There are now a few varients on the original decision tree flowchard from the Publishers Association that was included in the recent RCUK Policy on Open Access and Supporting Guidance. This chart has been criticised for directing researchers towards the Gold route to open access.
The University of Oxford have released a 'Researcher Decision Tree - 'Green' or 'Gold'. This flowchart gives equal weight to Green or Gold routes to open access.
The University of Manchester has a similar webpage to inform researchers making decisions on where and how to publish. The 'Show Me How' site is a simple step-through process.
If more decision trees become available, we will add them here to this post.
15/05/2013: University of Edinburgh: Choosing Green or Gold Open Access flowchart
We have a guest speaker from the new journal 'eLife' joining us on Wednesday (1:15pm), organised via the Pharmacy & Pharmacology seminar series. The session will be of interest to all researchers - postgrads, postdocs and academic staff.
A brief outline of the session is provided below:
This years penulitmate Departmental seminar has been arranged in conjunction with the library staff to discuss a new model of open access publishing.
Kara Jones from the UoB library will briefly introduce some new developments at the University of Bath in relation to open access publishing - see attached - in light of the RCUK new guidelines that all RCUK funded research must be published in an open access manner - and the potential development that all REF output beyond REF2014 will need to be freely accessible
The seminar will be delivered by Mark Patterson, Executive Director of eLife
"eLife - designing a digital research journal fit for purpose"
The seminar will be followed by coffee and biscuits and an opportunity for people to interact with the seminar speaker and library staff answering any questions regarding the evolving face of open access publishing.
ABOUT MARK PATTERSON:
In June 2011, three of the world’s leading research funding agencies -the Wellcome Trust, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Max Planck Society - announced plans to launch a top-tier, open-access research journal covering the life and biomedical sciences. eLife was launched in December 2012. Mark Patterson started his career as a researcher in genetics before moving into scientific publishing in 1994 as the Editor of Trends in Genetics. After a few years at Nature, where
he was involved in the launch of the Nature Reviews Journals, he moved to PLOS in 2003. As the Director of Publishing, Mark helped to launch several of the PLOS Journals and was one of the founders of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. Mark is also a member of the UK Open Access Implementation Group. In November 2011, Mark joined eLife and currently serves as the Executive Director.
Are we all clear now on where we're up to in terms of feedback on revisions responding to feedback on the inquiry into the policy change?
Here's the response from Lord Krebs and the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee to the RCUK revised policy on open access.
There's been no announcement, as far as I can tell, on when and if the RCUK will be responding to the feedback they'd requested. I assume it won't be before the first of April.
If I had a pound for each time I've heard that statement over the last week (actually the RCUK policy calls it a 'process'), I'd almost have enough for a Gold OA article in an Elsevier journal.
The LSE Impact of Social Science blog today contains a response to an earlier post about institutional repositories and their role in the transition to Open Access. It was almost like the authors today's post had listened to the conversations in our office over the last few days. I'm joking, of course they haven't but the points raised echoed our own response to Mike Taylor's post.
The scholarly communications landscape is evolving. Repositories are a part of the transition - without them, and (note this point) the expertise developed through their use and promotion, the Open Access movement would not be where it is today, which is at the forefront of discussions on publications and the sharing of research.
The irony is that we are all for Open Access, it's the journey that's under discussion.
Readers may be interested in this tool recently announced by the group that manages the Sherpa Romeo and Sherpa Juliet services - SHERPA Funders’ & Authors’ Compliance Tool (SHERPA FACT).
The recent announcement below:
"The Centre for Research Communications (CRC) is pleased to announce that Research Councils UK (RCUK) and the Wellcome Trust have provided seed funding for the development of a SHERPA Funders’ & Authors’ Compliance Tool (SHERPA FACT). SHERPA FACT will interpret data from SHERPA RoMEO, JULIET and other sources to provide clear guidance to RCUK and Wellcome Trust funded authors on compliance with their Open Access (OA) policies and advise on the options available.
SHERPA FACT will be available from 01 April 2013.
Further details and updates will be posted our blog (http://romeo.jiscinvolve.org/wp/)"
This article from Nature circulated the email list of a science department recently:
Predatory publishers are corrupting open access
The author of this article on predatory open access publishers is Jeffery Beall, Scholarly Initiatives Librarian at the University of Colorado Denver.
Unfortunately he has found a necessary niche. He maintains a list of publishers to watch out for, based on these criteria.
If authors receive emails soliciting publications, and are not sure about the publisher we'd like to know please, and help if we can. We have had instances of PhD students receiving invitations to have their theses published as books. This is potentially a great opportunity, and good for the ego/career, but a little investigation into the publisher's reputation (for any sort of publication, not just OA articles) has always been the sensible route.
Oh my. The New York Times has an opinion piece supporting the move towards Open Access for government funded research:
We Paid for the Research, So Let’s See It.
They even suggest a shorter embargo than 12 months.
HEFCE and the UK funding councils have issued a call for commentary on the role of OA publishing in the submission of outputs to the post-2014 REF. This appears to carry a good deal of support for repositories.
Interesting post by SPARC Europe on funder policies on Open Access from around the world. Note the lonely funder under 'Gold (journals) preferred where available'..
The HoLSTC issued their report on the implementation of the RCUK revised policy on Open Access.
Copyright and publisher permissions (i.e. which version can be made available in a repository)
Version checking to meet the above
Increasingly complex publisher statements to accompany author produced files
Publishers making demands based on the relationship between the author and the University
This was critical of the RCUK implementation and consultation around the policy, and outlined a raft of directives for monitoring the process over the next five years.
Working on an institutional repository and advocating open access to scholarly outputs, we've seen this as a mixed blessing. The Finch Report, the RCUK policy on OA, similiar moves towards opening access to research in Europe and the States have really raised the profile of Open Access, but perhaps at the cost of confidence in what can already be a complex process.
I think what makes this a particularly difficult landscape is the lack of standardisation - in policy, in the technology, in the funding and so on. Now with the start of the RCUK OA payment of Article Processing Charges (APCs) from April 1st, the strain of individual processing of each item falls further than the existing checks of -
These can be, and have been difficult messages to get across to authors, when they SHOULD be simple - maximised sharing of research produces a list of benefits for the authors (citations, collaborations) and readers (accessing research, building on scholarship) and for publishers (increased page views, ranking, visibility, citations, impact factors increased, and so on). Now we can add further complexity to this landscape pre-publication, with checks on journal and author eligibility to meet RCUK criteria.
I think the challenge now is to not get caught up in the red tape and directives and to keep in sight the reasons for making research openly accessible - don't let Open Access become a dirty word/s.
A new bill just introduced in the US is generating a lot of interest, especially on Twitter where I first noticed it. #FASTR - The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act.
The best talking points I've found on the Alliance for Taxpayer Access website: http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/FASTR_calltoaction.shtml, particularly:
"This bill reflects the growing trend – by funding agencies and higher education institutions worldwide – to maximize access to and expanded sharing of research results, increasing usage by millions of scientists, professionals, and individuals, and delivering an accelerated return on their investment in research."
So the groundswell built by the Finch Report appears to have crossed the pond. Please check out Twitter #FASTR or the site above for more information.
No, it doesn't. Library budget cuts cause journal cancellations. Journal price increases cause journal cancellations. Changing user needs and usage cause journal cancellations.
However the myth of OA causing journal cancellations keeps coming up again. I saw it tweeted this morning.
Back in 2006 there was an ALPSP report on factors for librarians in determining journal cancellations. Last year, a report by the ALPSP and Publishers Associatiion claimed that a six month embargo would cause a significant increase in journal cancellations by libraries across disciplines. The Times Higher Ed picked this up, with the sensational headline 'Open access will bankrupt us, publishers’ report claims'.
Please read the Q&A post on Richard Poynder's blog with the ALPSP Chief Executive Audrey McCulloch.
Specifically note the point made that journal cancellations (as noted in the 2006 Ware report) by librarians would be made first and foremost on the basis of relevance, usage and price, in consultation with faculty.
At this point I wonder if actually, double dipping from Gold OA in subscription journals might actually bankrupt Libraries, the RCUK and Universities. That's probably another blog post.