Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
What’s New in OA?Open Access Week 2013 @ Pitt –
Kickoff Event
Lunchtime Talk #4
Office of Scholarly Communication & Publishing
Today’s agenda
OA Overview
OA in the News– Finch Report– White House Directive on Open Access– University of California System policy– Update: Pitt copyrights policy– “The Sting” operation on OA journals
OA Week 2013 @ Pitt
Open Access—Defined
Open Access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. What makes it possible is the internet and the consent of the author or copyright-holder.
Peter Suber, "Open Access Overview," 2004 (revised 2010)
OA is compatible with . . .
Copyright
Peer review
Revenue (even profit)
Preservation
Prestige
Quality
Career advancement
Indexing
Other features and supportive services associated with conventional scholarly literature
Colors of Open Access
OA Gold– Publish in an OA
Journal– Immediate OA
OA Green– Self-archive in a
repository– Immediate or
delayed OA
Gratis vs. Libre OA
Gratis OA– AKA “weak OA”– Removal of price
barriers for access to journal articles
– (Suber/Harnad, 2008; Suber, 2008)
Libre OA– AKA “strong OA”– Removal of price
barriers– Removal of some
permission barriers– Reuse and remixing
are encouraged
United Kingdom: Finch Report
Product of Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings– Chaired by Dame Janet Finch– June 18, 2012; accepted by UK gov. July 16, 2012
Policy direction towards support for ‘Gold’ open access publishing
Intent:– Enable more people to read & use publications arising from
research– Accelerate progress towards fully open access environment
Finch Report: Rebuke
House of Commons’ Business, Innovation and Skills Committee
“The evidence suggests that the cost of unilaterally adopting Gold open access during a transition period are much higher than those of Green open access. At a time when the budgets of universities are under great pressure, it is unacceptable that the Government has issued an open access policy that will require considerable subsidy from research budgets.” -Adrian Bailey, committee chairman, Sept. 2012
White House Directive on Open Access
Memorandum: “Expanding public access to the results of federally funded research”
Agencies with >$100 million in R&D expenditures must develop plans to make published results freely available w/i 1 year of publication
Researchers must account for & manage digital data from federally funded scientific research
Issued in Feb. by OSTP; plans developed by August
Highlights
Ensure public can “read, download, and analyze in digital form final peer-reviewed manuscripts or final published documents”
12-month post-publication embargo—or longer if deemed necessary by agency
Stakeholder right to petition
Facilitate easy public search, analysis of, and access to peer-reviewed scholarly publications directly arising from federally funded research
Highlights
Ensure full public access to metadata without charge; metadata should link to full text when possible
Long-term preservation & access to content without charge (widely available, non-proprietary standards & formats; ADA-compliant)
Notify awardees & researchers of obligations
Measure & enforce compliance
Observations
OA—but delayed OA for at least 12 months or longer (PubMed Central-like)
Copyright? Creative Commons licensing?
“SHARE” resources among universities?
A “CHORUS” of publishers?
How will this affect grant-funded research and publication?
To be continued . . .
FASTR, FASTR . . .
Fair Access to Science & Technology Research Act
Mandate earlier public release of taxpayer-funded research
Federal depts & agencies with research expenditures of >$100 million must make manuscripts of journal articles stemming from research funded publicly available over the internet
Highlights
Manuscripts to be preserved in a digital archive by agency or another repository (Green OA)
Free public access within 6 months after published in a peer-reviewed journal
SPARC: Improved access & increased impact
SPARC: Manuscripts, not publishers’ PDFs (Green OA)
FASTR vs. FRPAA
Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) was the predecessor to FASTR; introduced 3 times to Congress but never voted upon
FASTR improvements– Suber: Burden is on federal agencies to collect and deposit
research papers, not universities– Suber: Libre OA/open licensing (removal of price and some
permission barriers)
Whither data sets?
FASTR . . . to somewhere
Bipartisan (!)
Introduced February 2013 by – Senators
Cornyn (R-TX) Wyden (D-OR)
– Representatives Doyle (D-PA) Lofgren (D-CA) Yoder (R-KS)
Computer says no
University of California System Open Access Policy
Academic Senate passed OA Policy July 24, 2013
Future research articles at all 10 campuses made available to the public at no charge
Covers more than 8,000 UC faculty & 40,000 publications a year
CHE: UC researchers get 8% of all US research $ & produce 2-3% of peer-reviewed scholarly articles published worldwide every year
UC System policy
Faculty grant a “nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, and to authorize others to do the same, for the purpose of making their articles widely and freely available in an open access repository”
Faculty “recognize that . . . they can more easily and collectively reserve rights that might otherwise be signed away . . . in agreements with publishers”
UC System policy
Articles placed in OA repository (Green OA)
Copyright remains with authors
Waivers/embargoes option
Faculty on 3 campuses (UCLA, UCI & UCSF) begin depositing articles on November 1, 2013
Other campuses to follow by November 2014
UC System policy: Something for everyone?
Articles or manuscripts?
Research data? Images, etc.?
Scholarly Kitchen: “This is publisher-influenced”
CA Digital Library (CHE): “We need to work with publishers, but this is scholar-driven, not publisher-driven”
Pitt OA/Copyrights policy
“Sub-institutional” policy, meaning some schools have approved – not unlike Harvard, etc.
Working toward a university-wide policy
Modification of the existing copyright policy
Affects scholarly *articles* published by Pitt authors *after* policy is adopted
Procedure would be carried out by OSCP, creating metadata, depositing works on behalf of authors
In the news: OA “sting” operation
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science 342(6154), 60-65.– DOI:10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Author submitted fake/poorly conceived science manuscripts to 304 OA journals, January-August 2013
Submitted to OA journals found in DOAJ and Beall’s list of predatory OA publishers
Results
157 journals accepted paper; 98 rejected it
Author states that 60% of decisions to accept/reject occurred “with no sign of peer review”
Of 106 journals that performed peer review, 70% accepted the paper
Accepted by OA journals in developing world . . .
More results
. . . But also by OA journals published by Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer & Sage
Gunther Eysenbach: Including Journal of International Medical Research (JIMR/Sage), ranked #1 by impact factor in its field
Rejected by Hindawi, PLoS One, others
Criticism
Did not submit to any non-OA (closed access) journals
No control group/not a scientific study
More a critique of poor-quality peer review in OA journals
Poor-quality peer review not limited to OA journals
Author’s own article was not peer-reviewed
Science is an expensive, closed access journal
More criticism
Eysenbach, et al.: Author says he didn’t send to journals requiring author fees but survey says otherwise (inconsistent data)
Spoof paper; ethically questionable study
Unfair critique of APC model
“Overarching implied conclusion - that open access as a business model is flawed, or that OA journals are of generally lower quality than subscription journals, is outrageous”
Open Access Week 2013
October 21-27, 2013
6th Annual International OA Week
Pitt’s 3rd Annual OA Week
Promotes Open Access to scholarship and research
Benefits of OA Week
Information about copyright, other author rights, and new scholarly publishing options
Information on Open Access requirements in grants and the new White House directive on Open Access
More knowledge about “scholarly spaces” and how we can participate
Don’t forget the OA swag and cookies!
#1 - Copyright and Your Research
Learn about copyrights, author agreements, and publishing contracts
Learn to navigate public access requirements in federal grants
Discover new publishing options for Pitt authors– Speaker: Peter B. Hirtle, Senior Policy Advisor, Cornell
University Library, & Research Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Security and Society, Harvard University
– Tuesday, October 22, 4 to 5 pm– Ballroom A, University Club
#2 – Open Access Policies: Coming Attractions
Learn more about the White House directive on Open Access
Better understand how scholarly publishing will be impacted
Discover the importance of reuse rights for Open Access works– Speaker: Michael W. Carroll / Professor of law & Director,
Program on Information Justice & Intellectual Property, American University's Washington College of Law
– Thursday, October 24, 4 to 5 pm; Ballroom A, University Club
How you can help
Colleagues, especially liaisons, are encouraged to attend
Share the invitation card with others or make them aware of these events
Invite faculty, departments, graduate students, and others interested
Even if you just get 1 person to attend, that’s progress (= An extra cookie for you!)
Invitation card
Open Access and your research
Keep in touch
Email: [email protected]
Open Access @ Pitt website: http://openaccess.pitt.edu
Other OSCP content being integrated into ULS website
