supported by the ec econtent plus programme

PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 1 www.peerproject.eu

Publishing and the Ecology of European Research (PEER): A ground-breaking collaboration

Julia Wallace, Project Manager, PEERBritish Library /ILIAC Open Access Seminar 30 November 2009

Supported by the EC eContentplus programme

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/econtentplus/index_en.htm


Why is PEER needed?

There is agreement between publishing and research communities about the importance of access to results of European funded research

But– there is no consensus on the need for mandated

deposits or appropriate embargo periods

– or the impact this may have on journals


Current Situation

• Rapid growth of institutional repositories

• Individual funding agency mandates

• Publisher experimentation

• Lack of agreement on evidence to date


Key Problems & Issues

• Impact of systematically archiving stage-two outputs (accepted manuscripts) is not clear– on journals and business models– on wider ecology of scientific research

• Varying policies are confusing for authors and readers

• Lack of understanding and trust between publishers and research community


The three key stages of publication

Stage Three (NISO Version of Record)

Final published article on journal website: version of record with copyediting, typesetting, full citability, cross-referencing, interlinking with other articles, supplementary data

Stage One (NISO Author’s

original)

PrimaryOutputs ofResearch:•raw data•Draft for submission to a journal

Stage Two(NISO Accepted

Manuscript)

Publisher Investment

Author’s manuscript incorporating peer review enhancements & as accepted for publication

Public Investment


Purpose of PEER

PEER has been set up to monitor the effects of systematic archiving of ‘stage two’ research outputs: the version of the author’s manuscript accepted for publication (NISO - Accepted Manuscript)

• Publishers and research community collaborate

• Develop an “observatory” to monitor the impact of systematically depositing stage-two outputs on a large scale

• Gather hard evidence to inform future policies

• Project duration: September 2008 – August 2011

• Project budget: €4.2 million


Objectives

• Determine how large-scale deposit of stage-two outputs will affect journal viability

• Determine whether it increases access

• Determine whether it affects the broader ecology of European research

• Determine the factors affecting readiness to deposit and associated costs

• Develop model(s) to show how traditional publishing can coexist with self-archiving


Stakeholders in scholarly communication

• Publishers• Researchers – authors and users• Libraries and repositories• Funding agencies

All of the above stakeholder groups are represented within PEER, both within the consortium & an advisory board


Project Organisation


PEER Consortium

The PEER consortium (5 Executive members):

• International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) - Co-ordinator

• European Science Foundation (ESF)• Göttingen State and University Library (UGOE)• Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG)• Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en

Automatique (INRIA)

Plus technical partners: SURF & Universität Bielefeld


Participating Publishers

• BMJ Publishing Group• Cambridge University Press• EDP Sciences• Elsevier• IOP Publishing• Nature Publishing Group• Oxford University Press• Portland Press• Sage Publications• Springer• Taylor & Francis Group• Wiley-Blackwell


Participating Repositories

• eSciDoc.PubMan, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. (MPG)

• HAL, CNRS & Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA)

• Göttingen State and University Library (UGOE)

• BiPrints, Universität Bielefeld (UNIBI)

• Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania

• University Library of Debrecen, Hungary

Plus Koninklijke Bibliotheek (preservation)

PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 13 www.peerproject.euPEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 13 www.peerproject.eu

Research Oversight Group (ROG)

• Justus Haucap, University of DuesseldorfChair: German Monopolies Commission

• Henk Moed, Leiden UniversityRecipient: Derek de Solla Price Award

• Carol Tenopir, University of TennesseeRecipient: International Information Industry Lifetime Achievement Award


PEER Advisory Board (1)

Funders:• Dr Johannes Fournier, DFG, Germany• Mr Robert Kiley, Wellcome Trust, UK• Professor Ebba Nexo, Aarhus Universitetshospital, Denmark• Dr Donald J Waters, Mellon Foundation, USA

Librarians:• Dr Paul Ayris, University College London, UK• Dr Elisabeth Niggemann, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, Germany• Dr Sijbolt Noorda, VSNU, The Netherlands• Drs. Bas Savenije, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Netherlands


PEER Advisory Board (2)

Researchers:• Dr Elea Gimenez-Toledo, CSIC, Madrid, Spain• Professor Jane Grimson, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland• Professor Norbert Kroo, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary• Professor Michel Mareschal, L'Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Publishers:• Mr Mayur Amin, Elsevier, UK• Ms Stella Dutton, BMJ Group, UK• Cliff Morgan, Wiley-Blackwell, UK• Mr John Ochs, ACS, USA• Wim van der Stelt, Springer SBM, The Netherlands


Overall Approach - Observatory

• Publishers contribute up to 500 journals (242 plus a control group ~200+) across 4 broad subject areas: Medicine, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences and Social Sciences & Humanities

• Rigorous journal selection process followed & validated by research teams

• Maximise deposit and access within participating EU repositories– 50% publisher-assisted deposit– 50% author self-archiving

• Collaborate with DRIVER to involve repositories

• Commission research from independent research teams to assess impact – behavioural, access/usage (and economic)


Technical outcomes

• Report on the provision of usage data and manuscript deposit procedures for publishers and repository managers (available from PEER website)

• Full text format PDFA-1/ PDF

• Mandatory metadata fields (from DRIVER) - XML

• SWORD protocol for ingest by repositories (Simple Web-Service Offering Repository Deposit) http://www.swordapp.org/

http://www.swordapp.org/




Challenges faced

• Non uniformity of publisher outputs

• Varying requirements by repositories

• EU filtering of content

• Embargo management for author deposits

• Author authentication for deposit

• Non uniformity of log files

• Inclusion of ‘retained’ stage-2 content from publishers


PEER- Content submission flowchart

deposit

deposit

PEER Depot

eligible journals / articles

100% metadata 50% manuscripts

50%manuscripts

select

inform

deposit deposit

Publishers

deposit

PEER Repositories

HALKTU

UGOE ULDMPG

UNIBI

deposit

LTP Depot

deposit

Central Deposit Interface

deposit

Authors

External Repositories

(e.g. institutional)


Content submission − Authors


Research in PEER

• Behavioural research: Authors and Users vis-à-vis Journals and Repositories

• Usage research: Journals and Repositories • Economic research• Open tendering process • Expert ‘Research Oversight Group’ (ROG) appointed

– Contribute to Invitation to Tender documents– Assess tenders received and advise PEER Executive– Advise on final research questions & approach– Validate research throughout the project

• any potential conflicts of interest declared


Behavioural research team & objectives

Department of Information Science and LISU at Loughborough University, UK

Objectives:• Track trends and explain patterns of author and user

behaviour in the context of so called Green Open Access.

• Understand the role repositories play for authors in the context of journal publishing.

• Understand the role repositories play for users in context of accessing journal articles.


Behavioural research questions (Examples)

• In seeking information what choices do readers make in locating and selecting sources and in what ways do such choices influence the role played by repositories in information seeking behaviours?

• In publishing research, what choices do authors make in locating and selecting appropriate outlets, and what are the major influences on their choices? Where do repositories fit in the dissemination landscape?

• What common perceptions do readers have in relation to repositories, e.g. quality, authority of versions, and availability, and how do such perceptions influence information behaviours?


Usage research team & objectives

CIBER group, University College London, UK

Objectives:• Determine usage trends at publishers and

repositories;• Understand source and nature of use of

deposited manuscripts in repositories;• Track trends, develop indicators and explain

patterns of usage for repositories and journals.


Usage research questions (Examples)

“Commercial” impact of self-archiving • Will the usage of publisher stage III articles increase, decrease or

remain constant over the period of the experiment and to what extent can this be attributed to repository use and access?

Effects of embargoes• Will repository stage II manuscripts with an embargo receive less

use (and how much less use) that those without an embargo?

New and different users • Does the experiment result in the use of articles by groups who

might otherwise be not able to access them?

Different, complementary use• Whether repositories and publisher platforms offer different things to

readers


Economic Research

The Objectives of the economics research:• Investigate the cost of the large-scale deposit of stage-

two research outputs (including the economic efficiency or cost of the process of deposit).

• Understand the costs incurred by participating publishers and repositories (of the PEER Project).

• Understand and compare access costs at journals and repositories.

• Understand, principally, for the deposit of so-called Stage 2 manuscripts the costs.

• Analyze the overall effects of large-scale deposit (Green OA) on the economics of scholarly communication.


Where are we now?

• Most publishers validated & feeding PEER Depot

• Author submission invitations to commence 1 December 2009

• Usage research team have reviewed the observatory framework

• Behavioural baseline study will be publicly available soon


Next steps

• Inclusion of publisher ‘back-file’ content

• Ingest by repositories following expiration of embargo periods

• Provision of logfiles for usage research (from publisher platforms and repositories)

• Select research team & commence Economic research

• Prepare for second round of behavioural research


PEER - Measuring Success

• Critical success factors– Observatory collects sufficient reliable data to draw

conclusions

– Stakeholders use the evidence gathered

• Success indicators therefore focus on– Underlying data provided to the observatory

– Success at communicating results

– Not what the observatory measures, e.g. user uptake


PEER- Expected Results

• Greater understanding of the effects of large-scale deposit in OA repositories

• Evidence to inform future policies

• Model(s) illustrating how to maximise the benefits of traditional publishing and archiving

• Trust and mutual understanding between publisher and research communities


Thank you for your attention

Questions?

For further information visit

www.peerproject.eu

Or e-mail: [email protected]

http://www.peerproject.eu/

mailto:[email protected]

supported by the ec econtent plus programme

Documents

research outputs

traditional publishing

research communitythe

research communities

depositing stage

niso version of recordfinal

peer review enhancements

largescale deposit of