Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Open Access: Academics' Beliefs and Behaviours Willow Fuchs RSP, RCS Centre for Research Communications University of Nottingham RSP Autumn School 9 th.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Open Access: Academics' Beliefs and Behaviours Willow Fuchs RSP, RCS Centre for Research Communications University of Nottingham RSP Autumn School 9 th."— Presentation transcript:

1 Open Access: Academics' Beliefs and Behaviours Willow Fuchs RSP, RCS Centre for Research Communications University of Nottingham RSP Autumn School 9 th November, 2011

2 Support for the idea or concept of OA

3 A significant majority of respondents supported the idea of OA journals. 74.11% of 1,062 respondents thought that OA journals were a good idea (Morris & Thorn, 2009)

4

5 But their is a lack of action

6 Björk, Roos, & Lauri (2008) 1 350 000 articles published in 2006 Estimated 4.6 % of these openly available on the web in primary OA journals (gold OA). A further 3.5 % were available after an embargo period = gold OA 8.1% Additional available from repositories or homepages = green OA 11.3 % Combining these two figures = 19.4 % of yearly output can be accessed freely.

7 Björk, Welling, Laakso, Majlender, Hedlund, & Guðnason (2010) Of articles published in 2008, estimated 8.5% were freely available at the publishers' sites (62% in full OA journals, 14% in subscription journals making their electronic versions free after a delay, and 24% as individually open articles in otherwise subscription journals.) = gold OA 8.5% Additional freely available, found through search engine (43% in subject-based repositories, 24% in institutional repositories, 33% on the home pages of authors / departments = green OA 11.9% Combining these two figures = 20.4 % of yearly output can be accessed freely.

8 Björk, Welling, Laakso, Majlender, Hedlund, & Guðnason (2010)

9 Research Communications Strategy (RCS) Analysis of Chemists & Economists publishing behaviour 11 institutions Together these 2 groups (518 Research Active) had only 1647 publications in their institutional repositories = 150 per institution = 3 per academic

10 Why the inertia?

11 RCS Survey of Chemists and Economists

12 11 institutions Bath, Bristol, East Anglia, Imperial, Leicester, LSE, Manchester, Manchester Met, Nottingham, Southampton, Sussex >700 sent survey 130 responded Questions about Knowledge of OA Why the DO or DO NOT make their work OA RCS Survey of Chemists and Economists

13 Does your institution have a repository?

14 Does your institution have an OA policy or mandate?

15 Does your funder have an OA policy or mandate?

16

17 Have you made any of your work openly accessible by the following means: ChemistsEconomists Institutional repository 27%50% Personal website 16%58% Departmental website 16%56% Fully open access journal 22%17% Have not made any of my work open access 27%4% Subject repository 6%25% Open access option from traditional journal 79%6% Other method 6%10%

18 Have you made any of your work openly accessible by the following means: ChemistsEconomists Institutional repository 27%50% Personal website 16%58% Departmental website 16%56% Fully open access journal 22%17% Have not made any of my work open access 27%4% Subject repository 6%25% Open access option from traditional journal 79%6% Other method 6%10%

19

20 When you DO make your work open access, what are your reasons? (Those agreeing/strongly agreeing) ChemistsEconomists It improves accessibility to my work 67%96% The results of publicly-funded research should be publicly… 65%78% It increases the amount of publicity my work receives 52%89% It helps me to get information out more quickly 50%80% It helps me to make contact with potential collaborators 37%58% It can result in a citation advantage 33%60% It results in professional recognition 26%70% It results in academic reward 13%44%

21 When you DO make your work open access, what are your reasons? (Those agreeing/strongly agreeing) ChemistsEconomists It improves accessibility to my work 67%96% The results of publicly-funded research should be publicly… 65%78% It increases the amount of publicity my work receives 52%89% It helps me to get information out more quickly 50%80% It helps me to make contact with potential collaborators 37%58% It can result in a citation advantage 33%60% It results in professional recognition 26%70% It results in academic reward 13%44%

22

23 When you DO NOT make your work open access, what are your reasons? (agreeing/strongly agreeing) ChemistsEconomists I need to publish in high impact journals 93%80% It is too expensive 59%40% I am concerned about the PR process for OA journals 52%24% I am concerned about publishers legal rights 33%44% I have concerns about copyright 34%40% I am concerned about plagiarism 33%24% I do not know much about OA 27%36% It takes too much time/effort 28% It is just not a concern of mine 31%20%

24 When you DO NOT make your work open access, what are your reasons? (agreeing/strongly agreeing) ChemistsEconomists I need to publish in high impact journals 93%80% It is too expensive 59%40% I am concerned about the PR process for OA journals 52%24% I am concerned about publishers legal rights 33%44% I have concerns about copyright 34%40% I am concerned about plagiarism 33%24% I do not know much about OA 27%36% It takes too much time/effort 28% It is just not a concern of mine 31%20%

25

26 If you were to make your work OA in the future, by what method would you likely do so: ChemistsEconomists Institutional repository 51%60% Fully open access journal 40% Personal website 28%48% Departmental website 22%60% Open access option from traditional journal 31%28% Subject repository 9%44% No plans to make any of my work open access 15%0% Don't know 12%4% Other method 4%0%

27 If you were to make your work OA in the future, by what method would you likely do so: ChemistsEconomists Institutional repository 51%60% Fully open access journal 40% Personal website 28%48% Departmental website 22%60% Open access option from traditional journal 31%28% Subject repository 9%44% No plans to make any of my work open access 15%0% Don't know 12%4% Other method 4%0%

28

29 What if anything could encourage you to make your work OA in the future: ChemistsEconomists A standard of practice 59%80% Institutional support for fee payment 65%60% Recognition for OA within academic evaluation 44%56% Reassurance about copyright 43%2% Institutional support for depositing material 31%44% Download statistics 28% A funder mandate 31%20% An institutional mandate 25%24% More information about OA 18%32% Integration of institutional repository with others 24%16%

30 What if anything could encourage you to make your work OA in the future: ChemistsEconomists A standard of practice 59%80% Institutional support for fee payment 65%60% Recognition for OA within academic evaluation 44%56% Reassurance about copyright 43%2% Institutional support for depositing material 31%44% Download statistics 28% A funder mandate 31%20% An institutional mandate 25%24% More information about OA 18%32% Integration of institutional repository with others 24%16%

31 Further Exploration Consultants: Seb Schmoller, David Jennings, Nicky Ferguson Chemists and Economists Interviews and focus groups Report available at: http://crc.nottingham.ac.uk/projects/rcs/C hemists&EconomistsViews_on_OA.pdf http://crc.nottingham.ac.uk/projects/rcs/C hemists&EconomistsViews_on_OA.pdf

32 Key issues identified Where to publish Access Repositories Mandates Advocacy

33 Recommendations?

34 Recommendations Changes to incentive frameworks Funder participation REF changes / reemphasis Advocacy – Academics – PVCs Research / Research Directors – Policy makers

35 Questions?

36 Should we be concerned about academics putting articles up on personal and departmental websites? How do we convince academics to put things in repositories instead? Or should we? Are you knowledgeable and supportive of Open Access generally, or just repositories? (both?) What should we be advocating? Openness or deposit? Something else?

37 References Bo-Christer Björk, Annikki Roos, and Mari Lauri. (2008). Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different Open Access options, preprint of a paper presented at ElPub 2008, Open Scholarship: Authority, Community and Sustainability in the Age of Web 2.0 (Toronto, June 25-27, 2008). Global annual volume of peer reviewed scholarly articles and the share available via different Open Access optionsOpen Scholarship: Authority, Community and Sustainability in the Age of Web 2.0 Bo-Christer Björk, Patrik Welling, Mikael Laakso, Peter Majlender, Turid Hedlund, Guðni Guðnason. (2010). Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009, PLoS ONE.Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009 Sally Morris, Sue Thorn. (2009). Learned society members and open access. Learned Publishing, Volume 22, Number 3, July 2009, pp. 221-239. Learned Publishing Seb Schmoller, Steve Davies, Nicky Ferguson. (2011). Further Exploration of the Views of Chemists and Economists on OA Issues in the UK. http://crc.nottingham.ac.uk/projects/rcs/Chemists&EconomistsViews_on_OA.pdf

38 Image credits Slide 1: biblioteekje. (2009). Open Access promomateriaal. http://www.flickr.com/photos/biblioteekje/3992172265/biblioteekje http://www.flickr.com/photos/biblioteekje/3992172265/ Slide 2: Microsoft Office photos. MP900321177. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ Slide 5: Microsoft Office photos. Businessman walking indoors. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ Slide 10: Microsoft Office photos. Group of business people. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ Slide 11-12, 33-34: Microsoft Office photos. Pen checkmark three boxes. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ Slide 13-15: Microsoft Office photos. Stacked boxes. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/ http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/

39

40 http://www.rsp.ac.uk/ Advocacy Survey

41 21 institutions Abertay, Birbeck, Bolton, Bournemouth, Brunel, Hull, Leeds Met, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Loughborough, Middlesex, Northampton, Oxford, Oxford Brookes, Queen Margaret, Reading, Salford, School of Oriental & African Studies, St Andrews, Warwick, University of the West of England >1600 responded Questions asked: Feelings about OA Deposit practice Copyright, post-prints Advocacy Survey http://www.rsp.ac.uk/

42

43

44 Interesting Comments Lack of knowledge / understanding Concerns about quality of OA Journals Lack of OA Journals Concerns about REF / recognition of OA Journals Concerns about cost

45 Abertay, (963 – 26% full text) = 250 Birbeck, 3464 (22% full text) = 762 Bolton, 496 (66% full text) = 327 Bournemouth, 12743 (15% full text) = 1911 Brunel, 5205 (100%) = 5205 Hull, 4275 (100%) But not all Open Access Leeds Met, 1644 (20%) = 329 London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine,(??%) Loughborough, 8265 (100%) But not all Open Access Middlesex, 6679 (20%) = 1336 Northampton, 2829 (3%) = 85 Oxford, (??) Oxford Brookes, 483 (30%) Queen Margaret, (63%) Reading, (25%) Salford, (40%) School of Oriental & African Studies, (10%) St Andrews, (100%) Warwick, (100%) University of the West of England (10%)


Download ppt "Open Access: Academics' Beliefs and Behaviours Willow Fuchs RSP, RCS Centre for Research Communications University of Nottingham RSP Autumn School 9 th."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google