open access progress and sustainability

Open access progress and sustainabilityChair: Neil Jacobs, Jisc

14/07/2016

IntroductionNeil Jacobs

14/07/2016

UK and US positions on open accessSteven Hill, HEFCE – Sarah Thomas, Harvard University

14/07/2016

The UK position on open access

Steven Hill

Head of Research Policy

Jisc-CNI conference 06 July 2016

@stevenhill

Summary

• Policy

• Progress

• Prospects

UK Government Policy

• Independent reports

– Dame Janet Finch – 2012

– Professor Adam Tickell – 2016

UK Government Policy

“I am confident that, by 2020, the UK will be

publishing almost all of our scientific output

through open access. The advantages of

immediate ‘gold’ access are well recognised,

and I want the UK to continue its preference

for gold routes where this is realistic and

affordable. I also accept the validity of green

routes, which will continue to play an

important part in delivering our open access

commitments.”

Jo Johnson, Minister for Universities and Science

Image: Public Domain (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jo_Johnson_Photo_Speaking_at_the_British_Museum.jpg)

UK Policy Landscape

• Research Councils UK– Journal articles and conference proceedings

– Preference for immediate, CC-BY access

– Accept access after 6 months (STEM) or 12 months (AHSS) with CC-BY-NC

– Block grant to HEIs for APCs (pure OA and hybrid)

• Charity Open Access Fund– 7 major medical research funders (including Wellcome Trust)

– Journal articles, conference proceedings and monographs

– Deposit in PubMedCentral or EuropePMC

– Require immediate, CC-BY access

• Research Excellence Framework– Journal articles and conference proceedings

– Deposit in institutional or subject repository

– Accessible for read and download at least 12 months (STEM) or 24 months (AHSS)

– Encourage: immediate access, liberal licencing, monographs

Summary

• Policy

• Progress

• Prospects

Wellcome Trust compliance analysis

• 2014/15: 30% of articles for which APC paid not compliant

with policy

• E.g. 392 articles not deposited in PMC/EuPMC - £765,000

APC value

• Hybrid journals main source of non-compliance:

Source: https://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2016/03/23/wellcome-trust-and-coaf-open-access-spend-2014-15/

Summary

• Policy

• Progress

• Prospects

Prospects

• REF policy – significant increase in open content

• Possible action by funders on hybrid journals (see DFG, Norwegian Research

Councils)

• Offsetting deals

• The effect of Sci-Hub?

• Further developments on policy/implementation; 4 working groups of

Universities UK OA group:

– Efficiency

– Service standards

– Repositories

– Monographs

Summary

• Policy

• Progress

• Prospects

Thank you for listening

[email protected]

@stevenhill

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

U.S. Positions on Open Access

Sarah Thomas

Vice President for the Harvard Library

July 6, 2016

U.S. Legislation and National Initiatives

• PubMed Central (NIH, 2009)

• FRPAA (Federal Research Public Access Act) (2006, 2009, 2012)

• FASTR (Fair Access to Science and Technology Research) (2013, 2015)

• White House Executive Order/ Office of Science and Technology Policy (2013)

• Open Government Data Act (2016)

Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)

• Introduced in Congress in 2006, 2009, and 2012

• Never made it out of Committee

• Superseded by FASTR

Law

FASTR Fair Access to Science and Technology Research

Law

FASTR• Introduced as a bill in the Senate in 2013 and 2015.

"Breakthroughs in technology, science, medicine and dozens of other disciplines are made every year due to the billions in research funding provided by the American people. Making those findings available to all Americans is the best way to lead the next generation of discovery and innovation or create the next game-changing business. The FASTR act provides that access because taxpayer funded research should never be hidden behind a paywall." Senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon

FASTRThe Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously approved the bill on July 29, 2015. It was the first time that the bill or any of its predecessors had gained committee approval and been forwarded to a full house of Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Homeland_Security_and_Governmental_Affairs

Key Elements of FASTR

• Agencies over $100 million

• Embargo capped at 12 months, earlier deposit encouraged

• Mandate free public access through Green OA

• Require final version of author’s peer-reviewed manuscript

White House Executive Order (2013)Office of Science and Technology Policy

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf

Executive Order/OSTP

• Signed by Chief Science Advisor (Holdren) but issued under Barack Obama

• Executive action complements legislative activity

• Agencies spending $100 m on R & D

• Embargoes capped at 12 months

• Requires OA for articles

• Requires OA for data

• Requires OA for metadata concurrent with publication

Executive/OSTP Directive

• Directs "a strategy for leveraging existing archives, where appropriate" (2.a). Section 3 adds that "Repositories could be maintained by the Federal agency funding the research, through an arrangement with other Federal agencies, or through other parties working in partnership with the agency including, but not limited to, scholarly and professional associations, publishers and libraries."

OSTP Directive

• ) a strategy for leveraging existing archives, where appropriate, and fostering public - private partnerships with scientific journals relevant to the agency’s research;

• b) a strategy for improving the public’s ability to locate and access digital data resulting from federally funded scientific research;

• c) an approach for optimizing search, archival, and dissemination features that encourages innovation in accessibility and interoperability, while ensuring long-term stewardship of the results of federally funded research;

• d) a plan for notifying awardees and other federally funded scientific researchers of their obligations (e.g., through guidance, conditions of awards, and/or regulatory changes);

• e) an agency strategy for measuring and, as necessary, enforcing compliance with its plan;

• f) identification of resources within the existing agency budget to implement the plan;

• g) a timeline for implementation; and • h) identification of any special circumstances that prevent the

agency from meeting any of the objectives set out in this memorandum, in whole or in part.

Executive Order/OSTP Directive

• Requires Green OA

• "each agency plan shall...[e]nsure that publications and metadata are stored in an archival solution that...provides...access to the content without charge..." (3.f).

Open Government Data (2016)

Department of Agriculture (USDA)Implementation Plan to Increase Public Access to Results of USDA-Funded Scientific Research (PDF), November 7, 2014ARL Summary of USDA Plan, February 20, 2015Department of Defense (DoD)Public Access Memo (PDF) , July 9, 2014Plan to Establish Public Access (PDF), February 2015ARL Summary of DoD Plan, March 19, 2015Department of Energy (DOE) Office of ScienceDOE Public Access Plan, July 24, 2014Statement on Digital Data Management, July 28, 2014

Cover memo (PDF), July 28, 2014ARL Summary of DOE Plan, July 31, 2014Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)Guiding Principles and Common Approach for Enhancing Public Access to the Results of Research Funded by HHS Operating Divisions, February 27, 2015

http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/public-access-policies/federally-funded-research/2696-white-house-directive-on-public-access-to-federally-funded-research-and-data#.V1xrD9IrLIV

ARL tracks policy developments

http://www.usda.gov/documents/USDA-Public-Access-Implementation-Plan.pdf

http://www.arl.org/news/community-updates/3532-ahrq-nasa-usda-release-plans-for-public-access-to-funded-research#.VRAZU2bsfsA

http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/DOD-PublicAccessMemo2014-2.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/pdf/DoD_PublicAccessPlan_Feb2015.pdf

http://www.arl.org/news/community-updates/3555-defense-department-releases-plan-for-public-access-to-dod-funded-research#.VRAXfWbsfsA

http://www.energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan

http://science.energy.gov/funding-opportunities/digital-data-management/

http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/agency-OSTP-policy-DOESC-SDDM-28Jul2014.pdf

http://www.arl.org/news/community-updates/3579-energy-department-releases-plan-for-public-access-to-doe-funded-research#.VTVOaGbsfsD

http://www.hhs.gov/open/public-access/guiding-principles.html

http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/

0

5

10

15

20

25

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

new applications

approved (not yetfunded)

Harvard Open-Access Publishing Equity

(HOPE)

Gold OA versus Green OA in the USRecent ARL Discussions

• Won’t Gold APCs cost research-intensive universities more than subscriptions?

• Can we transform scholarly publishing while maintaining the same players?

• What are the constraints on publishers in a subscription-free world?

• What is the impact on the humanities?

Flipping JournalsOffice for Scholarly Communication

Harvard Library

• Transitional subsidies

• Government subsidies

• Funding agency subsidies

• Reduction of operating costs

• Membership fees

• Discounting APCs in initial phase of flipping or for categories of submissions

University of California and university digital library costing modelsMackenzie Smith, University of California, Davis

14/07/2016

MacKenzie SmithUniversity of California, Davis

Ivy AndersonCalifornia Digital Library

Jisc and CNI conference, July 6, 2016


Why this project, why now?

North America Europe / UK

Increasing disconnect between European and North American

approaches to open access

• Finch Report

• OA2020

• APC Offset Agreements

• Tri-Agency OA Policy

• NIH OA Policy

• OSTP Directive

• FASTR

• Faculty OA Policies

Pay It Forward

Investigating a Sustainable Model of Open Access Article Processing Charges for Large North American Research Institutions

“build a set of financial scenarios, or models, depicting the

financial implications an APC-based system of scholarly journal

publishing, for the conversion of the current system of scholarly

journal publishing to an APC-based system, for large North

American research institutions.”


Scope

North American research institutions (U.S. and Canada)Library partners: University of California, Harvard, Ohio State University, University of British Columbia

Scholarly journals and conference proceedings only

Models APC-funded scholarly journal publishing system at 100% scale


Carol Tenopir, University of Tennessee, Knoxville (authors)

Greg Tananbaum and ALPSP (publishers)


Large-scale Author Study

10 focus groups of 77 faculty, postdocs & grad students, across all disciplines

2,020 survey respondents: faculty, graduate students, postdocs, across all disciplines


Importance of Factors in Selecting Where to Publish

1. Quality and reputation of journal 2. Fit with scope of journal3. Audience 4. Impact Factor 5. Likelihood of acceptance6. Time from submission to publication 7. Editor or editorial board8. Open Access


“Taken together, it is evident that reputation building within a specific field is at the heart of what matters most to academic scholars.”

Author Willingness to Pay Personal Funds [Humanities: $0, Life Sciences: $250]

Discretionary Research Funds [Humanities: $100, Life Sciences: $1000]

Library OA Funds [Humanities: $100, Life Sciences: $2000]

Grant Funds [Humanities: $100, Life Sciences: $2000]

Observation:

author discretion → incentive to economize


Solomon & BjörkMark McCabeGreg TananbaumMat Willmott


Lots of Data! Library journal expenditures over 5 years (2009-2013) Publication data from Web of Science and Scopus over 5

years (2009-2013) Research funding data from HERD (except UBC)

APC data from multiple sources Publisher revenue data


What Does it Cost to Publish? Cost Per Article: ~$500 to ~$2500

Depends on how it’s calculated, what’s included in publishing costs, and publisher ‘fixed effects’

plausible minimum CPA is $1,103 (including 13% surplus)

$1,864 emerged as a defensible CPA, based on current OA expenditures at partner institutions


Current APCs

APCs for fully OA journals (in which our authors published) averaged $1,775 USD

APCs for converted OA journals of major subscription publishers averaged $1,825 USD


Solomon & Björk

Current APCs not very useful

still fluctuating (new offsetting deals)

driven by a few large OA publishers

few large commercial publishers

few in humanities & social sciences


Break-even Costs: Example LibrarySample year = 2013

Journal subscription budget: $4.02MM Published papers: 3,593

with associated grants: 2,492without grants: 1,101

Break-even APC Levellibrary budget only: $1,119including grant funds: $3,651

Current average APC = $1,775 - $1,825; average CPA = $1,864


Break-even Costs: Library Budgets


Institutions with high break-even level are smaller, less research-intensive universities withlower ratio of grad students to undergraduates, higher ratio of teaching to research faculty, more students per faculty member

$1775: Average APC for partner institution publications in full OA journals

Institutions with lower break-even level are more research-intensive universities with higher ratio of grad students to undergraduates, higher ratio of research to teaching faculty, fewer students per faculty member

Demographic data from IPEDS http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

Break-even APC: Grants Pay First

$1775: Average APC for partner institution publications in full OA journals


Future APC EstimationTwo distinct publisher types

No correlation between “quality” and APC levels (lots of these now) Strong, positive correlation between “quality” and APCs (fewer but most major publishers)

Assume publishers will set APCs in relation to journal “quality”,use IF/SNIP as “quality” proxy

Estimated APC = 1147 + 709.4 * SNIP

Baseline journal (SNIP=1.0) APC = $1,856


Redirecting Library Budget(example library, sample year)

Journal subscription budget: $4.02MM

Estimated APC Expenditure for 3,593 papers: $7.49MM

Estimated APC Expenditure for 1,101 papers without grants: $2.22MM


How to Achieve Sustainability?“funding a journal with APCs is acceptable if authors do not have to pay the money themselves.”

…“I think this [OA Big Deals] is beginning to happen, and that publishers are finding ways to create an APC-based market that will be as dysfunctional as the subscription-based market is. The basic problem with APCs is that publishers can charge what they like, knowing that if universities start to tell academics that they must publish in cheaper journals, there will be an uproar about the perceived threat to academic freedom. I have never seen a convincing explanation for how a properly free market in APCs could work.”

Sir Tim Gowers, interview with Richard Poynder, 2016


How to Achieve Sustainability?Behavioral Objective:

Authors choose the “best” platform for their article, given the price of access, publication funding, platform readership, quality of editors, etc.

Publishers respond to elastic author demand by competing for submissions.

Claim:

Under ideal conditions competition in an OA environment lowers cost of scholarly communication

Many mitigating factors, e.g. platform ownership concentration, delegation of APC payment responsibility, etc.


Financial Model, Example 1

Set Library subsidy up to $1,164 (break-even cost)

Library pays $4MM in subsidies (3,593 papers)

Grant funds cover $2.5MM (2,492 papers)

Author discretionary funds cover $1MM (1,101 papers)

$1M increase to institution (+25%)


Financial Model, Example 2

Set Library subsidy up to $1,857 (SNIP=1.0 journal APC)

Library pays $6.4MM in subsidies for 3,593 papers (fully covers 1,188 papers)

Grant funds cover $.8MM (1,739 papers)

Author discretionary funds cover $.3MM (666 papers)

$2.7MM increase to institution (+66%)


Some Conclusions

Future APCs not perfectly predictable, nor disciplinary differences.

But we can build crude estimations and improve them over time


Some Conclusions

In North America, library journal budgets alone won’t cover all APCs for research-intensive institutions

But grant funding of authors at those institutions could cover the difference


Conclusions So Far

Attitudes toward open access and APCs vary widely between disciplines.

But all authors are price sensitive and exhibit the behavior we want, if they have discretion to choose where to publish based on cost/quality.


Some Conclusions

Giving authors discretionary funds introduces APC price competition, without interfering with author choice in where to publish.

This is the best chance to encourage a competitive journal market, drive costs down over time.


Future Work Concerns about under-resourced authors

Disciplines without research funding Young scholars Global South

Stakeholder involvement, e.g., library role in ensuring preservation, mining rights, etc.

Lack compliance tracking mechanisms


Project Report, Bibliography, Data, Tools

http://icis.ucdavis.edu/?page_id=713

Report: bit.ly/29dJcCv


Total cost of ownership and flipped OALiam Earney, Jisc

14/07/2016

Total Cost of Ownership and Flipped Journals

Waiting for the Great Leap Forward

14/07/2016

Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 75

» Background

› APC based gold and the total cost of ownership

› Offsetting agreements

» Challenges

» Opportunities

› Indicators

› Sustainability and how we might promote it?

› The importance of international collaboration

» Beyond APC based gold open access?14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 76

The total cost of ownership

14/07/2016 Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals 77

£0

£10,000

£20,000

£30,000

£40,000

£50,000

£60,000

£70,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

APCs

Subscription

39 51 66

401

1296

(500,000.00)

-

500,000.00

1,000,000.00

1,500,000.00

2,000,000.00

2,500,000.00

3,000,000.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

5 923

76

162

(50,000.00)

-

50,000.00

100,000.00

150,000.00

200,000.00

250,000.00

300,000.00

350,000.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

14 23 34

99

252

(100,000.00)

-

100,000.00

200,000.00

300,000.00

400,000.00

500,000.00

600,000.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

90 91 108

492

1200

(500,000.00)

-

500,000.00

1,000,000.00

1,500,000.00

2,000,000.00

2,500,000.00

3,000,000.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Elsevier - total APC cost

8 13 14

94

144

(100,000.00)

-

100,000.00

200,000.00

300,000.00

400,000.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Nature - total APC cost

40 35 51

173

300

(200,000.00)

-

200,000.00

400,000.00

600,000.00

800,000.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Oxford University Press - total APC cost

8 12 16

75

228

(100,000.00)

-

100,000.00

200,000.00

300,000.00

400,000.00

500,000.00

600,000.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

416 11

68

198

(100,000.00)

(50,000.00)

-

50,000.00

100,000.00

150,000.00

200,000.00

250,000.00

300,000.00

350,000.00

400,000.00

450,000.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

3 27

21

54

(20,000.00)

-

20,000.00

40,000.00

60,000.00

80,000.00

100,000.00

120,000.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Offsetting agreements

»Priorities

1. Cost efficiency - minimise/remove additional costs to institution

2. Compliance - help/enable institutions to comply with funder policies regardless of whether they are choosing gold or green

3. Administrative efficiency - minimise the burden on institutions of implementing and managing OA payment schemes

4. Transition - implementing schemes that facilitate a real and sustainable transition to open access

One response to the actual increase in expenditure


Challenges and lessons


Challenges

»PR exercise or genuinely effective on costs and admin?


Sustainability?


“Article processing charges (APCs) and subscriptions - Monitoring open access costs” May 2016 Katie Shamashhttps://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/apcs-and-subscriptions© Jisc Published under the CC BY 4.0 licence creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/apcs-and-subscriptions

Challenges

»PR exercise or genuinely effective on costs and admin?

»Transparency or just a bigger big deal?


Bigger big deal?


28 institutions

39 institutions

40 institutions

£0.00

£500,000.00

£1,000,000.00

£1,500,000.00

£2,000,000.00

£2,500,000.00

£3,000,000.00

£3,500,000.00

2013 2014 2015

Total APC expenditure

Elsevier Wiley-Blackwell Nature Publishing Group Oxford University Press

Springer PLOS BioMed Central American Chemical Society

BMJ Taylor & Francis Frontiers

Challenges

» PR exercise or genuinely effective on costs and admin?

» Transparency or just a bigger big deal?

» Too many and/ineffective workflows

› Too much human interaction

› Poor communication – both to authors and OA managers

» Cost allocation within and across institutions

» Is there any evidence of price sensitivity from authors?

» What penalties are there for no offsetting agreement?

» Tensions between efficiency/transparency/cost?


OpportunitiesSustainability and how we might promote it


The journal market




Indicators of a market


28 institutions

39 institutions

40 institutions

£0.00

£500,000.00

£1,000,000.00

£1,500,000.00

£2,000,000.00

£2,500,000.00

£3,000,000.00

£3,500,000.00

2013 2014 2015

Total APC expenditure

Elsevier Wiley-Blackwell Nature Publishing Group Oxford University Press

Springer PLOS BioMed Central American Chemical Society

BMJ Taylor & Francis Frontiers

Indicators of a market




A flipped modelThe Springer Compact agreement


A flipped model


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Standard Model Flipped Model

Subscriptions Publishing/APCs

Unlimited?

Capped

Open Access and subscription article in Springer Compact


Promoting sustainability


Steps to promote sustainability?

» Limit use of research funding to pure gold?

› Or place conditions on use of funds in hybrid journals

» Encourage greater participation in negotiations

» Preference in negotiations/purchasing for models that shift to OA

» Greater support for Green in OA policies

» Development and adopt a fuller range of quality indicators

» Support small, society publishers, close to the academic community, explore innovative business models


The importance of international cooperationFrom open access in one country to international sustainability?


Market

transformed

(Open Access)

After an OA

transformation

Global level view

96

The global scholarly journal market

and its financial dimensions

Scenario of transformation based on current global operating numbers per year

An OA transformation seems to be possible without financial risks

Market today

(subscription)

Total budget

7.6 bn €

1.5 M scholarly

articles in WoS;

up to ~2 M overall

5,000 €/article WoS;

3,800 €/article overall

Base budget

4 bn € plus

~45% buffer

2 M scholary articles 2,000 €/article1)

based on realistic APC expectations1)

available for new & improved services, remaining subscriptions etc.

Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals

14/07/2016

7.6 bn EUR

Remaining subscription

budget 10%(~0.8 bn EUR)

Open Access volume:

~14% of articles;

~4% of budget

Global level view

97

Transformation means re-allocation of budgets and conversion of

journals and processes

2.8 bn EUR buffer for

new & improved

services etc.

(without remaining

subscriptions)

Global

open access journal

base budget

4 bn EUR p.a.

(2,000 €/article)

Assuming 90% conversion

Global

subscription journal

budget

7.6 bn EUR p.a.

(≥3,800 EUR/article)

14/07/2016

Jisc CNI TCO and Flipped Journals

Should APC-based Gold open access be the target?

»One target in the near/medium term

»Is APC narrative and experience harmful to OA?

»Should APCs be regarded as transitional/experimental?

»Do APCs address the fundamental issue of ‘control’?

»Could membership models be more sustainable and attractive?

› What does membership include?

› How do ‘we’ participate in governance?


jisc.ac.uk

Thank you

Liam Earney

Director, Jisc Collections

[email protected]


http://www.jisc.ac.uk/

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/

Open access progress and sustainability14/07/2016

open access progress and sustainability

Education