making research visible to a worldwide audience: open access and repositories graham stone...

Making research visible to a worldwide audience: Open access and Repositories

Graham Stone

Information Resources Manager

Interlend 201127-28 June, Durham

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0

Limitations of traditional publishing

• Access limited for:– Researchers, especially

• across disciplines• in low income

countries• at smaller institutions• working from home or

remotely– Funding bodies– Society as a whole

http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrolibraryarchive/3404104459/

Open Access is…

• Free and immediate online access to research ... without any barriers (other than connecting to the Internet)

• Permanent archiving in international repositories

• Authors/Creators retain copyright, and agree that anyone is free– to copy, distribute, and display the work– to make derivative works– to make commercial use of the work– provided that the original authors/creators

are given credit

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24343741@N06/4049306395/

Accessibility of NHS-funded articles to public

Article accessibility to general public

Free full text via PubMed

(HTA)15%

Free full text via PubMed

(other)7%

Other free full text4%

Embargoed full text

8%

Subscription full text

56%

No online full text

10%

Accessibility of NHS-funded articles within the NHS

Article accessibility within the NHS

Immediately accessible full

text37%

Embargoed full text

7%

Inaccessible (NHS does not

subscribe)46%

No online full text10%

Access to scholarly content:gaps and barriers

• Forthcoming RIN report• Around 1.8 million professional knowledge workers in the

UK, many working in R&D intensive occupations who are currently outside of the subscription arrangements

• Therefore they have no access to the scholarly output of the University

• Pressed for time and are very much more likely to seek out alternative content or do something else

Open Access Publishing

• There are two main open-access routes– Gold or author-pays

• authors (supported by their funders) pay the costs of publishing in an open-access or hybrid journal so that peer-reviewed articles then appear online and can be accessed immediately for free.

– Green• Authors self-archive the final peer-reviewed versions of their articles

in an institutional repositories, where they are available for anyone to view.

Repositories in the UK

Repository managers

• Varying backgrounds– Subject librarians– ILL/Copyright– Journals– E-Resources– Techies– Academics

http://www.ukcorr.org/

The University of Huddersfield Repository

• Launched 2006• Total

– 9541 items• 3125 on Open Access

• 33%

• 2008-– 3574 items

• 1828 on Open Access

• 51%

Why put research into a Repository?

• Visibility– Showcasing university research

• Accountability– Getting ready for the REF

– ‘As part of the REF, the funding bodies aim to identify and reward the impact that excellent research has had on society and the economy, and to encourage the sector to build on this to achieve the full potential impact across a broad range of research activity in the future’

• Preservation?

• To increase citations!

Suggested workflow

Pinfield, Stephen, Journals and repositories: an evolving relationship? Learned Publishing, 2009, 22 (3), 165-175

Citations and downloads

“Open access articles receive 50% more full-text accesses and PDF downloads than subscription-

access articles”Kenneth R. Fulton, PNAS Publisher

http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0505/msg01580.html

“…OA articles are cited earlier and are, on average, cited more often than non-OA articles”

Eysenbach G (2006) Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles. PLoS Biol 4(5): e157. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157

The 175th best Repository in the World!

1. University of Southampton (Electronics and Computer Science)

2. Natural Environmental Research Council

3. University of Southampton

4. UCL

5. University of Durham

6. Lancaster University

7. Open University

8. LSE

9. White Rose Consortium

10. University of Glasgow

11. Cambridge University

12.University of Huddersfield

13. University of Edinburgh

14. Cranfield University

15. University of Bournemouth

16. University of Salford

17. University of Stirling

18. University of Leicester

19. Bath University

20. Warwick University

21. University of Nottingham

22. Brunel University

23. University of Lincoln

24. University of Kent

25. School of Advanced Studies

Measuring success

106,314 full text downloads in the last 12 months

Tracking usage

• Usage statistics are available for all full text items

• Possible to deduce from a spike in the patterns that someone just cited your work?

Tracking usage

Copyright

• Provide the ‘author accepted’ version– that is the author-created version that incorporates referee

comments and is the version accepted for publication

• We check copyright• We link to the published version

SHERPA

The ingredients

• Articles• Book chapters• Books• Conference papers

• …and more

http://www.flickr.com/photos/grahamstone/4946315488/in/set-72157624850743018/

Theses

• 320 PhD theses

• Since 2007, all theses are made available on Open Access– Subject to embargo if:

• Seeking publication (2 yrs)

• Commercial in confidence (10 yrs)

• Data Protection (indefinite)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mgoalcantara/2657275224/

Theses stats

www.flickr.com/photos/russell-higgs/227156040/

‘Words are only context, not the final form’Stephanie Meece, UAL

Art, music and performance

• Maybe something born digital• Or a representation of an

event• Or (more likely) a combination

– Film– Still posters– Flyers and promotions– Text or links to reviews– Accompanying text

http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/8646/

• It is OK to add stuff months after the event!

• Outputs can vary – they can alter as they travel?


• Include the process– Thinking through– Sketchbooks– Models etc.

• These are part of the research process

• But there is no final version!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mobilestreetlife/4891599602/

University Repository Survey

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebottomlesspaddlingpool/4766619199/

• As part of International Open Access week the Repository Team organised a survey on the attitudes of staff and researchers to open access and the Repository

• 114 responses were received in total

• With thanks to the RSP and DataShare at the University of Edinburgh

• http://rspproject.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/datashare-at-edinburgh/

General Information

Views on Open Access

Recommendation

In general, advocacy needs to concentrate on how to make research outputs available on open access rather the arguments for or against

University Repository

• 96% of respondents had heard of the University Repository

• 75% were currently making the metadata of their research available in the Repository as a minimum

• (14% did not reply to this question)

Items available

Item Type No. of replies*

Journal articles: 86

Book chapters: 37

Books: 13

Monographs, e.g. working papers, reports etc.: 26

Conference papers: 56

Shows/exhibitions: 7

Performances: 5

Art work: 4

Sound/video recordings: 6

Data sets 2

Other 8*multiple types could be selected for this question

Depositing research (1)

• 27% of replies stated that they self deposited items into the Repository

• 62% did not; the majority of these sent them directly to the Repository Team

• This backs up anecdotal evidence that self depositing is often seen as confusing or too time consuming


• 94% of respondents did not use an alternative to the Repository

• Of those that did, 100% also deposited in the University Repository

• In 5a, 86% were in favour of putting research into an Open Access repository

• Clearly there is a discrepancy between those that agree it is a good idea and those that do it


• Recommendation– Make staff and researchers aware of how to self deposit material

in the Repository– Investigate alternative methods using Web 2.0 technologies to

make the adding of items to the repository more straightforward

Copyright

• Recommendation– Further advocacy required on

author’s rights and alternative copyright agreements

Recommendations and next steps

• The 8 recommendations were approved by the University Research Group on 16 February 2011

• To be taken forward to create a comprehensive advocacy plan in conjunction with the Research and Enterprise Directorate as part of the CLS Support for Research Action Plan

Books

• Cannot add due to copyright• HSS print runs now <200 per edition• RRP >£70

Cost shares of estimated total costs per title, OA and printed edition. Print runs 500. Total costs: € 13,263.

Editing

2100

Marketing and Sales

1047

Indirect personnel company

2850

Overhead

2033

Cover

275

Printing

1650

Royalties

1067

Peer review

400

Formatting

450XML to PDF and E-platform

325

Distribution

1067

AUP Publishing Costs (€)

Cost shares of estimated total costs per title, OA edition. Total costs: € 5,850.

Editing

2100

Basic marketing

300


1300

Overhead

975

Peer review

400

Formatting

450XML to PDF and E-platform

325

AUP Publishing Costs OA Edition (€)

Cost shares of estimated total costs per title, printed edition. Print runs 500. Total costs: € 7,413.

Marketing and Sales

747


1550

Overhead

1058

Cover

275

Printing

1650

Royalties

1067Distribution

1067

AUP Publishing Costs Printed Edition (€)

The Network

I've also had a number of international scholars and research students read my articles and listen to the music I have available in the repository, as a result, I am now pursuing collaborative research projects with music studios and researchers in Mexico and Norway.

Monty Adkins

Thank you

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ogil/1507585665/

Graham Stone

[email protected]

@Graham_Stone

This presentation


Report on the University Repository Survey, October-November 2010. Research Report. University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License



http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0

making research visible to a worldwide audience: open access and repositories graham stone...

Documents