OA market presentation for open aire 20 april (final)
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•179 views
Slides from presentation by Rob Johnson and Mattia Fosci on the development of a sustainable and competitive open access market. Originally presented at the OpenAIRE post-grant OA pilot closing workshop, 20 April in The Hague, Netherlands. The original report can be found here: https://zenodo.org/record/401029#.WPnKP4h95eU
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ähnlich wie OA market presentation for open aire 20 april (final)
Ähnlich wie OA market presentation for open aire 20 april (final) (20)
Mehr von Rob Johnson
Mehr von Rob Johnson (6)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
OA market presentation for open aire 20 april (final)
- 1. TOWARDS A COMPETITIVE AND SUSTAINABLE OA MARKET IN EUROPE ROB JOHNSON, DIRECTOR MATTIA FOSCI, SENIOR CONSULTANT LBF – Research and Scholarly Forum, 15 March 2017 1
- 2. Open access 1. State of the OA market 2. OA policy in Europe 3. Reframing the debate from pathways to outcomes 4. Priorities for action 2
- 3. Introduction • Text in here 3 • Literature review • Stakeholder interviews • Survey of pilot beneficiaries • ‘Review of reviews’ • Validation process https://doi.org/10.5281/zeno do.401029
- 4. State of the OA market 4
- 5. [The EU Council] AGREES to further promote the mainstreaming of open access to scientific publications by continuing to support a transition to immediate open access as the default by 2020… 5 Council of the European Union. (2016). Council conclusions on the transition towards an open science system
- 6. 6 Proportion of OA content Immediate OA as default (>50%) Source: 2012-14 data from RIN et al (2015) Monitoring the Transition to Open Access: A report for the Universities UK Open Access Co-ordination Group
- 7. 7 Source: European Research Area: Progress Report 2016 (Technical Report) Trends in the share of scientific publications available in open access (total, green and gold) at the ERA-wide level (2005–2015)
- 8. Pathways to OA 8 Gold-hybrid (incl. offsetting) OA archiving Gold no-APCGold-APC
- 9. Pathways to immediate OA - market share (2014) 9 9.6% 4.6% 2.4% 83.4% 16.6% Gold-APC Gold-noAPC Gold-Hybrid Subscription
- 10. Global share of Science & Engineering articles 10 Source: National Science Foundation. (2016). Science and Engineering Indicators.
- 11. Value of the OA market 11 10000 500 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Journal market OA publications (USD million)
- 12. 5,000 – 10,000 Journal publishers in the global market 50% Proportion of articles from top 5 publishers 12
- 13. $4,000-5,000 Average revenue for a subscription article $1,500-2,500 Average APC 13
- 14. Competition problems 14 Mini-monopolies: top journals as non-substitutable goods Career incentives: reward publishing in high ‘IF’ journals Cultural bias against OA publications (discipline-specific) High level of market concentration Lack of price transparency (non-disclosure clauses)
- 15. Sustainability problems 15 Supply-side Demand-side Uncompetitive APCs (no flipping) Big deals take up majority of library budgets Threat to revenues from licensing and corporate subscriptions Additional costs from gold OA in the short term, uneven distribution in the long-term Lack of scalable revenues for APC-free OA journals Lack of publication waivers in mid-income countries
- 16. OA policy in Europe 16
- 17. Why immediate OA? Public good 17 Cost savings Copyright and licensing Industry influence
- 19. Who wants what? 21% 36% 43% Gold Both Green 30% 50% 21% By member state By share of EU-28 publications
- 20. Reframe the debate: from pathways to actions 20
- 21. 21
- 22. Change focus 22
- 23. Incentivise actors 23 Author incentives: create incentives/remove disincentives for authors to publish OA Publisher incentives: provide subscription publishers with a viable route to flip their business model to open access
- 24. Disrupt the market Competition: improve competition in the scholarly publishing market 24 Pluralism: enable diverse approaches that are tailored to the differing national and disciplinary contexts
- 25. Create the infrastructure 25 Monitoring: create effective mechanisms to monitor compliance and assess sustainability sustainability Infrastructure: support the efficient delivery of open access at scale
- 26. Pathway performance Gold-Hybrid (incl. offsetting) Author incentives Low Publisher incentives High Competition Low Pluralism Low Infrastructure High Monitoring Medium 26 Gold-APC Author incentives Medium Publisher incentives Medium Competition High Pluralism Medium Infrastructure Low Monitoring High Gold no-APC Author incentives Medium Publisher incentives Low Competition High Pluralism High Infrastructure Medium Monitoring Medium OA archiving Author incentives Low Publisher incentives Low Competition Low Pluralism High Infrastructure Medium Monitoring Medium
- 27. 27 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Pursue redirection and reorganisation of budgets Implement or strengthen limitations on embargo periods Enable retention of copyright by author Establish APC funds (institutions) Strengthen policies on open-access archiving Standardise licensing (including support for TDM) Develop monitoring mechanisms (landscape and stakeholders) Provide support for APCs (funders) Develop monitoring mechanisms (proportion of OA content) Improve transparency of publication costs Support Gold no-APC platforms (non-commercial) Develop repository infrastructure Promote changes in author behaviour and incentives Strengthen consortia and pursue collective action Offset subscriptions and OA expenditure Number of studies Recommendations from 20 studies (p.58)
Hinweis der Redaktion
- This section summarises the state and highlights the gap to achieving a transition
- …using the various models possible and in a cost-effective way, without embargoes or with as short as possible embargoes, and without financial and legal barriers, taking into account the diversity in research systems and disciplines, and that open access to scientific publications should be achieved in full observance of the principle that no researcher should be prevented from publishing
- Explain what each pathway means Explain why we discarded gold hybrid Make the point that pathways are all hybrid to accommodate the different national circumstances (see above) the issue is to make them work
- Stress difference between 17% (share of article) and 5% (OA value in journal market)
- Market concentration
- Economics of flipping
- This section discusses the public good argument for doing more and the fragmented national approaches Europe has a goal but the problem is how to get there - stuck into gold v green debate
- Academic publishing is a net export industry Europe accounts for 28% of global revenues, but 40% of industry employment (STM Report 2015) Sustainable model for financing OA of greater importance to Europe than elsewhere Dissatisfaction with existing copyright and licensing regime DSM proposals Immediate OA + liberal licensing EC Council - 9. BELIEVES that optimal access and reuse of the results of scientific work can be enhanced if researchers or their employers retain the copyright on their scientific works; INVITES the Commission and the Member States to explore legal possibilities for measures in this respect and promote the use of licensing models, such as Creative Commons, for scientific publications and research data sets.
- Explain impact of Brexit, differing national opinions and strategies for OA, with country-by-country examples There is no single harmonious European view on OA Southern Europe – little support for gold, e.g. Portugal Eastern Europe – concern about APCs – example of Bulgarian researcher
- OA archiving : 12 Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Czech Republic Denmark, Norway Belgium, Ireland, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Portugal, Spain Gold (OA publishing) : 6 Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria Sweden United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Both models equally supported : 10 Croatia, Poland, Latvia, Slovenia Finland Germany, France, Luxembourg, Austria Italy
- Focus on pathways unhelpful: policies have to address market dynamics; goals of the transition: access, competition and sustainability
- Much of the debate has been about what is the best way of transitioning to OA What we learnt is that there is no one-size fits all: different models would suit better to different countries, and in fact all countries will use a combination of strategies/pathways It would be more beneficial if the conversation focused more on the actual problems that we are trying to solve and how to respond to them we’ve done that in the report and we identified six areas for action
- First you need to consider what incentives key actors have to switch to OA – and key actors are authors and publishers, NOT LIIBRARIANS! There is a clear incentive for authors to stick to the status quo: because most high IF are not OA, their performance is partly assessed based on where they publish, and publishing OA often entails extra (unpaid) work that authors would do without funder policies give an incentive to publish OA, but are there specific actions that can be taken to remove disincentives as well? Regardless of the fact that different approaches may be used in different contexts Traditional publishers are doing pretty well in the current system so why would they want to embrace OA? And if we think that some European funders can force multinationals that make much of their money in the US and Asia to change their successful business model because then we are perhaps being a bit optimistic. We need to work with these publishers to find a transition that makes business sense, to figure out not just disincentives but incentives
- Secondly, we need to look at the deep imbalances that affect the scholarly publishing market 3) The market is uncompetitive. Increasing transparency around pricing would be a great way of making the market more competitive. Why are so many contracts covered by confidentiality? Would it be possible to negotiate subscription or offsetting deals at a collective level and then using FoI requests to waive confidentiality issues? Should there be targeted support for OA publishing platforms or journals that are of key importance at the national level? 4) Fourth, we have to keep the big picture in mind and think what about what effect would supporting a specific strategy have on the OA movement as a whole. Are offsetting deals going to use most of the library budgets? What are the implications for, say, gold APC funds or support for no-APC platforms? We can look at this at the European level: while countries will likely have their preferred approaches to OA, there should be enough support for all the different pathways available across Europe
- Finally, we need to ask if the underlying infrastructure to switch to OA is sufficiently developed 5) The current infrastructure evolved around the subscription system and therefore it is not really suited to an OA world this includes things such as archives/repositories for the preservation of content, but also – crucially – the infrastructure for dissemination and discoverability (how do I get to my audience?). It also includes things such as standardised metadata schema, but also alt metrics that work alongside IF (which is very a product of the current publication ecosystem) 6) Finally, the infrastructure should allow to gather and easily access data about open access that enables monitoring. Are authors depositing articles or publishing OA in compliance with funder mandates etc. But also are OA publications financial sustainable? What business models work best? Data will highlights key strengths and areas where intervention is needed 6)
- There is no silver bullet, no one approach is best in all contexts and often a combination of approaches is best. Think strategically: What is the more urgent barrier to OA in your national/institutional context? How effective is each pathway in addressing these barriers?
- The final step is agreeing on specific measures that could be taken at European, national or even institutional level to make OA more effective. We have identified a number of actions in our study, that can be undertaken to improve the effectiveness of each pathway. This slide is a summary of the actions that were most commonly recommended by other studies. More actions are contained in this document and hopefully we can discuss some of them in the following sessions.