This presentation explores to what extent can we rethink the licensing instruments (perhaps beyond Creative Commons); alternative forms of economic sustainability (freemium); as well as new incentives mechanisms (non-traditional knowledge currencies) into the Open Access movement. *CC0 — “No Rights Reserved” (it excludes the pictures from third parties) This is work is part of the Open Access Visiting Scholar at Faculteit Letteren Leuven. Institute for Cultural Studies (www.culturalstudies.be), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. http://www.kuleuven.be/kuleuven/kalender/2014/rethinking_open_access More information at: http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/cobo or @cristobalcobo

1. Rethinking open access: alternative forms of
sustainability and social impact metrics
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
“Open access is two things.
It's a publishing model and
it's a social movement”.
Jeffrey Beall

2. Why OA?
> OA improves the speed,
efficiency and
efficacy of research
> OA is an enabling factor
in interdisciplinary research
OA increases the visibility,
usage and impact of research
OA allows the professional,
practitioner and business
communities, and the interested
public, to benefit from research.
‘Open access
(OA) literature
is digital, online,
free of charge,
and free of
most copyright
and licensing
restrictions’
(Suber)
UNESCO.
(2012).
Policy
Guidelines
for
the
Development
and
PromoMon
of
Open
Access.
UNESCO.
hOp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215863e.pdf

3. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Current context
Challenges
Further questions

4. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Current context

5. Current context
• Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002)
• Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing
(2003)
• Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge
in the Sciences and Humanities (2003)
• Dame Janet Finch. Accessibility, sustainability,
excellence: how to expand access to research
publications (2012)
• Scientific Publications: Free for all? Tenth Report of Session 2003-04
Volume I: Report (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee)
• Suber, P. (2012). Open Access. MIT Press.
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]

6. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]

7. Current context
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Source:
hOp://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/rinfrastruct/oa/oa/
Directory of Open Access
Journals (DOAJ)
OpenDOAR (the Directory of
Open Access Repositories):
(research and or data
repositories):
OpenAire.eu; Zenodo.org;
Open Knowledge Service, SSRN.
Sherpa Romeo
Publisher copyright policies
self-archiving
shiXing
costs
licences

8. http://vimeo.com/108790101

9. Current context
Challenges
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Challenges to take into consideration when expanding OA (OER)
UNESCO. (2012). Policy Guidelines for the Development and Promotion of Open Access. UNESCO.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215863e.pdf

10. Challenges
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Scheliga, Kaja, and Sascha Friesike. “Putting open science into practice:
A social dilemma?.” First Monday 19.9 (2014).

11. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Challenges:
• Licensing
• Funding
• Recognition

12. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]

13. Licensing:

14. Licensing:
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Schijndel and Smiers (2005)
“many people see the CC licences as an alternative to
copyright, but in fact they are not, but are simply licences
for the use of work that do not actually affect your
copyright”
CC doesn't question or challenge the copyright system.
CC does not paint a clear picture of how a diverse set of
creators (and producers) might generate an income.
There is a need for alternative ways to protect the public
domain of knowledge and creativity
van
Schijndel,
Marieke,
and
Joost
Smiers.
“Imagining
a
world
without
copyright:
The
market
and
temporary
protecMon
a
beOer
alternaMve
for
arMsts
and
the
public
domain.
An
essay.”
Cut-­‐Up:
The
Art
of
Living
in
a
MediaMsed
Landscape
20
(2005).

15. Licensing:
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Boyle (2009)
Idealised vision of intellectual property.
It should produce incentives for innovation
by rewarding creators⋯
Copyright, should be servant of creativity,
promoting access to information,
but it is becoming an obstacle to both.
(Creative) Commons is actually based on Copyright and
removing the embedded conditions it would open a
completely new open perspective.
“public domain”, is free of property rights and the user
could do with it (content, art or creation) whatever is
wanted. That is key for innovation and culture.
Boyle,
J
ames.
The
public
domain:
Enclosing
the
commons
of
the
mind.
Yale
University
Press,
2009.

16. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Challenges:
• Licensing
• Funding
• Recognition

17. Funding:
“It is feared that a gold
mandate is very likely to
result in a deeper disparity
between the wealthier
higher education
institutions”
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Belfiore,
Eleonora,
and
Anna
Upchurch,
eds.
HumaniMes
in
the
twenty-­‐first
century:
beyond
uMlity
and
markets.
Palgrave
macmillan,
2013.

18. Why OA has been spreading much more slowly in the arts and humanities than STEM?
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
⋯rejection rates are much higher in humanities journals so the peer review more
expensive; ⋯ the demand for journal articles in the humanities declines more slowly
after publication than in the science; therefore embargos need to be much longer
than in STEM journals to protect the economic interest of the journals
(Suber, 2005)

19. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Funding:

20. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Funding:
double
dipping

21. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Funding:

22. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Funding:
F!:
DIRECT
CROSS-­‐SUBSIDIES
Any
Product
That
AOracts
You
to
Pay
for
Something
Else.
(iPHONE)
F2:
THE
THREE-­‐PARTY
MARKET
Content,
Services,
SoXware,
etc.
(ADVERTISEMENT)
F3:
FREEMIUM
Anything
That‘s
Matched
with
a
Premium
Paid
Version
(SKYPE)
F4:
NONMONETARY
MARKETS
Anything
People
Choose
to
Give
Away
with
No
ExpectaMon
of
Payment
(TEDx)
Anderson,
C.
(2009).
Free:
The
Future
of
a
Radical
Price.
Hyperion.

23. Funding:
http://goo.gl/DnqXnh

24. benchmarking 9 flexible funding models
1. PLoS ONE: article processing charges (APCs) fee waived for low-
Income (FWL).
2. Ubiquity Press: APCs + fee reduction when needed.
3. PeerJ: Authors pay for a publishing plan ($99) or can submit for
‘free’ and pay once accepted +FWL.
4. Open Library of Humanities: To collectively fund journals 250
articles and 12 books in partnership $700 from 500 libraries + FWL.
5. Co-Action Publishing: Author can publish for free online and/or low
cost in a printed edition. Funding Swedish Royal Library + advertising.
6. African Journals OnLine: Free access to article abstracts. Charge for
full access. Fee is defined according to the income of the user’s country.
7. SCOAP3 consortium: Large-scale international consortium of libraries
+agencies who cover costs of opening access to key journals.
8. eLife: Peer-reviewed OA journal for the biomedical and life sciences
(sponsored by founding agencies and donors).
9. F1000Research: Articles are published OA and peer reviewed after
publication by referees. Authors pay an APC with discount to referees.

25. benchmarking flexible funding models

26. benchmarking flexible funding models
Source:
hOps://www.flickr.com/photos/shandopics/4159816223/in/photostream/
⋯most of them are significantly subsidised,
their approaches are complementary and not
mutually exclusive.
Common patterns are also: low APCs, reduced fees for low-income
countries, adoption of Creative Commons licences, as well as flexibility.

27. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Challenges:
• Licensing
• Funding
• Recognition

28. Academics work primarily
for impact (not for money)

30. The ranking list includes every
institution that has any Nobel
Laureates, Fields Medals, and
Highly-Cited Researchers. In
addition, major universities of
every country with significant
amount of articles indexed by
Science Citation Index-Expanded
(SCIE) and Social Science Citation
Index (SSCI) are also included.
shanghairanking.com
“Combining different indicators
into a single number is like
transforming multidimensional
spaces into a zero-dimension”

31. Recognition:
⋯despite the broad concern regarding the
need of transforming science and opening up
the research process, there is a clear
discrepancy between the concept of open
science and scholarly reality.
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
(Iiving
in
a
post
‘H
index’
world?)
Scheliga and Friesike (2014)

32. Criticism:
The web has given rise
to new venues of
discussion/dissemination
of scholarly information.
Shema, et al (2014)
A paper cited does not
mean that it is cited
positively (no
distinction).
Buschman and Michalek (2013)
Not clear article-level
metrics.

33. No single metric can
sufficiently reveal the
full impact of research.
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
As scholarly comm.
migrated to the web,
so did citations
“Tweets can predict
highly cited articles
within the first 3 days
of article publication.”
Eysenbach,(2011)
‘‘multi-metric approach’’
is proposed as necessary
“much is downloaded and never read, just as
much used to be photocopied and never read”

34. hOps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezmUoxMTFHQ
Some tools: F1000, PLOS Article-Level-Metrics, Altmetric.com,
Plum Analytics, Impact Story, CiteULike or Mendeley

35. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Focus on research outputs
www.youtube.com/
watch?v=RzVxoUx9rc

36. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
‘Questionable, scholarly OA publishers‘
by Jeffrey Beall
Predatory publishers are those
who exploit the gold OA to make
a profit.
Their job is to get the money from the
authors, so they do everything they can to
make themselves look legitimate.
Academic librarians need to remove metadata
for predatory publishers from their online
catalogs.
A crowdsourced publishing ethics is needed to
report instances of misconduct.
hOp://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-­‐of-­‐predatory-­‐publishers-­‐2014/
Wilson,
Kristen.
“Librarian
vs.(open
access)
predator:
An
interview
with
Jeffrey
Beall.”
Serials
Review
39.2
(2013):
125-­‐128.

37. 3 phases the transition of Open Access journals.
1.
Lack the prestige (pioneering) (1990s).
2.
Digitalization (innovation):
Electronic version of their journal(s) freely accessible.
3.
Economic Sustainability (consolidation?): BioMedCentral,
PLoS, pioneered the use of article processing charges (APCs).
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Björk,
B.-­‐C.,
Solomon,
D.
(2012).
Open
access
versus
subscripMon
journals:
a
comparison
of
scienMfic
impact.
BMC
Medicine,
10(1),
73.
doi:10.1186/1741-­‐7015-­‐10-­‐73
Björk Solomon, (2012)

38. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
Current context
Challenges
Further questions

39. 1. Why the APC fees can be up to 10x higher
than the cases previously presented?
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
2. How to move toward a gold OA model
acknowledging that different disciplines have
very different funding realities?
3. Shouldn’t exist major flexibility also in the
definition of the embargo period?

40. 4. What about allowing the authors to go for
more flexible licences such as CC0?
by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
5. Shouldn‘t public entities claim for a more
transparent accountability of publisher
incomes to avoid double dip and faked peer
review?
6. Who will throw the 1st stone when adopting
social or multi-metric outcome approaches?

41. by
@cristbalcobo
at
@LeuvenU
Nov.2014
[CC0
“No
Rights
Reserved”]
There is not much agreement
whether openness is a mean or an
end.
For instance, Google represents
nothing less than the “utopia of
openness”.
It is “the greatest corporate
champion of openness,” the leader
of the “openness movement,” and
“the incarnation of the Internet
gospel of openness.”.
[...] “instead of celebrating what Google does
for openness, it’s important to investigate
what openness does for Google“.

42. danke well
@cristobalcobo
oxford
internet
institute
The presentation is CC0 but images from
third parties might have other licences (not
this one)