#dffuvinter15 v/@tullemich

Argumentet: ”Den traditionelle definition af sorte huller, som steder med en veldefineret grænse, hvorfra intet undslipper, muligvis ikke er en korrekt beskrivelse af fænomenet, idet definitionen strider mod kvantefysikken. Ifølge Hawkings teori er grænsen for sorte huller ikke definitiv, men derimod tilsyneladende, hvilket muliggør, at i princippet hvad som helst kan komme ud af et sort hul, herunder også information.” (Wikipedia: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sort_hul)

Not Peer Reviewed!!!

Photo by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory - PNNL - Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License https://www.flickr.com/photos/36016325@N04Created with Haiku Deck

Open Science: Ideale om transparens i alle faser af forskningsprocessen

Temaet: Licenser og Open Access berører flere aspekter i faserne:

1. Discovery (adgang til databaser og videnskabelige publikationer/resultater)

2. Analysis (adgang til software, hvad end den er proprietær el. Open Source)

3. Publication (udgivers marked – adgang via licenser el. Open Access)

4. Impact/Assessment (er betinget af forhold i publiceringsfasen)

Typer af research workflows: discovery impact

Kramer, Bianca; Bosman, Jeroen (2015): 101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication - the Changing Research Workflow. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1286826

Trends i workflow faser sociale discovery tools datadreven + crowdsourcede analyse kollaborativ online skrivning OA + data publicering outreach + unik identifikation article level metrics

Nye research workflows: discovery impact

Kramer, Bianca; Bosman, Jeroen (2015): 101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication - the Changing Research Workflow. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1286826

Majoriteten af forskning

Photo by marfis75 - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License https://www.flickr.com/photos/45409431@N00 Created with Haiku Deck

Stakeholders i Open Science

1. Producenter og konsumenter• Forskere• Studerende• Borgere (citizen science)

2. Leverandører (informationsforsyning)•Højere uddannelsesinstitutioner•DFFU-biblioteker (via DEFF) •Udgivere (forlag og sociale netværk)

3. Bevillingsgivere:• Forskningsfonde• Staten (offentlige midler)

Open Access og Licenser fra brugerperspektivet

Adgang til viden

Betaling for adgang til viden

Krav om adgang til viden (ROI)

UD

FO

RD

RI

NG

Photo by Tax Credits - Creative Commons Attribution License https://www.flickr.com/photos/76657755@N04 Created with Haiku Deck

Photo by Louis K. - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License http://www.flickr.com/photos/49644719@N06 Created with Haiku Deck

Double dipping

“Double dipping arises if a publisher seeks an unwarrantable increase in revenues by levying article processing charges (APCs) for publication in a hybrid journal, while not providing a proportionate decrease in subscription costs”.

RLUK: Fair Prices for Article Processing Charges (APCs) in Hybrid Journals (nov. 2013) http://www.rluk.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/RLUK-stance-on-double-dipping-Final-November-2013.pdf

Forhandlingssammenbrud ml.

Association of Dutch Universities (VSNU) & Elsevier

Prof. Gerard Meijer, hovedforhandler (VSNU):

“We are willing to pay publishers for the work they do, but Elsevier’s profit margin is approaching 40 per cent, and universities have to do the [editing] work and pay for it. We aren’t going to accept it any longer. I think from the fact that Elsevier is not willing to move much, they simply still don’t believe it.

“Well, they got us wrong![…] I am a scientist, and I am going to fight for the scientists”

Open Access striden

Photo by Serious Cat - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License https://www.flickr.com/photos/9567466@N05 Created with Haiku Deck

Alicia Wise, Elsevier:”subscriptions and APCs er ”decoupled” […] librarians are keen to keep the term double dipping alive [it] provokes outrage – the kind of pressure the librarians need their negotaitaing partners to feel”

Photo by redspotted - Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License http://www.flickr.com/photos/44124393840@N01 Created with Haiku Deck

Top 5 key publishers Forlag – Journals - % af markedet

1. Elsevier - 2655 journals - 15,8 %2. Springer - 1759 j. - 10,5 %3. Wiley & Sons - 1484 j. - 8,8 %4. Taylor & Francis -1446 j. - 8,6 %5. Sage Publications - 580 j. - 3,4 %

Total ≈ 50 % dominans på markedet for videnskabelig tidsskriftspublicering

(Open Science Initiative Working Group, Mapping the Future of Scholarly Publishing, 1st edition. Seattle: National Science Communication Institute, January 2015)

Top 5 key players (licenser)

141 UK HEI tidsskriftsudgifter (total)

Udvikling (mio. £) : 2010 - 2014

1. Elsevier: 34,9 - 40,5 = 16 %

2. Springer: 7,26 - 8,45 = 16,5 %

3. Wiley & Sons: 13,35 - 16,7 = 25 %

4. Taylor & Francis: 8 - 10,3 = 29 %

5. Sage Publ.: 4,25 – 5,6 = 32, 5 %

Total stigning over 5 år: > 20 %

(Lawson & Meghreblian, 2014) http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1186832

Lawson S and Meghreblian B. Journal subscription expenditure of UK higher education institutions [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4v0] F1000Research 2014, 3:274 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.5706.2)

Case: Top 5 publishers (JISC - APC data fra 20 UK HEI)

UdgiverAntal APC 2014

Total andel af antal APC 2014 Indtægt 2014

% of total APC udgift i 2014

Elsevier 1049 17,30% £ 1.449.301 16, 0 %

Wiley 989 16,30% £ 1.606.031 17, 8 %

Springer 349 5,80% £ 579.630 6,4 %

T & F 311 5,10% £ 477.464 5,3 %

Sage 232 3,80% £ 89.298 1,0 %

TOTAL 48,30%46, 5 %

Björk & Solomon (2014): Developing an effective market for open access article processing charges. (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp055910.pdf )

Evidens fra Björk og Solomons undersøgelse: ”price is discouraging uptake of the hybrid option in contrast to the growth of the market for fully-OA journals”

Total Costs of Publication (TPC) = Total Subscription Costs + Total APC Costs

Vækst i APC betalinger 2007-2014 (23 UK HEI)

Pinfield, S., Salter J. & Bath, P.A. (2015): The ’total cost of publication ’ in a hybrid open- access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal APCs in combination with subscriptions, in: JASIST (In press). Preprint available: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/81227/

Det samlede økonomiske billede af licenseomkostninger og OA-publicering

Finch rapport (juni, 2012) – gylden OA anbefaling

90 % 10 %

Case: Top 5 publishers

1. Elsevier: 94 % - 6 %2. Wiley & Sons: 89 % - 11 %3. Springer: 94 % - 6 %4. T & F: 90 % - 10 %5. Nature Publishing Group: 85 %-15 %

Konklusion: Double dipping???Store ’traditionelle’ forlag høster stadigt største indtægter på både licenser + OA

Double dipping

“Double dipping arises if a publisher seeks an unwarrantable increase in revenues by levying article processing charges (APCs) for publication in a hybrid journal, while not providing a proportionate decrease in subscription costs”.

RLUK: Fair Prices for Article Processing Charges (APCs) in Hybrid Journals (nov. 2013) http://www.rluk.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/RLUK-stance-on-double-dipping-Final-November-2013.pdf

(when)

Photo by RobCottingham - Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License https://www.flickr.com/photos/46324394@N00 Created with Haiku Deck

DFFU bibliotekernes licensaftaler?

1. Aftalerne: forhandles nationalt for institutionerne via DEFF Licenser

2. Målsætningen: at skaffe mest mulig relevant akademisk information til forskere, undervisere og studerende - under de givne budgetmæssige rammer for institutionerne.

3. Adgangen til økonomiske data og statistikker samt aftalegrundlag for DEFF licens-forhandlinger med forlagene mulig via institutionelt login til licensdatabasen: (http://www.deff.dk/licenser/licensdatabasen/)

?

Photo by kenteegardin - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License https://www.flickr.com/photos/26373139@N08 Created with Haiku Deck

Hvordan ser TCP-situationen ud herhjemme?

Engelsk og dansk bacon er forskelligt og ikke helt kan sammenlignes i smag….

…MEN….og her følger en række spørgsmål om transparens, der involverer flere stakeholders:

1. Er der i DFFU-sektoren et økonomisk incitament til at få et overblik over denne?

2. Licensforhandling, administration og monitorering af gylden OA - hvordan kobler vi viden og data om disse aspekter sammen via DEFF og de lokale Open Access miljøer fremadrettet?

3. Hvordan informerer vi om de aftaler omkring gylden OA vi har (både Deff samt lokalt forhandlede), så alle OA aktører lokalt har adgang til denne viden?

Photo by TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³ - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License https://www.flickr.com/photos/36613169@N00 Created with Haiku Deck

Hvad er ’vores’ best case scenario?

• Ret til selvarkivering af artikler efter 6 mdr. (STEM) /12 mdr. (SSH) embargo på copy edited publisher’s version?

• Autoarkivering af hybride og rene OA artikler fra forlag i PURE?

• Konsortieforhandlede rabatter på APC samt refusion i licenspriser qua stigende OA optag?

• Transparens og adgang til APC data ifm. udgifter på HOA fra forlag til justering af abonnementspriser?

Open Access Licenser

COLLABRA – A new community centric OA journal model

collabraoa.org/how-it-works.php

Transparens i biblioteker Den lille mand VS. Swiss Academic Libraries

Crowdfunding projectHelp me to finance an appeal against the University of Geneva. The university should make their subscription fees to Elsevier, Springer and Wiley transparenthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQs3XXJWeOU

Photo by Joybot - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License https://www.flickr.com/photos/62559061@N06 Created with Haiku Deck

• 26.-27.3 – 6. DEFF Online konference 2015: tema om Open Access

• 14.-15.4 - MOA15: Mötesplats Open Access, Malmö Högskola

• 24.-26.6: LIBER 2015: Open Science, London, UK

• Uge 46 el. 47 i november 2015 – OA-netværkets temakonference, KU

2015: Åbenhed på dagsordenen

Returflow af transparent Open Science!

Photo by Horia Varlan - Creative Commons Attribution License http://www.flickr.com/photos/10361931@N06 Created with Haiku Deck