Transcript No Slide Title

Institutional Repositories
a national perspective and the
work of SHERPA
Bill Hubbard
SHERPA Project Manager
University of Nottingham
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 1375 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
Practical issues








establishing an archive
populating an archive
copyright
advocacy & changing working habits
mounting material
maintenance
preservation
concerns
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 addressed








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
 version control
– which is definitive version - will repositories fill this role?
 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
 18 of 20 repositories in SHERPA are now live:
– Birkbeck, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh,
Glasgow, Kings, Leeds, LSE, 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
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk
[email protected]
NOTTINGHAM EPRINTS
EXAMPLE PAGES
Nottingham eprints - home
Nottingham eprints - deposit
Nottingham eprints - bibliographic
Nottingham eprints - keywords
Nottingham eprints - simple search
Nottingham eprints - search
Nottingham eprints - record
Arc
Oaister
Google search
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
Latest information
 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
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
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?
OPEN ACRONYMS
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