Institutional Eprint Repositories Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham
Mar 28, 2015
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
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