Mais conteúdo relacionado

Apresentações para você(20)

Similar a UKSG Conference 2016 Breakout Session - Jisc open access services to support the article life cycle, Neil Jacobs and Steve Byford(20)


Mais de UKSG: connecting the knowledge community(20)


UKSG Conference 2016 Breakout Session - Jisc open access services to support the article life cycle, Neil Jacobs and Steve Byford

  1. Open Access support service Neil Jacobs
  2. Open Access UK research will increase its impact on UK economy by up to £200m p.a. Open access research is more highly cited. Greater access for researchers and students. All major UK and European funders require open access for journal articles and conference papers, including: • UK Funding Councils through REF • UK Research Councils, WellcomeTrust… • UK Government departments • European Commission Open Access 2 Why the Jisc OA support service matters to UK institutions Challenges • Achieving compliance • Constraining costs • Realising benefits Jisc solution • World-leading, tried and tested • Supports a range of institutional responses • Coherent set of services throughout an article lifecycle • Continually working closely with institutional representatives
  3. Open Access:The Jisc OA support service Open Access 3
  4. Open Access:The Jisc OA support service Open Access 4
  5. Open Access:The Jisc OA support service Open Access 5 At submission • Sherpa services • 2015 – Sherpa/FACT accuracy, now moved into core Jisc services • 2016 –Technical rebuild 2016, Sherpa/REF launch, OA policy expression (journals, funders, institutions) • OpenAIRE National OA Desk • 2015 – Communicated to universities and researchers; H2020 OA policy, FP7 APC pilot, research data pilot • 2016 – Further communication, workshop in OAWeek
  6. Open Access:The Jisc OA support service Open Access 6 At acceptance • Publications Router • 2015 – Prototype completed, production service built to beta • 2016 – Full launch covering wider range of publishers and universities, perhaps using Crossref early DOIs • Monitor UK • 2015 – Prototype completed, production build started with 24 pilot universities • 2016 – Full launch, and international collaboration eg with OpenAPC in Germany; use by Jisc Collections • Jisc Collections • 2015 – Springer and other agreements to manage move to APC model, innovative models supported – Open Library of the Humanities. Compliance document drafted • 2016 – Major negotiations with Elsevier, compliance document to be finalised collaboratively
  7. Open Access:The Jisc OA support service Open Access 7 At publication • Monitor Local • 2015 – Prototype completed, production build started with 24 pilot universities • 2016 – Full launch, and international collaboration eg with ESAC initiative • CORE • 2015 – Now a full service in partnership with Open University, integrated with IRUS-UK, 6m downloads, integrated with OpenAIRE • 2016 – Plans for repository dashboard, interoperation with Router, experimental citation services
  8. Open Access:The Jisc OA support service Open Access 8 At use / reporting • IRUS-UK • 2015 – reached nearly 100 participating UK universities, 16m downloads recorded • 2016 – further growth, international cooperation eg with OpenAIRE • RIOXX (Metadata) • 2015 – RIOXX2.0 released with extensive guidance notes. CASRAI OA working group profile • 2016 – REF plug-in for EPrints live, DSpace patch in development, international alignment via COAR/CASRAI
  9. Open Access:The Jisc OA support service Open Access 9 Weaving it all together • OA Good Practice • 2015 – Over 100 universities participated in mailing lists, workshops, etc • 2016 – OA Good Practice completes; discussions on Jisc role in the future • Effective communication – new website and guides…
  10. Open Access:The Jisc OA support service Open Access 10 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% CILIP EC projects (e.g. Pasteur4OA) SCONUL UKSG ARMA Other (please note below) RLUK Expertise within the institution Jisc Other HEIs Who do you look to for non-technicalOA support? Discovery, use and impact Cost management Policy compliance 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Other (please specify) Standards body (e.g. NISO, CASRAI/ EuroCRIS) Expertise within the institution Software suppliers Software user group Other HEIs Jisc Who do you look to for technical OA support Technical support and advice for repository managers Development and adoption of standards relevant to OA (e.g. RIOXX) Development of applications to support OA
  11. Open Access:The Jisc OA support service Open Access 11 Weaving it all together • OA Good Practice • 2015 – Over 100 universities participated in mailing lists, workshops, etc • 2016 – OA Good Practice completes; discussions on Jisc role in the future • ORCID • 2015 – National consortium set up; 55 members including Research Councils • 2016 –Technical and community support in place • Organisational identifiers • 2015 –Working group reviewed the landscape and options, recommended ISNI as backbone • 2016 – Recommendations may be turned into implementation plan, with stakeholders
  12. Open Access:The Jisc OA support service Open Access 12 National and international coordination • UK • Jisc OA stakeholder group (Jisc, RLUK, SCONUL, ARMA and UKCoRR) • Jisc Open Access Policy Services Advisory Group (funders, universities, publishers) • Universities-UK OA Coordinating Group, with new subgroups on efficiencies, repositories/preservation, monographs and perhaps journal service levels • International • ->UKSG initiative on compliance issues / publisher practices • Brokering support for ORCID, DOAJ, arXiv, SCOAP3… • OpenAIRE, Confederation of OA Repositories (COAR) • Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC) • Knowledge Exchange • Sustainability of OA services • How APCs are paid • Monographs study
  13. Monographs National initiatives: 2015 “Monographs and Open Access” report to HEFCE, and following.. Policies: Wellcome. REF 2026? Jisc work more exploratory than for articles: • Research into perceptions and attitudes • Experiments in OA monographs • Collaboration with major new platforms • Investigate / pilot Jisc infrastructure role -> OAPEN-UK Report 2016 Open Access 13
  14. Some issues… academic freedom value for money administrative simplicity competitive market productivity/growth publishing industry learned societies / publishers assumptions about rest of the world dual funding for universities sustainability of infrastructure / services 13/04/2016Title of presentation (Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide) 14
  15. Competitive market? Title of presentation (Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide) 15
  16. Sustainable services? Title of presentation (Go to ‘View’ menu > ‘Header and Footer…’ to edit the footers on this slide) 16 1. Maintain a register of key OA services 2. Assess sustainability, governance, usage and interoperability. 3. Publish recommendations on funding, risks and new services required 4. Collect and distribute funding Interaction with existing bodies Must be ‘lightweight’ Proposed scope is too broad Funding and finance – who pays, and how? Needs a ‘sponsor’ organisation Sounds too interventionist
  17. Find out more… 29.09.2014 17 Thanks for listening. Neil Jacobs, Jisc @njneilj Steve Byford, Jisc Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND

Notas do Editor

  1. This step now assumes much greater importance and has moved from being a private event known only to journal and author, to a (semi)-public event in which HEIs and research funders have a stake because - APC liability - deposit requirement This is a significant change in the organisation of the supply chain, that needs some attention from the UKSG community perhaps.
  2. Guides on: Policy compliance Cost management Discovery usage and impact Metadata and interoperability Plus guides to particular services, and more topical guides to come, along with screencasts, webinars, etc.
  3. Universities look to Jisc to provide technical and non-technical support. They also look to each other (esp for non-tech support) Jisc would want to work with others to ensure HEIs have the support they need.
  4. National and international coordination UK Jisc OA stakeholder group (Jisc, RLUK, SCONUL, ARMA and UKCoRR) – meets quarterly Jisc Open Access Policy Services Advisory Group (funders, universities, publishers) – oversees work on journal, funder and institutional OA policies, including the schema Universities-UK OA Coordinating Group, with new subgroups on efficiencies, repositories/preservation, monographs and perhaps journal service levels International Hoping to get UKSG agreement for a working group to develop / adopt compliance document / desiderata Brokering support for ORCID, DOAJ, arXiv, SCOAP3… - Jisc does all of these, and link to “sustainability” section later, esp wrt infrastructure services like DOAJ OpenAIRE, Confederation of OA Repositories (COAR) – Jisc partner / member – aligning standards etc Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges (ESAC) – Jisc participates to ensure join-up, esp on offsetting Knowledge Exchange Sustainability of OA services – See later How APCs are paid – international review on how they are in fact paid, who by, etc Monographs study – landscape study focusing on business models in practice
  5. »Reframe the discussions around open access for scholarly monographs by acknowledging that monographs are different from journals. The issues, concerns and opportunities are not necessarily the same as in the journals market and are sometimes more complex or compounded by issues in the wider e-book environment The HEFCE Open Access Monographs project and the Crossick report ( have made inroads into this work, making clear the need to recognise the distinctiveness of monographs »»At the same time, recognise what has worked for journals as open access publishing has become more mainstream. Open access monographs can learn from aspects of their experience and initiatives such as ORCID, PubMed Central, the practice of implementing Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), and other developments in journal publishing may all be useful in developing open access for monographs »»A one-size-fits-all approach will not work for open access monographs. Policies, services and business models need to be flexible so that they can fit with the existing diverse monograph publishing environment. Models will work more or less efficiently depending on the type of book, the author’s access to funding and the likely profitability of the text; it will be important to maintain a mix of models in the long term which will require flexibility from all stakeholders – this may be a challenge This recommendation is supported by the Crossick report ( »»Goodwill and tolerance of other stakeholders’ points of view are prerequisites to success for open access monographs. Lasting change will be achieved through collaboration and the various parties need to recognise that they may have very different perspectives, even where they share a common goal. Effective and open communication will be important, as will flexibility and compromise »»Change must happen slowly, be carefully evaluated and ensure it does not undermine the existing strengths of monograph publishing. Books play an important and complex role in scholarly communications in the humanities and social sciences, and within the various economies of prestige that underpin academic careers, institutions, publishers and societies. Any change to these roles must be the result of careful deliberation, not an unintended consequence This recommendation is supported by the Finch report (, in relation to journals
  6. Academic freedom – in this context usually understood as an author having complete freedom to choose the journal in which to publish her paper. Less commonly understood as the complete freedom to read articles from any journal she chooses. Value for money – especially in this context the cost-effective use of public money, in support of research, including communication of that research. Administrative simplicity – related to VfM, in that some arrangements for OA imply quite a lot of administration by authors, universities, funders, readers and publishers. Some of this might be just during a transition to OA, and some might be a permanent change. Competitive market – since money changes hands, then the arrangements around academic journals are often referred to as a “market”. If it is a market, then it should work well as a market, including effective competition. Some argue that there is little sensitivity to price in this market, which makes it an unusual market. Productivity/growth – one of the major drivers for the UK government in adopting OA was the potential improvement in knowledge transfer from public research to commercial innovation, leading to improvements in economic performance – productivity, growth, employment, etc. Publishing industry – the UK publishing industry is a significant export earner and employs many people in the UK Learned societies / publishers – many learned societies undertake valuable work in supporting the research community, especially early career researchers, and contribute to the public understanding of science. Much of this is funded through the surpluses they make on publishing their journals. Assumptions about the rest of the world – the Finch Report made certain assumptions about what the rest of the world would do. These assumptions especially affect the length and cost of the transition to OA in the UK. Those assumptions are perhaps worth revisiting. Dual funding for universities – The UK operates a dual funding mechanism for universities, one side project funding based on grants for future work, and the other side formula funding based on research performance over the last 5-6 years. The OA policies for each of these needs to be appropriate to that way of funding research, which means they are not necessarily the same.
  7. Tickell advice Summary of recommendations 1. Encourage universities to sign-up to the San Francisco Declaration on Research 2. RCUK to continue supporting Gold Open Access Charges. 3. UK Open Access Coordination Group to support the development of agreed service standards around Gold Open Access 4. UK Open Access policy should offer greater choice to research producers 5. UUK OA Coordination Group to continue annual work to monitor the transition towards Open Access 6. UUK OA Coordination Group to convene an Efficiency Forum sub-group 7. UUK OA Coordination Group to convene a Repositories sub-group 8. UUK OA Coordination Group to convene an Open Access Monographs sub-group Minister response as quoted. Key thing will be to collect reliable and accurate evidence on this issue to inform discussions with all stakeholders. Jisc, RLUK, SCONUL and ARMA paper UK research, and its wider economy, are not being as well served as they might be by the legacy journals market. This is no one’s fault; it is a structural issue concerning a market that has evolved organically over many years and has now been asked to support a radical transition to Open Access. However, new, more market-based options might be available, which could include incentives for various stakeholders throughout the market to move toward wholly OA journals, rather than hybrids. The use of repositories, in parallel with journal publishing, also increases the availability of UK research to innovators in the wider economy. In more detail, options could include: i. Adjustments to the rules governing the use of research funds, to provide market incentives for the development of fully Open Access journals with transparent pricing. Such adjustments might include restricting, or placing conditions on, the extent to which research funds could be used to pay Open Access charges for hybrid journals25 ii. Encouraging all those directing funds into the market, including universities and research funders, to collaborate closely in negotiations with publishers on the total UK expenditure on journals, and on the services required by the research community in exchange for that expenditure iii. A preference in negotiations with publishers for models that completely shift their journals from the legacy to the OA model, at least for UK authors and readers iv. Further alignment of UK Open Access policies to make it clear that the use of repositories is a valuable component in the transition to Open Access, and adoption by universities of approaches to intellectual property that support this route v. Supporting the development and adoption of indicators that describe a much fuller range of quality dimensions for journals, to enable better signals in a market wherein price is unlikely to be an important signal vi. Ensuring that innovative small and society publishers have effective mechanisms to compete in the UK Open Access market
  8. Knowledge Exchange report: Over the last decade, a growing number of research funders and institutions have adopted OA policies. The ROARMAP database (as at July 2015) listed 79 funder policies, 54 funder and research organisation policies, 507 institutional policies (i.e. universities and research organisations) and 71 policies concluded at school or department level. These policies, which are voluntarily registered by the sponsor organisations, are only a fraction of the total number of OA policies adopted worldwide. The implementation of open access, and the delivery of policy compliance, is dependent on a wide range of services, many of which have evolved organically over time. A large number of services dedicated to, or supportive of, OA have emerged organically from the work of stakeholders in the library, research management, IT and publishing sectors / communities. Underpinning services (eg identifier services) are both invisible and indispensable. Where they are working as intended, underpinning services such as identifiers are easily overlooked in favour of the end-user services they support. Yet they underpin virtually all aspects of OA policy implementation, from article-level workflows to high-level compliance monitoring, and improving these services will deliver benefits to all of the other services and workflows which rely on them. Without underpinning services, it is almost impossible for the implementation of OA policies to be effectively tracked and monitored. For any policy maker to obtain meaningful data on the overall progress and effectiveness of an OA policy, they must be able to answer two questions: 1. How many research outputs are subject to our OA policy in a given period? (The numerator) 2. How many of the above outputs were made OA in a form compliant with our policy? (The denominator) The inadequacy of current underpinning services will be increasingly exposed as OA policies become more stringent. Our consultation indicated that there are fundamental gaps and inadequacies among current underpinning services, particularly the absence of consistent standards, identifiers and metadata, which become apparent when any attempt is made to evaluate a policy’s scope and effectiveness in the round. When asked what were the most important services, key stakeholders mentioned DOAJ, Sherpa, etc – Wordle. So these are key services specifically for OA, that build on underpinning identifier etc infrastructure but are themselves foundational for many users. What design principles might we consider for sustaining these services? Cameron, Bilder and Lin’s principles for open scholarly infrastructure: Governance If an infrastructure is successful and becomes critical to the community, we need to ensure it is not co-opted by particular interest groups. Similarly, we need to ensure that any organisation does not confuse serving itself with serving its stakeholders. How do we ensure that the system is run “humbly”, that it recognises it doesn’t have a right to exist beyond the support it provides for the community and that it plans accordingly? How do we ensure that the system remains responsive to the changing needs of the community? Coverage across the research enterprise – it is increasingly clear that research transcends disciplines, geography, institutions and stakeholders. The infrastructure that supports it needs to do the same. Stakeholder Governed – a board-governed organisation drawn from the stakeholder community builds more confidence that the organisation will take decisions driven by community consensus and consideration of different interests. Non-discriminatory membership – we see the best option as an “opt-in” approach with a principle of non-discrimination where any stakeholder group may express an interest and should be welcome. The process of representation in day to day governance must also be inclusive with governance that reflects the demographics of the membership. Transparent operations – achieving trust in the selection of representatives to governance groups will be best achieved through transparent processes and operations in general (within the constraints of privacy laws). Cannot lobby – the community, not infrastructure organizations, should collectively drive regulatory change. An infrastructure organisation’s role is to provide a base for others to work on and should depend on its community to support the creation of a legislative environment that affects it. Living will – a powerful way to create trust is to publicly describe a plan addressing the condition under which an organisation would be wound down, how this would happen, and how any ongoing assets could be archived and preserved when passed to a successor organisation. Any such organisation would need to honour this same set of principles. Formal incentives to fulfil mission & wind-down – infrastructures exist for a specific purpose and that purpose can be radically simplified or even rendered unnecessary by technological or social change. If it is possible the organisation (and staff) should have direct incentives to deliver on the mission and wind down. Sustainability Financial sustainability is a key element of creating trust. “Trust” often elides multiple elements: intentions, resources and checks and balances. An organisation that is both well meaning and has the right expertise will still not be trusted if it does not have sustainable resources to execute its mission. How do we ensure that an organisation has the resources to meet its obligations? Time-limited funds are used only for time-limited activities – day to day operations should be supported by day to day sustainable revenue sources. Grant dependency for funding operations makes them fragile and more easily distracted from building core infrastructure. Goal to generate surplus – organisations which define sustainability based merely on recovering costs are brittle and stagnant. It is not enough to merely survive it has to be able to adapt and change. To weather economic, social and technological volatility, they need financial resources beyond immediate operating costs. Goal to create contingency fund to support operations for 12 months – a high priority should be generating a contingency fund that can support a complete, orderly wind down (12 months in most cases). This fund should be separate from those allocated to covering operating risk and investment in development. Mission-consistent revenue generation – potential revenue sources should be considered for consistency with the organisational mission and not run counter to the aims of the organisation. For instance… Revenue based on services, not data – data related to the running of the research enterprise should be a community property. Appropriate revenue sources might include value-added services, consulting, API Service Level Agreements or membership fees. Insurance Even with the best possible governance structures, critical infrastructure can still be co-opted by a subset of stakeholders or simply drift away from the needs of the community. Long term trust requires the community to believe it retains control. Here we can learn from Open Source practices. To ensure that the community can take control if necessary, the infrastructure must be “forkable.” The community could replicate the entire system if the organisation loses the support of stakeholders, despite all established checks and balances. Each crucial part then must be legally and technically capable of replication, including software systems and data. Forking carries a high cost, and in practice this would always remain challenging. But the ability of the community to recreate the infrastructure will create confidence in the system. The possibility of forking prompts all players to work well together, spurring a virtuous cycle. Acts that reduce the feasibility of forking then are strong signals that concerns should be raised. The following principles should ensure that, as a whole, the organisation in extremis is forkable: Open source – All software required to run the infrastructure should be available under an open source license. This does not include other software that may be involved with running the organisation. Open data (within constraints of privacy laws) – For an infrastructure to be forked it will be necessary to replicate all relevant data. The CC0 waiver is best practice in making data legally available. Privacy and data protection laws will limit the extent to which this is possible. Available data (within constraints of privacy laws) – It is not enough that the data be made “open” if there is not a practical way to actually obtain it. Underlying data should be made easily available via periodic data dumps. Patent non-assertion – The organisation should commit to a patent non-assertion covenant. The organisation may obtain patents to protect its own operations, but not use them to prevent the community from replicating the infrastructure. These are closely related to the recommendations from the KE report, which were: 5.1. Adopting sound governance structures Ensure that critical underpinning services have appropriate stakeholder representation, transparent operations and non-discriminatory membership. 5.2. Securing the financial sustainability of critical services Review the business model of critical services, and, where appropriate, address their reliance on short-term, project-based funding Consider concerted action by institutions, funders and publishers to safeguard the DOAJ’s future and place it on a sustainable footing.. Consider the viability of establishing an international funding model and governance mechanism for the SHERPA services, particularly SHERPA/RoMEO. 5.3. Developing fully interoperable OA repository services Prioritise development of central ‘nodes’ and standards for interoperability in support of green OA self-archiving 5.4. Moving from services to a functioning OA infrastructure The fundamental challenge raised by this study is how to fund and oversee a transition from the current disparate collection of OA services to a fully- functioning open scholarly infrastructure that can effectively deliver OA policy compliance. Following stakeholder workshop in November and another at the Amsterdam open science conference last week, there is a proposal to set up a mechanism to do these four things: 1. Maintain a register of key OA services 2. Assess sustainability, governance, usage and interoperability. 3. Publish recommendations on funding, risks and new services required 4. Collect and distribute funding There are concerns about this… But we still think it is worth trying, bearing these concerns in mind, and we intend to start by using RoMEO and DOAJ as test cases.