1. Monitoring the transition to open access in the UK Stephen Pinfield & Michael Jubb Based on a report by Michael Jubb, Stephane Goldstein, Mayur Amin, Andrew Plume, Stephanie Oeben, M’Hamed Aisati, Stephen Pinfield, Peter Bath, Jennifer Salter, Rob Johnson, & Mattia Fosci

2. New Report Jubb, M., et al. (2015). Monitoring the transition to open access: A report for the Universities UK Open Access Co-ordination Group. London: Research Information Network. Available at: http://www.researchinfonet.org/OAmonitoring 2

3. Background Report of outcomes of a working group investigating indicators of OA take up in the UK, recommending indicators on: Accessibility: –“the numbers – and the proportions of the overall totals – of all articles…that are accessible free of charge” from different types of OA (fully-OA journals, hybrid journals, repositories etc). Availability of OA options: –from publishers, particularly in terms of compliance with funder requirements Usage: –levels of use of OA materials from different sources Financial sustainability: –expenditure on APCs and subscriptions by institutions, –impact of different business models on key stakeholders RIN. (2014). Monitoring progress towards open access in the UK. London: Research Information Network. Retrieved from http://www.researchinfonet.org/monitoring-progress- towards-open-access-in-the-uk / 3

4. Research: Overview Research took place January to June 2015 Aim: to establish an authoritative baseline from which trends can be ascertained in subsequent studies Strands and report sections: 1.OA options available to authors – led by RIN 2.Authors’ take-up of OA options – led by Elsevier 3.Usage of OA and non-OA articles – led by RIN 4.Financial sustainability: universities – led by Sheffield 5.Financial sustainability: learned societies – led by Research Consulting All partners involved in research design and interpretation 4

5. Main Data Sources Scopus Public websites e.g. –publishers’ sites Data provided by various stakeholders e.g. –Usage data provided by publishers and repositories –APC data provided by universities –Subscription data provided by universities Financial returns of learned societies Publicly available directories e.g. –DOAJ –SHERPA RoMEO 5

6. Headline Results Strong growth in availability of OA options for authors Strong growth in take-up of OA: –UK authors ahead of world averages, particularly in take-up of the OA option in hybrid journals, and posting of articles on websites, repositories etc Universities’ expenditure on article processing charges (APCs) has increased –now represents a significant proportion of their total expenditure on journals It is too early to assess the extent of any impact of OA on learned societies’ finances 6

7. OA Publishing Options Available to Authors 7 Journal publishing models: global publications Journal publishing models: ‘UK publications’ i.e. those in which UK authors published Data source: Scopus

8. OA Options Available to Authors: Summary Just under 17% of journals in the world, and 13% of those in which UK authors published, were fully-OA (Gold charging an APC, or Gold with no APC) 49% of journals in the world, and 64% of those in which UK authors published, followed the hybrid model (though authors did not necessarily take up the OA option) ‘Delayed OA’ journals (providing access on the publisher’s site after an embargo period) constituted over 2% of journals globally, and nearly 4% of those in which UK authors published In total, just under two-thirds of journals globally provided an OA option, and just over one-third were subscription-only More than three-quarters of the journals used by UK authors offered an OA option, with less than a quarter operating subscription-only Subscription-only journals fell between 2012 and 2014 both in numbers and as a proportion of all journals, with the fall particularly marked among those in which UK authors publish 8 Data source: Scopus

9. APCs and Other Charges Levels of APCs vary widely Only a small minority of fully-OA journals charge more than £2000 ($3090) Below that level there is wide variation between both journals and publishers – with no discernible pattern Majority of hybrid journals charge between £1000 and £2000 ($1545-$3090) Only small minorities charging either less than £1000 or more than £2000 ($1545-$3090) Sometimes additional fees (e.g. page and colour charges) can add significantly to all the costs 9 Data sources: Publisher web sites, DOAJ, SHERPA RoMEO

10. Posting Policies and Embargoes Posting (or deposit) policies for subscription articles are complex Details are often difficult to interpret (or even find) Policies are often modified in relation to funder requirements In general, policies are more permissive for preprints and authors accepted manuscripts than for version of record Four-fifths of journals allow the posting of AAM’s on personal websites with embargoes of 0-6 months Policies are progressively more restrictive for posting in IRs, subject repositories etc 10 Data sources: Publisher web sites, DOAJ, SHERPA RoMEO

11. Authors’ Take-up of OA Options At a global level: 19% of articles OA immediately: 23% OA by 6 months, 29% OA by 12 months 34% OA by 24 months For published by UK authors, the proportions were higher: 22% OA immediately 28% OA by 6 months 38% OA by 12 months 43% OA by 24 months For articles published in the last two years 11 Data source: Scopus, repositories and other web sources

12. Publishing Models Articles made OA immediately accounted for 17% of global articles in 2014, compared with 14% in 2012 In the UK it was 13% in 2012 and 18% in 2014 UK hybrid journal take-up was 2½ times the world average Take-up was highest in Health and Life Sciences 12 Data source: Scopus and other web sources

13. Postings Versions of 19% of papers published globally 2012-14 and 23% of UK papers have been posted online and are accessible An estimated 36% of all postings are not in accordance with journal policies Online postings by subject area also show Health and Life Sciences to be highest 13 Global postings UK postings Postings by REF (Research Excellence Framework) panel: Panel A: Health and Life Sciences Panel B: Science and Engineering Panel C: Social Sciences Panel D: Arts and Humanities Data source: Scopus, repositories and other web sources

14. Usage of OA and Non-OA Articles Data from publisher platforms indicates downloads of OA articles are generally higher but patterns of usage vary hugely Downloads from IRs in the UK are skewed towards a small number of popular articles and journals Downloads from IRs are dwarfed by usage of major subject repositories especially PMC Usage data cannot easily be obtained from services such as ResearchGate There is an urgent need for article-level usage data to be made more generally and openly available across publishers, repositories and other services 14 Data sources: Data provided by publishers and repositories

15. Financial Sustainability: Universities Centrally-managed APC expenditure has risen more than six-fold since 2012 Payments reflect complexities in the APC market with variable pricing, discounts, additional charges etc APC payments varied from between £0 to £4536 ($0-$7009) with a mean of £1586 ($2450) Hybrid journal APCs were considerably more expensive than others There was a correlation between APC price and citation rates of journals Most payments were made for articles in the Health and Life Sciences and to large commercial publishers 15 Data source: APC data provided by 24 universities (some publicly accessible)

16. Variation in APC Costs Range of APCs paid by a sample of 24 UK universities, the top 10 publishers by APCs paid 16 Data source: APC data provided by 24 universities (some publicly accessible)

17. Universities’ Total Expenditure on Journals For a sample of 24 universities and seven major publishers, APCs now constitute 12% of universities total expenditure on journals with 1% for administration of APCs, and 87% for subscriptions 17 Data source: APC data provided by universities (some publicly accessible), publicly- available subscription data and admin costs based on Johnson, Pinfield, & Fosci (2015)

18. Financial Sustainability: Learned Societies Nearly 280 learned societies in the UK publish journals with revenues of £318m deriving from publishing (26% of total revenues) Most societies (63%) publish a single journal but 22% publish three or more 24% of societies publishing on their own account of the majority make use of publishing partners Proportions of total revenues derived from publishing vary widely Levels of surplus and deficit from publishing also vary widely Publishers financial accounts do not yet reflect any evidence of the impact of open access policies from e.g. RCUK 18 Data source: Learned society financial accounts

19. Headline Results Strong growth in availability of OA options for authors Strong growth in take-up of OA: –UK authors ahead of world averages, particularly in take-up of the OA option in hybrid journals, and posting of articles on websites, repositories etc Universities’ expenditure on article processing charges (APCs) has increased –now represents a significant proportion of their total expenditure on journals It is too early to assess the extent of any impact of OA on learned societies’ finances 19

20. Jubb, M., et al. (2015). Monitoring the transition to open access: A report for the Universities UK Open Access Co-ordination Group. London: Research Information Network. Available at: http://www.researchinfonet.org/OAmonitoring With thanks to: The authors: Michael Jubb, Stephane Goldstein, Mayur Amin, Andrew Plume, Stephanie Oeben, M’Hamed Aisati, Stephen Pinfield, Peter Bath, Jennifer Salter, Rob Johnson, & Mattia Fosci The sponsors: Universities UK The oversight group: UUK Open Access Co-ordination Group 20