My ego was stroked earlier this week when I received an email from Branwen inviting me to speak at the Research Information Network ‘s Consultative Group meeting in May. (Branwen and I met last year at the Open Science workshop run by Cameron Neylon. Very good it was, too.) I then had a very informative half hour or so trolling around the RIN website.
The RIN is a publicly-funded organization that exists to research information and data issues that affect researchers (yes, that sounds a bit meta, I know) with the aim of developing policy and advocacy. Through surveys and reports the ultimate goal is to develop ‘a national framework to meet the information needs of researchers’.
I found a very interesting report on the use and impact of e-journals —no great surprises to me as I completed a market report on this very subject last year: however, there are some interesting statistical analyses in there and in what is probably the ultimate stroke of irony, I’ve ordered the hard copy to read through later (on the Tube, maybe).
But the thing that quite a few people here might be interested in is the report on paying for Open Access (OA) charges:
The Research Information Network and Universities UK have produced a guide (March 2009) to provide advice on paying open access publication charges: that is, fees levied by some journals for the publication of scholarly articles so that they can be made available free of charge to readers, immediately upon publication. The guide also sets out recommendations for universities and other research institutions, publishers, research funders, and authors.
http://www.rin.ac.uk/openaccess-payment-fees
I haven’t had chance yet to read the report in full (the new job is taking up most of my intellectual capacity at the moment and I’m still living out of a suitcase) but there are some intriguing findings:
- Nearly three quarters of responding authors have published in a fully OA journal in the last five years
- Fewer than half of the respondents said their Higher Education Institute has an OA policy
- About a third said their institute encouraged OA publishing
- the University of Nottingham has established a central OA page charge fund
- perhaps somewhat obviously, Before they submit articles for open access publication, corresponding authors should ensure that they have access to the funds necessary to meet
the publication fee._
I’d be interested in reading what people think of this. You can download a glossy PDF to find out more.
Ah, did you write that Gene2Drug/Bioinformatics LLC market report? I might have to acquire a copy. (Ror other readers, I am confident that if written by RPG it will be useful and lucid, which are not by any means consistent characteristics of market reports, in my experience.)
The RIN reports look rather interesting – I’m also interested in their business model. Online for free download – but do they charge for the hardcopy?
And – the University of Nottingham’s approach seems very progressive. I wonder if this idea (of a central fund to pay for OA page charges) will catch on?
Final somewhat related thought – although it seems fashionable to rail against OA page charges (and – shameless self-promotion – we just forked over a considerable number of Swiss Francs for this very purpose, which didn’t make me happy, but seemed like the right thing to do), I think a lot of people are forgetting that many journals have been charging page charges for years, long before concepts of “open access”, or even “online archives” (open or not) were contemplated. I’ve never liked the “pay to publish” idea, but if it’s necessary I guess it’s necessary. It does make it a lot harder for folks with smaller grants, or grants that don’t allow line items for this kind of thing, but I guess that’s where Nottingham’s fund idea would be most useful.
They might charge to ship to Canadia, but I emailed Catherine yesterday and she said she’d pop the report in the post for me. No mention of paying for it.
I printed off the RIN’s business model, too. I should add that the RIN was initially funded for three years from 2005, but have secured a second tranche through to 2011, which means someone else also believes in what they’re doing. Which is cool.
And thanks for saying nice things about me.
Just to let you know, the RIN does not charge for a hard copy of any of our reports and we are happy to send you as many copies as you need.
that includes Canada 🙂
\o/ Thanks, Branwen!
I meant to say in my post, that Branwen and I met last year at the Open Science workshop run by Cameron Neylon. Very good it was, too. Actually, to share linkluv(TM), I’m adding that to the main post.
Thanks, Branwen (I’d seen you added to RPG’s network, but didn’t make the logical leap that I could just ask you… or that you’d likely be reading this).
Richard, I’m always happy to say nice things about you, even when you’re taking the p*ss out of me.
Branwen – haven’t explored the reports in detail yet but they look rather interesting.
Well, maybe I should take the piss less often.
…
Naw
Yes, I agree that RIN is an excellent thing. It reminds me a bit of the old OSTI, later BLR&DD, but their work is less abstruse. I haven’t had time yet to look through the e-journals report but I’m told it is very interesting.
I was excited at first about the OA fees report, but it is couched very much in terms of Universities. I had hoped there might be an exposition of commonsense guidelines for authors, suggestions for who pays what, when, particularly in collaborations.
As Richard W. says, in some disciplines page charges have been commonplace for some time, but the added complication now is that OA fees can be optional (in hybrid journals), but obligatory for any authors whose funders impose an OA mandate. It shouldn’t be difficult to reach an agreement, but it’d be good to have a suggested framework published somewhere.
Yes, I remember squabbling with journals about colour pages and page charges: and PNAS has the thing about publication costs being offset by page charges therefore it’s got to be marked ‘advertisement’ &c. &c. Going completely OA might cut through all that crap, although I’m not sure if anyone’s done the analysis (properly) to see if scrapping subscription charges (and hence reducing grant overheads that go to libraries to cover them, thus freeing up more grant money…) would pay for OA.
Yes, a number of people have done the sums (a bit more detail here ). They found that research-intensive universities would end up paying more, though not everyone agrees.
Those studies are 3-5 years old, and I think it would be instructive to re-do them as things have moved on quite a bit since then, with many more journals offering paid-OA options.
Ah, I was going to mention colour pages as a separate point… but not really different when you think about it. The PNAS “advertisement” clause is due to US law as far as I know (they’re not the only journal, but probably the best-known). Lots of journals used to (still do?) have policies where you get the first x pages “for free”, and pay for additional ones.
I am astonished by the variety of journals that are available through the local University library system… and I can’t imagine how much it would cost annually (although maybe reading the links Frank points to will help me to guess).
Scrapping subscription charges… I guess would work as a partial solution if the journals receiving those subscription fees were willing to go OA, right? If the Board of the Important Journal of Medical Doctor Research Things decides not to allow OA in favour of the “old” subscription model, there’s not much a University library could do (except drop the journal entirely I suppose, which would make readers unhappy). Unfortunately I envision many journals sticking to the old model, particularly clinical ones.
On a side note, I’m still bummed that I wasn’t able to get at an article I wanted in the Kathmandu University Medical Journal recently (it’s allegedly available, but the links don’t actually go anywhere any more).
Richard – I found KUMJ – it seems to work, though only has issues up to 2007.
Wow.
The problem with OA is that everyone needs to do it, more or less simultaneously, I think. Discuss.
they’re not the only journal, but probably the best-known
All American journals must do this by law where page charges are levied.
Yah, figured it was something like that. It always used to amuse me, for some reason.
Well, let’s be honest: publishing papers is advertising, so maybe scientists should pay for it?
Thanks for your comment about our report Frank “it is couched very much in terms of Universities. I had hoped there might be an exposition of commonsense guidelines for authors, suggestions for who pays what, when, particularly in collaborations”. I wasn’t involved it it myself but will see if we can do somthing a bit more tailored for authors.
Also you mentioned that people had “done the sums” and that includes us. We have made the underlying economic model avalible to anyone who is interested in having a play around with it.
How utterly splendid! Thanks Branwen.
Branwen – thanks! Sorry I forgot about that RIN report. It’s still in my post-holiday pile of reading. A quick glance suggests that its conclusions are in line with the earlier studies.
Frank – thanks. The reference I was looking for was from 2008, unfortunately 🙁
@RPG – The problem with OA is that everyone needs to do it, more or less simultaneously, I think.
I think that was what I was trying to get at in my horrendously inarticulate comment above – although I suppose it could work if only some journals go OA and the rest remain paid. But – now we’re downloading the cost to a different part of the institution (the grant that funded the research, or maybe the institutional “pool” of funds) – but saving, as you note, on library overheads. I suppose.
I think I’d better read Frank’s and Branwen’s links now. As Michel Lemieux once said, compliqué compliqué.
Thoreau: simplify, simplify — although, really, he should have said it only once.