Supported by the EC eContent plus programme

1. Publishing and the Ecology of European Research (PEER): A ground-breaking collaborationJulia Wallace, Project Manager, PEERBritish Library /ILIAC Open Access Seminar 30 November 2009 Supported by the EC eContentplus programme

2. Why is PEER needed? There is agreement between publishing and research communities about the importance of access to results of European funded research But • there is no consensus on the need for mandated deposits or appropriate embargo periods • or the impact this may have on journals

3. Current Situation • Rapid growth of institutional repositories • Individual funding agency mandates • Publisher experimentation • Lack of agreement on evidence to date

4. Key Problems & Issues • Impact of systematically archiving stage-two outputs (accepted manuscripts) is not clear • on journals and business models • on wider ecology of scientific research • Varying policies are confusing for authors and readers • Lack of understanding and trust between publishers and research community

5. The three key stages of publication Public Investment Publisher Investment Stage One (NISO Author’s original) Stage Two (NISO Accepted Manuscript) Stage Three (NISO Version of Record) • Primary • Outputs of • Research: • raw data • Draft for submission to a journal Author’s manuscript incorporating peer review enhancements & as accepted for publication Final published article on journal website: version of record with copyediting, typesetting, full citability, cross-referencing, interlinking with other articles, supplementary data

6. Purpose of PEER PEER has been set up to monitor the effects of systematic archiving of ‘stage two’ research outputs: the version of the author’s manuscript accepted for publication (NISO - Accepted Manuscript) • Publishers and research community collaborate • Develop an “observatory” to monitor the impact of systematically depositing stage-two outputs on a large scale • Gather hard evidence to inform future policies • Project duration: September 2008 – August 2011 • Project budget: €4.2 million

7. Objectives • Determine how large-scale deposit of stage-two outputs will affect journal viability • Determine whether it increases access • Determine whether it affects the broader ecology of European research • Determine the factors affecting readiness to deposit and associated costs • Develop model(s) to show how traditional publishing can coexist with self-archiving

8. Stakeholders in scholarly communication • Publishers • Researchers – authors and users • Libraries and repositories • Funding agencies All of the above stakeholder groups are represented within PEER, both within the consortium & an advisory board

9. Project Organisation

10. PEER Consortium The PEER consortium (5 Executive members): • International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) - Co-ordinator • European Science Foundation (ESF) • Göttingen State and University Library (UGOE) • Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG) • Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA) Plus technical partners: SURF & Universität Bielefeld

11. Participating Publishers • BMJ Publishing Group • Cambridge University Press • EDP Sciences • Elsevier • IOP Publishing • Nature Publishing Group • Oxford University Press • Portland Press • Sage Publications • Springer • Taylor & Francis Group • Wiley-Blackwell

12. Participating Repositories • eSciDoc.PubMan, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. (MPG) • HAL, CNRS & Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA) • Göttingen State and University Library (UGOE) • BiPrints, Universität Bielefeld (UNIBI) • Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania • University Library of Debrecen, Hungary Plus Koninklijke Bibliotheek (preservation)

13. Research Oversight Group (ROG) Justus Haucap, University of DuesseldorfChair: German Monopolies Commission Henk Moed, Leiden UniversityRecipient: Derek de Solla Price Award Carol Tenopir, University of TennesseeRecipient: International Information Industry Lifetime Achievement Award PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 13 www.peerproject.eu

14. PEER Advisory Board (1) Funders: Dr Johannes Fournier, DFG, Germany Mr Robert Kiley, Wellcome Trust, UK Professor Ebba Nexo, Aarhus Universitetshospital, Denmark Dr Donald J Waters, Mellon Foundation, USA Librarians: Dr Paul Ayris, University College London, UK Dr Elisabeth Niggemann, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, Germany Dr Sijbolt Noorda, VSNU, The Netherlands Drs. Bas Savenije, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Netherlands PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 14 www.peerproject.eu

15. PEER Advisory Board (2) Researchers: Dr Elea Gimenez-Toledo, CSIC, Madrid, Spain Professor Jane Grimson, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Professor Norbert Kroo, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary Professor Michel Mareschal, L'Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium Publishers: Mr Mayur Amin, Elsevier, UK Ms Stella Dutton, BMJ Group, UK Cliff Morgan, Wiley-Blackwell, UK Mr John Ochs, ACS, USA Wim van der Stelt, Springer SBM, The Netherlands PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 15 www.peerproject.eu

16. Overall Approach - Observatory • Publishers contribute up to 500 journals (242 plus a control group ~200+) across 4 broad subject areas: Medicine, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences and Social Sciences & Humanities • Rigorous journal selection process followed & validated by research teams • Maximise deposit and access within participating EU repositories • 50% publisher-assisted deposit • 50% author self-archiving • Collaborate with DRIVER to involve repositories • Commission research from independent research teams to assess impact – behavioural, access/usage (and economic)

17. Technical outcomes • Report on the provision of usage data and manuscript deposit procedures for publishers and repository managers (available from PEER website) • Full text format PDFA-1/ PDF • Mandatory metadata fields (from DRIVER) - XML • SWORD protocol for ingest by repositories (Simple Web-Service Offering Repository Deposit) http://www.swordapp.org/

18. Challenges faced Non uniformity of publisher outputs Varying requirements by repositories EU filtering of content Embargo management for author deposits Author authentication for deposit Non uniformity of log files Inclusion of ‘retained’ stage-2 content from publishers PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 18 www.peerproject.eu

19. deposit Publishers select Authors eligible journals / articles inform 50%manuscripts 100% metadata 50% manuscripts deposit deposit deposit PEER Depot deposit Central Deposit Interface deposit deposit deposit LTP Depot PEER Repositories UNIBI KTU HAL External Repositories(e.g. institutional) UGOE MPG ULD PEER- Content submission flowchart

20. Content submission − Authors PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 20 www.peerproject.eu

21. Research in PEER Behavioural research: Authors and Users vis-à-vis Journals and Repositories Usage research: Journals and Repositories Economic research Open tendering process Expert ‘Research Oversight Group’ (ROG) appointed Contribute to Invitation to Tender documents Assess tenders received and advise PEER Executive Advise on final research questions & approach Validate research throughout the project any potential conflicts of interest declared PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 21 www.peerproject.eu

22. Behavioural research team & objectives Department of Information Science and LISU at Loughborough University, UK Objectives: • Track trends and explain patterns of author and user behaviour in the context of so called Green Open Access. • Understand the role repositories play for authors in the context of journal publishing. Understand the role repositories play for users in context of accessing journal articles. PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 22 www.peerproject.eu

23. Behavioural research questions (Examples) In seeking information what choices do readers make in locating and selecting sources and in what ways do such choices influence the role played by repositories in information seeking behaviours? In publishing research, what choices do authors make in locating and selecting appropriate outlets, and what are the major influences on their choices? Where do repositories fit in the dissemination landscape? What common perceptions do readers have in relation to repositories, e.g. quality, authority of versions, and availability, and how do such perceptions influence information behaviours? PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 23 www.peerproject.eu

24. Usage research team & objectives CIBER group, University College London, UK Objectives: Determine usage trends at publishers and repositories; Understand source and nature of use of deposited manuscripts in repositories; Track trends, develop indicators and explain patterns of usage for repositories and journals. PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 24 www.peerproject.eu

25. Usage research questions (Examples) “Commercial” impact of self-archiving Will the usage of publisher stage III articles increase, decrease or remain constant over the period of the experiment and to what extent can this be attributed to repository use and access? Effects of embargoes Will repository stage II manuscripts with an embargo receive less use (and how much less use) that those without an embargo? New and different users Does the experiment result in the use of articles by groups who might otherwise be not able to access them? Different, complementary use Whether repositories and publisher platforms offer different things to readers PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research 25 www.peerproject.eu

26. Economic Research The Objectives of the economics research: • Investigate the cost of the large-scale deposit of stage-two research outputs (including the economic efficiency or cost of the process of deposit). • Understand the costs incurred by participating publishers and repositories (of the PEER Project). • Understand and compare access costs at journals and repositories. • Understand, principally, for the deposit of so-called Stage 2 manuscripts the costs. • Analyze the overall effects of large-scale deposit (Green OA) on the economics of scholarly communication.

27. Where are we now? • Most publishers validated & feeding PEER Depot • Author submission invitations to commence 1 December 2009 • Usage research team have reviewed the observatory framework • Behavioural baseline study will be publicly available soon

28. Next steps • Inclusion of publisher ‘back-file’ content • Ingest by repositories following expiration of embargo periods • Provision of logfiles for usage research (from publisher platforms and repositories) • Select research team & commence Economic research • Prepare for second round of behavioural research

29. PEER - Measuring Success • Critical success factors • Observatory collects sufficient reliable data to draw conclusions • Stakeholders use the evidence gathered • Success indicators therefore focus on • Underlying data provided to the observatory • Success at communicating results • Not what the observatory measures, e.g. user uptake

30. PEER- Expected Results • Greater understanding of the effects of large-scale deposit in OA repositories • Evidence to inform future policies • Model(s) illustrating how to maximise the benefits of traditional publishing and archiving • Trust and mutual understanding between publisher and research communities

31. Thank you for your attention Questions? For further information visit www.peerproject.eu Or e-mail: peer@stm-assoc.org