1. Institutional Eprint Repositories Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham

2. Problems with the current system Limited access to research Limited impact of research Rising journal prices Competition issues Big Deal Threat to Learned Society publishers Disengagement of academics

3. Context In 2002, Reed Elsevier made adjusted profit before taxation of £927 million (1,474 million) on turnover of £5,020 million (7,982 million). Journal costs soar by up to 94% (THES, 15 October, 2004, p. 2) Quoting Loughborough study of 2000-2004 –price increases range from 27% (CUP) to 94% (Sage) –median journal prices range from £124 (CUP) to £781 (Elsevier) –Elsevier highest median price in every subject –price per page ranged from 31p (OUP) to 98p (Taylor and Francis) –little relationship between impact factor and price

4. Overall... Universities generate research output Give it free of charge to publishers Give services to publishers as referees Give services to publishers as editors Have to buy back the results

5. Open Access The internet allows world-wide dissemination of information to anyone with a connection, with no restrictions Academics do not make money from journal articles, but want the widest dissemination and recognition - so why not put them on the web and just give them away for free?

6. OAI, OAIS, BOAI OAI - Open Archives Initiative –Open - interoperable archives with an open architecture OAIS - Open Archival Information System reference model –Open - open for comments and contributions; the reference model for archives is developed in an open forum BOAI - Budapest Open Access Initiative –Open - freely accessible, open access

7. Open Access solutions Open Access Journals Open Access Repositories

8. Open Access Journals Publication charges Not author-pays Same pot of money as before DOAJ - now over 1400 journals BioMEd Central, PLoS

9. Open Access Repositories Document service –storage, search, access, preservation Duplicates of journal articles – eprints Post-prints, pre-prints, working papers Supplementary to current publishing practice No access barriers Institutionally based Cross-searchable - OAI-PMH

10. Benefits for the researcher wide dissemination –papers more visible –cited more rapid dissemination ease of access cross-searchable value added services –hit counts on papers –personalised publications lists –citation analyses

11. publication & deposition

12. Author writes paper

13. publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal

14. publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Deposits in e-print repository

15. publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Deposits in e-print repository

16. publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Deposits in e-print repository

17. publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Author submits final version Deposits in e-print repository

18. publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Author submits final version Deposits in e-print repository

19. publication & deposition Author writes paper Submits to journal Paper refereed Revised by author Author submits final version Published in journal Deposits in e-print repository

20. Nottingham eprints - home

21. Nottingham eprints - deposit

22. Nottingham eprints - bibliographic

23. Nottingham eprints - keywords

24. Nottingham eprints - simple search

25. Nottingham eprints - search

26. Google search

27. Nottingham eprints - record

28. SHERPA - Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access Partner institutions –Birkbeck College, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Imperial College, Kings College, Leeds, LSE, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Royal Holloway, School of Oriental and African Studies, Sheffield, University College London,York; the British Library and AHDS www.sherpa.ac.uk

29. Practical issues establishing an archive populating an archive copyright advocacy & changing working habits mounting material maintenance preservation concerns

30. Concerns subject base more natural ? –institutional infrastructure, view by subject quality control ? –peer-review clearly labelled I already have my papers on my website... –unstructured for search, RAE, preservation plagiarism –old problem - and easier to detect threat to journals? –evidence shows co-existence possible - but in the future... ?

31. Futures repositories can work in tandem with –traditional journals –OA journals –overlay journals –peer-review boards possibilities to enhance research outputs –multimedia outputs –data sets –developing papers

32. A selection of recent progress Scottish Declaration of Open Access 32 Italian Rectors and the Messina Declaration Austrian Rectors sign the Berlin Declaration Russian Libraries launch the St Petersburg Declaration Wellcome Trusts repository National Institutes for Health proposal Widespread publicity and support...and India, Africa, Australia...

33. National progress 19 of 20 repositories in SHERPA are now live: –Birkbeck, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Kings, Leeds, LSE, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Royal Holloway, SOAS, Sheffield, UCL,York and the British Library Other institutions are also live: –Bath, Cranfield, Open University, Southampton, St Andrews Other institutions are planning and installing IBERs approx. 93% (of Nottinghams) journals allow their authors to archive

34. 1994 Group University of Bath University of Durham University of East Anglia University of Essex University of Surrey University of Exeter Lancaster University Birkbeck University of London Goldsmiths LSE Royal Holloway University of Reading University of St Andrews University of Sussex University of Warwick University of York 50% operational repositories... more on the way...

35. Russell Group University of Birmingham University of Bristol University of Cambridge Cardiff University University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow Imperial College King's College London University of Leeds University of Liverpool LSE University of Manchester University of Newcastle University of Nottingham University of Oxford University of Sheffield University of Southampton University of Warwick University College London 16 out of 19 operational... 100% on the way...

36. http://www.sherpa.ac.uk bill.hubbard@nottingham.ac.uk

37. NOTTINGHAM EPRINTS EXAMPLE PAGES

38. Arc

39. Oaister

40. Citebase

41. Citebase - citation analysis

42. SHERPA/RoMEO SAMPLE PAGES

46. SELECT COMMITTEE INQUIRY

47. Select Committee Inquiry House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: –to examine expenditure, administration, and policy of OST –to examine science and technology policy across government Inquiry into scientific publications - 10 December 2003 Written evidence: 127 submissions (February 2004) Oral evidence (March – May 2004) –Commercial publishers, Society publishers, Open access publishers, Librarians, Authors, Government officials Report published, 20 July 2004 Government response November 2004

48. Outline Background on the Select Committee Inquiry Report - Problems –Impact and Access barriers –Price rises, Big Deal, VAT –Competition –Digital Preservation –Disengagement of academics from process Report - Solutions –Improving the current system –Institutional repositories –Author-pays publishing model

49. Solutions 82 recommendations in three main areas: Improving the existing system Institutional repositories Author pays economic model

50. Improving the existing system JISC to develop independent price monitoring JISC to press for transparency on publishers costs Office of Fair Trading to monitor market trends Funding bodies to review library budgets VAT problem to be addressed JISC, NHS and HE purchasing consortia JISC to improve licences negotiated with publishers BL to be supported to provide digital preservation

51. Changing the system Principle: Publicly-funded research should be publicly available

52. IBERs - Recommendations UK HEIs to set up IBERs Research Councils mandate self archiving Central body to oversee IBERs IBER implementation government funded –identified as good value for money Definite timetable to be agreed IBERs should clearly label peer-reviewed content RCs mandate author-retention of copyright

53. Further issues Joined-up Government strategy required International action required

54. PROBLEMS