No Slide Title
Download
Report
Transcript No Slide Title
Institutional Eprint Repositories
Bill Hubbard
SHERPA 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
Deposits in e-print
repository
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Submits to journal
Deposits in e-print
repository
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
publication & deposition
Author writes paper
Deposits in e-print
repository
Submits to journal
Paper refereed
Revised by author
Author submits final version
Published in journal
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
[email protected]
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