making sense of open scholarly communications data - jisc digifest 2016

Making sense of open scholarly communications dataThe ‘new normal’ of financial transparency

Introduction

Introduction

»Transition to open access brings about pressure for increased financial transparency for publishers and institutions

»Examples: › Jisc Total Cost of Ownership project› RCUK and Wellcome Trust APC data› Stuart Lawson’s Freedom of Information dataset on

journal subscriptions

03/03/2016

Making sense of open scholarly communications data

Benefits of sharing data

»Inform negotiations with publishers»Benchmark spend against other institutions»Model transition to open access

»Not a means of informing researchers where to publish

03/03/2016


Article processing charges

Total cost of ownership project

»Project collects article-level APC data from institutions»Main drivers: › As many APC payments as possible should be

publicly available› This data should be as standardised and well-

structured as possible»Open APC data makes the market transparent, which

benefits institutions

03/03/2016




»Started by Jisc Collections in 2013»Began with 17 participating institutions»Now has grown to include data from over 40

institutions»Compatible with RCUK and COAF reporting

03/03/2016



»Inform Jisc Collections’ negotiations with publishers»Help funders evaluate and shape open access policies»Allow institutions to track and benchmark their spend

What is data used for?

03/03/2016

2013 2014 20150

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

£-

£1,000,000

£2,000,000

£3,000,000

£4,000,000

£5,000,000

£6,000,000

£7,000,000

£8,000,000

+127%

+51%+113%

+56%

Number of APCs Expenditure

Num

ber

of A

PCs

Expe

nditu

re

Trends in APC payments

»The number of APCs paid

is growing› Huge growth following

introduction of block grants in 2013

»Expenditure is outpacing number of APCs

Growth in APCs 2013-2015 (14 institutions)

03/03/2016


Trends in average APC

»Average APC of £1,713 for 2014-2015

»The average APC is rising

»Huge variation in APC costs

Average APC 2013-2015 (15 institutions)

03/03/2016


2013 2014 2015 £1,540

£1,560

£1,580

£1,600

£1,620

£1,640

£1,660

£1,680

£1,700

£1,720

£1,740

-2%

+8%

FrontiersPLOSIEEE

Taylor & FrancisBioMed Central

Royal SocietyRoyal Society of Chemistry

IOP PublishingAverage*Springer

American Society for MicrobiologyBMJ

WileyElsevier

Oxford University PressAmerican Chemical SocietyCambridge University Press

Society for NeuroscienceNPG

Walters KluwerCell Press

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Average APC by publisher

Average APC Jul 2014-Aug 2015

03/03/2016


2013 2014 2015 £-

£500

£1,000

£1,500

£2,000

£2,500

£3,000

£3,500 NatureOUPCUPACSWileySpringerElsevierAverageAIPBMJIOPBioMed CentralRSCPLOSTaylor & FrancisSage

Average APC price

Average APC price 2013-15 (15 institutions)

03/03/2016


£0.00

£500,000.00

£1,000,000.00

£1,500,000.00

£2,000,000.00

£2,500,000.00

£3,000,000.00

£3,500,000.00

£4,000,000.00

£4,500,000.00 Series3

OUP

CUP

Wolters Kluwer

Reve

nue

from

APC

s

Publisher revenue from APCs

Publisher revenue from APCs, Aug 2014-Jul 2015

03/03/2016


Hybrid vs. full open access

»Most expenditure goes to hybrid APCs

»The average APC for hybrid journals is consistently higher

»Hybrid average: £1,867»Full OA average: £1,225

Hybrid/Full OA expenditure Jul 2014-Aug 2015

03/03/2016


Hy-brid83%

Full OA17%

Rising hybrid APCs

»The average APC is increasing more rapidly overall for hybrid journals

»Hybrid journals are thus responsible for most of the rise in average APCs overall

Average APC by journal type, 2013-2015 (15 institutions)

03/03/2016


2013 2014 2015£0.00

£500.00

£1,000.00

£1,500.00

£2,000.00

£2,500.00

+4.4%

+24.6%

Full OA Hybrid

Rising market share for full open access

»Open access journals have increased their market share from 4% to 23% in three years

» This may reflect authors’ price sensitivity to hybrid journals’ higher APCs

»Are hybrid journals slowing the transition to open access?

Percentage of APC expenditure by journal type,2013-2015 (15 institutions)

03/03/2016


2013 2014 20150%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

3.8% 16.7% 22.9%

96.2%83.3% 77.1%

Full OA Hybrid

Subscription expenditure

03/03/2016


Context

»Article processing charges are part of a larger picture of total journal expenditure

»It is difficult to access information about subscription expenditure› Non-disclosure agreements from Elsevier› Unlike with research council funded APCs, there is no

incentive to share private subscription data»Much of the information which exists is confidential

03/03/2016



Freedom of information dataset

»The next part of this analysis relies on subscription data gathered by Stuart Lawson through Freedom of Information requests

»It tracks expenditure with 10 publishers from 153 UK universities

»Not a Jisc project»Most comprehensive open data set available

03/03/2016


APC vs. subscription expenditure

»APC expenditure is 16% of total journal expenditure

APC and subscription expenditure, 2014

03/03/2016

APC expen-diture16%

Sub-scription expendi-

ture84%

APC and subscription revenue by publisher, 2014

»Elsevier receives the highest amount of APCs and subscriptions

03/03/2016


Elsevier

Wiley

Springer

Taylor & Francis

Nature Publishing Group

Sage

Oxford University Press

Institute of Physics Publishing

Cambridge University Press

Royal Society of Chemistry

£0.00 £10,000,000.00 £20,000,000.00APC revenue Subscription revenue

APC and subscription revenue by publisher, 2014

»Some publishers rely on APCs for a higher proportion of revenue than others

03/03/2016


Elsevier

Wiley

Springer

Taylor & Francis

Nature Publishing Group

Sage

Oxford University Press

Institute of Physics Publishing

Cambridge University Press

Royal Society of Chemistry

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%12%

24%

16%

14%

22%

5%

41%

18%

13%

26%

88%

76%

84%

86%

78%

95%

59%82%

87%

74%

APC revenue Subscription revenue


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014£0

£10,000,000

£20,000,000

£30,000,000

£40,000,000

£50,000,000

£60,000,000

£70,000,000

£80,000,000

£90,000,000

£100,000,000

Elsevier Elsevier Elsevier Elsevier Elsevier

Wiley Wiley Wiley Wiley WileySpringerSpringer Springer Springer SpringerTaylor & Francis

Taylor & FrancisTaylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis

SageSage

Sage Sage SageNature Publish-

ing Group

Nature Publish-ing Group




Elsevier Wiley Springer Taylor & FrancisSage Oxford University Press Cambridge University Press Nature Publishing GroupRoyal Society of Chemistry Institute of Physics Publishing

Increase in subscription revenue

Subscription revenue, 2010-2014

03/03/2016


Growth in subscription revenue

Yearly growth in subscription revenue, 2011-2014

03/03/2016

2011 2012 2013 2014-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

Elsevier Wiley SpringerTaylor & Francis Sage Oxford University PressCambridge University Press Nature Publishing Group Royal Society of ChemistryInstitute of Physics Publishing Average

Capturing and releasing APC dataTotal cost of ownership spreadsheet

03/03/2016


Data collection principles

»Record APC details in a standardized way»Benefits: › Makes it easier to account to funders› Makes it easy to share payment details with other

universities› Reduces administrative burden

»Challenges: › Tracking payments made from departmental or

project budgets

03/03/2016




»Spreadsheet to record APCs»Benefits: › Easy to use› Compatible with RCUK and COAF reporting› Fields map to RIOXX and CASRAI where applicable› Can import data from other systems (for example,

Eprints)»Released on Figshare under CC0 license

03/03/2016


Click to icon to add image

03/03/2016

Making sense of open scholarly communications data03/03/2016

APC reporting in the futureMonitor local and Monitor UK

03/03/2016


Monitor Local

»Allows institutions to record and report data on open access outputs› Includes both gold and green open access

»Has an easy-to-use web interface»Autocompletes metadata»Validates and checks compliance

03/03/2016



Monitor UK

»Aggregates APC data from across institutions and presents them as a dashboard

»Enables institutions to benchmark spend against other institutions, and compare publisher pricing and compliance

03/03/2016


Monitor UK pilot

Click to icon to add image

03/03/2016

Monitor Local and UK

»Pilot projects completed in 2015»Are now in development»Are scheduled to be released in summer 2016

03/03/2016



ConclusionSummary of key points

03/03/2016

Summary of key points

»Article processing charges are an increasingly important part of institutions’ expenditure on publication

»APCs vary between publishers, institutions, and types of journal

»There is still a lot to learn about these costs»The more transparency we have around article

processing charges and other financial data, the better decisions we can make

03/03/2016




»Releasing open financial data helps your institution by:› Making it easier for us to negotiate on your behalf

with publishers› Helping you to track costs in a standardized way that

can be measured against other institutions› Increasing general awareness about article

processing charges › Allowing funders and policy makers to aid the

transition to open access

03/03/2016



»Jisc Total Cost of Ownership project: http://bit.ly/_Jisc_APC_Collection

»Open data on article processing charges:http://bit.ly/_Figshare_Article_Processing

»Open data on journal subscription costs:http://bit.ly/_Figshare_Journal_Subscription_Costs

»Jisc Monitor: http://bit.ly/_Jisc_Monitoring_Open_Access_Activity

03/03/2016

http://bit.ly/_Jisc_APC_Collection



http://bit.ly/_Figshare_Article_Processing

http://bit.ly/_Figshare_Article_Processing

http://bit.ly/_Figshare_Journal_Subscription_Costs

http://bit.ly/_Figshare_Journal_Subscription_Costs

http://bit.ly/_Jisc_Monitoring_Open_Access_Activity

jisc.ac.uk


Katie ShamashScholarly communications [email protected]

03/03/2016


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/

making sense of open scholarly communications data - jisc digifest 2016

Education