Destination Open Access: Getting Researchers On Board

This Open Access (OA) Poster - ‘Destination Open Access: Getting Researchers on Board’, was devised by the Queen’s University Belfast’s OA Team. It outlines the advocacy strategy undertaken to strengthen researchers’ uptake of OA at the University. Research funders, such as the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE), are increasingly mandating that researchers make their work publically available via an institutional repository. It is therefore imperative that researchers and departments fully engage with open access to ensure future funding.

The team’s advocacy strategy centres around collaboration with the Heads of Schools, Subject Librarians, the Research and Enterprise Office and, most importantly, the researchers themselves. The team regularly organises training sessions and events, on understanding OA, funder compliance and using the institutional repository. We also run outreach activities, such as practical drop-in sessions, promotional give-aways, OA updates to library staff and direct communications to schools. Finally, the team maintain a strong online presence via LibGuides, LibAnswers, the Library Blog and Twitter. We utilise these platforms to highlight topical OA issues, to advertise events, to provide support materials and to interact with researchers.

Statistics indicate that researchers are increasingly engaging with the OA training, communications and outreach events. Since August 2014 over 1200 researchers have attended advocacy sessions. Additionally, the numbers of papers uploaded to the repository each year has steadily increased and there are now over 3, 000 full-text OA research outputs in the Queen’s Research Portal.

This reflects positively on the team’s established approach of working with researchers to develop an OA culture within the University. Whilst it is clear that an open access strategy is essential, support for the open access ethos must come from individual researchers and Schools in order for the University to reach its desired destination of maximum uptake of open access.

Queen's University Belfast, RCUK Open Access Compliance Report 2015/2016

Queen's University Belfast has submitted its open access compliance report to the RCUK for 2015/2016. Queen's receives an annual open access block grant from RCUK. The funds are made available to support universities in meeting the requirements of the RCUK open access policy, in particular meeting the cost of article processing charges (APC) to make articles open access through the publisher.

Rising Publication Delays Inflate Journal Impact Factors

Journal impact factors have become an important criterion to judge the quality of scientific publications over the years, influencing the evaluation of institutions and individual researchers worldwide. However, they are also subject to a number of criticisms. Here we point out that the calculation of a journal’s impact factor is mainly based on the date of publication of its articles in print form, despite the fact that most journals now make their articles available online before that date. We analyze 61 neuroscience journals and show that delays between online and print publication of articles increased steadily over the last decade. Importantly, such a practice varies widely among journals, as some of them have no delays, while for others this period is longer than a year. Using a modified impact factor based on online rather than print publication dates, we demonstrate that online-to-print delays can artificially raise a journal’s impact factor, and that this inflation is greater for longer publication lags. We also show that correcting the effect of publication delay on impact factors changes journal rankings based on this metric. We thus suggest that indexing of articles in citation databases and calculation of citation metrics should be based on the date of an article’s online appearance, rather than on that of its publication in print.

Towards reliable data - counting the Finnish Open Access publications

Presentation at the CRIS2016 conference in St Andrews, June 10, 2016

A mandate to self archive? The role of open access institutional repositories

This paper argues that the best way to achieve major improvements in scholarly communication in the short and medium term is to make it mandatory to deposit research papers in open access institutional repositories. This is what the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report of 2004 on scientific publishing recommended. The paper defines what open access repositories are and explains why they should be institutional. It also deals with question of what should be deposited in institutional repositories and why these improve scholarly communication. It then deals with the issue of mandating deposition: why deposition should be mandatory, who should mandate deposition and who should carry out deposition. The paper concludes with an analysis of the wider implications of mandating deposition in institutional repositories and a summary of the existing situation in the UK and elsewhere. The paper discusses the Select Committee report and the UK Government response in relation to institutional repositories.

From policy development to effectiveness and alignment: An analysis of the UK’s Higher Education Open Access policy landscape

The number of Open Access (OA) policies that have been adopted by universities, research institutes and research funders has been increasing at a fast pace. The Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies (ROARMAP) records the existence of 724 OA policies across the world, of which 512 have been adopted by universities and research institutions. The UK is one of the leading countries in terms of OA policy development and implementation with a total of 85 institutional1 and an estimated 35 funder2 OA policies. In order to understand and contextualise how OA policies are developed and how they can be effectively implemented and aligned, this brief looks at two areas. The first section provides an overview on the processes evolving around policy making, policy effectiveness and policy alignment. In particular, it summarises the criteria and elements generally specified in OA policies, it points out some of the relevant steps informing the development, monitoring and revision of OA policies, it outlines what OA policy elements contribute to policy effectiveness, and highlights the benefits in aligning OA policies. The second section revisits the issues previously discussed within the context of the UK institutional (universities) OA policy landscape.

Monitoring Compliance with Open Access policies

In the last few years, academic communities have seen an increase in the number of Open Access (OA) policies being adopted at the institutional and funder levels. In parallel to policy implementation, institutions and funders have also been engaged in developing mechanisms to monitor academics and researchers compliance with the existing OA policies. This study highlights a few of the cases where compliance is being effectively monitored by institutions and funders. In the first section, Open Access is briefly overviewed and the rationale for monitoring OA policy compliance is explained. The second section looks at best practices in monitoring policy compliance with OA policies by funders and institutions. The case studies reflect on compliance with the UK Funding Councils and the USA National Institutes of Health OA policies. The third section makes recommendations on what processes and procedures universities and funders should adopt to monitor compliance with their OA policies. The final section recapitulates some of the key ideas related to monitoring policy compliance.

Regional Challenges in Achieving Open Access and Proposed Recommendations

Working Together to Promote Open Access Policy Alignment in Europe

Open Access policy effectiveness: A briefing paper for UK Higher Education Institutions

There are now almost 700 Open Access policies around the world, two thirds of them in universities and research institutes. There is considerable variation across these policies in terms of the conditions they lay down for authors and of their effectiveness. This briefing paper lays out the main issues that affect the effectiveness of a policy in providing high levels of Open Access research material.

Open Access in the UK Briefing on the UK Open Access Case Study

Open Access (OA) policies have been adopted at the national, institutional and funder levels in the UK and various infrastructural support mechanisms are available to facilitate open access. In July 2012, following an independent study on ‘Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications’ the UK Government announced its OA policy. The Government’s policy determines that ‘support for publication in open access or hybrid journals, funded by Article Processing Charges (APCs), [i]s the main vehicle for the publication of research’. At the same time that the UK Government announced its OA policy, the UK’s major research funder, the Research Councils UK (RCUK), revised its OA policy announcing its ‘preference for immediate [Gold] Open Access with the maximum opportunity for re-use’. In March 2014, the UK Funding Councils announced their OA policy for the post-2014 Research Evaluation Framework (REF). The policy requires the deposit of peer-reviewed article and conference proceedings in repositories (Green OA) and is applicable from 1 April 2016. By and large, two distinct OA routes are being promoted by the UK Government and RCUK (Gold OA) and the Funding Councils (Green OA). This scenario requires that continued efforts are made to ensure that advice and support are provided to universities, academic libraries and researchers on the distinct OA policies and on policy compliance. The UK research institutions have been adopting OA policies from as early as 2003 and there currently are 85 institutional OA policies. Despite distinct OA policies having been adopted by policymakers, national research funders and research institutions, the UK’s movement towards OA has been a result of stakeholders coordinated efforts and is considered to be a case of good practice.

Meeting on Provisions in Licensing Incorporating new developments in daily licensing practice: Setting conditions for open access, patron driven access, and data & text mining

Following the workshop on new developments in daily licensing practice in November 2011, we brought together fourteen representatives from national consortia (from Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and the UK) and publishers (Elsevier, SAGE and Springer) met in Copenhagen on 9 March 2012 to discuss provisions in licences to accommodate new developments. The one day workshop aimed to: present background and ideas regarding the provisions KE Licensing Expert Group developed; introduce and explain the provisions the invited publishers currently use;ascertain agreement on the wording for long term preservation, continuous access and course packs; give insight and more clarity about the use of open access provisions in licences; discuss a roadmap for inclusion of the provisions in the publishers’ licences; result in report to disseminate the outcome of the meeting. Participants of the workshop were: United Kingdom: Lorraine Estelle (Jisc Collections) Denmark: Lotte Eivor Jørgensen (DEFF), Lone Madsen (Southern University of Denmark), Anne Sandfær (DEFF/Knowledge Exchange) Germany: Hildegard Schaeffler (Bavarian State Library), Markus Brammer (TIB) The Netherlands: Wilma Mossink (SURF), Nol Verhagen (University of Amsterdam), Marc Dupuis (SURF/Knowledge Exchange) Publishers: Alicia Wise (Elsevier), Yvonne Campfens (Springer), Bettina Goerner (Springer), Leo Walford (Sage) Knowledge Exchange: Keith Russell The main outcome of the workshop was that it would be valuable to have a standard set of clauses which could used in negotiations, this would make concluding licences a lot easier and more efficient. The comments on the model provisions the Licensing Expert group had drafted will be taken into account and the provisions will be reformulated. Data and text mining is a new development and demand for access to allow for this is growing. It would be easier if there was a simpler way to access materials so they could be more easily mined. However there are still outstanding questions on how authors of articles that have been mined can be properly attributed.

The impact of Open Access outside of European Universities

The Open Access movement has encouraged the availability of publicly-funded research papers, data and learning content for barrier-free use of that content without payment by the user. The impact of increasing availability of content to researchers in European universities is understood in terms of easier access to previous research and greater exposure for new research results, bringing benefits to the research community itself. A new culture of informal sharing is evident within the teaching and learning communities and to some extent also within the research community, but as yet the growth in informal sharing has not had a major effect upon the use of formal publication choices. This briefing paper explores the impact of open access upon potential users of research outputs outside the walls of research-led European universities, where the economic value of open access may be even greater than the academic value within universities. The potential impact of open access is understood in many communities but requires a greater volume of open access content to be available for the full potential to be realised. More open access content will become available as the opportunities in open, internet-based digital scholarship are understood. This briefing paper was written in cooperation with SPARC Europe. All links provided in footnotes in this Briefing Paper are to studies available in open access.

Submission Fees - A Tool in the Transition to Open Access?

Knowledge Exchange examined different routes in achieving the vision of 'having a layer of scholarly and scientific content openly available in the internet'. One of these routes involves exploring new developments in the future of publishing. Work is being undertaken investigating interesting alternative business models which could contribute to the transition to open access. In this light KE has commissioned a study investigating whether submission fees could play a role in a business model for Open Access journals. The general conclusion of the report bearing the title ‘Submission Fees a tool in the transition to open access?', written by Mark Ware, is that there are benefits to publishers in certain cases to switch to a model in which an author pays a fee when submitting an article. Especially journals with a high rejection rate might be interested in combining submission fees with article processing charges in order to make the transition to open access easier. In certain disciplines, notably economic and finance journals and in some areas of the experimental life sciences, submission fees are already common. Overall there seems to be an interest in the model but the risks, particularly those involved in any transition, are seen by the publishers to outweigh the perceived benefits. There is also a problem in that the advantages offered by submission fees are often general benefits that might improve the system but do not provide publishers and authors with direct incentives to change to open access. To support transition funders, institutions and publication funds could make it clear that submission fees would be an allowable cost. At present this is often unclear in their policies. Author acceptance of submission fees is critical to its success. It is an observable fact that authors will accept them in some circumstances. Author acceptance would require further study though. Based on the interviews and the modelling in the study one model in particular is regarded as the most suitable way to meet the current requirements (i.e. to strengthen open access to research publications). In this model authors pay a submission fee plus an Article Processing Fee and the article is subsequently made available in open access. Both fees are set at levels that balance acceptability with the author community with securing a meaningful mix of revenues for the Publisher.