Open Access: Pie in the Sky?Panel: Mid-Atlantic Chapter of MLA

Annual MeetingOctober 14, 2004 - Raleigh, NC

Brigid Hogan, PhD, Chair, Department of Cell Biology, Duke University Medical Center

Wallace McClendon, MLIS, Associate Director of Library Services, Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Linda Watson, MLS, Associate Dean and Director, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, University of Virginia

2

Open Access in Context• Increased capabilities of technology (our users are

comfortable with it and expect it)– Efficiency and convenience of online resources– Full text searching, data mining, linking– Interdisciplinary sharing– Progress made through open Human Genome Project

BUT• Providing access to users becomes difficult

– Rising journal costs and pricing structures– Licensing and copyright/fair use issues– Concerns about archives

• Faculty who create the content and serve as peer reviewers have largely been shielded from the issues (by librarians), so education now becomes critical

3

What is Open Access?

• Open access literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.

• Open access removes price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) and permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions).

• Several similar definitions (the 3 B’s): Budapest, Bethesda, Berlin – major difference is whether open access includes

measures to assure long-term preservation – Bethesda does

4

Hybrid Models Developing

• Free access after “embargo period” • Free access to selected audiences (HINARI)• Lancet – some articles immediately free access • PubMed Central individual articles – Varmus

Science article• DC Principles on Access to the Scientific

Literature (a coalition of professional society journals published by Highwire) – “Free Access to Science”

5

Open Access Chronology• arXiv: 1991 physics preprint service founded by Paul Ginsparg • Stevan Harnad: 1994 suggests that researchers self-archive their

papers on the Internet• E-biomed: first attempt in 1999 by NIH’s Harold Varmus to include

both peer-reviewed and pre-prints submitted directly by authors or journals; immediately and freely available

• PubMedCentral in 2000: current NIH digital archive of established journals; peer-reviewed only; embargo possible for recent work

• BioMed Central: UK publisher; pay for publication, not access• Sabo “Public Access to Science” bill introduced summer 2003• Public Library of Science: PLoS Biology launched October 13, 2003;

PLoS Medicine launched October 19, 2004• Major Funders (Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Wellcome

Trust) agree to earmark grant funds for author fees for open access publishing

• NIH Policy Proposal (Sept 3, 2004): all final, peer-reviewed manuscripts of NIH-funded research deposited in PMC within 6 months

Open Access Science Journals:Open Access Science Journals:A view from the workbench of a A view from the workbench of a

cell biologistcell biologist

Brigid Hogan, PhD

Open Access Science Journals:Open Access Science Journals:A view from the workbench of a cell biologistA view from the workbench of a cell biologist

True Open access journals that we publish in: PLoS Biology; PLoS Medicine; Journal of Biology; Other BioMedCentral journals

Open access if author pays a fee:Development; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

8

• There is an increasing need to quickly survey large amounts of published data, for example reports on the function of genes that one has uncovered in a microarray experiment. This is almost entirely done “on-line”, and often from home. It is very frustrating not to be able to access papers because the medical center does not have a subscription allowing on-line access.• Why doesn’t the medical center have on-line access, even to high profile Cell press journals ? Just too expensive!• For teaching, important to be able to freely copy and distribute up-to-date primary research reports, figures and movies.• Important to know that data will be archived responsibly, particularly now that journals are providing more and more data as “supplemental”.

Some reasons basic scientists support Open Access

9

• If DUMC can’t afford the journals what about smaller universities and poorer countries?

• While some journals are run by scientific societies or by publishers who give donations to scientific societies, there is a sense that some publishers are making very large profits based on work paid for by the tax-payer and done by the scientists.

Sense of “Social Justice”

10

Often-overlooked fact relevant to the question of whether it is fair that authors should pay for publishing in an Open Access journal:

Publishing a paper in a scientific journal such as The EMBO Journal or Genes and Development can cost $1,500 -2,000 in page charges, color figures, and reprints. This cost comes out of NIH grants

A Relevant Fact

11

• Paper is likely to be peer-reviewed to a very high standard in a timely manner.• Knowledgeable editorial staff will facilitate the peer-review.• Paper will be widely distributed and will garner prestige if published in certain “high profile” journals. This may be important for building a reputation for innovative and cuttingedge research.• Reasonable assumption that the work will be archived responsibly

What are the benefits of publishing in a “regular journal”

12

What are the benefits of supporting a “not-for profit” journal that makes papers open access after 6 months?

• Publishers support scientific societies, meetings and young people. Examples:

Development (Company of Biologists); Developmental Biology (Elsevier)

•In some cases, authors can pay a supplement to have their paper “open access” immediately

Benefits

13

How can these journals be profitable and still be Open Access”?

An Open Question!

The Hospital Librarian and Scholarly Communication

Wallace McClendon

Open Access: Academic Library and National Perspectives

Mid-Atlantic Chapter of MLA - Annual Meeting

October 14, 2004 - Raleigh, NC

Linda Watson, MLSAssociate Dean and Director

Open Access: Pie in the Sky?

16

Promoting Open Access

• As a social good: removing barriers to access will enhance research, patient care, education and the public’s need for quality information.

• Not necessarily as a cost saver for libraries or their institutions, at least in the short term.

• We should explore all promising new models for scholarly communication in partnership with the other key stakeholders.

17

Promoting Open Access

• Libraries/Universities invest in institutional memberships to BioMed Central– Currently 452 members in 39 countries; 136 from US– Permits all authors to submit articles without $525 author fee– Provides a concrete mechanism to promote the concept of Open

Access; BMC has excellent advocacy materials on their site– Institutional site licensing model transitioning in 2005 and 2006

to payment based on research articles submitted, with intent to encourage funders (not libraries) to pay the fees.

• PLoS begins memberships in 2004• Librarians work with faculty to understand the issues and

promote the concept of OA; many challenges• OA is not a panacea; business model is untested

18

On the National Scene…

• In addition to educating our constituencies and presenting our case locally, librarians have a responsibility to become fully informed, understand all perspectives and participate in the national dialog.

Scholarly Communication Committee

19

MLA and Open Access

• MLA Scholarly Publishing TF established January 2004; Pat Thibodeau, Chair

• Participate with other professional associations and alliances– Joint Legislative TF (with AAHSL)– Open Access Working Group

• JMLA good publishing practices – on PMC

• Support for NIH Proposed Plan - invited to a stakeholder meeting by Dr. Zerhouni

20

21

AAHSL and Open Access

• Scholarly Communication Committee, Linda Watson, Chair

• Participate with other professional associations and alliances– Joint Legislative TF (with AAHSL)– Open Access Working Group

• Support for NIH Proposed Plan – invited to a stakeholder meeting by Dr. Zerhouni

22

AAHSL Work with AAMC

• Through AAHSL representation on the Council of Academic Societies

• A "Study of the Journal Publishing and Copyright Practices and Policies of AAMC Council of Academic Societies Member Societies" (94 societies, 100 journals)

• Preliminary report at MLA 2004 (poster)

23

What Can We Do as Individuals?

• Examine our own professional publishing practices – lead by example– do we try and favor open-access venues?

• New Biomedical Digital Libraries on BMC

– do we negotiate for sole or joint copyright?

• Stay informed: educate ourselves, our faculty and administration about the issues

• Serve on journal and other advisory boards• Support alternative publishing models• Respond to “Calls to Action”

24

What Can We Do as Individuals?

• Provide comments to NIH on their proposed policy to require peer-reviewed manuscripts deposited in PMC http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html

• November 16, 2004 deadline

• This is a critical step in the right direction

25

Enhanced Public Access to NIH Research Information

• Authors to deposit final accepted peer-reviewed manuscript in PMC

• PMC will make public six months after journal publication unless journal permits sooner

• Estimated to cover about 60,000 articles per year (about 12% of annual MEDLINE)

• Journals encouraged to substitute final copy-edited PDF for manuscript version

• Important support so far: MLA, AAHSL, OAWG, National Academy of Sciences, Association of American Universities; more to come

• Many journal publishers oppose

26

Take Action NOW!

• Provide comments to NIH on their proposed policy to require peer-reviewed manuscripts deposited in PMC http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html

• November 16, 2004 deadline

• This is a critical step in the right direction

27

Selected Resources(many more found on MLANET and ARL)

• MLANET www.mlanet.org/resources/publish/pub_resources.html• ARL www.arl.org/scomm/index.html• PubMed Central www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov• BioMed Central www.biomedcentral.com• Public Library of Science www.plos.org• Directory of Open Access Journals www.doaj.org• Open Society Institute www. soros.org/openaccess• SPARC Open Access Newsletter

www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html• Bethesda Open Access Statement

www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm• DC Principles www.dcprinciples.org/• Alliance for Taxpayer Access www.taxpayeraccess.org/