open access: academics' beliefs and behaviours willow fuchs rsp, rcs centre for research...

Open Access: Academics' Beliefs and Behaviours

Willow FuchsRSP, RCSCentre for Research CommunicationsUniversity of Nottingham

RSP Autumn School 9th November, 2011

Support for the idea or concept of OA

“A significant majority of respondents supported the idea of OA journals. 74.11% of 1,062 respondents thought that OA journals were a good idea” (Morris & Thorn, 2009)

But their is a lack of action

Björk, Roos, & Lauri (2008)

• 1 350 000 articles published in 2006

• Estimated 4.6 % of these openly available on the web in primary OA journals (gold OA). A further 3.5 % were available after an embargo period

= gold OA 8.1%

• Additional available from repositories or homepages = green OA 11.3 %

• Combining these two figures = 19.4 % of yearly output can be accessed

freely.

Björk, Welling, Laakso, Majlender, Hedlund, & Guðnason (2010)

• Of articles published in 2008, estimated 8.5% were freely available at the publishers' sites (62% in full OA journals, 14% in subscription journals making their electronic versions free after a delay, and 24% as individually open articles in otherwise subscription journals.)

= gold OA 8.5%• Additional freely available, found through search engine

(43% in subject-based repositories, 24% in institutional repositories, 33% on

the home pages of authors / departments = green OA 11.9%

• Combining these two figures = 20.4 % of yearly output can be accessed freely.

Björk, Welling, Laakso, Majlender, Hedlund, & Guðnason (2010)

Research Communications Strategy (RCS)

• Analysis of Chemists & Economists publishing behaviour

• 11 institutions

• Together these 2 groups (518 Research Active) had only 1647 publications in their institutional repositories = 150 per institution= 3 per academic

Why the inertia?

RCS Survey of Chemists and

Economists

• 11 institutions• Bath, Bristol, East Anglia, Imperial, Leicester, LSE, Manchester, Manchester Met, Nottingham, Southampton, Sussex

• >700 sent survey

• 130 responded

• Questions about• Knowledge of OA• Why the DO or DO NOT make their work OA

RCS Survey of Chemists and

Economists

Does your institution have a repository?

Does your institution have an OA policy or mandate?

Does your funder have an OA policy or mandate?

Have you made any of your work openly accessible by the following means:

Chemists Economists

Institutional repository 27% 50%Personal website 16% 58%Departmental website 16% 56%Fully open access journal

22% 17%

Have not made any of my work open access

27% 4%

Subject repository 6% 25%Open access option from traditional journal

79% 6%

Other method 6% 10%

Have you made any of your work openly accessible by the following means:

Chemists Economists

Institutional repository 27% 50%Personal website 16% 58%Departmental website 16% 56%Fully open access journal

22% 17%

Have not made any of my work open access

27% 4%

Subject repository 6% 25%Open access option from traditional journal

79% 6%

Other method 6% 10%

When you DO make your work open access, what are your reasons? (Those agreeing/strongly agreeing)

Chemists EconomistsIt improves accessibility to my work

67% 96%

The results of publicly-funded research should be publicly…

65% 78%

It increases the amount of publicity my work receives

52% 89%

It helps me to get information out more quickly

50% 80%

It helps me to make contact with potential collaborators

37% 58%

It can result in a citation advantage

33% 60%

It results in professional recognition

26% 70%

It results in academic reward 13% 44%

When you DO make your work open access, what are your reasons? (Those agreeing/strongly agreeing)

Chemists EconomistsIt improves accessibility to my work

67% 96%

The results of publicly-funded research should be publicly…

65% 78%

It increases the amount of publicity my work receives

52% 89%

It helps me to get information out more quickly

50% 80%

It helps me to make contact with potential collaborators

37% 58%

It can result in a citation advantage

33% 60%

It results in professional recognition

26% 70%

It results in academic reward 13% 44%

When you DO NOT make your work open access, what are your reasons? (agreeing/strongly agreeing)

Chemists EconomistsI need to publish in high impact journals

93% 80%

It is too expensive 59% 40%I am concerned about the PR process for OA journals

52% 24%

I am concerned about publishers legal rights

33% 44%

I have concerns about copyright

34% 40%

I am concerned about plagiarism

33% 24%

I do not know much about OA 27% 36%It takes too much time/effort 28% 28%It is just not a concern of mine 31% 20%

When you DO NOT make your work open access, what are your reasons? (agreeing/strongly agreeing)

Chemists EconomistsI need to publish in high impact journals

93% 80%

It is too expensive 59% 40%I am concerned about the PR process for OA journals

52% 24%

I am concerned about publishers legal rights

33% 44%

I have concerns about copyright

34% 40%

I am concerned about plagiarism

33% 24%

I do not know much about OA 27% 36%It takes too much time/effort 28% 28%It is just not a concern of mine 31% 20%

If you were to make your work OA in the future, by what method would you likely do so:

Chemists EconomistsInstitutional repository 51% 60%Fully open access journal 40% 40%Personal website 28% 48%Departmental website 22% 60%Open access option from traditional journal

31% 28%

Subject repository 9% 44%No plans to make any of my work open access

15% 0%

Don't know 12% 4%Other method 4% 0%

If you were to make your work OA in the future, by what method would you likely do so:

Chemists EconomistsInstitutional repository 51% 60%Fully open access journal 40% 40%Personal website 28% 48%Departmental website 22% 60%Open access option from traditional journal

31% 28%

Subject repository 9% 44%No plans to make any of my work open access

15% 0%

Don't know 12% 4%Other method 4% 0%

What if anything could encourage you to make your work OA in the future:

Chemists EconomistsA standard of practice 59% 80%Institutional support for fee payment

65% 60%

Recognition for OA within academic evaluation

44% 56%

Reassurance about copyright 43% 2%Institutional support for depositing material

31% 44%

Download statistics 28% 28%A funder mandate 31% 20%An institutional mandate 25% 24%More information about OA 18% 32%Integration of institutional repository with others

24% 16%

What if anything could encourage you to make your work OA in the future:

Chemists EconomistsA standard of practice 59% 80%Institutional support for fee payment

65% 60%

Recognition for OA within academic evaluation

44% 56%

Reassurance about copyright 43% 2%Institutional support for depositing material

31% 44%

Download statistics 28% 28%A funder mandate 31% 20%An institutional mandate 25% 24%More information about OA 18% 32%Integration of institutional repository with others

24% 16%

Further Exploration

• Consultants: Seb Schmoller, David Jennings, Nicky Ferguson

• Chemists and Economists

• Interviews and focus groups

Report available at: http://crc.nottingham.ac.uk/projects/rcs/Chemists&EconomistsViews_on_OA.pdf

Key issues identified

• Where to publish

• Access

• Repositories

• Mandates

• Advocacy

Recommendations?

Recommendations

• Changes to incentive frameworks

• Funder participation

• REF changes / reemphasis

• Advocacy– Academics– PVCs Research / Research Directors– Policy makers

Questions?

• Should we be concerned about academics putting articles up on personal and departmental websites?

• How do we convince academics to put things in repositories instead? Or should we?

• Are you knowledgeable and supportive of Open Access generally, or just repositories? (both?)

• What should we be advocating? Openness or deposit? Something else?

ReferencesBo-Christer Björk, Annikki Roos, and Mari Lauri. (2008). Global annual volume

of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different Open Access options, preprint of a paper presented at ElPub 2008, Open Scholarship: Authority, Community and Sustainability in the Age of Web 2.0 (Toronto, June 25-27, 2008).

Bo-Christer Björk, Patrik Welling, Mikael Laakso, Peter Majlender, Turid Hedlund, Guðni Guðnason. (2010). Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009, PLoS ONE.

Sally Morris, Sue Thorn. (2009). Learned society members and open access. Learned Publishing, Volume 22, Number 3, July 2009 , pp. 221-239.

Seb Schmoller, Steve Davies, Nicky Ferguson. (2011). Further Exploration of the Views of Chemists and Economists on OA Issues in the UK.http://crc.nottingham.ac.uk/projects/rcs/Chemists&EconomistsViews_on_OA.pdf

Image creditsSlide 1: biblioteekje. (2009). Open Access promomateriaal.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/biblioteekje/3992172265/Slide 2: Microsoft Office photos. MP900321177.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ Slide 5: Microsoft Office photos. Businessman walking indoors.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ Slide 10: Microsoft Office photos. Group of business people.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ Slide 11-12, 33-34: Microsoft Office photos. Pen checkmark three boxes.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ Slide 13-15: Microsoft Office photos. Stacked boxes.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/

http://www.rsp.ac.uk/ Advocacy Survey

• 21 institutions• Abertay, Birbeck, Bolton, Bournemouth, Brunel, Hull, Leeds Met, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Loughborough, Middlesex, Northampton, Oxford, Oxford Brookes , Queen Margaret, Reading, Salford, School of Oriental & African Studies, St Andrews, Warwick, University of the West of England

• >1600 responded

• Questions asked:• Feelings about OA• Deposit practice• Copyright, post-prints

Advocacy Surveyhttp://www.rsp.ac.uk/

Interesting Comments

• Lack of knowledge / understanding

• Concerns about quality of OA Journals

• Lack of OA Journals

• Concerns about REF / recognition of OA Journals

• Concerns about cost

Abertay, (963 – 26% full text) = 250Birbeck, 3464 (22% full text) = 762Bolton, 496 (66% full text) = 327Bournemouth, 12743 (15% full text) = 1911Brunel, 5205 (100%) = 5205 Hull, 4275 (100%) But not all Open AccessLeeds Met, 1644 (20%) = 329London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine,(??%)Loughborough, 8265 (100%) But not all Open AccessMiddlesex, 6679 (20%) = 1336Northampton, 2829 (3%) = 85Oxford, (??)Oxford Brookes , 483 (30%)Queen Margaret, (63%)Reading, (25%)Salford, (40%)School of Oriental & African Studies, (10%)St Andrews, (100%)Warwick, (100%)University of the West of England (10%)