Open Access Filtering Introduced in Web of Science

In the latest update to the Web of Science interface, accessible through Primo Resources A-Z tab (http://primo.aber.ac.uk) or directly at http://wok.mimas.ac.uk, the facility to filter your search results to show only those items available through Open Access has been introduced. Using software developed by ImpactStory, links are provided to peer-reviewed or final versions of Open Access papers, published through either the Gold OA route (usually involving payment of Article Processing Charges for immediately availability) or the Green OA route (achieved by depositing the author's postprint in an institutional repository).

In the initial Web of Science results list, all the Open Access records are now identified using the standard OA logo for easy identification.

The latest Web of Science White Paper on Open Access and Open Access poster have full details of this new facility.

Steve Smith
Academic Engagement Group

DG Research and Innovation Expert Group on Altmetrics Report

The EC Directorate Research and Innovation's Expert Group on Altmetrics was set up to consider how to advance Article-Level publication metrics (altmetrics) in the context of the open research agenda, to review different altmetrics measures in relation to more established methods of measuring research output, how to remove the current barriers to open research/open science and to recommend infrastructures to help embed open research in academic culture. Their report "Next-Generation Metrics: Responsible metrics and Evaluation for Open Science" recommends that the EC should provide clear guidelines for the responsible use of metrics to support open research in the next Research Framework programme (FP9) that research should be undertaken on the potential for gaming any new altmetrics proposed for FP9 before their introduction.

LERU Statement on Open Access - October 2015

The League of European Research Universities (LERU) released a new statement on open access on 12 October 2015 calls for research funding to be focused on research, rather than to be overly diverted to publishers.  It calls on the European Commission to work with the university and public research sectors, funders, publishers and authors to develop models and solutions for the sustainable support of open access publishing, both by Gold and Green Open Access routes, while allowing for commercial publishers to retain viable returns.  Specifically, the statement calls on the Dutch Presidency of the European Commission from January-June 2016 to bring together all interested parties to develop a way forward acceptable to all parties on an international basis.

The full LERU statement, "Christmas is over. Research funding should go to research, not to publishers!" can be accessed at http://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/LERU%20Statement%20Moving%20Forwards%20on%20Open%20Access.pdf

Reviewing of the Efficiency and Limitations of Gold Open Access Markets

A new assessment of the functioning of “pay-to-publish” Gold Open Access markets has been published by JISC (11 Feb 2016) in association with Research Libraries UK, SCONUL and the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA). “Academic Journal Markets: their Limitations and the Consequences for a Transition to Open Access” concludes that the new dedicated open access publishing system, with authors or their institutions paying Article Processing Charges (APCs) to enable immediate open access to all papers in the journal, is functioning reasonably well, with low barriers to entry, high levels of technological development and customers responding well to APC pricing differentials between journals and publishers.

The standards of service provided to authors by the new dedicated Gold Open Access publishers compare well with those provided by the traditional subscription publishers which offer "hybrid" open access options.  The reliability of the openness of individual articles, the range of open access reuse licenses available and the costings of Article Processing Charges levied are all gauged as being better in the dedicated OA market.

The “offset deals” offered by traditional subscription publishers, where the APC charges levied to authors’ institutions are balanced against subscription charges, so that the total overall payments made by universities for publishing in and subscribing to particular journal deals do not rise out of proportion through “double dipping”, are assessed as both “unscalable” and “unsustainable”. The administrative burden which such offsetting systems confer on both publishers and academic institutions are counted as significant and as unnecessarily complicating the OA market structure.

The effect of non-cancellation clauses in subscription publishers' “big deals” in consistently squeezing smaller publishers out of the journals market completely also draws comment, with effects on over-concentration of the academic publishing sector, restriction in the range of journals available, and depletion of funds for undergraduate text purchasing being specifically mentioned.

Despite all these advantages, however, progress towards total open access provision in UK academic journals remains slower than might have been expected, with over 60% of UK research still being behind subscription barriers in 2015 according to the Research Information Network,

potentially leading to lost commercial opportunities and limiting UK academic impact.

Comment is also made regarding the OA-isolation of the UK and the Netherlands being the only countries so far to prioritise the Gold Open Access route, with most other countries and international organisations favouring the Green Open Access route of depositing post-prints or embargoed final versions of papers in institutional or subject repositories.  Academic publishing is very much an international market and if demand for the Gold Open Access market is restricted to just 2-3 countries, its chances of significant world market penetration will remain small and progress slow.

In conclusion, the report recommends several strategies by which the lack of Gold OA market penetration could be addressed, including:

• restricting the extent to which RCUK Open Access grants can be used for publication in hybrid journals,
• development of better journal quality indicators to encourage authors to publish more of their important papers in dedicated Gold OA journals, and
• ensuring that small society publishers are provided with effective mechanisms for staying in the Open Access publishing market.

Comments can be made on Twitter using #OAjournalsmarket

Steve Smith

Academic Engagement Group

Hugh Owen Library

Tickell Independent Review of Progress in Open Access Models

Published on 11 February 2016, this independent review of recent progress in the Open Access publications market "Open Access to Research Publications: Independent Advice", commissioned by the UK Government and authored by Adam Tickell, Vice-Principal of the University of Birmingham, summarises the current position on Open Access and makes recommendations as follows:

i) The UK Government should continue supporting the Gold Open Access model but should note that few research funding bodies internationally have an explicit preference for the Gold model and that the vast majority of funders support Green OA, with flexibility for authors to publish via Gold if they wish and have the funds available.

ii) Business models for Open Access journals publishing have proved less responsive to market pressures than envisaged and costs continue to rise, with there being a ‘consistent and sharp’ increase in the average cost of purchasing Gold Open Access papers and corresponding falls in subscription costs not being commensurate. The costs of driving a strong preference for Gold OA could rise from £33m in 2014 to between £40-£83m by 2020, with around three-quarters of this rise being due to inflation of OA Article Processing Charges in hybrid subscription/open access titles

iii) Whereas the UK is widely recognised as being the leading nation in the Open Access and Open Data movements, the journal publications market has a global reach. As such, UK Open Access policy developments must be considered in light of international approaches and preferences.

iv) That all UK universities should sign up to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) at http://www.ascb.org/dora/ to ensure that the pressures of research quality assessment (e.g. REF) do not place too much inflationary pressure on the Gold Open Access market.

v) That the UK Open Access Coordination Group should support the development of agreed service standards around Gold Open Access, in recognition of concerns about poor service and market response from some publishers.  To support this objective, the Group should convene an Efficiency Forum sub-group to look at OA market operation, a Repositories sub-group to ensure continuing inter-operability between UK repositories, and an OA Monographs sub-group to develop policies for open access in the book market.

vi) Open Access to research data has developed more slowly than for research publications. The Concordat on Open Research Data will be finalised in early 2016, and while there are major scientific and public good advantages in pursuing open research data, the cost implications surrounding the distribution of such data to the commercial sector are not yet fully understood.

vii) The UK Open Data Forum should coordinate work relating to furthering the Research Data Management roadmap in the UK
viii) the Dutch Government have committed to making Open Access a priority of their Presidency of the Council of the European Union – January to June 2016

Jo Johnson, as Minister for Universities and Science, has welcomed the report and backed future efforts in making OA/subscription off-setting arrangements more economic
for the academic and research sectors.   A further progress report has been requested by the end of 2017.

Steve Smith
11 February 2016

OECD report on "Making Open Science a Reality"

The OECD’s recent report on “Making Open Science a Reality" reviews progress in making the results of publicly-funded research papers and data available by Open Access, looking at the rationale behind open access and the impact which open access policies have made so far, the legal barriers to progress and a review of the key actors in the field.

The report is available both in PDF format and in standard html format.

The main conclusions of the report are as follows:

• Open Science is a means to support better quality science, increased collaboration, better engagement between research and society, and higher social and economic impact of public research
• Open science policies should be principle-based but adapted to local realities, taking into account the needs of the different participants involved in research projects
• Better incentive mechanisms are needed to promote data-sharing practices among researchers
• Better data skills are essential for researchers, students and citizens;
• Training and awareness-raising among researchers is important for the development of an open science culture
• Repositories and online platforms will not have impact if the information they contain is not of good quality.

Steve Smith
Library

European Communities Statement on Alternative Models for Open Access Publishing

With the European Union and most of the major UK research funders now mandating the Open Access publishing of research derived from public funding, calls for the development of a long-term, sustainable model for open access publishing are growing month by month. As part of this process, the European Commission organised a workshop in Brussels on 12 October to collect information and reflect on some of the more established and on some newly-developed financial models for Open Access publishing.

Green open access models using organisational or subject repositories and Gold open access models requiring Article Processing Charges (APCs) both have their advantages and disadvantages, but newer models are now coming to the fore which could optimise existing models and forge routes for the creation of new OA scenarios. The presentations given on some of these newer OA models can be accessed on the European Communities DG Research and Innovation website.

A discussion on the future of Open Access publishing models was also launched on the new Digital for Science Platform. You can join the debate at: https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/what-future-open-access-publishing

In addition to the workshop, EC Research Commissioner Carlos Moedas has also issued a statement calling on publishers to adapt their Open Access publishing models to new financial realities. This statement can also be accessed on the EC's Europa website.

Steve Smith IS Academic Engagement Group

Wellcome Trust / Research Information Network Report on Scholarship and Review

Responding to academic concerns regarding the effectiveness of peer review for papers published in journals, the Wellcome Trust commissioned the Research Information Network (RIN) (http://www.rin.ac.uk/) to investigate possible strategies to improve the peer review system in the light of:

i) the availability of new technologies in e-journals and
ii) the large number of new entrants to academic journal publishing, particularly in the area of open access publishing.  

The resulting Wellcome Trust / RIN report was published in March 2015 - http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp059003.pdf

The report envisages the following developments:

• Innovations such as post-publication peer review and open peer-reviewing will be slow to take off as the academic cultures supporting the current pre-publication peer review system are very powerful
• Whilst it would be good for all stages of the peer review process to become more open, a distinction needs to be made between revealing reviewers’ identities and revealing the actual content of their reviews
• More interaction is needed between editors, reviewers and authors, both before and after publication
• Article-level metrics (altmetrics), which measure the numbers of comments, ratings, bookmarks and news coverage which papers receive on the web and in social media, are becoming increasingly important as alternative methods of assessing public engagement
• Some form of scholarly credit needs to be introduced to recognise the contribution of peer reviewers, as shown by the development of such systems as Peerage of Science (https://www.peerageofscience.org/) and Publons (https://publons.com/) .  This recognition should be in the form of attribution, there being currently little academic enthusiasm for a system of monetary rewards 
• Distinction needs to be made between peer review to determine the academic soundness of a paper and that to determine whether or not a paper fits the scope and ambition of the journal to which it has been submitted. Publishers are now starting to set up “cascade systems” so as to avoid reviewing the same paper more than once.

International Open Access Week, 20th – 26th October 2014

International Open Access Week, 20th – 26th October 2014, offers an opportunity for the academic and research community to learn more about the potential benefits of Open Access (OA) – free, online access to results of scholarly research, and the right to use and re-use those results.

OA has the power to transform the way research and scientific inquiry is conducted; with research
funders and Funding Councils alike, recently launching OA policies.

However, the implementation of OA is not without its issues. The AU OA working group, an Information  Services and Department of Research, Business and Innovation collaboration, invites AU academics and  researchers to a series of events scheduled across OA week.

These events include:

* Q & A session with HEFCE HE Policy Advisor Ben Johnson, and representatives from the
publishing community, PLOS, JISC Monographs, Biomed Central and Wiley - Arts Centre Cinema, morning of Friday 24 October, 9.30 a.m.

* PURE refresher training sessions, 12pm Wednesday 22nd and Thursday 23rd October, Hugh Owen
Training Room. Spaces bookable via CDSAP webpages.

* “Who owns what and what can they do with it? Copyright and your research publications
workshop” (Tuesday 21 October, 1-2 pm) with AU Data Protection and Copyright Manager, Dr Jonathan Davies.  Please send us  or bring along licences/copyright agreements which you have been asked to sign when publishing articles.  Send licences (or screenshots of licences) and any questions to openaccess@aber.ac.uk

 

 

Steve Smith

Is Open Access Harming Book Sales?

(Image: The Guardian)

A common concern over Open Access book publishing is that it harms book sales, with potential buyers simply opting to read the content online for free rather than actually purchasing a physical copy.

In answer to this concern, in October 2013, the OAPEN Foundation published a study on the effect of Open Access on the sale of academic monographs in the Netherlands. The project was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research and was undertaken in collaboration with nine academic publishers.

The OAPEN-NL report found no evidence that Open Access has an impact on monograph sales. Indeed, books with Open Access had similar sales to those without Open Access in the experiment's control group. There was, however, a clear effect on online accessibility. By making books available online, the study showed that average book discovery through Google Books increased by 142% and that full-text usage (in terms of Google Books page views) increased by 209%. On average, each e-book within the study attracted 144 sales as against 2800 downloads.

The report also makes several recommendations for different groups including authors, funders, publishers and libraries on how to improve Open Access for monographs.

The full OAPEN-NL report can be found online.

Neil Waghorn
Steve Smith

The Finch Report: A Year On

The Finch Report on increasing access to research publications was published in 2012 and included a list of recommendations and identified steps to achieve them. In October 2013 the Working Group published its findings on the state of progress.

The review stands by the recommendations made in the original Finch Report, that Gold Open Access, primarily funded by article processing or publishing charges (APCs), will be the eventual optimum form of Open Access, although they did 'not recommend a rapid transition'.

In light of the Finch Report, the RCUK announced new policies to which universities adhered. It was noted, however, that universities' actions seemed to only meet requirements rather than to go further. An example being that universities have apparently continued their investments into Green Open Access rather than the recommended Gold Open Access.

Introducing the Researcher Identifier ORCID

ORCID (Open Researchers and Contributor ID) Inc., was created in 2010 with the aim to create permanent unique identification codes for researchers that could be used as an international, cross disciplinary, cross institution system to identify researchers and attribute their respective work.

This non-profit effort works through the insertion of an individual's ORCID identifier into the content metadata, allowing the permanent clear association with that individual. Registration for ORCID is free and by the end of the 2013, there were over 460,000 individuals with their own ORCID identifiers.

Users can attribute as much, or as little, personal or professional detail to their ORCID account, and can also tailor their privacy settings to control who has the ability to access said information.

Universities and institutions world-wide, from Boston to Hong Kong and Sweden, are beginning to integrate ORCID into their systems, and are especially useful in regions where there are high concentrations of similar surnames, such as in Wales.

To find out more information about ORCID, or to sign up for an individual identifier, visit the ORCID website.

An Introduction to Creative Commons Licences

Creative Commons Licenses offer a way for material to be copyrighted in a manner that is less restrictive than traditional 'All Rights Reserved' copywriting. These licenses 'provide a simple, standardized way to give the public permission to share and use your creative work — on conditions of your choice'.

Creative Commons Licences are in wide use around the world, arguably most well-known at photo sharing site Flickr and the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. There are also other companies and organisations that have opted to make some of their content less restricted than traditional copyrights, an example being GlaxoSmithKline, who surrendered all copyrights in its malarial data set, which includes more than 13,500 compounds known to be active against malaria.

The Creation Commons website describes the various types and combinations of licences below:


Attribution
CC BY

This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.


Attribution-ShareAlike
CC BY-SA

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to “copyleft” free and open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. This is the license used by Wikipedia, and is recommended for materials that would benefit from incorporating content from Wikipedia and similarly licensed projects.

Horizon 2020 Open Access Guidelines Published

(Image: European Commission)

On 11th December 2013, the European Commission published their latest guidance document for Open Access to scientific publications and research data. These Guidelines are designed to 'provide context and explanation for the rules on open access applicable to beneficiaries in projects funded or co-funded under Horizon 2020.' Horizon 2020, the largest ever EU Research and Innovation programme with nearly €80 billion of funding available (2014 to 2020), is designed to open up access to published research.

According to the guide, 'information already paid for by the public purse should not be paid for again each time it is accessed or used, and that it should benefit European companies and citizens to the full. This means making publicly-funded scientific information available online, at no extra cost, to European researchers, innovative industries and citizens, while ensuring long-term preservation.'

While the document details and describes both Green and Gold versions of Open Access, it does not make a clear preference over which form of Open Access the data should take, only that it be open.

The guide sets out the political and legal basis for rules on Open Access in Horizon 2020, detailing various EU policies that correspond with Horizon 2020, including the Digital Agenda for Europe and the Innovation Union policy.

Hitting the Button for Open Access

(Image: Open Access Button)

Coming across paywalls for content can curtail and frustrate research. To log this frustration and attempt to highlight the need for Open Access two medical students, David Carroll and Joseph McArthur, have created an Open Access button.

Once installed, this plugin allows users to simply click to record that they hit a paywall and could not access the desired material. Your approximate location is then logged on a map, helping build the global case for Open Access. Once you have filled in a brief description the plugin offers alternative routes to the desired material, including an automatic Google Scholar search and similar articles that are available through Open Access sources. In the future the developers plan to add the ability to directly email the author of the work for a copy.

The button had a formal beta launch in Berlin in November 2013 and at the time of writing had reported 4269 paywall hits.

You can find out more and download the button for your browser at the Open Access website, or follow them on Twitter.


Neil Waghorn
Steve Smith

Open Access Week 2013

OPEN ACCESS WEEK – 21/27 October 2013

In association with Open Access Week, we would like to highlight CADAIR, Aberystwyth University’s own open access window to AU staff and student research, giving access to peer-reviewed papers not hidden behind a subscription wall.

Today Cadair is populated with articles through AU’s research management system PURE which sends articles appropriate for Open Access to Cadair once any embargo periods have passed.  From the CADAIR start page, staff papers can be searched using author names or keywords, or browsed by Department/Communities or by more specific subject collections.

The major exception to this are the AU theses, for which the records and associated files are loaded directly to CADAIR.  Thesis records are gathered together in the CADAIR Postgraduate Publications collection but can also be found in the relevant departmental collections. 

Most major academic publishers (e.g. CUP, OUP, Wiley, Elsevier, Sage) will now allow either gold open access publishing or green open access depositing of papers in their journals. Gold open access papers are funded for by authors paying “Article Processing Charges”, otherwise known as APCs in advance of publication, allowing all readers to read the paper on the publisher’s website with no subscription charges.  Major journals therefore often now contain both open-access papers (open-to-all) and standard papers which are open only to subscribers or subscribing institutions. Aberystwyth University has received some APC funding for gold open access publishing from the HE Funding Councils.  If you wish to make enquiries about using these funds to support your research papers being published on “gold open access”, please contact mailto:openaccess@aber.ac.uk