Current State of Open Access: Briefing Paper for Universities Australia (UA) Deputy Vice-Chancellors Research Committee
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Current State of Open Access: Briefing Paper for Universities Australia (UA) Deputy Vice-Chancellors Research Committee The purpose of this paper is to describe the current state of open access (OA) publishing as it relates to Australia, to help inform a potential UA position on OA. This paper has been drafted by representatives from the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) and the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group (AOASG). Background In the fifteen years since the Budapest Open Access Declaration defined OA as free access wi th associated use and reuse rights1, OA has evolved from a fringe publishing movement with uncertain business models and piecemeal infrastructure to a global movement. Increasingly this movement aims to not just make research outputs (including publications, datasets and code) more available but to exploit new modes of scholarly output and technology2 to increase the use, reuse and interoperability of research. Ultimately, OA initiatives and the move to increased openness in government, education and research sectors have the potential to maximise the utility and value of research outputs for the benefit of academia, education and industry, and to improve the integrity and reproducibility of scholarly work. A diversity of models aiming to implement the change to OA exist, ranging from those offered by the largest publishers, to small start-ups driven by researchers (see appendix A). Internationally, a number of approaches have been agreed to at a national or consortial level (see appendix B). Although increasing diversity is likely to be the future of publishing (and should be welcomed), this diversity of OA models, differing funder conditions and strategies for compliance, as well as varying publisher requirements make for a complex publishing landscape. Although there has been considerable work in Australia on OA from funders, individual institutions, libraries and advocacy groups, the Australian higher education sector is yet to determine a preferred position in relation to recent developments in the academic publishing industry, and agree on a strategy to optimise the discoverability and impact of Australia’s research. A clear position on preferred strategies for OA could simplify publication and archiving choices for researchers. A clear position would also assist universities and funders to make evidence-based decisions on how to invest in digital infrastructure and publishing initiatives that optimise discoverability and access, in order to drive research translation and innovation in the Australian digital economy. 1 http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read 2 https://101innovations.wordpress.com/ The Scholarly Journal Publishing Paradigm The findings of government and university funded research are primarily disseminated through scholarly publications. Much of the authorship, reviewing and editing of these publications is provided by university researchers. Currently, the majority of these publications are owned by publishers, mostly commercial, which charge subscription fees so that universities can access the content generated by their researchers as well as publications from elsewhere. There are also an increasing number of OA publishers, some of which charge an Article Processing Charge (APC) for research to be made OA. APCs may be paid by authors, their funders or their institutions. Some publishers also offer hybrid subscription/OA models with an option to pay an APC to make a particular article open within an otherwise subscription-based journal. The primacy of the current publication paradigm is embedded within international ranking and national assessment exercises which are of central importance to universities. For example, the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) rewards indexed publications and those in Nature and Science3. These ranking systems perpetuate some of the current challenges with publishing. Universities pay premium subscription prices for access to these high prestige journals, and/or pay APCs to enable OA to articles. Pressure to publish in journals such as Nature, or in the top 20% journals (by Impact Factor) is also incentivised by internal, institutional reward systems. In response, publishers have expanded their operations to produce metric and aggregation platforms which are used in the rankings systems. Universities also pay to access these services. To put the scale of the scholarly publishing endeavour in perspective, in 2016 Elsevier, the world’s largest scholarly publisher, reported revenue of £2.32 billion and a profit margin of 37% 4. It is of note that this profit margin has been relatively stable over many years, even as publishing has evolved. In Australia, there has simultaneously been a growth in the payment of APCs to make publications open without any corresponding reduction in subscription costs. The total cost of journal subscriptions for Australian university libraries was AU$261,131,466 in 2016, a 40% increase in comparison to 2009 and a 17% increase since 2014. 5 This increase is largely due to significant, higher than CPI subscription price increases each year, and is further impacted by a weaker AUD (most subscriptions are paid in USD, with an exchange rate of 0.77 in 2016, 0.81 in 2014 and 0.92 in 2009). Although the majority of contemporary research libraries’ journal holdings are now electronic only, many subscription rates are tied to libraries’ historic print journal holdings, often dating back to the mid-1990s. APCs to enable OA to electronic articles are paid in addition to these existing journal subscription costs. Thus, despite advances in technology, the current system of scholarly communication is tied to ranking and assessment at an institutional and individual level, and continues to be tied to outdated hardcopy journal subscription deals. With the costs of accessing scholarly information continuing to escalate, funding agencies, universities and researchers are questioning whether the current approach is fit for purpose in the digital age and the current fiscal environment. The pricing and access/publication model is in nee d of reform. 3 http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2017.html 4 https://www.thebookseller.com/news/elsevier-profits-3-despite-steeper-print-declines-493781 5 Statistics provided by the Council of Australian University Librarians 2 Current Australian Approach to Open Access There have been a number of key Australian developments relating to OA: ● ARC6 and NHMRC7 OA policies require funded research to be made openly accessible within a twelve month period from the date of publication. Currently, there is no systematic monitoring of compliance for ARC and NHMRC OA policies, or penalties for non-compliance. Some international funding bodies, such as Wellcome Trust, have sanctions for non-compliance (e.g. withholding a percentage of grant funding) 8. In terms of measurement, as part of ERA 2015, institutions were required to indicate whether a submitted research output had been made available in an OA repository with findings reported on 9. In the recent ARC Engagement and Impact Assessment Pilot, this data was utilised to provide a measure of engagement. ● In August 2017, the Australian government released its response to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into Intellectual Property Arrangements10. The Government supports the following recommendation: 16.1 The Australian, and State and Territory governments should implement an open access policy for publicly funded research. The policy should provide free and open access arrangements for all publications funded by governments, directly or through university funding, within 12 months of publication. The policy should minimise exemptions. ● In 2016, a working group was convened by Linda O’Brien, PVC Information Services, Griffith University (representing the CAUL Research Advisory Committee) with representation from UA, AOASG, Australian National Data Service, ARC, NHMRC, Department of Education and Training and the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. As a result, the F.A.I.R. Policy Statement11 was established which has the overall aim of providing a pathway to improving the discoverability and impact of Australian research outputs and to improve community and industry access to research. The next steps are to establish a program to implement the F.A.I.R. Policy Statement. ● From 2007 to 2009 Australian universities were provided with ASHER funding to establish digital repositories for research outputs through an Australian Government investment of $25.5M under the Australian Scheme for Higher Education Repositories primarily to support the RQF and ERA 12. These repositories now contain over 1 million items, including OA versions of journal articles, theses and other university publications with more than half freely available for download (though most of these do not have associated OA licences, which specify their reuse rights, nor other consistent metadata). These items were used 36.5 million times in 201613. Many of these research outputs are Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) versions of published journal articles. Items in institutional repositories are discoverable via Google and NLA Trove. ● Currently, many Australian universities have a public OA policy or statement. The requirements and degree of compliance vary from institution to institution and university libraries and research offices have varying resource levels for advocacy, training and support and development for research management