Open access: a funders perspective Robert Kiley Head of e-strategy Wellcome Library r. kiley@wellcome. ac. uk l Thursday 14 th Sept - Plenary Session
Overview l l l Summary of the Trust’s OA policy Consider why the Trust supports OA Provide some estimates of cost for providing OA to research outputs Discuss UK PMC - aims and objectives Look at the OA policies of other funders Conclusion
The Wellcome Trust - About l l The Wellcome Trust is an independent charity funding research to improve human and animal health. Established in 1936 and with an endowment of around £ 11 billion, it is the UK's largest non-governmental source of funds for biomedical research. We invest more than £ 400 million a year in biomedical research. Several major successes have been achieved through Wellcome Trust funding, including: Ø Ø sequencing of the human genome development of the anti-malarial drug artemisinin pioneering cognitive behavioural therapies for psychological disorders Wellcome Library
Why open access matters to us. . . Funded by the Wellcome Trust Live search - of WT funded papers
OA at the Wellcome: policy l From October 1 2005, it became a condition of funding that a copy of any original research paper published in a peer-reviewed journal must be deposited into Pub. Med Central (PMC). Ø Ø l First funding body to mandate this Books, conference proceedings, editorials, reviews are NOT covered by this policy From October 1 2006, the condition to deposit in PMC (or UKPMC) will become mandatory to all grant holders, irrespective of award date Ø less than 17 days to go!
Why the Trust is supporting open access to the research literature (1) 1. To improve the quality of of research by maximising access to the research outputs Ø Ø Access is still an issue - Pub. Med 1000 exercise showed that even researchers who has access to well-funded libraries still could not access between 10%-20% of papers NHS professionals even worse off - only 40% of NHS-funded research is available to NHS staff 2. To enable greater integration between the research literature and its underlying research data Ø Ø Example – link with Homolo. Gene, chemical compounds, structure datasets Data mining - enables the extraction of new facts from the literature
Why are we supporting open access to the research literature (2) 3. Evaluation purposes - is our funding making a difference? Ø Funder attribution: WT papers in Pub. Med WT papers in PMC Usage data - new evaluation metrics becoming available 4. Long-term preservation Ø Ø All current articles in PMC are marked-up in XML - future-proofing the record of medicine When you view an article in PMC (html version) this is being rendered dynamically from the XML
Publishers and article processing costs l Number of publishers (OUP, CUP, BMJPG, Springer, Blackwell, Royal Society, Wiley and others) have introduced a hybrid OA model, and others are considering this. Ø Ø Costs vary - though seem to be coalescing around $3000 - approx. £ 1650 Mary Waltham/JISC study reported that in order to cover the average online only costs for a 10 page article and deliver the average surplus these 13 journals delivered to their societies, the OA fee per article for 2004 would need to be set at £ 1, 166. NAR data from OUP shows no decline in submissions overwhelming majority of authors meet these costs through their grant funding OUP data also shows that for their hybrid OA model in the life sciences 11% - (108 out of 957) - of papers have been published under the OA model; 20% uptake in the molecular and computational biology area
Total cost? l Trust estimates that providing OA to all the research papers it helps fund will cost between 1%-2% of its annual research budget. Ø Ø 4000 original research papers. If every single one of those papers was published as an open access article, with an average cost of £ 1650 per article, the total cost to the Trust would be £ 6. 64 million; just over 1% of our annual research budget. Trust is rarely the sole funder of a research team, and more than 80% of papers that acknowledge our support also acknowledge the support of one or more other funders. In time these costs will be spread throughout the research budget and fall below the figure estimated here.
Paying for OA l Though OA results in free access at the point of use - it is not a cost-free endeavour Ø Ø l Trust has awarded funding to the “Top 30” UK universities Ø Ø Ø l There are costs associated with managing the peer review, copyediting, proofing, mark-up etc. The Trust views the dissemination of research as a research cost and thus is happy to meet these costs Can be used to pay “OA subscriptions” - though the University will need to demonstrate value for money Funds administered centrally Institutions outside the “Top 30” - request OA funding as required Bottom line - the dissemination of research should be seen as a research cost
UK Pub. Med Central: overview l Aim is to create a UK version of PMC Ø Ø A UK-hosted mirror of PMC - Example: http: //web. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/ppmc/ A manuscript submission and tracking system for WT grantees and others http: //web. nihms. nih. gov/ Manuscript conversion facilities Will use the software developed by NCBI at the NIH
UKPMC (2) l l Project aims to create a stable, permanent, and free to access archive of the full text peer-reviewed research publications that arise from research funded by the UKPMC Funders Group Partners in the UKPMC project are: Ø Ø l l Government funded: MRC, BBSRC, Department of Health, Scottish Executive, JISC Charities: ARC, CRUK, BHF, Wellcome Trust Estimated that around 90% of all UK-funded biomedical research is funded by this group. Contract to run services has been awarded to a consortium led by the British Library is association with University of Manchester and European Bioinformatics Institute
Why UKPMC? l l Provides the infrastructure to enable Wellcome grantees (and others within the UKPMC Funders Group) to comply with their grant conditions A UK version of PMC will benefit the Trust, its partners and the UK research community in a number ways: Ø Ø Ø UK-focussed services - evaluation of funding; development of new metrics that could feed into a future RAE Enhanced functionality - integration with grants systems, text mining services with other open data resources Political independence Helps to ensure that the OA principles espoused by the Trust become a reality in the UK Systems redundancy Research becomes accessible under “one roof”
Other activities l l Working with SHERPA to create a database of title-by-title copyright policies which will indicate whether the title has a “WT compliant policy” Established a “publishers panel” - representatives from ALPSP, STM, and PA Ø l Trust has also contacted the 30 leading publishers (in terms of publishing Trust-funded research) to make them aware of our policy Developing a communication and marketing campaign to reach our research community.
Other funders: RCUK on OA l June 2006: position paper reiterates RCUK’s key principles including Ø l Ideas and knowledge derived from publicly-funded research must be made available and accessible for public use, interrogation and scrutiny, as widely, rapidly and effectively as practicable. RCUK will be carry out research to assess the impact of changes to publication methodologies - specifically investigate the impact of author-pays publication and selfarchiving on research publishing. Ø Study will start late in 2006 and report in late 2008.
MRC and BBSRC on OA l Medical Research Council Ø Ø l From 1 October 2006, the MRC will require that, for new funding awards, electronic copies of any research papers that have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and are supported in whole or in part by MRC-funding are deposited at the earliest opportunity – and certainly within six months - in Pub. Med Central (PMC). Requests for “Author pays” charges associated with publishing may be included under consumables in applications for MRC funding. BBSRC Ø For awards from grant applications submitted from 1 October 2006, and for all projects funded at BBSRC-sponsored institutes and starting from 1 October 2006, BBSRC will require a copy of any resulting published journal article or conference proceedings to be deposited, at the earliest opportunity, in an appropriate e-print repository, wherever such a repository is available.
Other OA policies l US NIH Ø l Germany Ø l DFG, the largest research funder in Germany, expects the research results funded by it to be published and to be made available, where possible, digitally and on the internet via open access. France Ø l Moving to a mandate. Appropriations Bill (2007) directs NIH to convert from a request - to a mandate, with a maximum 12 month embargo. Will be considered by House of Representatives and then Senate will consider the Bill this summer/autumn CNRS, INSERM, INRIA, INRA, INERIS, IRD, and ADEME are to sign a Joint draft Agreement, defining a coordinated approach, at the national level, for open-access self-archiving of French research output. EU Report calls for OA to publicly funded research.
Conclusion l We are witnessing the beginnings of a sea-change in the way original research papers are disseminated and made available Ø l WT is showing real leadership in moving this debate forward Ø l Funders are demanding more; publishers are responding to this need Winners of the SPARC Europe award for Outstanding Achievement in Scholarly Communication (April 06) “Ensuring that the outputs of research are freely available to all is the best way to maximise their utility. Open access is good for science, the research community and mankind” Sir John Sulston, 2006.
Keeping up to date? l l Fast moving debate Best single source is Peter Suber’s OA blog (updated daily) at: Ø l http: //www. earlham. edu/~peters/fosblog. html If too much - then consider subscribing to Suber’s monthly OA newsletter Ø http: //www. earlham. edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive. htm
Questions?
Скачать презентацию Open access a funders perspective Robert Kiley Head
8ef99f55f8322c75d918373b288c4bdc.ppt