • ‘Gold’ OA – OA publication in journals • APC – Article-processing charge to pay for Gold OA for a particular paper • ‘Hybrid’ journals – subscription journals offering OA options for individual articles based on APC payment 2 Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  3. 3. Open Access Key Developments 1. Rising adoption of OA in the mainstream of scholarly communication 2. Ongoing importance of disciplinary differences 3. Increasing influence of mandates 4. Growing market complexity 5. Developing institutional policies, systems and advocacy Based on analysis of the OA discourse in peer-reviewed and professional journals, social media, etc (Pinfield, 2015) using the VOSviewer tool Includes major stakeholders Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  4. 4. Open Access Adoption • OA is now entering the mainstream of research publishing and dissemination • Higher levels of awareness and adoption by researchers • More evidence emerging of size and shape of OA • Various studies have estimated the proportion of the scholarly literature which is OA – Björk et al. (2010): 20% of papers published in 2008 were OA – Gargouri et al. (2012): 24% of articles in 2011 for articles published 2005-2010 – Archambault et al. (2013): 48% of the literature published in 2008 was available in an OA form in 2012 – OA reaching a “tipping point” – Khabsa & Giles (2014): at least 27m (24%) of the 114m English- language scholarly documents on the web are freely available – Jubb et al (2015): 34% of research published 2012-14 available OA after 24 months 4 Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  5. 5. OA Adoption: UK and Global “…whereas UK take-up of OA publishing models was slightly below the world average in 2012 (13% as compared to 14% globally), it had moved ahead of the world average by 2014 (over 18% as compared to under 17%).” (Jubb, M., et al., 2015) 5 Authors’ Take-Up of OA Options Articles at a global level: 19% OA immediately: 23% OA by 6 months, 29% OA by 12 months 34% OA by 24 months For articles published by UK authors, the proportions were higher: 22% OA immediately 28% OA by 6 months 38% OA by 12 months 43% OA by 24 months For articles published 2012-2014 Journal publishing models employed by Global and UK authors Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  6. 6. Disciplinary Differences • Studies of OA adoption show variations between disciplines remain significant • Different disciplines have different established conventions around scholarly communication – these are reflected in OA adoption • Studies generally show across Science, Technology and Medicine (STM) disciplines: – Gold OA predominantly adopted by Health and Life Sciences – Green OA favoured by Physics, Computer Sciences and Mathematics – Some disciplines e.g. Chemistry have lower levels of adoption • Most Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) disciplines have a problematical relationship with OA • Where it has not become the norm there remains considerable suspicion and scepticism of OA • Key practical issues remain: e.g. – Whether disciplines will converge on similar models (e.g. recent interest in pre- prints in Biosciences) – How monographs might be brought successfully into an OA environment 6 Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  7. 7. Importance of Mandates • Policies encouraging/requiring OA being adopted by increasing number of funders, institutions etc. (2004 onwards) • Rise in OA adoption partly attributable to mandates • Trend towards ‘strengthening’ policies – “required” rather than “encouraged” (2011 onwards) • Accompanied by compliance monitoring and introduction of sanctions for non-compliance • Developments highlight the key issue of the synchronisation of policies (e.g. Green v Gold emphasis) across organisations, sectors, countries etc. • Key practical issues remain: e.g. – The balance of Green and Gold OA – Basis for allocating funding – Conditions of access – e.g. licensing (CC BY etc) 7 Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  8. 8. Market Complexity Increasing complexity and variation in the market with experiments in business and delivery models • Relatively low barriers to entry and market immaturity • Established and new players • Variations in OA journal publishing, including – New fully-OA journals – ‘Flipped’ titles (converted from subscription to fully OA) – Hybrid titles (subscription with APC-funded OA options) – Variable APCs and licences (sometimes for the same article) – Mega-journals e.g. PLOS ONE, Scientific Reports – fully OA APC-funded, large scale, wide scope, ‘objective peer review’ • ‘Predatory journals’ – downside of lower entry barriers, with ongoing concern about quality • Early moves in the direction of ‘offsetting’ – where subscription prices are set against APC income to determine the overall price paid • Large number of practical issues remain: e.g. – The extent to which HEIs/consortia can influence the shape of the market – Whether market/product complexities will be ironed out 8 Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  9. 9. Top Publishers by APC Payments • Top-10 publishers by numbers of APC payments, 2014, from 24 UK HEIs (Pinfield et al, 2017) • 3 OA publishers in the top 10; the majority are commercial publishers who also dominate subscription publishing • Shamash (2016) only 3 OA publishers in top-21 publishers for 2015 • Payments for hybrid journals predominate: 76% in 2014 (Pinfield, et al, 2017); 78% in 2014 and 71% in 2015 (Shamash, 2016) – from different samples Publisher Articles in Fully- OA Journals Articles in Hybrid Journals Total (%) Elsevier 20 906 926 (19.1) Wiley 25 709 734 (15.1) Springer 8 329 337 (6.9) PLOS 322 - 322 (6.6) BioMed Central 290 - 290 (6) Oxford University Press 28 202 230 (4.7) BMJ 80 138 218 (4.5) Taylor & Francis 1 167 168 (3.5) Frontiers 140 - 140 (2.9) Nature Publishing Group 34 106 140 (2.9) Others 232 1116 1348 (27.8) Total 1180 3673 4853 9 Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  10. 10. APC Range by Publisher • APC ranges charged by the top-10 publishers based on value of APC payments 10 (Pinfield, et al, 2017) Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  11. 11. Journal Types and Price Differentials • 3 journal types identified by Bjork & Solomon (2014) • Marked differences between of APCs paid by type, with hybrids substantially more expensive (the hybrid mean is 58% higher than the mean of fully-OA journals from OA publishers) • Correlation between average APC and average *Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) score Publisher Type Mean Number of journals Number of articles Sum Min Max Median Average FWCI* Hybrid journals – published by ‘subscription publishers’ £1,725 1613 3673 £6,337,723 £0 £4,536 £1,680 1.78 Fully-OA journals – published by ‘subscription' publishers’ £1,311 74 306 £401,149 £0 £3,810 £1,229 1.49 Fully-OA journals – published by ‘non-subscription publishers’ £1,094 181 874 £956,469 £0 £2,960 £1,071 1.29 11 (Pinfield, et al, 2017) Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  12. 12. APC Price and Quality • Shows a strong correlation between price and quality (as measured by citation) • Different possible explanations, including: higher costs of producing higher-quality more selective titles; and/or willingness of authors to pay higher prices for higher-impact titles 12 (Pinfield, et al, 2017) • APC data for 24 HEIs matched to Field Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) scores in Scopus • Journals were grouped in 10 different FWCI categories for analysis (each of 10% of the journals with the top two tiers 5%) Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  13. 13. Institutional Policies, Systems and Advocacy Challenges: 1. Costs and sustainability 2. Mandate compliance 3. Policies, processes and technologies 4. Communication and advocacy Large numbers of issues remain in these areas 13 Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  14. 14. Repository Development • Repository development globally 2005-12 initially focused on North America, Western Europe, Australasia and Japan, extended to South America and Asia • Most repositories (80%) institutional • Small number of large repositories and large number of small repositories (median size: 3093 items) • Key practical issues: 14 ‒ Funding and sustainability ‒ Embargoes introduced by publishers ‒ Role of mandates in encouraging use (e.g. UK) Repositories worldwide, 2012 (Pinfield, et al, 2014) Deposits into the White Rose repository (the universities of Leeds, Sheffield, York, 2004-16) Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  15. 15. APC Expenditure: Longitudinal Analysis • The rise continued in 2015 (based on a sample of 13 institutions) (Shamash, 2016) • Centrally-managed APC expenditure (from a sample of 23 HEIs) rose, particularly since 2012 • This represents a rise in actual expenditure but also a shift from distributed to centralised accounting (Jubb et al, 2015; Pinfield et al, 2017) 15 Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  16. 16. APC Expenditure by Institution • There has been growth in APC expenditure growth across all HEIs since 2010 • One HEI accounts for nearly a third of expenditure in 2014 • 21 HEIs experienced growth of APC expenditure 2013-2014:12 of more than 100% in a year Centrally-managed APC expenditure over time for the 23 sample HEIs, 2010-2014 16 (Pinfield, Salter & Bath, 2016) Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  17. 17. Subscriptions Aggregated subscription expenditure for the 24 HEIs for 7 publishers*, 2011-2014 (including annual % changes) * Cambridge University Press (CUP), Elsevier, Oxford University Press (OUP), Sage, Springer, Taylor and Francis, and Wiley 17 • Subscription costs rose overall 2011-2014 • Subscriptions costs rose 2013-2014 (Pinfield, et al, 2017) Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  18. 18. Total Cost of Publication by HEI • Total cost of publication (subscriptions + APCs + APC admin costs) for the sample of 24 HEIs for 7 publishers*, 2014 • APCs approx. 12% of the total cost of publication * CUP, Elsevier, OUP, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley 18 (Pinfield, et al, 2017) Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  19. 19. UK Policy Developments • R&D initiatives 2000 onwards, e.g. ePrints software, SHERPA initiative etc, (part-)funded by Jisc • House of Commons Select Committee Report, 2004 • Wellcome Trust policy, 2005 • etc…. • Finch Report, 2012 • Research Councils UK policy (RCUK) – initial version, 2012 • Charity funders: Charity Open Access Fund (COAF), Wellcome Trust and other medical research charities, 2014 • Higher Education Funding Councils policy for the Research Excellence Framework (REF), 2014 • Ongoing activity by Jisc and other national agencies • Increasing numbers of institutional mandates 19 Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  20. 20. UK OA Policy Landscape Research Councils UK (RCUK) Wellcome Trust and other medical charities (COAF) Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and others (REF) Some institutions GoldOAemphasis GreenOAemphasis 20 Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  21. 21. Key Features of Policies 22 Policy Research Councils UK and Medical charities (COAF) HEFCE Research Excellence Framework (REF) Focus Gold-centric Green-centric Scope Requirements for all outputs arising from grants Requirement for all REF submissions Monitoring Include monitoring and sanctions Monitoring through institutional reporting Funding Funded by institutional block grants (based on overall research income) Not accompanied by specific funding Requirements Allow payment of APCs for fully-OA and hybrid journals Requires deposit in an IR within 3 months of acceptance (or 3 months of publication until 2018) Funding can be used for other OA support activities Allows for embargoes in timing of release of outputs Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  22. 22. Some Propositions 23 • The policies differ in emphasis… …but are not incompatible • Complying with the policies can be confusing for users (‘mandate messiness’)… …but creates a useful Gold- Green balance (synergy?) in the overall policy position • The policies can be implemented by institutions with different emphases… …but have contributed to rising OA awareness and adoption levels • Those adoption patterns have created challenges… …but work is ongoing to address them (even if solutions are still unclear) Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  23. 23. UK Landscape and its Challenges RCUK, COAF etc: Gold- centric policies HEFCE, etc REF: Green- centric policies Jisc and other support agencies 24 HEI HEI HEI HEI HEI HEI HEI National level Institutional level Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  24. 24. RCUK, COAF etc: Gold- centric policies HEFCE, etc REF: Green- centric policies Jisc and other support agencies 25 Greater transparency of data (e.g. subscription)? Reducing (or eliminating) embargoes? Balance/ relationship between Gold & Green OA? ‘Hybrid’ journals as a viable transition mechanism? Shape of ‘offsetting’ arrangements (short & long term)? UK Landscape and its Challenges National level Balance between central & institutional activity? HEI HEI HEI HEI HEI HEI HEI Institutional level Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  25. 25. The Value of Coordination In the UK, Jisc has built on a long history of OA support activity by supporting research funder and HEFCE policies by providing services and support, good practice/pathfinder projects, and negotiating deals with publishers 27 https://www.jisc.ac.uk/content/open-access/our-role Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  26. 26. Scholarly Communication Futures Key possible features: • It is likely OA will become the default mode of scholarly communication • Scholarly communication will involve greater interactivity (‘social media-like’ technologies/ services) • Publication will become more of a process – a ‘flow’ – with different stages in the process associated with different ‘versions’ of outputs • Publication will not just about text-based fixed documents, but incorporate data, rich media, software, live simulations etc • The literature will become an integrated part of machine-readable/networked scholarly infrastructure 28 Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  27. 27. Scholarly Communication Futures Key possible features: • Quality assurance will take place at various stages, including pre-and post-publication, using human and automated approaches • Metrics will increase in importance but become more varied and wider in scope • Roles of key stakeholders will continue to change e.g. funders (more involved), publishers (continuing vertical and horizontal integrations), librarians (more involved in policy and ‘inside out’ service provision) etc • Open access will become part of a wider move towards ‘Open Science’, including open data, open peer review etc (“Open content”, “open process”, “open infrastructure” – Corrall & Pinfield, 2014) 29 Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  28. 28. Summary of Themes and Issues Current open-access themes: 1. Rising adoption of OA in the mainstream of scholarly communication 2. Ongoing importance of disciplinary differences 3. Increasing influence of mandates 4. Growing market complexity 5. Developing institutional policies, systems and advocacy Key issues: • How OA adoption can be best incentivised • How disciplinary differences should be taken into account • How Green and Gold can be ‘balanced’ • How ‘mandate messiness’ can be addressed • How offsetting can be best achieved • How institutions and subject communities can best develop repositories • How embargoes can best be addressed • How activities can be best distributed amongst institutions, central agencies and subject communities? • …. Open Access: Developments ► Policies ► Futures
  29. 29. Questions and Comments s.pinfield@sheffield.ac.uk
  30. 30. References Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Rebout, L., & Roberge, G. (2013). Proportion of open access peer- reviewed papers at the European and world levels—2004-2011. Montreal: Science-Metrix. Retrieved from http://www.science- metrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Availability_2004-2011.pdf Björk, B. C., Welling, P., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., Laakso, M., & Gudnasson, G. (2010). The open access landscape 2009. In ELPUB 2010 - Publishing in the Networked World: Transforming the Nature of Communication, 14th International Conference on Electronic Publishing (pp. 404–406). Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0- 84869105164&partnerID=tZOtx3y1 Corrall, S., & Pinfield, S. (2014). Coherence of “open” initiatives in higher education and research: Framing a policy agenda. In Proceedings of the iConference 2014. iSchools. http://doi.org/10.9776/14085 Gargouri, Y., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., & Harnad, S. (2012). Green and gold open access percentages and growth, by discipline. In 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI) (pp. 285–292). Montreal: Science-Metrix and OST. Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340294/1/stiGargouri.pdf Jubb, M., Goldstein, S., Amin, M., Plume, A., Aisati, M., Oeben, S., … Fosci, M. (2015). Monitoring the transition to open access: A report for Universities UK. London: Research Information Network on behalf of Universities UK. Retrieved from http://www.researchinfonet.org/oamonitoring/ Khabsa, M., & Giles, C. L. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS ONE, 9(5). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093949 Pinfield, S. (2015). Making open access work: The “state-of-the-art” in providing open access to scholarly literature. Online Information Review, 39(5), 604–636. http://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2015-0167 Pinfield, S., Salter, J., & Bath, P. A. (2016). The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(7), 1751–1766. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23446 Pinfield, S., Salter, J., & Bath, P. A. (2017). A “gold-centric” implementation of open access: Hybrid journals, the “total cost of publication” and policy development in the UK and beyond. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, (In press). Retrieved from http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/96336/ Pinfield, S., Salter, J., Bath, P. A., Hubbard, B., Millington, P., Anders, J. H. S., & Hussain, A. (2014). Open-access repositories worldwide, 2005-2012: Past growth, current characteristics, and future possibilities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(12), 2404–2421. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23131 Shamash, K. (2016). Article processing charges (APCs) and subscriptions - Monitoring open access costs. London: Jisc. Retrieved from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/apc-and-subscriptions-report.pdf32

×