Transcript PEER Project, April 2008

PEERing into the Future
Journals, Self-Archiving &The European
Commission-Funded PEER Project
Michael A Mabe
Chief Executive Officer, STM, &
Visiting Professor, Information Science
University College London
$64,000 Question
• Will journals be harmed by systematic free
availability of their articles through
repositories?
– Even if it is not the final version?
– Even if there is an embargo period?
2
Publication Stages Model
Publisher Investment
Public Investment
Stage One
Primary
Outputs of
Research:
•raw data
•Draft for
submission to
a journal
Stage Two
Author’s draft
incorporating
peer review
enhancements
and imprimatur
of journal
Stage Three
Final published article on
journal website: version of
record with copyediting,
typesetting, full citability, crossreferencing, interlinking with
other articles, supplementary
data
3
Open Access Experimentation
Immediate
access
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Preprint
Peer reviewed mss
Final paper
•Raw data and draft
•“Green route”
•“Gold route”
manuscripts
•“Nobody pays”
•“Pay to publish”
•Sponsored journals:
100s of journals
•Author pays:
~199+ journals
•Author “choice”: many
100s of journals
•Unsystematic
author self –
archiving
•Most journals
Most publishers
Delayed
access
Most publishers
Many publishers
•Systematic,
Systematic,
•Subscription/
voluntary
deposit in
mandatory,
repositories
imposed embargo
of six to
•periods
Publisher-selected
twelve months
embargo
any
•without
Journal by
journal
compensation
A few publishers
licensing model
•Publisher-selected
journals and embargo:
~250+journals
A few publishers
4
Delayed OA: Issues
Cumulative percent of lifetime
full text downloads
Six months
Soc Sci
28%
Maths
34%
Chem
36%
Life Rapid
50%
Twelve months
Soc Sci
36%
Maths
40%
Chem
44%
Life Rapid
60%
Chemistry
Life Sciences
Life Sciences – Rapid usage imprint
Mathematics
Health Sciences
Physics
Social Sciences
Eighteen months
Soc Sci
42%
Maths
46%
Chem
50%
Life Rapid
68%
Years since publication
Source: ScienceDirect
5
Current Situation
• Rapid growth of institutional repositories
• Individual funding agency mandates
• Publisher experimentation
• Lack of agreement on evidence to date
Purpose of PEER
Publishing & the Ecology of European Research
• Publishers and research community
collaborate
• Develop an “observatory” to monitor the
impact of systematically depositing stagetwo outputs on a large scale
• Gather hard evidence to inform future
policies
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
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
Consortium
• STM
• European Science Foundation (ESF)
• Goettingen State and University Library
(UGOE)
• Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG)
• Institut National de Recherche en
Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA)
Overall Approach
• Publishers contribute 300 journals (and a
control group)
• Maximise deposit and access within 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
Content
• Participating publishers collectively
volunteer 300 journals
• Selection criteria
– European content – 20% or greater
– Quality – good quality, but reflecting a range by
impact factor
– Subject – wide range
• Publishers set embargo periods
appropriate for journal
Content
Subject
Journals
Life Sciences
50
Estimated EU
Articles
4,200
Medicine
42
6,000
Physical Sciences
63
7,300
Social Sciences &
Humanities
Total
47
1,500
202
19,000
Publishers at October 2008
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
BMJ Publishing Group
Elsevier
IOP Publishing
Nature Publishing Group
Oxford University Press
Portland Press
Sage Publications
Springer
Taylor & Francis Group
Wiley-Blackwell
Awareness & Dissemination
• Covered by WP8 led by UGOE
• Objectives
– Raise awareness of PEER among
stakeholders
– Communicate project results widely
– Engage stakeholders – stimulate discussion
and debate, explore issues
– Encourage stakeholders to use the evidence to
inform future policies
• Agree a dissemination plan at start of
project
Techniques
• Project web site – wiki, linked to DRIVER
• Engage Advisory Board
• Presentations at major conferences
• Schedule workshops or seminars as
satellite events at major conferences
• End of project conference
Project Organisation
Project Organisation
• Executive
• Advisory Board
• Expert groups
– Research oversight group
– Repositories task force
– Publisher group
– Author/user group
• Work package leaders
Project Timetable
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
September 2008: project launched
November 2008: issue RFPs for behavioural and usage research
December 2008: establish website and blog
January/February 2009: procedures issued to publishers and
repositories for manuscript deposit and logfile harvesting
March 2009: sign contracts for behavioural research; repositories
begin receiving content from publishers and authors
April 2009: sign contract for usage research; begin harvesting logfiles
from repositories
August 2009: complete behavioural research baseline study
December 2009: sign contract for economic research
March 2010: complete economic research
January 2011: complete behavioural research follow-up study
January 2011: complete usage research
March 2011: collate results of research
May 2011: develop preliminary model
July 2011: develop final model on traditional publishing and archiving
August 2011: project completion conference