By: .P.Muredzi; MSc Eng; MIP OPEN ACCESS SEMINAR 21 OCTOBER 2015 Demystifying and developing an intellectual commons through open access By: .P.Muredzi; MSc Eng; MIP

Outline of presentation: Defining Open Access Royalty Free and Royalty Producing Content Open Access Research Literature as Intellectual Commons Tragedies of the Open Access Commons Perspectives on the Open Access Commons Conclusion

What is Open Access? The Budapest Open Access Initiative definition: "There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. 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."

The Bethesda and Berlin Statements What is Open Access?....... The Bethesda and Berlin Statements For a work to be Open Access, the copyright holder must consent in advance to let users "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...."

BBB Definition The Budapest (February 2002), Bethesda (June 2003), and Berlin(October 2003) definitions of "open access" are the most central and influential!!!!

Facts about Open Access Open access is not Napster for Science. It's about lawful sharing, not sharing in disregard of law. Open access to copyrighted works is voluntary, even if it is sometimes a condition of a voluntary contract, such as an employment or funding contract. There is no vigilante open access, no infringing, expropriating, or piratical open access. There are two primary vehicles for delivering Open Access to research articles, Open Access journals (“Gold Open Access ") and Open Access repositories (“Green Open Access ").

Gold Open Access Open Access journals conduct peer review. Open Access journals find it easier than non- Open Access journals to let authors retain copyright. Open Access journals find it easier than Open Access repositories to provide libre Open Access repositories cannot usually generate permission for libre Open Access on their own. But Open Access journals can. Some Open Access journal publishers are non-profit (e.g. Public Library of Science or PLoS) and some are for-profit (e.g. BioMed Central or BMC). Open Access journals pay their bills very much the way broadcast television and radio stations do: those with an interest in disseminating the content pay the production costs upfront so that access can be free of charge for everyone with the right equipment.

Green Open Access Open Access repositories can be organized by discipline (e.g. arXiv for physics) or institution (e.g. DASH for Harvard). Open Access repositories do not perform peer review themselves. However, they generally host articles peer-reviewed elsewhere. Open Access repositories can contain preprints, post prints, or both. A preprint is any version prior to peer review and publication, usually the version submitted to a journal. A post print is any version approved by peer review.

What Open Access is not…. Open access is not synonymous with universal access Open Access is not a kind of business model. Open Access is not a kind of license Open Access is not a kind of content

Access barriers…. Filtering and censorship barriers. Many schools, employers, and governments want to limit what you can see. Language barriers. Most online literature is in English, or just one language, and machine translation is very weak. Handicap access barriers. Most web sites are not yet as accessible to handicapped users as they should be. Connectivity barriers. The digital divide keeps billions of people, including millions of serious scholars, offline.

Royalty free literature Royalty-free literature is donated literature. Authors of journal articles donate them to journals

Authors of Royalty free literature Authors tend to retain copyright, or at least key rights, while continuing to relinquish income. Author donation is closely connected to academic freedom. Scholars can afford to donate their journal articles because they are paid salaries by universities. Their salaries free them from the market, so they can write journal articles without considering what would “sell” or what would appeal to the widest audience. This frees them to be controversial, or to defend unpopular ideas, a key component of academic freedom. It also frees them to be micro specialized, or to defend ideas of interest to only a few people in the world. The same insulation frees some scholars to be obscure, and it frees others, who didn’t quite get the point, to be faddish and market- driven. But because the same insulation from the market makes two important freedoms possible: open access and academic freedom−, we have good reason to resist any development that would remove this insulation and make scholars’ income −through salaries or royalties− depend on the popularity of their ideas. The fact that scholarly journal articles are royalty-free means that scholars can consent to Open Access without fear of losing revenue.

Authors of Royalty free literature……. Authors want their work to be noticed, read, taken up, built upon, applied, used, and cited. They also want the journal’s time-stamp in order to establish priority over other scientists working on the same problem. If they work at a university, this way of advancing knowledge will also advance their careers. These intangible rewards (made nearly tangible in tenure and promotion) compensate scholars for relinquishing royalties on their journal articles. It explains why they are not merely willing, but eager, to submit their articles to journals that do not pay for them, and even to journals with the temerity to ask for ownership or copyright as well.

Authors of Royalty free literature…….their preferences Not all academic research literature is royalty-free. Scholars write journal articles, which are royalty-free, but also books, which are royalty-producing. They also write software, which is sometimes one and sometimes the other. Open Access may enlarge the audience and increase the impact for all three kinds of content, but in the case of journals there is no offsetting loss of revenue and in the case of books and software there is or may be. So the very same researcher may consent to Open Access for articles but not for books. The important distinction, then, for setting priorities in promoting Open Access is whether the content is royalty free or royalty- producing, not whether it is scholarly or non- scholarly

Worldwide effort to create an intellectual commons through open access Phase 1 Provide Open Access to royalty-free literature and to all other content for which there is already permission. This includes public domain content and content for which the copyright holder already consents to Open Access or would consent after a little education. This is the low- hanging fruit of Open Access. At least the legal hurdles have been cleared. There may still be technical and financial hurdles, such as digitizing print content and investing in robust delivery vehicles.

Worldwide effort to create an intellectual commons through open access……… Phase 2 Provide Open Access to royalty-producing literature and to content for which copyright holders are not yet consenting to Open Access. Since Open Access to copyrighted content must be consensual, this will require persuasion. Copyright holders have a right to try to earn money from their content, and they have at least some grounds for believing that Open Access conflicts with any plan to earn money from their content. Hence, persuasion will often fail, which explains why this is higher-hanging fruit.

Worldwide effort to create an intellectual commons through open access……… Phase 3 Enlarge and protect the public domain by rolling back copyright term extensions and assuring that international copyright law pre-empts state or national contract or licensing law. Make permission-seeking less often necessary by establishing the first-sale doctrine for digital content and restoring fair-use rights denied by copy-protection technologies.

Worldwide effort to create an intellectual commons through open access……… If Phase 2 persuades copyright holders to re- evaluate their interests, then Phase 3 persuades legislators to revise copyright law. Successes at Phases 1 and 2 would make Phase 3 largely unnecessary, and vice versa. Phase 3 is only higher-hanging fruit because revising copyright law in the right ways is politically unlikely and as a remedy, at best, slow, incomplete, and uncertain.

open access research literature as an intellectual commons……… Open Access commons is non- rivalrous because it is digital, not because it is Open Access. Even proprietary digital information with price and permission barriers firmly in place is non-rivalrous. Users don’t have unpaid access to it, but paying users do not diminish it by their use, no matter how many there are.

open access research literature as an intellectual commons………

open access research literature as an intellectual commons………

open access research literature as an intellectual commons……… Open Access literature removes all price barriers. It removes enough permission barriers to support all the uses customary in legitimate scholarship (essentially every use except plagiarism and misrepresentation). It removes enough access barriers to deserve to be called an intellectual commons. However, it does not remove all access barriers.

Tragedies of the open access commons……… Stalemates that affect progress toward the Open Access commons in research literature: Stalemate 1 Universities waiting for Open Access to bring them the savings that will enable them to pay for Open Access. Stalemate 2 If some universities invest in the superior alternative and pay for outgoing articles, other universities can enjoy Open Access to those articles without reciprocating. Late adopters of Open Access can freeload on early adopters. Universities might think: “We won’t make this investment, benefiting others until enough others make it, benefiting us.” Universities thinking this way end up waiting for one another, paralyzing them all.

Tragedies of the open access commons……… Stalemate 3 New journals need prestige in order to attract excellent submissions, and need excellent submissions in order to generate prestige.

Tragedies of the open access commons……… Solution to Stalemate 1 First, universities will not pay all or perhaps even most of the processing fees charged by Open Access journals. Many will be paid by foundations funding the research. Second, many Open Access journals will not charge processing fees at all. Third, many universities are not waiting for the success of Open Access in order to cancel expensive subscriptions. Fourth, universities can provide Open Access through archiving in institutional repositories, at very little cost, long before they decide whether to provide Open Access through processing fees for Open Access journals. Finally, the transition to Open Access may be more expensive than a steady-state future in which Open Access journals predominate, but that doesn’t mean it will be unaffordable. Universities, like other institutions, often invest money now to save money later.

Tragedies of the open access commons……… Solution to Stalemate 2 Freeloading late adopters enjoy Open Access to the literature produced by the early adopters. But early adopters are fully compensated for their early adoption, even if others do not reciprocate. They have purchased Open Access to the research output of their faculty, increasing the visibility and impact of the work, the authors, and the institution. Universities would not have “publish or perish” policies if they hadn’t already decided that this kind of visibility and impact was in their interest.

Tragedies of the open access commons……… Solution to Stalemate 3 First, journal prestige is only one incentive for authors to submit their work. Circulation and impact are other incentives. Open Access journals have a wider circulation than any conventional journals, even the most prestigious and least expensive. Second, Open Access journals can become as prestigious as any conventional journals, even if this takes time. Some jumpstart this process by recruiting eminent editors and members of the editorial board. Finally, we can bypass this problem entirely by converting a prestigious conventional journal to Open access rather than launching a new Open Access journal and working to make it prestigious

Perspectives on the open access commons……… Scholars want Open Access because, as authors, they want to enlarge their audience and increase their impact, and as readers, they want free and ready access to the literature they need to keep up with their field. Librarians want Open Access because it will solve the serials pricing crisis, at least as far as Open Access extends, and it will solve a related “permission crisis” in which unbalanced copyright laws, non-negotiable licensing agreements, and software locks that often go beyond the terms of either one, prevent libraries and their patrons from making use of expensive electronic journals in the way that they could make use of print journals. Scholars and librarians can join forces and work toward the same end, but they rarely cite the same arguments as reasons for doing so.

Why would any scientist not want their papers to be open access?? Maximum impact for authors Free access makes full- text searching and global data mining possible. Accessible not only by all scientists worldwide, including the third world, but also educators, doctors, the public …

Why would any scientist not want their papers to be open access??.... The Reasons They have to pay to publish The Impact Factor Subscription- based Open access

Scientific publishing today… Relies mostly on traditional journals produced by well established publishers The science publication industry has a global budget of 5 to 9 billion $ / year ~1 million scientific papers published / year The average cost of a scientific paper is therefore around $5000 and $9000 This money comes mostly from library subscriptions, i.e. from funds allocated to academic research. Scientific publising is highly profitable (profit margins around 30% )

Subscription journals Open Access journals Researcher € € € € Publisher € € € Subscription Library Advertising Pay-per-view Reader

Most publishers already apply page charges

Why would any scientist not want their papers to be open access?? The Reasons They have to pay The Impact Factor Traditional publishers absolutely want to hold on to the impact factor, which contributes to Ensure the survival of existing journals Prevents the arisal of new titles The maintenance of the restricted access mode.

The evaluation of research scientists relies more on the impact factor of the journals they publish in than the actual quality and impact of the individual papers themselves

How can we convince scientists to give up their veneration for the impact factor of journals???? What is most needed now is a shift towards considering the impact of individual papers: - ISI ($$) , Google Scholar, ~number of clicks (BMC ‘highly accessed’ label) ~Faculty of 1000, highlights, reviews … Need for simple scoring system based on the impact of individual papers (H index ) Meta analyses would be greatly facilitated by an Author Identification Number ( AIN )

With a broadly used a.i.n (author identification number) or slip (scientist license plate) JOLY-E-89-01 One could instantly track all publications of a given scientist (including those not referenced in pubmed…) One could get hold of their current email address (and hence ask them directly for reprints of their papers) Citation indexes could take auto citations into account Various indexes could be devised that would very advantageously replace the Impact factor :-)

Utopia if most journals were open access.. It would be the same people paying and receiving the service : much healthier economics, bringing down the price to publish, and the quality of service up. Less money would be spent on publishing, so more money could be spent on research In an author-pays model with more emphasis on the individual impact of papers, fewer papers would probably be published: Less difficult to keep abreast of the literature, and hence further savings in time and money More time and money to do research :-)

Conclusion Ever since texts have been stored in bits, which makes it possible to produce perfect copies at virtually no cost, and ever since the emergence of a global network of bit-switching machines, which makes it possible to share these copies with a worldwide audience at virtually no cost, the trajectory has always been up!!

Thank you!!