Open Access Publishing

Document Sample
Open Access Publishing Powered By Docstoc
					Open Access Publishing

  SCONUL Conference Workshop
    Birmingham, 21 June 2007
       Context – Journal Publishing

Global Revenues:     $6.5 billion

No. of titles:       c.25,000 peer-reviewed active
                     learned journals

No. of publishers:   c.2,000 publishers of which
                     top 20 publish 64% of articles

No. of articles:     1.6 million p.a.
Growth rate:         3.5% p.a. by article
               Context – R&D

Global Expenditure:   $1,000 billion

Growth rate:          3.5% p.a. in OECD areas,
                      faster in China, India, etc

No. of researchers:   5.5 million
What do we mean by Open Access?

• Open Access is free, permanent online access to the
  full text of primary research articles for anyone,
  anywhere
• Driven by
   – View that research can be accelerated by OA
   – Political pressure to make the results of publicly-
      funded research freely available
   – Library budgets failing to keep up with growth in
      research output and journal prices
   – Expectations created by the move to online
      delivery
      Two routes to Open Access

• „Gold road‟
   – Pay-to-publish. Articles are made freely accessible
     immediately on publication. Cost of publication is met
     by author, author‟s funding body, author‟s institution.
     Publication costs vary between publishers but are
     typically $2,000-$3,000.
• „Green road‟
   – Self-archiving. Authors archive their articles in an
     institutional or subject repository providing free online
     access after an embargo period. Embargo periods
     vary with considerable pressure for them to be
     reduced. Version of article deposited can also vary.
 High-quality publishing has a cost

• “It costs money to produce a peer-reviewed, edited,
  and formatted article that is ready for online
  publication, and to host it on a server that is
  accessible around the clock… The administration of
  peer review, copy editing, production of high-quality
  tagged electronic files, web hosting, and so on are
  expensive processes.”
   – PLOS Web Site FAQs
                The Gold Road
• Wiley-Blackwell is supportive of the Gold Road,
  provided that true publication costs are met by
  funding bodies
• 161 Blackwell journals and 53 Wiley journals now
  offer a pay-to-publish model („OnlineOpen‟ or
  „Funded Access‟)
• These are hybrid models – pay-to-publish, free-to-
  the-world articles available within subscription-based
  journals
• Both Blackwell and Wiley participate in philanthropic
  projects providing free or low-priced access in the
  developing world – HINARI, AGORA, OARE, INASP
 Access to publicly funded research

• “Tax payers have the right to access research they
  have paid for. Indeed they do. They can look at
  exactly what they have paid for – which is research
  up to the stage of pre-prints. They have not,
  however, paid for peer-review, copy-editing,
  composition or any other value that a publisher
  adds.”
   – Peter Banks, 26 January 2007
  Development of a research article
• Stage 1 - primary research outputs
   – Outcome of funded research with no publisher
     investment. Public right to access ends at this
     point
• Stage 2 - accepted author version
   – Outcome of peer review applied to stage one.
     Significant publisher investment
• Stage 3 - final published version
   – Version of record in citable form. Full publisher
     investment
               The Green Road
• Deposit mandates are unacceptable unless
  appropriately funded
   – Free access to stage 2 and stage 3 articles will
     undermine the financial viability of journals
• Solutions should be tailored to disciplines and journal
  characteristics
   – Widely differing usage profiles for journals in
     different disciplines
• Experiments under discussion with EC
                        Funding body positions

Last Updated: 19th January 2007
                                                                           Summary of archiving policy, as
Name of Funding Agency                                        Country      shown on their website
                                                                           Recommendation to Councils to
Research Councils UK                                          UK           request deposit
Arts and Humanities Research Council                          UK           Position not yet issued
Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council          UK           Mandatory at earliest opportunity
                                                                           Strongly encourages at earliest
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils   UK           opportunity
                                                                           No specific advice but committed to
Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council              UK           principles
Economic & Social Research Council                            UK           Mandatory at earliest opportunity
Medical Research Council                                      UK           Mandatory within 6 months
Natural Environment Research Council                          UK           Mandatory at earliest opportunity
Particle Physics & Astronomy Research Council                 UK           Mandatory at earliest opportunity
Wellcome Trust                                                UK           Mandatory within 6 months
                                                                           Strongly encourages within 12
National Institutes of Health                                 USA          months
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research
Foundation)                                                   Germany     Expectation within 12 months
                                                                          No specific advice but committed to
CERN - European Organization for Nuclear Research             Switzerland principles
   Self-archiving and subscriptions

• 53% (rising to 81% in the next five years) of librarians
  surveyed saw availability of content via OA archives
  as an important or very important factor in
  cancellations.
   – ALPSP Survey of librarians on factors in journal
     cancellations Mark Ware, 2006
   Self-archiving and subscriptions

• The majority of librarians will cancel subscriptions if
  100% of content is OA on publication and even with
  an embargo of six months.
• Peer-reviewed content is strongly preferred. Widely
  available pre-prints (Stage 1) do not threaten
  subscriptions but the author‟s copy of the post-peer
  review article (Stage 2) does.
   – Self-archiving and journal subscriptions: Co-existence or
     competition? Chris Beckett and Simon Inger, 2006, funded
     by PRC
              Is access an issue?

• “Most researchers have access to most of what they
  want most of the time.”
   – Associate University Librarian, medium-sized US university,
     member of Blackwell Library Advisory Board
      Access to journals in the US

• Median number of serials purchased by ARLs
   – 1987:           16,514
   – 2001:           13,682
   – 2005:           22,404
• Average unit cost peaked in 2000 at $310.62 and has
  since fallen to $239.58. Now lower than at any time
  since 1996.
   – ARL Statistics, 2004-2005
      Access to journals in the UK

• Total number of periodicals purchased by UKHE
  libraries
    – 1993/1994:      533,000
    – 2000/2001:      826,000
    – 2004/2005:    1,200,000
• Average unit cost peaked in 1995/1996 at £110.09
  and has since fallen to £80.08.
   – University Library Spending on Books, Journals and
     Electronic Resources. 2007 Update.
               European Union
Scientific publishing conference February 2007
• OA here to stay
• Understanding that good publishing costs
• Understanding that one size does not fit all
• Rising power of funders and research institute directors
• Wide variation in policies and knowledge of publishing

Follow up
• Commissioner Vivienne Reding looking for compromise
  and progress ahead of Portugal taking over presidency
  in July
               STM Proposal

Large-scale pilot programme covering wide range of
  journal types and disciplines.

Objectives:
• Impact of open archiving of post-prints on
  subscriptions and research productivity
• Gain understanding of practical aspects
• Assessment of so-called OA citation advantage
• Author behaviour
• Cost efficiencies
What does all this mean for libraries?

• In the short term (1-2 years)
   – More mandates for self-archiving, meaning
      potentially more need for IRs
   – Some growth in pay-to-publish, with little impact
      on libraries
   – More „membership‟ models from OA publishers,
      creating additional demands on library budgets
   – Continuing heated debate, causing even greater
      uncertainty
What does all this mean for libraries?

• In the medium term (3-5 years)
   – Likely scenario is mixed economy of OA
      publishers (pay-to-publish), self-archiving, hybrid
      journals, etc; impact on libraries depends on
      balance between these
   – Possibly some impact on the pricing of journals
      through increasing proportion of pay-to-publish
      content and short embargoes
   – Probably some further refinement of commercial
      business models to meet the needs of funders
   – Transfer of funding away from libraries?
                                  Paid for; Final published article   Open Access Article




                 Immediate




                  6 months
Embargo period




                 12 months




                 24 months



                             0%         25%                  50%                75%         100%
                                                       Preference share
                       Averaged scaled issue access

         1.8
         1.6
         1.4
         1.2
Access




          1
         0.8
         0.6
         0.4
         0.2
          0
                               11

                                    13

                                         15

                                                17

                                                       19

                                                            21

                                                                 23

                                                                      25
           1

               3

                   5

                       7

                           9




                                 Months past release
                           Averaged scaled issue access

         4.5
          4
         3.5
          3
Access




         2.5
          2
         1.5
          1
         0.5
          0
               1
                   3
                       5
                           7
                               9
                                   11
                                        13
                                             15
                                                  17
                                                       19
                                                            21
                                                                 23
                                                                      25
                                                                           27
                                    Months past release
                       The effect of the Version of Content in an OA Archive on the
                                        change in Preference Share




                        2%
                        0%
                       -2%
Change in preference




                       -4%
                       -6%
                        -8%
                       -10%
                       -12%
                       -14%
                       -16%
                       -18%
                              Author's Manuscript     Author's Copy of       Author's Copy of    Final Published Article
                                                      Accepted, Peer-         Accepted, Peer-
                                                    Reviewed Manuscript   Reviewed and Corrected
                                                          (base)                Manuscript