Managing the open access data deluge without going grey

Cameron Neylon: the OA data deluge

The final two sessions at ALPSP's Data, the universe and everything seminar reflected on the changing nature of data within an open access context and what needs to be taken into account when trying to cope with data.

Cameron Neylon, Advocacy Director at PLOS, counselled delegates on 'Managing a (Different) Data Deluge'. Publishing is now a different business. Customer may look the same, but they act different and you have to think differently. Data is core to the value you give.

There's no sign of the growth trajectory of open access publishers slowing down. PLOS One on its own is 11% of the funded research papers output from the Wellcome Trust. PLOS One is 5% of the biomedical literature. PLOS One Publishes on average 100 papers per day. All the metadata they have comes from the authors and they don’t necessarily have accurate data on who they are or where they are based, so it gets complicated. This is happening on a large scale across scholarly communication services.

Neylon believes that the business of open access publishing is fundamentally different to subscription publishing. With a traditional subscription business you have a pool of researchers and institutions. Advertising and reprints come from third parties. This is a distribution model and not so much about where the research has come from.

With an APC-funded open access business it is a service or push model. The customer is the author at some level. Increasingly (in UK for example) this is coming through the funder. This means that suddenly all these players have an interest) which they didn’t have before). A third model is the funders directly funding infrastructure (e.g. eLife, PDB, Genbank etc).

The customer = institution, the author, the funder. They have questions about how much? How many articles have you published? What's the quality of service? Are there compliance guarantees (this is relatively simple in the UK, but tricky in North America or the EU). They want repository deposit. And all this has to happen at scale. You need to track who funded the research. This means that the market is being commoditized. It also means that the market is smaller, with space to make profit smaller.

Neylon feels that if we do not do this collectively, the whole system will collapse and we’ll be left with one or two big players. Using identifiers, capturing data up front and making it easy for the author to include the correct data up front are key to tackling the issue of the data deluge we face. If we don’t will have lost the opportunities. It’s about shared data identifiers and making them at the core of your systems.

He reflected on the particular challenge that smaller publishers face if they are to survive. They need to share infrastructure across multiple organisations. ALPSP is well placed to support and advise suppliers that smaller publishers need ORCID and FundRef etc up front.

Ann Lawson, Senior Director of Publisher Relations and EBSCOAdvantage Europe, focused on the various challenges for managing open access data without going grey. EBSCO see the impact of data from their own perspective (with 27 million articles in the EBSCO database products) and also from the perspectives of their client publishers and institutions. They have their own ID systems, but also input any partner or publisher IDs which results in 485 data elements per subscription record.

Ann Lawson: trying not to go grey

In a recent research report drawn from their own data, they've noted that large publishers are getting larger: in 1994 the top 10 publishers were responsible for 19% by value. In 2009, the top 10 publishers represented 50% by value. And in 2013, the top 10 publishers accounted for 68% by value.

In the immediate future, EBSCO see a mixed market of Gold, Green and Subscriptions within scholarly communications. However, there will be an impact on transactions from individual journals, to big deals, to small gold open access APCs. The impact on subscription agents is challenging as they have to keep on doing what they do, plus play in the open access area. There is a challenge of scale and transparency for everyone.

What will these market trends mean for data? There is a new cycle for open access which impacts on the need for data. This includes measures of value for money, speed to publication, reach and impact, reporting, funding sources, and the approval process.

There are data issues for the institution: who are active authors? What funding sources are available? Which funders demand what compliance? Which journals are compliant? What happens at school/research group? How much does the APC cost? Who paid what, with what effect? What reporting is needed for whom? Compliance – and deposit in repositories.

The institution workflow is at the heart of the data flow:

• Policies
• Advocacy 
• OA request form 
• Acceptance email 
• Funding pot 
• Copy of invoice 
• Article and DOI 
• CC licence 
• VAT 
• Approvals 
• Records 
• Reporting and analysis.

The reality is that many publisher systems do not have the ability to adapt their systems. Current points of tension include: money management, complex workflows, and author involvement. Discovery is key, but can be tricky with hybrid journals so discovery at article level is essential. NISO is helping, but there is more work to be done in this and many other areas of data.

The Future for Smaller Publishers: Policy Press and EBSCO perspectives

Julia Mortimer from The Policy Press

Julia Mortimer, Assistant Director at The Policy Press kicked off the final morning session at The Future for Smaller Publishers seminar. Policy Press publish books and journals in the social sciences, have 6 journals with a 7th coming next year and 3 launched in the last 5 years. They are keen that journal and book content works well with each other and combine broad subjects with niche areas.

The future is not guaranteed, so much is unknown. But Mortimer believes that small is beautiful. The advantages of niche are the expert knowledge, unique relationships, that content is king and often, smaller publishers are not for profit and mission-focused. She believes that small is the new big. There is a rejection of large corporates, a desire for personal interaction/feedback. This provides a level playing field and if you have the quality and service you can do very well. However, you do have to make it easy for authors and customers (e.g. online submission systems).

It's about community, community, community. Why do people want to engage with you? Are you interacting with them enough? There is a virtuous circle and it is about loyalty - building it and keeping it. They use an annual conference for one of their journals each year - fantastic to engage with authors and readers.

Policy Press works in partnership with a number of organisations. The University Press Scholarship Online project makes full text available of over 300 of their titles in 3 subject areas - Public Health and Epidemiology, Social Work, and Sociology. The Oxford University Press sales team help with sales. There are small upfront costs and a revenue share model. This is relatively risk free and they have seen significant sales in the first year. They are working to get content on to more ebook platforms. Mortimer advised not to give anyone exclusive rights as there are plenty of opportunities out there.

They have signed up to the CNPIEC and Ingenta Connect eReading platform for China. It hosts journal and ebook content directly so it is hosted in China. This is crucially important for local librarians as it reduces time delays and getting thrown out. A recent visit reinforced the view of the power of a tailored response to a geographic market. And they were treated like VIPs and respected for bothering to turn up! This tailored, collaborative approach is an effective way for a small publisher to access international markets.

At a time when everything is 'e' Policy Press launched the new Journal of Playwork Practice which straddles childhood studies and other disciplines. They are printing a lot of copies for a large number of individual practitioner subscribers. This is a result of dealing directly with the market.

Mortimer's advice to smaller publishers is to embrace change and join forces (with other publishers, platforms, mobile companies etc). Portals and new kinds of resources are real opportunities and provide added value for your customer. They might not be as expensive as you think if you pick and choose and ensure you get relevant offer for your community. Also think about added value for you through repurposing content for low cost channels. Think about what will be the next big thing? Read blogs, be in groups, go to events, check out website resources. Get out and about at academic conferences, industry events and trade fairs. She closed with a call to:

• Innovate
• Think about what will customers want in the future?
• Develop skills in-house and externally
• Be flexible
• Experiment
• Discoverability is key.

Ann Lawson from EBSCO

Ann Lawson, Senior Director for Publisher Relations and Open Access, Europe at EBSCO, observed that the heat is on. Should smaller publishers get out of the kitchen or call in the experts?

Lawson asked: what does small mean to you? Only you can answer that. EBSCO works with 95,000 publishers. They have around 360,000 title listings across journals, ebooks and databases. In 1994, the largest 10 publishers took up 19% of revenue in EBSCO books. In 2009, the largest 10 publishers took up 50%. In 2013, 68% of revenue came from the top 10 publishers. Some big deals go direct and don't use an agency, so this statistic could be higher.

There is a hugely disproportionate market economy going on when you look at the volume of titles with 10% of title volume published by top 10 publishers, but 68% of revenue taken up by top 10 publishers.

University spend with EBSCO shows a heavy proportion focused on e-collections. The result is that the big deal has become a bit of a cuckoo. EBSCO are publishing their price projection report this month. One conclusion is that there is a vicious circle (virtuous circle?) of big deals driving more content to bigger publishers with SMEs locked out.

There are risks associated with being too big:

• Lack of agility
• Hungry shareholders drive short or medium term decisions
• Can sometimes be a risk of reducing things to lowest common demoninator
• It's not all easy to be a big publisher

And it is possible to make the most of being small:

• Agility
• Less hampered by legacy
• Sometimes less hampered by mindsets

Is there a new level playing field for SME publishers in the open access area, with new discovery systems, the emergence of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and Patron-Driven Acquisition? Whether or not these initiatives mean the explicit break-up of the big deal, they do provide more more competition on a level playing field.

Lawson observed that we are all intermediaries between the author and reader. Working with intermediaries involves creation, dissemination and management of content. Any intermediary, supplier or partner you work with should provide: efficiencies of scale, specialist expertise, cost-saving and process improvement. But consider areas where you might not want to outsource: where you might want to protect your crown jewels.

Tips and techniques for successful outsourcing include: take a close look at mission, value, strengths, weaknesses, experience, aspirations. Involve your stakeholders and be realistic. Review offerings of potential partners, get advice and do the sums. And once you have entered into an agreement, manage your partners well and closely.

Her five tips on outsourcing are:

1. Outsource what you can, but make sure you identify core competencies or unique services and keep them in-house
2. Make sure someone is responsible to develop and manage the relationship with a supplier
3. Treat the process as a proper project, with sensible planning, timelines and budgets
4. Think creatively about outsourcing (not just production)
5. Think about cultural issues - everyone is different.

And in the future? Well, you can give up and sell to one of the top ten publishers. You can try to grow, although that requires investment. You can change the game and start a new busines model or you can use new technology and all that it offers to compete on a level playing field (working with the right partners). Lawson closed by urging smaller publishers to collaborate, get creative and compete.

ALPSP Conference Day 2: Discovering the needle in a haystack

Ann Lawson introduces the panel

Chaired by Ann Lawson from EBSCO, this session is designed to help publishers understand how they can help academics and professionals to navigate quickly and seamlessly to the trustworthy content they need.

Ann's colleague Harry Kaplanian, Director of Discovery Services at EBSCO Publishing, kicked off with an overview of discovery services as well as the features and benefits for the publishers. 

He began by reminding us of the first discovery system is a library catalogue system in the early 1900s. He then went on to outline the pros and cons of subsequent systems. 

The Integrated Library System OPAC (1980-1995) 

Pros: users can search the entire physical collection quickly; tight ILS integration; one place to search. 

Cons: users can only search catalogue; metadata searching only.

In the 1990s, the first electronic databases began to appear. They aren’t part of the physical collection; change often; multiple tools needed for searching content; students and faculty no longer know where to look; and the e-content just keeps on coming...

Federated search

Pros: single search box for all content; currency of content.

Cons: speed; many indexes; multiple ranking algorithms; larger result sets in complete; internet traffic; content provider traffic.

Web scale discovery

Pros: single search box; search all content, single index and complete result sets

single relevance ranking; speed and bandwidth; no local hardware or software to install; eliminates traditional list problems; drive usage and lower traffic.

Cons: not tightly integrated with ILS.

Usage impact

Longwood University

5000 students

09/10 to 10/11 205% increase in usage in text

He classifies content providers as:

• Primary publishers
• Aggregators 
• Subject Index Providers
• What do they need to do?
• What should they watch out for?

Primary Provides - journals & books:

Now standard to provide full text and metadata to discovery services for searching. In most cases content is presented by publishers. The user is guided to full text by link resolver. You have to make sure highest quality metadata and content provided and that active updates to databases are provided.

Aggregators - full journal databases

Most don’t have the right to submit the full text so content presented by aggregator or publishers. The user is guided to full text by link resolver. Make sure highest quality metadata and content is provided, that discovery vendor accurately states if aggregator is actively taking part or not, and active updates to databases are provided

Subject index providers

Powerful subject indexing based on controlled vocabularies, no full text, but a big impact on full Discovery. Make sure the Discovery service is capable of properly searching, merging, ranking and securing entitled access. Consider what happens when a customer cancels subject index subscription, renews, adds it, doesn’t have it?

Make sure Discovery vendor accurately states if subject index provider is actively taking part or not - check the vendor’s claims.

Simon Inger provided an overview of key findings from the Survey on Reader Navigation which is due to be published shortly. Read about the project here. 

Main recommendations for publishers are:

• Publishers need to support all of the discovery channels that their clients (libraries and readers) want to use
• Publishers need to understand how different reader types discover and access their content so that they can target readers and authors more effectively
• Potential to expose more sophisticated discovery information to key channels
• Potential to differentiate through which discovery channels to make subscriber offers.

The summary report will be published for free later this month. The full report will be published at the same time. All supporting publishers receive these items in return for their help. Full results set and analysis framework will be available for a fee shortly afterwards. 

Robert Faber, Director, Discoverability Program at OUP, concluded with an overview of the Introducing the Oxford Index.

Why does discoverability matter to publishers and librarians? Traffic and use are the lifeblood of digital scholarship. use of subscriptions shows the value of the content. Discovery reveals interest and demand for new content. Customer and user behaviour is changing. If you can’t find it, you won’t use it. People are searching for a topic, not book - 80% of traffic to Oxford Journals is direct to article. There are many search systems and rapid evolution. It's about free content outside the paywall for some products - abstracts, keywords, Oxford Journals, Oxford Scholarship.

The MARC program has been improved and expanded. Linking: some in place, mainly in close neighbourhood. Some editorial linking between products. Some partnerships with other publishers and institutions have been set up. New mobiles sites for Oxford Journals and future products are set up. Library discovery services have been developing new partnerships. SEO is at the centre of product evolution.

Discovery happens in Open Web Search, library services, research hubs, through content links, opt-in services, viral awareness and via OUP web features.

What is the Oxford Index? It’s free discovery from OUP: a standardised description of every item of content, in one place. It incorporates external search partners, an Oxford interface - landing pages: quick pathways to full text, web-searchable; and cross searchable - but they recognise that the website might not continue to be very important. It provides a way to create links and relationships across content with meaningful links that add value and traffic. There are overview pages for quick view of topic links embedded in products. This is a free service integrated with existing products.

What does this mean for search rankings and usage?

• No change to existing SEO or rankings
• OI is supplemental route to primary full-text content
• OI gives Google a super-site map across OUP content
• Highly-trusted network reinforces destination full-text sites
• Aim is additional traffic, monitored and reported

What does it mean for library integration? Library visibility? Bring in users from general web search. OI can interact directly with library search. OI identifies library’s provision of full content which highlights the benefits of library services. Visibility through other library, A&I, research services? OI metadata routinely supplied to library systems.

The benefits include i) traffic: sustaining and widening sales, ii) consistent methods - for users and systems, and iii) evolving grid of options to connect content.

Faber finished with trends and predictions that included:

• importance of india, china and the non-western world
• differences between journals, book and reference content defined by role/task within the research journey
• sites that can qualify general users will become a larger focal point of discoverability activity e.g Google Books
• shift from focus on entrance-point to linking: related content, related services
• scholarly/research communities play bigger role in academic discoverability.