Lb coarsparc2015 porto_may15
Download as PPTX, PDF•0 likes•195 views
Lars Bjørnshauge presented findings from the PASTEUR4OA project on open access policies around the world. The project analyzed 663 open access policies, with most being from institutions in Europe and funders in North America. Strong mandatory policies that require deposit and prohibit waivers see higher levels of open access materials deposited than non-mandatory policies. However, overall deposit rates of published articles are low, around 15% for full text. Certain policy criteria like requiring deposit and prohibiting waivers correlate with higher deposit rates and shorter deposit times. While progress has been made in policy adoption, more work is needed to increase compliance and transition to open access publishing.
Lb coarsparc2015 porto_may15
- 1. “OA policies – where we are and what we know about effectiveness” COAR-SPARC Conference 2015, Porto, April 15-16 Lars Bjørnshauge SPARC Europe
- 4. The global overview of OA-policies • Work Package 3 of the PASTEUR4OA project involved a set of tasks: • Describe and enumerate the policy picture in Europe and around the world • Rebuild ROARMAP, including the development of a new, detailed classification scheme that describes policy elements • Collect data on the levels of Open Access material in institutional repositories around the world • Analyse what elements of a policy contribute to its effectiveness
- 5. PASTEUR4OA Project OPEN ACCESS POLICY: NUMBERS, ANALYSIS, EFFECTIVENESS Alma Swan, Yassine Gargouri, Megan Hunt and Stevan Harnad Enabling Open Scholarship
- 7. The ROARMAP ”makeover” • New classification scheme including – Criteria for deposit – Licensing conditions – Rights holding – Embargo lengths – Gold Open Access publishing options
- 8. Making ROARMAP comprehensive • 250 additional OA-policies discovered • March 2015: a total of 663 entries – 66% are institutional policies – 10% are funder policies – More than 50% are mandatory policies (requiring rather than requesting deposit)
- 9. Open Access policies worldwide Europe (389) North America (145) Central & South America (34) Africa (16) Asia (40) Oceania (39)
- 10. Open Access policymakers worldwide Research funders (72) Research institutions (461) Research funder and institutions (53) Multiple research organisations (8) Sub-units of institutions (69)
- 11. Open Access mandates worldwide Europe (237; 62%) North America (75; 19%) Central & South America (18; 5%) Africa (10; 3%) Asia (24; 6%) Oceania (20; 5%)
- 12. Examining policy effectiveness • measuring deposit rates • measuring deposit latency • examining deposit rates in relation to different policy criteria • examining the correlation between deposit latency and different policy criteria
- 13. Deposit rates • Metadata-Only • Full-Text – Open Access – Restricted Access (embargo)
- 14. Deposit rates (institutional repositories) • Based on published articles according to Web of Knowledge in 2011-2013 measured Autumn 2014 • 122 institutions with mandates adopted 2011 or earlier and 10 institutions without a mandate – potentially 350.000 articles • Results: • 77% had no records at all!! • 8% were Metadata only • 12% were Open Access • 3% were Restricted Access • That is: 15% Full text!
- 15. Strong mandates deliver (better than soft policies) • Deposit of Open Access material was over four times as high (14%) for institutions with a mandatory policy than for those without (3%)
- 16. Deposit latency • Open Access items tend to be deposited later than Restricted Access ones • Latency periods tend to be longer in mandated institutions than in non- mandated ones (reason (?): probably because authors who deposit voluntarily are self- motivated and will do it early.
- 17. Deposit rates and policy criteria I • Positive correlations: Open Access and Restricted Access deposit rates and these policy criteria: – Must deposit, – Cannot waive deposit, – Link to research evaluation, – Cannot waive rights retention, – Must make item Open Access
- 18. Deposit rates and policy criteria II • Negative correlation btwn Open Access and Restricted Access deposit rates and this policy criteria: – Cannot waive Open Access • Significant correlation btwn Open Access deposit rate and – Must deposit – Cannot waive deposit
- 19. Deposit latency and policy criteria • Positive correlation btwn early deposit and – Age of the mandate – Cannot waive rights retention – Deposit immediately. • Significant correlation btwn early Open Access deposits and – Age of the mandate (the longer a mandatory policy has been in place, the more effective it can become).
- 20. An efficient policy is • A Must Deposit policy • Cannot Waive Deposit policy • A policy linked with Research Evaluation/Assessment • 5 of the funder policies include these criteria • 13 of the institutional policies include these criteria
- 21. Policy criteria
- 22. Funders
- 23. Institutions
- 24. Observations • Research Funders and mixed Funder and Research Organisations from Europe are much more likely to have stronger mandates. • No significant difference in the ”strength” of mandates in Research Organisations (Universities etc.) across the continents. • Funders are more likely than institutions to: – require deposit – recommend Gold OA and – allow and/or provide funds for APC payments
- 25. So far: • We have seen the characteristics of an efficient OA-policy • But the deposit rates in general are with a few exceptions IMHO depressing! • Can repositories deliver OA?? • We must not forget what is was all about!
- 27. Open Access is… • Immediate access to published content – especially scholarly articles! • There are not many scholarly articles in the repositories. • And - embargo is a legal barrier!
- 28. Something to think about!? • Have we been too eager to see progress by seeking compromise and consensus?? • Did we refrain from telling funders and decision makers that transition is associated with investments and costs?? • Were we afraid of promoting (real) Open Access publishing (Gold – not Hybrid!!), because the are bills to be paid??
- 29. • While we are desparetly trying to make Green OA work the publishers have regrouped their troops! • Facilitated by the UK and the RCUK they are back in business with the Hybrid stuff! • Is it time to rethink strategy? Will Green OA ever deliver the transition? • And if Green OA is coming closer to deliver, what will happen to the embargoes??
- 30. Trendspotting !? • Not all are as patient as we are! • Some funders and large research institutions demonstrate more determination towards facilitating real transition: • There are updated mandates from WHO, CERN and the Norwegian Research Council and of course • The exiting OA-policy adopted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation! Way to go!
- 31. And finally!! • While we are diving in the new exiting (and complicated) stuff like Research Data and OER please do not forget that we are far, very far from fixing Open Access to publications!! • First things first, or what??? • Let´s keep our eyes on the ball!!
- 33. Useful links • PASTEUR4OA - http://www.pasteur4oa.eu/ • EOS - http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/c_5012/en/home • ROARMAP - http://roarmap.eprints.org/ • The report: http://www.pasteur4oa.eu/news/109#.VSz5a5NXr-4
- 34. Creative Commons License This work is licensed under Attribution 4.0 International License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Editor's Notes
- #2: Much of what I am going to talk about now is based on work that has been undertaken in the PASTEUR4OA project. The PASTEUR4OA is as many of you know funded by the EU and aims at aligning policies within the EU membership states in line with the Horizon2020 Open Access mandate.
- #4: The work that I am concentrating on here has primarily been done by EOS (Enabling Open Scholarship), but all partners have been contributing.
- #9: Has been a huge task, involving all project partners, numerous contacts to repository managers etc.
- #15: Pls note that this is about institutional repositories. In certain discipline subject repositories play a significant role, but in this study they are out of scope. We all know that WoK is not the whole picture, but it should give a picture about to which extent journal articles are actually made open access via institutional repositories. 122 is 50% of the repositories where a mandate was inplace at the time of the analysis (2014) – before the makeover
- #21: Horizon2020, FWF, HEFCE, NIH and NRF (SA) – Liege, Minho, Gent, INRIA, Luxembourg,