Open Access to your work: why, how, and what it will do for you (and ULancaster)

1. Open Access to your work: why, how, and what it will do for you (and ULancaster) Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK

2. Stevan Harnad (USouthampton) Key Perspectives Ltd

3. ‘Old’ paradigms • Use of proxy measures of an individual scholar’s merit is as good as it gets • It is a publisher’s responsibility to disseminate your work • Printed article is the format of record • Other scholars have time to search out what you want them to know Key Perspectives Ltd

4. ‘New’ paradigms • Rich, deep, broad metrics for measuring the contributions of individual scholars • Effective dissemination of your work is now in your hands (at last) • The digital format will be the format of record (is already in many areas) • Unless you routinely publish in Nature or Science, ‘getting it out there’ is up to you Key Perspectives Ltd

5. Why researchers publish their work Key Perspectives Ltd

6. Open Access: What is it? • Online • Immediate • Free (non-restricted) • Free (gratis) • To the scholarly literature that authors give away • Permanent Key Perspectives Ltd

7. Open Access: Why should we have it? • Benefits to researchers themselves • Benefits to institutions • Benefits to national economies • Benefits to science and society Key Perspectives Ltd

8. New niches • Open Access journals (www.doaj.org) • Open Access repositories (author ‘self-archiving’) Key Perspectives Ltd

9. Repositories: interoperable • Show their content in a specific form • Harvested by search engines • Form a database of global research • Freely available • Publicly available • Permanently available Key Perspectives Ltd

10. Open Access repositories • circa 900 worldwide, including… • Lancaster’s Eprints repository Key Perspectives Ltd

11. Key Perspectives Ltd

12. Open Access repositories • circa 900 worldwide, including… • Lancaster’s Eprints repository • 158 items Key Perspectives Ltd

13. Why we should have Open Access • Greater impact from scholarly endeavour • More rapid and more efficient progress of scholarship • Better assessment, better monitoring, better management of research • Better information-creation using new and better technologies Key Perspectives Ltd

14. Open Access increases citations Range = 50%-200% (Data: Stevan Harnad and co-workers) Key Perspectives Ltd

15. “Self-archiving in the PhilSci Archive has given instant world-wide visibility to my work. As a result, I was invited to submit papers to refereed international conferences/journals and got them accepted.” An author’s own testimony on open access visibility Key Perspectives Ltd

16. Lost citations, lost impact • Only around 15% of research is Open Access…. • ….. so 85% is not • ….. and we are therefore losing 85% of the 50% increase in citations (conservative end of the range) that Open Access brings (= 42.5%) Key Perspectives Ltd

17. What this means to ULancaster • 2005: 504 articles • Number of citations: 1183 • If all had been OA, there would have been (42.5% more) 1685 citations • Since Lancaster invested £19.5m in research in 2004 ….. • This means lost impact worth £8.28m to the university Key Perspectives Ltd

18. And for individual scientists…. • Diamond, A M (1986) What is a citation worth? J. Human Resources21, 200 (www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v11p354y1988.pdf) • Marginal value of one citation is 50-1300 USD (depending on field and number of citations: an increase from 0 to 1 citation is worth more than from 30-31 citations) • Update for inflation (170%) = 86-2227 USD (say, $1000) • Convert to sterling = £460 • Now let’s look at one Lancaster author’s situation…. Key Perspectives Ltd

19. Bob Jessop (Sociology) Key Perspectives Ltd

20. Bob Jessop • 460 citations • Would have been 42.5% lower without OA = 264 citations • Bob has gained 196 citations • Each citation is worth £460 • Bob is richer by = £90,160! Key Perspectives Ltd

21. Smyth, M M Key Perspectives Ltd

22. Mary Smyth • 42 articles, 720 citations • Could have been 42.5% higher (or more) = 1026 citations • ‘Lost’ citations = 326 • Each citation is worth £460 • Value of lost impact = £149,960 • Conservatively!!! Key Perspectives Ltd

23. The USouthampton conundrum… Key Perspectives Ltd

24. Why is Southampton so strong? • Strong research base • TBL et al • Mandatory deposit of research output in ECS repository for 4 years (c11K items) • University repository actively managed and now to have mandatory deposit • All = Strong web presence Key Perspectives Ltd

25. The RAE • Move to ‘metrics’ • “Correlation between RAE ratings and mean departmental citations +0.91 (1996) and +0.86 (2001) [Eysenck & Smith, 2002] • Now an RAE plug-in for the EPrints software Key Perspectives Ltd

26. Science is faster, more efficient Key Perspectives Ltd

27. Farseeing authors, quick off the mark… Key Perspectives Ltd

28. Measure, assess, and manage science more effectively • Assess individuals, groups, institutions, on the basis of citation analysis • Track downloads, citations, patterns of use • Trends: predict impact, usage, direction of science and influences on research • Latency, longevity • Hubs, authorities • ‘Silent’ ‘unsung’ authors identified by semantic analysis Key Perspectives Ltd

29. Track usage and citation history Key Perspectives Ltd

30. Follow the citing trail … Key Perspectives Ltd

31. New machine technologies • Text-mining, data-mining • New information creation from otherwise disparate information sources • Example: Neurocommons • (Find this on the ScienceCommons website: www.sciencecommons.org) Key Perspectives Ltd

32. An institutional repository provides researchers with: • Secure storage (for completed work and for work-in-progress) • A location for supporting data that are unpublished • One-input-many outputs (CVs, publications) • RAE Key Perspectives Ltd

33. Publisher permissions (by journal) Key Perspectives Ltd

34. Publisher permissions • 92% of journals permit self-archiving • SHERPA/RoMEO list at: www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php • Or at: http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php Key Perspectives Ltd

35. Author readiness to comply with a mandate 5% 14% 81% Key Perspectives Ltd

36. Institutions with a mandate already • University of Southampton School of Electronics & Computer Science (since 2003) (90+% compliance already) • CERN (2003) (90% compliance already) • Queensland University of Technology (2004) (40%+ compliance and growing) • University of Minho, Portugal (2005) • Indian Inst Technology; UZurich; UTasmania… Key Perspectives Ltd

37. Funders • Wellcome Trust (mandate) • MRC (mandate) • BBSRC (mandate) • ESRC (mandate) • PPARC (mandate) • NERC (mandate) • CCLRC (‘strong encouragement’) Key Perspectives Ltd

38. “Clunk Click, every trip” • Public information film: 1972 • In ten years, this campaign raised seatbelt wearing to: 37% ofdrivers 39% offront seat passengers • Law passed 1982: seatbelts now compulsory • 2005: seatbelts worn by: 93%of drivers 94%of front seat passengers Key Perspectives Ltd

39. Why we should have Open Access • Greater impact from scholarly endeavour • More rapid and more efficient progress of scholarship • Better assessment, better monitoring, better management of research • Better information-creation using new and better technologies Key Perspectives Ltd

40. Thank you for listening aswan@keyperspectives.co.uk www.keyperspectives.co.uk/OpenAccessArchive/ Key Perspectives Ltd