Institutional Eprint Repositories Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham.

Institutional Eprint Repositories

Bill HubbardSHERPA Project Manager

University of Nottingham

Problems with the current system

Limited access to research Limited impact of research Rising journal prices Competition issues ‘Big Deal’ Threat to Learned Society publishers Disengagement of academics

Context

In 2002, Reed Elsevier made adjusted profit before taxation of £927 million (€1,474 million) on turnover of £5,020 million (€7,982 million).

“Journal costs soar by up to 94%” (THES, 15 October, 2004, p. 2)

Quoting Loughborough study of 2000-2004– price increases range from 27% (CUP) to 94% (Sage)– median journal prices range from £124 (CUP) to £781 (Elsevier)– Elsevier highest median price in every subject– price per page ranged from 31p (OUP) to 98p (Taylor and Francis)– little relationship between impact factor and price

Overall . . .

Universities generate research output Give it free of charge to publishers Give services to publishers as referees Give services to publishers as editors Have to buy back the results

Open Access

The internet allows world-wide dissemination of information to anyone with a connection, with no restrictions

Academics do not make money from journal articles, but want the widest dissemination and recognition

- so why not put them on the web and just give them away for free?

OAI, OAIS, BOAI

OAI - Open Archives Initiative– “Open” - interoperable archives with an open architecture

OAIS - Open Archival Information System reference model– “Open” - open for comments and contributions; the

reference model for archives is developed in an open forum

BOAI - Budapest Open Access Initiative– “Open” - freely accessible, open access

Open Access solutions

Open Access Journals Open Access Repositories

Open Access Journals

Publication charges Not “author-pays” Same pot of money as before DOAJ - now over 1400 journals BioMEd Central, PLoS

Open Access Repositories

Document service – storage, search, access, preservation

Duplicates of journal articles – eprints Post-prints, pre-prints, working papers Supplementary to current publishing practice No access barriers Institutionally based Cross-searchable - OAI-PMH

Benefits for the researcher

wide dissemination – papers more visible– cited more

rapid dissemination ease of access cross-searchable value added services

– hit counts on papers– personalised publications lists– citation analyses

publication & deposition

publication & deposition

Author writes paper

publication & deposition

Author writes paper

Submits to journal

publication & deposition

Author writes paper

Submits to journal Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition

Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition

Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author

Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition

Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author

Author submits final version

Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition

Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author

Author submits final version

Deposits in e-print repository

publication & deposition

Author writes paper

Submits to journal

Paper refereed

Revised by author

Author submits final version

Published in journal

Deposits in e-print repository

Nottingham eprints - home

Nottingham eprints - deposit

Nottingham eprints - bibliographic

Nottingham eprints - keywords

Nottingham eprints - simple search

Nottingham eprints - search

Google search

Nottingham eprints - record

SHERPA -

Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access

Partner institutions– Birkbeck College, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge,

Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Imperial College, Kings College, Leeds, LSE, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Royal Holloway, School of Oriental and African Studies, Sheffield, University College London,York; the British Library and AHDS

www.sherpa.ac.uk

Practical issues

establishing an archive populating an archive copyright advocacy & changing working habits mounting material maintenance preservation concerns

Concerns

subject base more natural ? – institutional infrastructure, view by subject

quality control ?– peer-review clearly labelled

“I already have my papers on my website . . . “– unstructured for search, RAE, preservation

plagiarism– old problem - and easier to detect

threat to journals?– evidence shows co-existence possible - but in the future . . . ?

Futures

repositories can work in tandem with – traditional journals– OA journals– overlay journals– peer-review boards

possibilities to enhance research outputs– multimedia outputs– data sets– developing papers

A selection of recent progress

Scottish Declaration of Open Access 32 Italian Rectors and the Messina Declaration Austrian Rectors sign the Berlin Declaration Russian Libraries launch the St Petersburg Declaration Wellcome Trust’s repository National Institutes for Health proposal Widespread publicity and support . . .and India, Africa, Australia . . .

National progress

19 of 20 repositories in SHERPA are now live:– Birkbeck, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh,

Glasgow, Kings, Leeds, LSE, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Royal Holloway, SOAS, Sheffield, UCL,York and the British Library

Other institutions are also live:– Bath, Cranfield, Open University, Southampton, St Andrews

Other institutions are planning and installing IBERs approx. 93% (of Nottingham’s) journals allow their

authors to archive

1994 Group

University of Bath University of Durham University of East Anglia University of Essex University of Surrey University of Exeter Lancaster University Birkbeck University of London

Goldsmiths LSE Royal Holloway University of Reading University of St Andrews University of Sussex University of Warwick University of York

50% operational repositories . . . more on the way . . .

Russell Group

University of Birmingham University of Bristol University of Cambridge Cardiff University University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow Imperial College King's College London University of Leeds University of Liverpool

LSE University of Manchester University of Newcastle University of Nottingham University of Oxford University of Sheffield University of Southampton University of Warwick University College London

16 out of 19 operational . . . 100% on the way . . .

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk

[email protected]

NOTTINGHAM EPRINTS EXAMPLE PAGES

Arc

Oaister

Citebase

Citebase - citation analysis

SHERPA/RoMEO SAMPLE PAGES

SELECT COMMITTEE INQUIRY

Select Committee Inquiry

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee:– to examine expenditure, administration, and policy of OST– to examine science and technology policy across government

Inquiry into scientific publications - 10 December 2003 Written evidence: 127 submissions (February 2004) Oral evidence (March – May 2004)

– Commercial publishers, Society publishers, Open access publishers, Librarians, Authors, Government officials

Report published, 20 July 2004 Government response November 2004

Outline

Background on the Select Committee Inquiry Report - Problems

– Impact and Access barriers– Price rises, Big Deal, VAT– Competition– Digital Preservation– Disengagement of academics from process

Report - Solutions– Improving the current system– Institutional repositories– ‘Author-pays’ publishing model

Solutions

82 recommendations in three main areas:

Improving the existing system Institutional repositories ‘Author pays’ economic model

Improving the existing system

JISC to develop independent price monitoring JISC to press for transparency on publishers’ costs Office of Fair Trading to monitor market trends Funding bodies to review library budgets VAT problem to be addressed JISC, NHS and HE purchasing consortia JISC to improve licences negotiated with publishers BL to be supported to provide digital preservation

Changing the system

Principle:

Publicly-funded research should be publicly available

IBERs - Recommendations

UK HEIs to set up IBERs Research Councils mandate self archiving Central body to oversee IBERs IBER implementation government funded

– identified as good value for money

Definite timetable to be agreed IBERs should clearly label peer-reviewed content RCs mandate author-retention of copyright

Further issues

“Joined-up” Government strategy required International action required

PROBLEMS