Open Access: what does the librarian or customer community need and how do we install new plumbing?

John Norman

John Norman is Director for the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies at the University of Cambridge. He kicked off the afternoon sessions at The Mechanics and Reality of Open Access seminar.

At Cambridge, they conducted research into getting published. The experience doesn't split STEM/Humanities so much as single researcher (author) versus team research (multiple authors). Positive emotional states are associated with publication and impact. Negative emotional states are associated with making publishing decision, rejection and using publisher system.

Researchers are the ultimate customers. What do they need? Access to all important research relevant to their field. They don't always get it. What they want is access to be timely and convenient. And they want the same for the production of their articles.

When RCUK policy came into force, they took a service model of 'tell us about your article and we'll tell you what options are available.' They tried to keep it simple as it is so complex so they could take the burden of complexity off the author. It has proved to be a very popular approach.

The overall number of articles is c. 8,000 per annum. They have c. 500 publishers they deal with annually. From enquiries, they made 277 payments (invoices which they authorised). There were 72 articles submitted to the institutional repository. Interestingly, 40% of articles had some sort of publishing problem and 296 articles were available in a satisfactory form for RCUK at 4 April 2014. There were 364 APCs authorised; £724k committed; with an average APC c. £1800. Full data on Cambridge's APC payments is available on figshare).

They find it most helpful to use a diagram of the publishing value chain to explain to authors (article submission; initial review by publisher / article rejected; peer review / article accepted, Copyright Transfer Agreement signed / Article rejected; publishing / typesetting / copyediting / article published; public review / withdrawal, modification, altmetrics.) There is no doubt in Norman's mind that the Version of Record is considered more important by authors.

Multiple mandates to comply with can be tricky

The complexity of understanding multiple funder information shouldn't be underestimated. They average around 30 minutes per enquiry for their team.

One example is an article that acknowledges funding from BBSRC and the British Heart Foundation. The relevant Open Access policies are HEFCE, BBSRC, BHF, publisher and institution. That's five different sets of mandates to comply with, some of which are contradictory.

What would help? Simple, unambiguous, machine readable published information from publishers on key elements of an OA option.

• Version: are we talking about the publishers Version of Record or the Author Accepted Manuscript (and can we limit options to these two). 
• Licence: can we make explicit the licence options that apply to the article and limit the range (CC useful for this)? 
• Embargo: make explicit a single embargo in months from known publication date. 
• Price: it may be free, but does the price exclude tax for each version/licence combination? 

Some simple things publishers can do to help libraries (John's wish list) are a notification to the institution that an author has had an article accepted. Provide a free print copy of accepted article version in PDF form on acceptance and a free print copy of accepted article version in PDF form with licence.

Norman's final point was don't forget the reader. Creative Commons licences express permissions in a way the reader can easily understand.

Jisc's Neil Jacobs

Neil Jacobs from Jisc talked about 're-plumbing' infrastructure. It needs to be more flexible and scaleable in a time when universities and funders have new roles. What do universities need to know? Questions such as how do I know if author papers have been submitted to journals? What authors have published? What have we paid for APCs? Have we complied with funder policies? What are our financial liabilities?

He reflected on the complexity in the publishing content cycle and metadata requirements. It is not sufficiently scaleable or accessible. If you take standards and identifiers, there are some clear gaps including Publisher and APC identifiers.

• Researchers - ORCID
• Organisations - CASRAI OrgID working group
• Funders - FundRef
• Publishers - ?
• Journals - ISSN
• Articles - CrossRef, NISO OA metadata, NISO/ALPSP versions, V40A
• Journal OA policies - Sherpa-RoMEO
• Funder OA policies - Sherpa-Juliet, ROARMAP, Melibea
• Repositories - OpenDOAR, ISSN ROAD?
• Licences - ONIX-PL, Creative Commons
• COUNTER, (P)IRUS
• APCs - ?

Other emerging areas for standards and identifiers are research data and software. In the future, there will likely be a requirement for relationships such as attribution, contribution, affiliation and citation. Jacobs closed with a mention for the OA Implementation Group's guide to Gold for Open Access for Learned Societies.

Setting up Open Access policies and the different business models

Vicky Gardner from Taylor & Francis

The second half of the morning at The Mechanics and Reality of Open Access seminar covered practical implementation issues for setting up internal policies. Vicky Gardner, Open Access Publisher at Taylor & Francis, described 'the third age of publishing' as subscription, site licence and OA. There is the increasing influence of funders and policy makers and changing roles for libraries and publishers.

What does it mean? Operational challenges include:

• increasing granularity with article-level workflows.
• increased variation
• APC mechanisms
• implications for subscription business (conversion to full gold) OA would render many journals unsustainable
• anticipating OA policies and mandates - impact on institutional processes
• internal and external reporting
• cost.

Questions to ask yourself when implementing Open Access include: Do we hold publication until payment is received? Should we offer multiple APCs? How much information do we provide to authors? How can we consistently capture data for reporting?

Underlying considerations for consistently capturing data have a cross-industry element (FundRef, CrossMark, Prospect, NISO standards). There is classification (research funder vs APC funder), accuracy of data inputs (eg APC funding). You also need to consider how the data might be used (future proofing): it takes investment. And don't forget about past articles. With embargoes do you increase (will it protect subscriptions? Link to article half lives?). Should you decrease? (But some think you can't put genie back in the bottle... and what is the value of the version of record?)

Areas to consider with waivers include whether they are regional (corresponding author, offer only on full? What about local titles?) or no questions asked (is this sustainable? It allows those in genuine hardship to publish.)

Considerations for double dipping

• Global offset - equitable to subscribers, but difficult to calculate.
• Local offset - can accommodate in bulk deals. Equitable to those investing in OA. Is there granularity? Can be difficult to calculate.
• Top up model - avoids double dipping issue. Maintains the subscription market.

Thinking about licence choice

• How many?
• Which ones?
• What do authors want?
• What do funders want?
• Subject differentials?
• Permissions and third party content.

What are the lessons learned? Flexibility is key: sometimes a small tweak is all it takes. You need to engage with many different departments, editors, societies, librarians, funders. Make sure to use the talent in your business. Accept that you don't have all the answers - new workflows won't be right straightaway, strategic planning can only anticipate future developments.

We're all on a learning curve - manual workarounds are easy to implement in the short term and more practical in many senses than immediate investment in automation. Keeping staff informed about OA developments is just as important as external communications. One size does not fit all - there are many different preoccupations, perspectives and opinions, not just funder, policy maker, publisher. Consultation is key.

It is early days and the market is immature. This relates to APC intermediaries, HEI and publisher knowledge, and the take up of OA by researchers. Internal workflows are short to medium term. Change and complexity will be constant. And it is not just about research, also think about grey literature. But remember, OA is scalable.

The Royal Society's Phil Hurst

Phil Hurst from The Royal Society provided an overview of the different business models. At The Royal Society, their subscription model dates back to c1800. Originally, RS Fellows (400) received copies as part membership dues (no opt out). There were 300 on general sale through the Society's bookseller, and the Society received income, minus fees and expenses. External sales did not recoup the cost of printing. Only in recent years has the subscription model become more profitable.

Now? They use a subscription and green OA model. The institution or individual pays a regular fee for access to content, it is free to submit articles, but access is only available to subscribers. The advantages are that it is a proven model and infrastructure; the subscription supply chain is relatively efficient; there is no processing of APCs. The disadvantages are that the dissemination of content depends on budget availability. There is more content, but stagnant library budgets are a challenge. While it is relatively easy to manage, they still need people or agents to develop new business. Green OA requires repository infrastructure and it can be a challenge to get authors to deposit post prints.

Hybrid gold OA is relatively easy to implement. You retain the subscription income and it can be a transition to full OA as authors choose preferred publication model. However, there is potential for double dipping. It can be difficult to provide subscription discounts in a granular way and it is not always compliant with OA funders/mandates. Practical considerations include setting the price, collecting payments and a transparent pricing mechanism. At The Royal Society they have 'no fee, no free' model, but authors can retrospectively convert to OA.

Pure gold OA is a model where cost scales with submissions. It can lead to a more effective market (cost competition) with greater dissemination of content and potentially faster/higher citations. However, funding sources are not always available and quality and income are in conflict. Predatory publishers hinder OA reputation and can undermine authors' trust. Practical considerations include the need to collect a greater number of payments and the need to promote online payment (by credit card). The customer (author) will often not fund payment, so you need to demonstrate quality.

OA membership is where authors from member institutions receive a discount on pure or hybrid OA. This can take the form of a supporter or pre-pay (eg PMC, Hindawi) or postpay approach. The Royal Society has an OA 'supporter' membership. The benefits are that authors receive 25% discount on APCs, it increases research awareness about options, provides a customised institutional web page and is a cost-effective flat annual fee. Practical considerations include linking the author with institution, dealing with multi-authored papers: which institution gets the discount? You need a new system, have to set the price and while it is proving cost-effectiveness, they still need sales people. Other examples include PeerJ, IOP Publishing OA funding pilot in Austria and the RSC gold for gold programme.

The Open Access landscape and the challenges of hybrid programmes

Michael Jubb kicks off proceedings

Michael Jubb opened The Mechanics and Reality of Open Access seminar with a handy overview. A contemporary definition of the purpose of scholarly communications was published by The Royal Society in their Science as an Open Enterprise report. They outlined this as

• discoverable
• accessible
• intellegible
• assessable
• usable.

Key announcements in the history of Open Access development include Budapest (2002), Bethseda (2003) and Berlin (2003). The latter included an extension of what is covered to include original scientific research results, raw data and metadata, source materials, digital representations of pictorial and graphical materials and scholarly multimedia material.

Increasingly the terms 'gratis' or 'libre' are used to reflect actual practice in Open Access. Both have free online access, but 'Libre' includes additional usage rights.

Jubb cited the results of the Elsevier, International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base, 2013, a Report for BIS in identifying uptake levels for routes to Open Access.

Global uptake:

• fully OA journals with APCs 5.5%
• fully OA journals no APCs 4.2%
• hybrid journals 0.5%
• delayed free access journals 1.0%
• pre-print repositories 6.4%
• accepted ms repositories 5.0%

UK take-up

• fully OA journals with APCs 5.9%
• fully OA journals no APCs 1.2%
• hybrid journals 2.7%
• delayed free access journals 4.2%
• pre-print repositories 7.4%
• accepted ms repositories 11.6%

It is interesting to note the biggest differential - for example the jump in hybrid take-up from 0.5% globally to 2.7% in the UK.

Three key sets of policies in the UK are from RCUK, Funding councils and REF and the Wellcome Trust. In Europe there is the pilot in FP7, the policy for Horizon 2020. In the USA, the NIH since 2008 ask for a deposit in PMC with a 12 month embargo and more recently the OSTP memorandum was announced.

Key issues include licensing, embargoes, costs and revenues. Jubb noted that the Björk and Solomon report Developing an Effective market for Open Access Article Processing Charges and how it suggested that the hybrid journal market is dysfunctional as hybrid journals APCs are on average much higher than full OA.

Wiley-Blackwell's Liz Ferguson

Liz Ferguson is Publishing Solutions Director at Wiley-Blackwell. She provided an overview of the challenges of hybrid Open Access publishing and the transition to a full OA programme, and noted that the world of hybrid journals can be confusing, discussions can be heated about it.

Ferguson described hybrids as subscription journals that offer authors the opportunity to make articles openly available for a fee.

It was a model started c.2000 by the Entomological Society in America and has grown ever since.

In 2011, the top 5 publishers by number of hybrid journals and articles was as follows:

• Springer - 1360 journals; 7243 articles
• Elsevier - 1160 journals; 1014 articles
• Wiley - 726 journals; 596 articles
• Taylor & Francis - 577 journals; 153 articles
• Sage - 177 journals; 37 articles
• OUP - 109 journals; 882 articles

At Wiley, they initially had life and health sciences supporting hybrid. There was a big escalation in 2012 (driven by RCUK policy) which had a big effect on the humanities and social sciences community. It raised awareness of Open Access. and proved to have a 'carrot and stick' effect: 12 or 24 months with Gold option, 6 or 12 months without. This drove hybrid publishing due to concern about subscription income. Ferguson reflected on whether growth was driven by an increasing number of outlets, but felt probably not. In 2013 the increased number of hybrid journals have seen some sort of hybrid activity - c. 5 articles per title.

Wiley regularly survey their authors and one of the areas they ask them about is what they choose to do with licensing. They asked authors who are not mandated to take a particular route which licensing option they would prefer: 50% said CC-BY-NC-ND, 28% CC-BY and 22% CC-BY-NC. It was interesting to note that half have chosen to go for the most restrictive licences. It is not known why. It could be down to lack of understanding or a desire to protect content.

Are hybrids a transitional model? This year they have seen hybrid activity of up to 18% on journals which is much higher than anticipated. Challenges associated with them include a rapid transition to new models, CC-BY and commercial revenues and financial transparency. With green running alongside there are issues around versions, embargo periods, depositions and enforcing/enabling policies.

There is often a lot of confusion as to what is expected with hybrid and publishers need to redevelop and refine systems to provide a good service. Financial transparency is key. Double dipping (money from subscribers, money from authors) is an issue - whether perceived or real. Currently, hybrid money is low, but this is changing, so it is important to deal with the issue clearly and transparently. There is a need to do this because 1) it is ethical; 2) for clarity; and 3) it will lead to a more sustainable future in the long run. Ferguson noted that offsetting against subscriptions may not be scaleable if gold is adopted more widely.

So what is the outlook for hybrids? The offer to authors remains compelling, hybrid OA continues to grow (so does subscription content), but the financial challenges of a mixed model remain and there will be further transitions to full gold OA.

May Festival of Open Access

Never mind May Day. This month it's more like 'OA Day' for me.

Open Access continues to be one of the foremost issues when we think about scholarly communication. While policy developments continue to set the framework within which researchers, institutions, societies and publishers operate, myriad practical issues are also paramount in everyone's mind.

Perhaps this is why May is turning into a bit of an 'Open Access Month'. It's an unofficial festival of talks, seminars and fact finding events that will support us in our quest for successful Open Access publishing.

Here's a round-up of events we are aware of. Have we missed anything? Just comment below and let us know. You can also add your event to the ALPSP website. Complete this simple online form.

Clear your diaries and brace yourself for the May Festival of Open Access!

14 May
The Mechanics and Reality of Open Access 
An ALPSP seminar in London
A packed day that will focus on providing best practice tips and experience to meet the practical needs of publisher teams when providing green, gold and hybrid Open Access options.

19 May
Open Access and Society: Impact and Engagement
A Taylor & Francis Seminar, in association with ALPSP and the Academy of Social Sciences to be held in London
An overview of the latest results from the OA author and societies surveys with policy updates on Horizon 2020, RCUK mandate, HEFCE, REF2020 and beyond. This free seminar also includes discussion on impact and engagement.

20 May
UKSG Managing Open Access London
A UKSG seminar from the library perspective to be held in London
Overview of OA workflows and case studies from the library perspective.

22 May 
Implementing Creative Commons Licenses
An ALPSP webinar to be held online
Brief, practical overview of what CC licenses are, how they can be implemented by publishers, and how authors are likely to respond to them. Drawing on real experiences of publishers and on a recent large-scale author survey. It will also look at how CC licenses can be used with third-party material, such as images and figures that the author is reusing from another source.

17 June (OK, I'm sneaking this in to May...)
Open Access and Society: Impact and Engagement

A Taylor & Francis Seminar, in association with ALPSP and the Academy of Social Sciences to be held in Brussels
A re-run of the May seminar in London for European colleagues. An overview of the latest results from the OA author and societies surveys with policy updates from Europe, funders and internationally. This free seminar also includes discussion on impact and engagement. 

London Book Fair 2014: member drinks reception sponsored by Copyright Clearance Center

The bar is stocked, staff ready to serve...

The second annual London Book Fair drinks reception for members was a fun affair. Kindly sponsored by the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), members old and new congregated in the ALPSP pavilion area of the show floor to network, catch-up and meet new people.

The CCC team joined guests to enjoy the atmosphere and plentiful supply of drinks. Here are a selection of photos from the event. We're already looking forward to 2015!

Team CCC with ALPSP's Audrey McCulloch

Audrey McCulloch with CCC's Bill O'Brien

The crowds gather

ALPSP members

Simon Ross, ALPSP's Chair

Melissa Marshall & Melanie Goinden from ALPSP

Supplies...

Audrey and Bill with guests

A vision for growth in IP-rich businesses

The Alliance for Intellectual Property is an organisation working across the creative industries, in the UK, via their trade bodies, to ensure intellectual property rights receive the protection they need and deserve.

On Monday 28 April, the Alliance launched its Manifesto, outlining the requirements of both Government and the Creative Industries to continue to build on the success of the sector in the UK. The Manifesto is intended to help inform political party manifestos of the importance of the Creative, Design and Branded Goods industries, in the run up to the General Election in 2015. 

Richard Mollet, Chair of the Alliance for Intellectual Property, provided some background on where IP legislation was in the UK today. Following the previous General Election, it was widely thought that the enormity of the Gowers Review and the progress of implementation of some of its recommendations by the IPO, had put to bed many of the issues surrounding IP legislation.  It came as some surprise when the Coalition Government, primarily Prime Minister David Cameron, announced a whole new review of IP legislation in the UK, to be led by Professor Ian Hargreaves.  The review sought to jettison the existing framework of IP legislation that businesses strongly rely and has led to considerable uncertainty in the market.

Susie Winter, Director General at the Alliance for Intellectual Property, noted that the Manifesto document was produced following an extensive survey of the Creative Industries and from more detailed discussions with many of those respondents.  There were several very clear messages that arose:

• IP is very important to growth (89% of businesses felt it very important with a further 9% somewhat important)
• Developments in technology were seen as a key growth area for over 50% of respondents
• Over 90% of businesses felt that a stable IP framework was crucial for their business to gain investment

Set against this, there were a number of very clear messages about what the Government has been doing to support Creative Industries:

• The UK Government has not been very effective in making the UK an attractive location for basing a business reliant on IP
• Public enforcement bodies have not been very effective in policing IP crime
• Current deterrents against IP infringement are not very effective. The biggest threats facing Creative Industries were piracy, copying, counterfeiting and the weakening of IP rights.

Sticking the boot in

A couple of industry representatives then gave us their view.  Rachel Dews of Hunter Boots introduced the brands she is responsible for, which from small beginnings in Scotland in 1856, now have offices in Edinburgh, London and New York.  She emphasised that it is not just loss of earnings due to IP infringement that was the problem.  Counterfeit goods threatened the perception of their products, due to poor manufacturing standards, both in the quality of the product produced and the ethical standards of production.  The UK was currently in a privileged position in terms of the number of IP-rich businesses.  She called on political parties to recognise the importance brands play in the economy and start supporting it more effectively.

The Alliance's IP Map of the UK

Reel investment

On a more positive note, Trevor Albery from Warner Brothers, described the key investments they have made in the UK, which had been possible under the existing IP framework.  Leavesden Studios was now attracting key business to the UK, and the purchase of IP-rich businesses by Time Warner indicates the key talent base that the UK has in the movie, games and television industries.  IP is the building block in this field and the UK’s current standing in these areas internationally is a reflection of that.   It was essential to be able to make returns on the investment in IP in order to continue further investment and retain the UK’s leading position.

Lavinia Carey, Director General of the British Video Association, discussed how the Manifesto called on industry to continue to play its part.  There are already a number of industry initiatives and licensing has been at the heart of many of them.   

Music to our ears

Licensing has seen the UK become home to the greatest number of music providers in the world, has the biggest games industry in Europe and helped launch locker services such Ultraviolet. The Content Map, launched in November 2012, has just seen a version made available in The Netherlands.  Campaigns such as Moments worth Paying For and the Real Deal have helped consumers understand the value of the content they are being asked to pay for, and had a significant effect on criminal activity in markets in the UK and overseas, respectively. 

The industry is working hard to maintain its world-leading position in the UK and must continue to support the UK Government by providing the best evidence it can to support policy-making.  Government must listen to the evidence.  IP crime undermines the ability of the industry to provide what the consumer wants. 

Richard Mollet reiterated what the industry would like to see from Government:

• Cessation of the IP change agenda.  Industry has consistently proved that legislation is appropriate and the Government needs to acknowledge this
• Support for IP in the investment community, which will come from a clear signal of a stable IP framework.
• Representation and defence of the IP-rich creative industries outside the UK.  The UK is second only to the US in exporting music and has one of the largest publishing industries in the world.  

Press release
Manifesto

Does ‘Yes’ really mean Yes?

Laxmi Chaudhry is co-tutor of ALPSP's new Outsourcing training course. She took part in our London Book Fair panel yesterday and spoke at last year's Outsourcing seminar. Here, she reflects on some of the key cultural issues that influence vendor relationships in a guest post.

Why is yes such a powerful word  when working with International Suppliers?

'In our globalised and outsourced/off shored world we are now working across different cultures and communication styles. This has given rise to a number of cultural challenges, further exacerbated by working remotely across distance and time zones. So what we may take for granted in terms of working style and communication in the UK, for example, can be very different in other cultures, giving rise to misunderstandings, time delays and poor business relationships. This of course impacts the bottom line!
  
The short but very powerful word “yes” encapsulates and reflects cultural differences and is one of the biggest sources of frustration and loss of trust. How is this so?

In the UK, “yes” generally means that we agree or accept and are committed to performing the necessary actions in achieving a desired result. If we are not able to do so or have difficulty in understanding the instruction, we usually ask further questions to gain clearer understanding or else we may speak up later if we come across difficulty.

However, in many cultures, such as in India and China, the word “yes” encompasses multitude of meanings besides the one we generally understand. Hence the room for giving rise to a host of difficulties when dealing with international suppliers, not least getting projects completed in time, instructions not being followed, not checking for clarification until the deadline date, and at times poorly executed work. Other examples of potential problem are ongoing business relationships suffering, opaque communication, and a culture of blame developing.  

What does ‘Yes’ mean in some cultures?

For example when a supplier in India says “yes” to a request or instruction from you, what it could really mean is any of the following:

• I am hearing you
• I hear you but I don’t understand you and won’t admit it
• I acknowledge I have received your request
• I recognise your status
• I am being polite
• I will do it if nothing else happens that’s more important
• I will deliver something but...

This list is by no means exhaustive. These differences in connotations and the understanding of the word “yes” arise due to differing underlying cultural values such as the importance of hierarchy, relationships, harmony etc.

However, it is very possible as a company to bridge the cultural and communication gaps and there are many examples of companies doing so thorough proactive cultural awareness training. This applies for both parties being involved and buying into this. One can get to a real understanding of what “yes” means in an outsourcing scenario and achieve effective working and relationships.'

Laxmi Chaudhry is a cross cultural consultant and trainer, specialising in business effectiveness across international cultures, working with global organisations in many sectors including publishing. She has spoken at ALPSP events on Outsourcing and is co-tutor of the Managing Quality from Outsourced Services training course in July 2014. You can contact Laxmi at laxmi@1stophr.com or www.1stophr.com.