Open Access Futures in the Humanities and Social SciencesA one day conference for the humanities and social sciences sector

presented by SAGE and the LSE Public Policy Group

#HSSOA

Welcome

Ziyad Marar Global Publishing Director, SAGE

@ZiyadMarar

#HSSOA

Opening Address

Professor Nigel VincentVice President for Research & Higher

Education Policy, British Academy

#HSSOA

Open Access:the problem space

Professor Nigel Vincent, FBA MAE(The University of Manchester)

Vice-President Research, British Academy

The British Academy and OA

• national academy of Humanities and Social Sciences

• fellows elected on basis of distinguished published work

• funds post-docs & small grants

• publishes both monographs and periodicals

RAE 2008 outputs by publication type: Humanities

Books Chapters Journal Articles Other

English 39% 27% 31% 3%History 40% 22% 37% 1%French 37% 23% 39% 1%Philosophy 14% 20% 65% 1%Chemistry 0% 0% 100% 0%

Totals based on submissions drawn from the top 10 institutions for each field and with a GPA of 2.5 or better

RAE 2008 outputs by publication type: Social Sciences

Books Chapters Journal Articles OtherSociology 22% 10% 64% 3%Law 18% 15% 65% 1%Politics 29% 9% 62% 0%Economics 1% 2% 89% 7%

Totals based on submissions drawn from the top 10 institutions for each field and with a GPA of 2.5 or better

RAE 2008 outputs by publication type

Books Chapters Journal articles Other

Biological Anthropology

2% 4% 93% 0

Social Anthropology 31% 29% 37% 3%

One institution made two separate submissions to the Anthropology Panel:

3 broad classes of discipline

• 3/3 journal articles: Natural Sciences, Economics

• 2/3 journal articles: Sociology, Law, Philosophy

• 1/3 journal articles: English, History, Mod Langs

HSS disciplines and OA• HSS fields are not ‘exceptions’ but fit into a multi-

dimensional disciplinary space• different disciplines = different publication profiles• profiles relatively constant over time & institution• similar profiles also hold in Europe and the USA

and define the benchmark for international research reputations

The international context• dominant trend seems to be towards green OA• absence of exercises like REF to force compliance• many journals will remain non-compliant (not green

or only with 36+ month embargos; not CC-BY)• what does this mean for UK academics whose

international standing relies on publishing in such journals?

OA as it affects the 3 types of publication

• journal articles

• monographs (‘long-form’)

• book chapters

Journal articles

HEFCE and BA research project investigating discipline by

discipline:

• ‘half-lives’ of journal articles

• effect of embargo periods on library acquisition

• involvement in non-UK journal publishing

• commitment to OA overseas

PI: Prof Chris Wickham

Monographs

• tend to be single-authored• not captured by usual bibliometric methods• international gold standard in some fields• difficult boundary between ‘academic’ and

‘trade’ lists for publishers

Status of monographs

‘There is no other medium that allows for the depth of research, analysis and sustained argumentation.’ [British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow, 2012]

Options for OA monographs • gold with APC: subventions from the institution

or the funding agency BUT costly – cf Austria FWF pays €14,000 and new Wellcome policy

• green:with an embargo period BUT how long?• ‘mixed’: self-organizing co-operatives BUT how

sustainable?; e-version OA and print version for a payment; etc

HEFCE group on monographs • chaired by Geoff Crossick• aims to explore and understand:

– scale/nature of problems for monographs– place/purpose of monographs in the

academic context– emerging models that accommodate OA

“The Wellcome Trust today announces that it is to extend its open access policy to include all scholarly monographs and book chapters written by its grantholders as part of their Trust-funded research … The Wellcome Trust will make funds available for the payment of publishers' open access monograph processing charges.”

30 May 2013

“The new policy does not apply to textbooks, 'trade' books, general reference works or works of fiction, or to collections edited but not authored by Trust grantholders. It would not affect, for example, a non-fiction work written by a medical historian aimed at a general audience and published by a commercial publisher.”

Book chapters: contra

‘If you write a chapter for an edited book, you might as well write the paper and then bury it in a hole in the ground.’

Dorothy Bishophttp://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/how-to-bury-your-academic-writing.html

Book chapters: pro• a range of views come together in one volume• benefits of mutual peer review by authors• whole greater than the sum of the parts

http://peterwebster.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/on-the-invisibility-of-edited-collections/

Book chapters and online publishing

• chapters can be rescued from ‘invisibility’• option to access the whole collection or

individual chapters• same issues as monographs for access and

sustainability

Licence type and text mining

• CC-BY preferred by Finch

• allows unlimited text and data-mining

• BUT text-mining less successful on free prose

• AND not guaranteed to detect quotation and text

in languages other than English

• Bioinformatics publishes under CC-BY-NC

OA and peer review (PR)

• traditional journal and book publishing built on PR• PR as the guarantee of quality and reputation• PR as the foundation of RAE and REF• OA does not necessarily undermine PR• BUT some OA ventures also question the value of PR (cf

PLOS-ONE and the concept of post-publication review)

Panel One

Why OA? Which OA?

#HSSOA

Panel 1: Why OA? Which OA?Chair Professor Adam Tickell, Provost and Vice-Principal, University of Birmingham @adamtickell

PanellistsJonathan Gray, Director of Policy, Open Knowledge Foundation @jwyg

Professor Peter Mandler, President, Royal Historical Society

Brian Hole, Founder and CEO, Ubiquity Press @brian_hole

Professor Charlotte Waelde, Chair of Intellectual Property Law, University of Exeter

Brian HoleLSE, Open Access Futures in the Humanities and Social Sciences, 24 October 2013

Open access

Overview

Why publish?

What is open access?

Licenses

Publishing vs. archiving

Benefits vs. disadvantages

The Social Contract of Science

• Validation

• Dissemination

• Further development

Scientific Malpractice

• Data

• Results

• Software

What is Open Access?

Most simply: No barriers to access or reuse

By “open access” to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.

Budapest Open Access Initiative

OA allows users to “copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship.”

Bethsida/Berlin statements

✔ ✗ ✗

‘Gold open access’ (publishing) • Publisher makes content freely available• Content has been through peer review,

anti-plagiarism checks, etc.• Publisher may require an article

processing charge (APC)

OA publishing vs. archiving

‘Green open access’ (archiving)• Institution makes a pre-publication

version of content freely available in own repository, with no charge

• Content is released early andimmediately

Disadvantages vs. benefits

• “Humanities research involves reuse of copyright material and therefore can’t use CC-BY”

Often cited CC-BY disadvantages for the humanities

• “I don’t want my work to be translated without my oversight and quality control”

• “Open access will increase the likelihood of plagiarism”

• “I will lose royalties if my book is available for free”

CC-BY: “You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).”

Fair use and fair dealing still permitted. What we really need are copyright exceptions, and to encourage the release of more material as OA.

Attribution is still required. Plagiarism is actually easier to detect when the source is openly available.

It’s early days for OA books, but current indications are that royalties are stable to higher. Publishers like UP don’t aim to profit from royalties.

• “Open access means low quality peer review”

• “Citation metrics don’t work in the humanities”

• “Open access is too expensive for the humanities”

• “Open access is a threat to academic freedom”

• “Someone will create a derivative of my work and copyright it”Derivatives are allowed, and if sufficiently original can also be copyright protected. But this does not affect the copyright of the original work.

Peer review is completely independent of the distribution system. This has not happened STM.

Why not? Use of citation metrics alone is problematic in all fields. Half-lives are longer and therefore metrics need to be looked at in context.

Open access clearly increases freedom in very many areas. Mandates do not have to restrict authors to certain journals only - publishers just need to adapt.

High fees and “double dipping” need to be discouraged. APCs don’t have to be high – many OA journals don’t charge them at all, and publishers can be sustainable at low cost (see next slide).

For more information:

Questions?

brian.hole@ubiquitypress.com@ubiquitypresshttp://www.ubiquitypress.com http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

#HSSOA

Afternoon Address

David SweeneyDirector (Research, Innovation and Skills), HEFCE

@uhaa08

• David Sweeney• OA in HSS, 24/10/13

IN A POST-2014 REF

#OAREF

#OAREF

Introduction

• Funding bodies' proposals for open access in a post-2014 REF

• Join the conversation at #OAREF

#OAREF

Some benefits of open access• Wider and smarter access to more

information for research community

• Increased visibility, usage and impact for researchers and institutions

• Increased economic and social impact of public funding

#OAREF

Some issues...

• Embargo periods• Learned Societies and Subject

Associations • Monographs• Licensing• Academic freedom

2010: estimated 25,400 journals in STEM alone

2009: 1.5 million articles publishedone every 20 minutesVolume is part of the problem

#OAREF

Libraries

Funders Universities

Publishers

Researchers

£

Repositories

Green

GoldAdvertisers Donors Others

£

#OAREF

February advice letter

#OAREF

Outputs submitted to a post-2014REF should be open access.

Policy proposals

Criteria

Definition

Exceptions

#OAREF

#OAREF

Criteria: what do we mean by open access?

• Accessible through a UK HEI repository, immediately upon either acceptance or publication

• Available as the final peer-reviewed text

=

#OAREF

Criteria: what do we mean by open access?

• Embargo periods to be respected by the repository

• REF panel will follow embargo period set by the appropriate Research Council

=

#OAREF

Criteria: what do we mean by open access?

• Allows search and re-use of content (including downloading and text-mining)

• Manual and automated re-use

• Subject to proper attribution under appropriate licensing

=

#OAREF

Criteria: points for consultation

• Appropriateness of criteria?

• Role for institutional repositories?

• Acceptance or publication?

• Embargo periods varying by REF

panel?

• Licensing requirements?

• Journal articles or conference proceedings only

• Published after a two year notice period (i.e. 2016)

• UK HEI in address field

Definition: which outputs will need to meet the criteria?

#OAREF

=

• On a case-by-case basis

OR• A percentage approach to

compliance ‣ consistent across all

outputs, or‣ varying by main panel

=

Exceptions: how should we treat exceptions?

#OAREF

• Consistent target across all outputs within scope (70%)

• Vary by REF main panel

=

Exceptions: a percentage approach to compliance

#OAREF

Main panel A B C D

Percentage target for compliance

75%

75%

70%

60%

#OAREF

HSS Tensions (1)

• Thinking significantly impacted by monographs

• Monographs ‘market’ is simply broken – Missingham 2013

• Journals market is functioning

#OAREF

HSS Tensions (2)• All monograph discussions underpinned by

OUP/CUP/Yale/Rutgers etc but

• Many scholars just can’t get published by those esteemed publishers

• OA is an essential element in allowing more work to be published in monograph form

#OAREF

HSS Tensions (3)

• Funder/researcher relationship is much less settled in HSS than STEM

• ‘individualistic concepts of authorship that may do more to advance academic careers than collective public knowledge’ – Barron 2013

#OAREF

HSS Tensions (4)

• More published in foreign language journals and transition to OA may take longer there

• Will international mandates (EU, US, Australia) lead to overseas journals making a transition?

#OAREF

HSS Tensions (5)

• Academic freedom – freedom of expression doesn’t mean unconstrained freedom where to express – already cost and quality constraints

• However highly desirable for choice of dissemination route to be by academics helped by publishers and funders….

#OAREF

Panel Two

New Horizons? Open access and the potential for positive change in HSS research communication

#HSSOA

Panel 2: New Horizons?ChairProfessor Patrick Dunleavy, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, LSE @PJDunleavy

PanellistsDr. Caroline Edwards, Lecturer in Modern & Contemporary Literature at Birkbeck, University of London @the_blochian

Dr. Paul Kirby, Lecturer in International Security at the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex @PabloK

Ian Mulvany, Head of Technology, eLife @IanMulvany

What Does Open Access Mean for the Humanities?

Dr Caroline EdwardsLecturer in Modern & Contemporary Literature, Birkbeck

Director, Open Library of Humanities (OLH)

caroline.edwards@bbk.ac.uk@the_blochian

www.drcarolineedwards.com

(3) arXiv, Cornell University Library, 1991-

• Founded by physicist Paul Ginsparg in 1991, Los Alamos

• Repository for pre-prints in maths, physics, astronomy, computer science

• Circulating scientific papers prior to publication• Developed out of informal professional networks

(via email)

Lessons from the Sciences

(1) Hacker culture, California, 1960s

(2) the GNU project, MIT A.I. Lab, 1980s

Alluvium Journal:Open access, short form articles published through WordPress

Innovation in Peer Review?

• Artificial scarcity no longer applies in digital environment

• Separate the “distinction phase” from “the publishing phase”

• Are alternative modes of peer review possible?

• Should peer review be “blind” (anonymous) or “open” (public)

• How does peer review differ from editorial labour?

• Could peer review take place post-publication?

• What about peer-to-peer review?

How do we fund open access?

Image by 401(k)2012 under a CC BY-SA license

Open access is not free access

Scale of open access publishing

(1) free labour & free submission

(2) advertising revenue

(3) pay on demand

(4) Article Processing Charge (APC)

(5) Library Consortia

Image by Ivan McClellan under a CC BY license

International Challenges

Addressing the problem of access gaps

OA is not universal access

UNESCO’s Global Open Access Portal (GOAP, 2011)

International Conference of African Digital Libraries & Archives (ICADLA, 2009)

Scarcity of expertise and resources

Issue of OA journals not being internationally recognised

The Open Library of Humanities (OLH)Humanities Megajournal & Monograph Pilot

Panel 2: New Horizons?ChairProfessor Patrick Dunleavy, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, LSE @PJDunleavy

PanellistsDr. Caroline Edwards, Lecturer in Modern & Contemporary Literature at Birkbeck, University of London @the_blochian

Dr. Paul Kirby, Lecturer in International Security at the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex @PabloK

Ian Mulvany, Head of Technology, eLife @IanMulvany

Panel Three

What next? Transition mechanisms and next steps in HSS

#HSSOA

Panel 3: What next? Chair – Dr. Paul Ayris, Director UCL Library Services and UCL Copyright Officer @ucylpay

Professor Steffen Bӧhm, University of Essex and Mayfly Books @SteffenBoehm

Ziyad Marar, Global Publishing Director, SAGE @ZiyadMarar Sally Hardy, Chief Executive, Regional Studies Association @Sallyjhardy

Simon Kerridge, Director of Research Services at the University of Kent and Chair, ARMA (UK) @SimonRKerridge

Professor Ian Walmsley, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and University Collections), University of Oxford

Open Access Futures in the Humanities and Social Sciences

Thursday, 24th October 2013

Senate House, London

Sally HardyChief Executive

Regional Studies Associationwww.regionalstudies.org

sally.hardy@regionalstudies.org

OA Journal Launch

67% of RSA income comes from publishing receipts

Regional Studies, Regional Science responds to the shift in publishing paradigm and is the next step in the Association’s strategic development

RSRS fits RSA’s development planning goals – it will reach into new markets and to younger and/or less traditional group of researchers

The landscape for RSRS includes competitor hybrid journals as well as interdisciplinary titles such as SAGE Open and there are subject specific OA journals

RSA Journals and Magazines

Regional Studies Regional Science

Content Standard academic articles (6-8,000 words) Review papers Short briefings (3,000 word max) Regional policy reviews (3-5,000 words) Regional graphics Early career researcher (ECR) contributions

Publishing

Editorial Structure Two Editors in Chief, 25 Associate Editors, 50 editorial advisory board members

Review Process average paper turnaround of 28 days review criteria: quality, relevance, clarity of expression peer review panel not judging the significance or likely impact of any paper

Article Processing Charges

Open access remains a challenge to many societies

Societies need to rebalance their finances to future proof their research ecosystem contribution

Time scales are important

Issues include: licensing, embargo periods, funding streams and the global roll out of OA

BUT

There are opportunities for societies

We need to innovate and experiment, we need to think in the new paradigm not the old

Key Messages

Thank YouSally Hardy

Chief ExecutiveRegional Studies Association

www.regionalstudies.orgsally.hardy@regionalstudies.org

Panel 3: What next? Chair – Dr. Paul Ayris, Director UCL Library Services and UCL Copyright Officer @ucylpay

Professor Steffen Bӧhm, University of Essex and Mayfly Books @SteffenBoehm

Ziyad Marar, Global Publishing Director, SAGE @ZiyadMarar Sally Hardy, Chief Executive, Regional Studies Association @Sallyjhardy

Simon Kerridge, Director of Research Services at the University of Kent and Chair, ARMA (UK) @SimonRKerridge

Professor Ian Walmsley, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and University Collections), University of Oxford

What Next? A University Perspective

Dr Simon Kerridge

Director ofResearch ServicesUniversity of Kent

Chair of ARMAThe Association of Research Managers and Administrators

Research Management and Administration

– RMAs manage and support research…

– Information (including about research outputs)– Pre-award [proposals] (incl. OA costs)– Post-award [projects] (incl. APCs)– Development / Planning (incl. pre-payment deals)– Strategy / Policy (incl. OA, RDM policies)– Assessment (incl. REF)– Metrics (incl. Citations, etc.)– Research Students (incl. E-theses)

Page 91

Typical University Position

– Full Support for Open Access• In principle

– Worry about… the details, eg:• How to manage/enforce/comply with it• Particular licences (NC, ND)• Cost of Gold• Who pays / international collaboration• Providing support… academic freedom• The FUTURE implications of decisions made now…

Page 92

Planning Ahead

– Reduction / redistribution of library subscriptions– Growing importance of IRs– Subject Areas repositories, eg SSRN, UKDS– Profile/influence/funding (HEI, Subject, UK)– Technical underpinnings: ORCID, FundRef, CERIF– Developing ideas: Diamond, Monographs, …– The next REF– International developments…

Page 94

A Typical? UK HEI Policy– OA Policy

• Support OA (and ‘Open Science’) – prefer Green [libre?]

– Institutional Repository• Mandatory meta-data. Full Text where allowable

– CRIS – ensure automated links– Single process for Gold APC

– Internal ‘top-up’ – how much?– Prioritise areas (eg RCUK, ring fenced funding) – how?– Prioritise high quality articles – how? Journal lists?– Managed by IS/RS? – independent?

– Encourage home grown OA Journals? (eg feminists@law)– Central support for Research Data Management?

Kent

‘Sim

ple’

Exa

mpl

e

– Is your Policy equitable?– How much will/should the institutional top up be?– What about institutionally funded research?– Who judges the quality?– Academic Freedom?– Who (which HEI) pays?– How is the metadata stored (linked to projects) [CRIS?]– What about the underlying research data?– Can it be reported on to RCUK ROS?– Benchmarking of OA compliance?– Other purposes for the information?

• GtR, REF2020, RCUK funding, Impact, …?

Current Issues

– The landscape is changing, we want to:– Produce the best research– Best support our academic staff to do it– ‘Manage’ the processes

• Have information (without asking for it… again)• To make strategic decisions about… investment

– Engage with all stakeholders– Expand eg GtR to include all UK outputs?– Developments: Open Peer Review, Social Media,– … Open Research – https://www.arma.ac.uk/resources/research-communications-open-access-research-

data– http://www.researchinfonet.org/finch/quick-links/– more@jiscmail.ac.uk [Managing Open REsearch]

In Summary… for the HEI

Panel 3: What next? Chair – Dr. Paul Ayris, Director UCL Library Services and UCL Copyright Officer @ucylpay

Professor Steffen Bӧhm, University of Essex and Mayfly Books @SteffenBoehm

Ziyad Marar, Global Publishing Director, SAGE @ZiyadMarar Sally Hardy, Chief Executive, Regional Studies Association @Sallyjhardy

Simon Kerridge, Director of Research Services at the University of Kent and Chair, ARMA (UK) @SimonRKerridge

Professor Ian Walmsley, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and University Collections), University of Oxford

Closing Remarks

Jane TinklerPublic Policy Group, LSE

@janetinkler

#HSSOA