1. PEERing into the Future Journals, Self-Archiving &The European Commission-Funded PEER Project Michael A Mabe Chief Executive Officer, STM, & Visiting Professor, Information Science University College London

2. $64,000 Question Will journals be harmed by systematic free availability of their articles through repositories? – Even if it is not the final version? – Even if there is an embargo period? 2

3. Publisher Investment Publication Stages Model Stage OneStage TwoStage Three Primary Outputs of Research: raw data Draft for submission to a journal Author’s draft incorporating peer review enhancements and imprimatur of journal Final published article on journal website: version of record with copyediting, typesetting, full citability, cross- referencing, interlinking with other articles, supplementary data Public Investment 3

4. Open Access Experimentation Stage 1 Preprint Stage 2 Peer reviewed mss Stage 3 Final paper Immediate access Raw data and draft manuscripts Most publishers “Green route” “Nobody pays” Unsystematic author self – archiving Most journals Most publishers “Gold route” “Pay to publish” Sponsored journals: 100s of journals Author pays: ~199+ journals Author “choice”: many 100s of journals Many publishers Delayed access Systematic, voluntary deposit in repositories Publisher-selected embargo Journal by journal A few publishers Subscription/ licensing model Publisher-selected journals and embargo: ~250+journals A few publishers Systematic, mandatory, imposed embargo periods of six to twelve months without any compensation 4

5. Cumulative percent of lifetime full text downloads Years since publication Chemistry Life Sciences Life Sciences – Rapid usage imprint Mathematics Health Sciences Physics Social Sciences Delayed OA: Issues Twelve months Soc Sci36% Maths40% Chem44% Life Rapid60% Six months Soc Sci28% Maths34% Chem36% Life Rapid50% Eighteen months Soc Sci42% Maths46% Chem50% Life Rapid68% Source: ScienceDirect 5

6. Current Situation Rapid growth of institutional repositories Individual funding agency mandates Publisher experimentation Lack of agreement on evidence to date

7. Purpose of PEER Publishing & the Ecology of European Research Publishers and research community collaborate Develop an “observatory” to monitor the impact of systematically depositing stage- two outputs on a large scale Gather hard evidence to inform future policies

8. Objectives Determine how large-scale deposit of stage-two outputs will affect journal viability Determine whether it increases access Determine whether it affects the broader ecology of European research Determine the factors affecting readiness to deposit and associated costs Develop model(s) to show how traditional publishing can coexist with self-archiving

9. Expected Results Greater understanding of the effects of large-scale deposit in OA repositories Evidence to inform future policies Model(s) illustrating how to maximise the benefits of traditional publishing and archiving Trust and mutual understanding between publisher and research communities

10. Consortium STM European Science Foundation (ESF) Goettingen State and University Library (UGOE) Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG) Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA)

11. Overall Approach Publishers contribute 300 journals (and a control group) Maximise deposit and access within EU repositories – 50% publisher-assisted deposit – 50% author self-archiving Collaborate with DRIVER to involve repositories Commission research from independent research teams to assess impact – behavioural, access/usage and economic

12. Content Participating publishers collectively volunteer 300 journals Selection criteria – European content – 20% or greater – Quality – good quality, but reflecting a range by impact factor – Subject – wide range Publishers set embargo periods appropriate for journal

13. Content SubjectJournalsEstimated EU Articles Life Sciences504,200 Medicine426,000 Physical Sciences637,300 Social Sciences & Humanities 471,500 Total20219,000

14. Publishers at October 2008 BMJ Publishing Group Elsevier IOP Publishing Nature Publishing Group Oxford University Press Portland Press Sage Publications Springer Taylor & Francis Group Wiley-Blackwell

15. Awareness & Dissemination Covered by WP8 led by UGOE Objectives – Raise awareness of PEER among stakeholders – Communicate project results widely – Engage stakeholders – stimulate discussion and debate, explore issues – Encourage stakeholders to use the evidence to inform future policies Agree a dissemination plan at start of project

16. Techniques Project web site – wiki, linked to DRIVER Engage Advisory Board Presentations at major conferences Schedule workshops or seminars as satellite events at major conferences End of project conference

17. Project Organisation

18. Executive Advisory Board Expert groups – Research oversight group – Repositories task force – Publisher group – Author/user group Work package leaders

19. Project Timetable September 2008: project launched November 2008: issue RFPs for behavioural and usage research December 2008: establish website and blog January/February 2009: procedures issued to publishers and repositories for manuscript deposit and logfile harvesting March 2009: sign contracts for behavioural research; repositories begin receiving content from publishers and authors April 2009: sign contract for usage research; begin harvesting logfiles from repositories August 2009: complete behavioural research baseline study December 2009: sign contract for economic research March 2010: complete economic research January 2011: complete behavioural research follow-up study January 2011: complete usage research March 2011: collate results of research May 2011: develop preliminary model July 2011: develop final model on traditional publishing and archiving August 2011: project completion conference