Research Repositories and the SHERPA Project Bill Hubbard

Research Repositories and the SHERPA Project Bill Hubbard SHERPA Project Manager University of Nottingham

Open Access solutions D D . . . in Scholarly Communication. . . Open Access Journals Open Access Repositories. . . needs a shared and embedded structure/process

Open Access Journals D D D publication charges fund production not “author-pays” - same source of money as before DOAJ - now 1415 journals Bio. MED Central, PLo. S much discussion over economic viability

Open Access Repositories D document service – storage, search, access, preservation D D D 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

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

SHERPA D Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access D 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 D www. sherpa. ac. uk

Practical issues D D D D establishing an archive populating an archive copyright, IPR and legal advocacy & changing working habits mounting material maintenance preservation academic concerns

Administrator concerns D raising the issue – different drivers for different stakeholders D setting up the repository – technical solutions D populating the repository D maintenance costs D service models and costs – author-deposition – mediated deposition – mixed economies

Academic concerns D subject base more natural ? – institutional infrastructure, view by subject D quality control ? – peer-review clearly labelled D plagiarism – old problem - and easier to detect D version control – which is definitive version - will repositories fill this role? D threat to journals? – evidence shows co-existence possible - but in the future. . . ?

Practical issues - reviewed D D D D establishing an archive populating an archive copyright, IPR and legal advocacy & changing working habits mounting material maintenance preservation

A selection of recent progress D D D D D 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 Trust’s repository National Institutes for Health proposal widespread publicity and support. . . and India, Africa, Australia. . . Parliamentary Inquiry (revisited)

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

Report - Problems D D D Impact and Access barriers Price rises, Big Deal, VAT Competition Digital Preservation Disengagement of academics from process

Recent information D “Journal costs soar by up to 94%” (THES, 15 October, 2004, p. 2) D 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 31 p (OUP) to 98 p (Taylor and Francis) little relationship between impact factor and price D In 2002, Reed Elsevier made adjusted profit before taxation of £ 927 million (€ 1, 474 million) on turnover of £ 5, 020 million (€ 7, 982 million).

Report - Solutions D D 82 recommendations in three main areas Improving the current system ‘Author-pays’ publishing model Institutional repositories

Improving the existing system D D D D 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

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

‘Author-pays’ - Recommendations D Authors should be able to use this method if they choose D Funds should be made available if required D Experimentation to see if feasible D Level playing field to allow market to decide

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

Responses D D D Government response Everyone else. . . International progress. . . JISC call. . . The review and findings still stand

Progress to a national network D 19 of 20 repositories in SHERPA are now live: – Birkbeck, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Kings, Leeds, LSE, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Oxford, Royal Holloway, SOAS, Sheffield, UCL, York and the British Library D other institutions are also live: – Bath, Cranfield, Open University, Southampton, St Andrews D other institutions are planning and installing IBERs D approx. 93% (of Nottingham’s) journals allow their authors to archive

SHERPA D advocating repository establishment D project outputs – – – – collection policies, metadata standards, deposit and user licences, copyright assistance (SHERPA/Ro. MEO list), service models preservation principles and models, discussions with publishers D advocating policy support

Repository futures D D real momentum funded opportunities growing academic enthusiasm repositories compliment other models – traditional journals - OA journals - overlay journals - peerreview boards D possibilities to enhance research outputs – multimedia outputs - data sets - developing papers

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

Questions D Adoption - what can realistically drive adoption? D Population - how can administrators amass content? D Search - what are the future search facilities? D Services - what are the future possibilities? D Economics - what are the consequences of free eprints?