O PEN A CCESS : CURRENT STATE OF THE MOVEMENT, CHALLENGES, AND OPPORTUNITIES Denise Koufogiannakis and Leah Vanderjagt University of Alberta Libraries

W HAT IS O PEN A CCESS ?

T HE BRIEFEST OF HISTORIES Advent of Internet in early 1990s arXiv launches in 1991 rising journal costs PubMed (1997) and PubMed Central (2000) BioMed Central (2000) Budapest, Bethesda and Berlin meetings statements on open access mid-2000s onward large growth of OA journals and repositories

O PEN A CCESS MEANS : scholarly content is free of charge for all users with an internet connection. permission barriers are removed for all scholarly uses (ie: allows copying, using, distribution, derivative works, etc.) - Budapest, Bethesda, and Berlin public statements Freedom – Flexibility - Fairness - Alma Swan, 2012

C REATIVE C OMMONS L ICENSES

S TRATEGIES TO A CHIEVE O PEN A CCESS self-archiving scholars deposit a copy of their work in an open archive institutional or subject specific e.g. e-LIS, PubMed Central, PMC Canada publish in an OA journal open access from the start e.g. JMLA, EBLIP, BioMed Central, PLoS ONE GreenGold

F REE TO DO WHAT ? material is free to read but does not explicitly permit re- use material is free to read, and also to re- use, as per the BBB definition allows for scientific growth and greater impact GratisLibre

OA availability by discipline Björk B-C, Welling P, Laakso M, Majlender P, Hedlund T, et al. (2010) Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation PLoS ONE 5(6): e doi: /journal.pone

P UB M ED C ENTRAL

T HE G ROWTH OF OA

S IGNS OF G ROWTH first repository was built in there are now more than 2000 repositories in operation more than 7500 peer reviewed, fully OA journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) There are more than 12,800 OJS installations as of April 2012 (began in 2002) In 2011, PLoS ONE published 13,798 articles, meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLoS ONE - it is the largest scientific journal in the world.

UK P UB M ED C ENTRAL From: Robert Kiley, UK PubMed Central Blog, April 26, 2011

The development of open access publishing 1993–2009. Laakso M, Welling P, Bukvova H, Nyman L, Björk B-C, et al. (2011) The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to PLoS ONE 6(6): e doi: /journal.pone

O VERALL PERCENTAGE OF OA IN THE LITERATURE Björk B-C, Welling P, Laakso M, Majlender P, Hedlund T, et al. (2010) Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation PLoS ONE 5(6): e doi: /journal.pone Overall gold and green prevalence for ISI and non ISI articles.

N EW B USINESS M ODELS

R EPOSITORIES Institutional support - an institution finances and supports the repository Community support - the operation is supported by the community via cash or in-kind donations Public sponsors - ongoing sponsorship from a public body

J OURNAL PUBLISHING Author-pays Institutional membership Community publishing Support from advertising or sponsorship Institutional support Hard copy sales Collaborative purchasing (i.e.: SCOAP3) Hybrid models

A UTHOR - PAYS

I NSTITUTIONAL M EMBERSHIP

C OMMUNITY P UBLISHING

S UPPORT FROM A DVERTISING

I NSTITUTIONAL S UPPORT

H ARD COPY SALES

C OLLABORATIVE PURCHASING

H YBRID MODELS

O THER FORMATS - B OOKS

O THER FORMATS - D ATA

F UNDING AND M ANDATES

Growth of Mandatory Policies on OA ( )

Wellcome Trust Open Access Policy (UK) Papers must be made available through PubMed Central (PMC) and UK PubMed Central (UKPMC) preferably immediately, no longer than within 6 months of initial publication Provides additional funding to cover open access charges If WC pays an OA fee, authors/publishers *must* license papers OA libre

NIH Public Access Policy (US) Is law Implements this legislation: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008)

CIHR Policy on Open Access to Research (Canada) Requires recipients to make publications OA in journals or in a repository asap and within 6 months of publication Suggests PMC or institutional repository as approved archive Publications must be freely accessible within six months of publication, where allowable and in accordance with publisher policies.

Elements of Mandates and Compliance Factors Voluntary and mandatory Gold and/or green Specified archiving environments (locus of deposit) Publisher – archive workflow/infrastructure (Funder) compliance monitoring and outreach No sanctions yet in place anywhere

R ESEARCHER A TTITUDES ABOUT OA

Would you comply with an OA mandate?

International response

What does OA mean to you?

Are there subject-based repositories available for your area of research?

How important are these factors re: archiving your publications in a repository?

Study of Open Access Publishing (SOAP) 38,000 researcher respondents – Fall 2010 preliminary results reported OA beliefs and practices OA Gold publishing (journals) (SOAP data is open access! Released under CC-0 license)

Would OA journals be beneficial to your field?

Why yes?

Why not?

If you published in the last 5 years but it was not OA, what was the reason?

If you had to pay an OA fee, how did you cover it?

How easy was it to obtain those funds?

Publishing and the Ecology of European Research (PEER) Co-funded by EU; publishers, repositories, national libraries OA Green publishing (repositories) PEER Behavioural Research Report September 2011 ~3,100 survey responses + focus groups

Perception of OA by subject

Is there a role for open access repositories in the scholarly communication system?

Is deposit in open access repository worthwhile? (by subject)

Motivations for repository deposit by subject

Method of deposit in subject repository

Factors encouraging open access repository deposit

T HE I MPACT OF OA

OA - Citation and Impact – Most Frequently Cited Studies (Google Scholar) Lawrence (2001, Nature): 157% increase Antelman (2004, College & Research Libraries): 45% (philosophy) – 91% (math) Eysenbach (2006, PLoS Biology): OA status remained an independent predictor for being cited […] with an increasing odds ratio over time in favor of OA articles

Harnad et al. (2004, D-Lib)

Swan, Alma (2010, E-LIS)

Selection bias Self-selection: Researchers are motivated to self-archive their best papers, and these papers are already more likely to be cited – OA is not the reason these articles are more frequently cited Sample selection: (Moed (2012, Editors' Update, Elsevier.com) The sample selection is not comprehensive – based on ISI which is selective coverage of “good, international journals” – already ‘highly-citable’ articles

Forms of impact - Research Acceleration of research – more rapid sharing of results = faster incorporation of new knowledge into subsequent investigations “Unforseen participants” Interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary research Citizen science

Forms of Impact – Research Computational imperative – abundance of information requires automated approaches (e.g. text mining) to extract meaning efficiently – text mining doesn’t work without open access

Forms of Impact – Outside the academy Innovation (commercial): faster extraction of research results to apply to product development cycles Public health (practice): health care practitioners with access restrictions can apply OA findings to practice faster Practice guidelines more quickly developed from OA research

‘Open’…elsewhere

R EADINGS Swan, Alma (2012). Policy Guidelines for the Development and Promotion of Open Access. UNESCO report. Laakso, M., et al. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to PLoS ONE, 6(6), e doi: /journal.pone Bjork, B., et al. (2010). Open access to the scientific journal literature: Situation PLoS ONE, 5(6), e doi: /journal.pone

R EADINGS Swan, A., et al (2005). Open Access self-archiving: an author study. Technical Report. Creaser, C. et al (2010). Authors’ Awareness and Attitudes Toward Open Access Repositories. New Review of Academic Librarianship 16 (s1). doi: / Dallmeier-Tiessen S., et.al. (2010) First Results of the SOAP Project. Open Access Facts: What Publishers Offer, What Researchers Want. (Accessed May 4, 2012).

Fry, J., et al. (2011) PEER Behavioral Research: Authors and Users vis-à-vis Journals and Repositories. Final Report. PEER Project. Lawrence, S., (2001) Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact. Nature 31. Antelman, K., (2004) Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact? College and Research Libraries, 65(5). Eysenbach, G., (2006) Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles, PLoS Biology, 4(5).

R EADINGS Harnad, S., Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, 10(6). Moed, H. (2012) Editors' Update: The Effect of Open Access Upon Citation Impact. Elsevier.com.

Thank you.