1. (Where I get off telling you…) Where you should publish: Open access, NIH public access, and ‘Green’ Journals can affect journal article impact Jason Price PhD, Life Science Librarian Libraries of the Claremont Colleges Howard Hughes Medical Institute Summer Research Seminar Series Claremont Colleges, July 2006
14. Test of an alternative hypothesis Data from Lawrence Citation # (Impact) Within Venue (N = 1494) Top Venues (N = 20) Not freely available = 2.74 Freely Available = 7.03 Increase 157% = 336% = 158% = 286% = 284%
30. Self-Archiving: The green road 94% of 9300 journals processed allow Self-Archiving http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
31.
32.
33.
34.
35. Yes, I a want to self-archive As many as possible as soon as possible I would be interested in archiving my new articles as they come out I would willingly self-archive if my institution required it I object to the idea or work involved in self-archiving
Start with general defr’n and my motivation for OA advocacy Then present some data relating to AA & OAI in an attempt to stimulate your interest in OA After thoroughly convincing you that your past, present, and future articles should be freely available on the web, I’ll describe 4 roads to OA and touch on advantages & limitations of each
Knowing that prophets are LEAST welcome in their hometown, I want to assure you that:
Notice definition at article level– restricting to OA journals excludes what I think is the most important path to OA Price barrier is bulk of the problem, but permissions must go beyond fair use… For a work to be OA, the copyright holder must consent in advance to let users "copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship...." Bethesda & Berlin In practice OA is often used to refer to any freely available journal article that has been accepted for publication Delivery thru 2 venues: OAJ vs OAR: journals conduct peer review, archives do not (BUT…)
My passion for OA is based on the fundamentals The WORK of article production is borne by researchers who: The COSTS of article production are borne by Taxpayers who fund govt agencies Current and former students who support institutions through tuition & donation
“ Journal prices have risen four times faster than inflation since the mid-1980's, From 1990 to 2000 journal unit cost increased an average of 12.8% per year vs ~3.5% cpi Note that price increases began BEFORE the rise of the internet, but it is this technological advance that can allow the removal of price barriers that had already begun to develop. the purpose of OA is not to punish or undermine expensive journals, but to provide an accessible alternative and to take full advantage of the internet for widening distribution and reducing costs. Moreover, for researchers themselves, the overriding motivation is not to solve the journal pricing crisis but to deliver wider and easier access for readers and larger audience and impact for authors.”
Quick study of articles published by Claremont Faculty Dataset: 2006-1996 WOS abstracts of art, rev, lett that had a CC resident author (1156 in total) Determined accessibility of every 10 th article (ordered by pub date) 70% available throuh paid licenses, an additional 14% through OA 2% journal, 6% backfile, 6% repository Just 16% NA 3% because not online at all, and 13% not licensed (meaning available but not purchased) Conservative estimate of OA b/c if licensed, didn’t check Google Scholar or Google This though is a view of a community of researchers whose access is supported by a large endowment.
If we were to remove the 2/3 of our journal budget that comes from Seaver funds, our access would look more like this, which is more typical of smaller, younger liberal arts institutions. To say nothing of what unaffiliated people can’t access. No OA is a represents a much bigger chunk of the access So what I would like to see it the self archiving of the majority of claremont faculty papers grow to fill the access gap. More on that later… Now I’ll move from the importance of OA for ACCESSIBILITY by others to the related effects on the impact of your work OA may be slightly larger for ‘formerly’ licensed that are OA
Usually measured by the number of times cited Downloads – challenges of multiple locations President of blackwell
120000 computer science conference articles (formal papers Hi prestige 10% acceptance rate) X-axis is # of citations per paper (or impact category) y axis is percentage of the pool of articles in each impact category that were freely available online in 2001 Each data point represents a pool of 100 papers or more each cited within the range of times indicated on the x axis So of the 100 or more papers published in 89-90 that have been cited more than 64 times each, 34 % were freely available online, whereas less than 10% of those cited 4-7x were freely available Later lines higher on axis meets intuitive expectation that more recent articles have greater online availability “ clear correlation between the number of times an article is cited and the probability that the article is [freely available] online”
500 Physics and Math Journals indexed in WOS Figure 1. Open Access (OA) vs. Non-Open Access (non-OA) Citation Impact Comparisons for All (Physics/Mathematics) Fields. Gray curve is OA + non-OA = "Total Articles" per year (scale on right) Green bars are "OAP," the proportion OA/(OA + non-OA) of articles that have been made OA, by year. The red bars show the "OAA," the OA/non-OA citation advantage, per year, relative to an even ratio of 1/1 (100%) in the number of citations to articles appearing in the same journal and year (scale on left).
All articles in 4 math journals
HA : Papers from more prestigious conference papers get cited more, and are more likely to be freely available on line (leading to an apparent OAA) Based on same data, average citation numbers for all 120K articles… For all venues that had at least 5 FA and 5 NFA articles (about 1500), Lawrence calculated OAA by Ave the ave C# in each group, e.g. 2 v 4 =100% “ If we assume that articles published in the same venue are of similar quality, then the analysis by venue suggests that online articles are more highly cited because of their easier availability.” Because the assumption of similar quality is more likely to be true in the elite venues, an acid test this same calc in the most prestigious venues For the top 20 venues, this calc revealed a similarly large advantage (with a more normal distribution): Almost a 3 fold higher average citation rate for freely available articles
15000 journal articles in 13 journals published between Jan 1994 and July 2004 Journals with higher impact (2002 IF in paren) had a greater percentage of pdfs available on non-journal web sites Journal club effect? (wrote program to interface with google from pubmed recs)
Found higher rate of citation for OA papers at every sample date despite: Mere 6 month difference in availability period & testing citation status Y/N at 0-6mos, 4-10, and 10-16 mos. after publication Controlling for first and last author's lifetime publication count, first and last author's lifetime average citations per paper, number of days since publication (categorized), number of authors (categorized), country of the corresponding author (12 most common countries and “other”), funding type, subject area (14 most common subjects and “other”), and submission track. My main problem with this paper is its focus on the first citation, and within such a short period of time, as someone who has published articles in plant evolutionary ecology…
Chicken/egg: it is impossible to discriminate whether they are on the Internet because they are important, or whether they are highly cited because they are on the Internet Multiple copy – e.g. Elsevier Articles not indexed in scholar One significant way it can help: Links to full content from personal web pages
Medical Focus
Percentile rank –percent of journals in their category that they outrank PLOS bio listed 2x because in 2 categories (Bio general) and Biochem & Mol Bio where it beat out Nature Struct & Mol Bio and EMBO ) BMC Dev biol beat out Dev Biol and BMC Evol Bio beat out evolution Thus there are many ‘high impact’ OA journals
Advantages– long term free availability wider choice authoritative copy Limitations Delay to access Visibility to authors Affordability for Small Publishers
Road with a stick? Called public access b/c usually still under copyright—fair use only • Submitting a manuscript fulfills the grant requirement that all NIH-funded manuscripts be submitted to NIH.
Argument against: both large and small “ Do not oppose OA Publishing, only its premature and unwarranted imposition through government mandate” Relatively small list of supporters
Both the prior road (Govt-funded Archives) and the next road (institutional archives) require full text access from outside of traditional article databases This data on where people come from to access highwire journals suggests that we don’t have far to go, and WOS is adding an Inst. Repository collection
May be the most important slide in the lot When archived in a repository w/ OAI compliance & partnerships ensure Google indexing 94% of journals and 80% of publishers already permit author-initiated OA archiving . SUBER: “Since self-archiving is a bona fide form of OA, authors who fail to take advantage of the opportunity are actually a greater obstacle to OA than publishers who fail to offer the opportunity.” So instead of asking you to change where you publish, I am asking you to ADD to where you publish.
Top 22 Green publishers (By number of journals) Green publishers allow self-archiving of POST-Prints- Meaning post-peer review but usually PRE-copy editing (EXCEPTIONS)
All of the pale green pre-print only publishers Only allow pre-review MS, except nature oks postprint with 6mo embargo
Grey publishers none allowed or no statement of self-archiving policy
The impact of OA can also be assessed at the JOURNAL level, using impact factor Roughly 200 journals (and dated) Impact factor is the relative citation rate of the journals (in red) and immediacy index determines how rapidly articles are cited Percentile rank on x-axis indicates where journals fall within their category, so if bars of the same color were of equal height, there would be no diff between ISI ranked OA Journals from DOAJ, JSTAGE, and SciElo Early b/c many PLOS & BMC journals not yet ranked
![Outline ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()