Report on offset agreements: evaluating current Jisc Collections deals. Year 1 – evaluating 2015 deals

This report is the first of three annual evaluations of Jisc Collections offset agreements. The work has been sponsored by Jisc as part of the Jisc Collections Studentship Award at Birkbeck, University of London

Considering Non-Open Access Publication Charges in the "Total Cost of Publication"

Recent research has tried to calculate the "total cost of publication" in the British academic sector, bringing together the costs of journal subscriptions, the article processing charges (APCs) paid to publish open-access content, and the indirect costs of handling open-access mandates. This study adds an estimate for the other publication charges (predominantly page and colour charges) currently paid by research institutions, a significant element which has been neglected by recent studies. When these charges are included in the calculation, the total cost to institutions as of 2013/14 is around 18.5% over and above the cost of journal subscriptions—11% from APCs, 5.5% from indirect costs, and 2% from other publication charges. For the British academic sector as a whole, this represents a total cost of publication around £213 million against a conservatively estimated journal spend of £180 million, with non-APC publication charges representing around £3.6 million. A case study is presented to show that these costs may be unexpectedly high for individual institutions, depending on disciplinary focus. The feasibility of collecting this data on a widespread basis is discussed, along with the possibility of using it to inform future subscription negotiations with publisher

Report on offset agreements: evaluating current Jisc Collections deals. Year 1 – evaluating 2015 deals

This report is the first of three annual evaluations of Jisc Collections offset agreements

A ‘gold-centric’ implementation of open access: Hybrid journals, the ‘total cost of publication’ and policy development in the UK and beyond

This paper reports analysis of data from higher education institutions in the UK on their experience of the open-access (OA) publishing market working within a policy environment favouring ‘Gold’ OA (OA publishing in journals). It models the ‘total cost of publication’ – comprising costs of journal subscriptions, OA article-processing charges (APCs) and new administrative costs – for a sample of 24 institutions. APCs are shown to constitute 12% of the ‘total cost of publication’, APC administration, 1%, and subscriptions, 87% (for a sample of seven publishers). APC expenditure in institutions rose between 2012 and 2014 at the same time as rising subscription costs. There was disproportionately high take up of Gold options for Health and Life Sciences articles. APC prices paid varied widely, with a mean APC of £1,586 in 2014. ‘Hybrid’ options (subscription journals also offering OA for individual articles on payment of an APC) were considerably more expensive than fully-OA titles, but the data indicate a correlation between APC price and journal quality (as reflected in the citation rates of journals). The policy implications of these developments are explored particularly in relation to hybrid OA and potential of offsetting subscription and APC costs

Business process costs of implementing ‘gold’ and ‘green’ open access in institutional and national contexts

As open access (OA) publication of research outputs becomes increasingly common and is mandated by institutions and research funders, it is important to understand different aspects of the costs involved. This paper provides an early review of administrative costs incurred by universities in making research outputs OA, either via publication in journals (“Gold” OA), involving payment of article-processing charges (APCs), or via deposit in repositories (“Green” OA). Using data from 29 UK institutions, it finds that the administrative time, as well as the cost incurred by universities, to make an article OA using the Gold route is over 2.5 times higher than Green. Costs are then modeled at a national level using recent UK policy initiatives from Research Councils UK and the Higher Education Funding Councils' Research Excellence Framework as case studies. The study also demonstrates that the costs of complying with research funders' OA policies are considerably higher than where an OA publication is left entirely to authors' discretion. Key target areas for future efficiencies in the business processes are identified and potential cost savings calculated. The analysis is designed to inform ongoing policy development at the institutional and national levels

Evaluating UK offset agreements (2015–17)

This report is the final summary of a three-year evaluation of Jisc Collections offset agreements. The work has been sponsored by Jisc as part of the Jisc Collections Studentship Award at Birkbeck, University of London

Report on offset agreements: evaluating current Jisc Collections deals. Year 2 – evaluating 2016 deals

<p>This report is the second of three annual evaluations of Jisc Collections offset agreements.<br></p><p>The work has been sponsored by Jisc as part of the Jisc Collections Studentship Award at Birkbeck, University of London.</p

Datos abiertos de investigación. Camino recorrido y cuestiones pendientes

Los aspectos profesionales y técnicos de la gestión de datos de investigación han avanzado, sin embargo otras cuestiones necesitan ser investigadas, y más ahora en que los datos han de estar disponibles en abierto. Este trabajo efectúa una revisión bibliográfica y de sitios de web de referencia que permite identificar los últimos avances producidos y las tendencias de investigación en temas relacionados con los datos científicos. La publicación de datos en revistas, el estudio del comportamiento de los autores o los métodos para medir el impacto de los datos son aspectos que necesitan ser abordados con urgencia. El objetivo de este trabajo es resaltar los retos pendientes en este momento en que se está produciendo un cambio disruptivo en su intercambio, dada la cantidad de datos disponibles en abierto, reflexión que nos permitimos desde nuestra experiencia en este campo

Wirkungen von Open Access. Literaturstudie über empirische Arbeiten 2010-2021

Open Access – die freie Verfügbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Publikationen – bietet intuitiv viele Vorteile. Gleichzeitig existieren weiterhin Vorbehalte unter einigen Wissenschaftler:innen, Mitgliedern der Hochschulverwaltung, Verlagen und politischen Entscheidungsträger:innen. Im letzten Jahrzehnt sind viele empirische Studien zu den Wirkungen von Open Access erschienen. Der vorliegende Bericht liefert eine Übersicht über den Forschungsstand von 2010 bis 2021. Die berichteten empirischen Ergebnisse helfen dabei, die Vor- und Nachteile von Open Access zu bestimmen und dienen als Wissensbasis für Wissenschaftler: innen, Verlage, Institutionen und politische Entscheidungsträger:innen. Ein Überblick über den Wissensstand unterfüttert Entscheidungen zu Open-Access- und Publikationsstrategien. Zudem identifiziert dieser Bericht Aspekte von Open-Access-Wirkungen, die potenziell hohe Relevanz haben, aber noch nicht ausreichend untersucht wurden. Insgesamt können verschiedene Vorteile von Open Access beim jetzigen Forschungsstand als empirisch belegt bewertet werden. Dazu gehören ein verbesserter Wissenstransfer, erhöhte Publikationsgeschwindigkeit und die erhöhte Nutzung durch eine beruflich und geografisch diverse Leser:innenschaft. Zudem können einige vermutete negative Open-Access-Wirkungen – wie eine geringere Qualität von Publikationen und Nachteile beim Verkauf von Druckausgaben – als empirisch widerlegt betrachtet werden. Die empirischen Ergebnisse zu Open-Access-Wirkungen unterstützen daher das Ziel der weitgehenden Transformation zu Open Access, dem sich unter anderem die deutschen Wissenschaftsorganisationen verschrieben haben.Open Access - the free access to scientific publications - intuitively offers many advantages. At the same time, some scientists, members of university administration, publishers, and policymakers continue to have reservations against open access. In the last decade, numerous empirical studies on the effects of open access were conducted. This report provides an overview of the state of research from 2010 to 2021. The empirical findings presented help determine the advantages and disadvantages of open access and serve as a knowledge base for scholars, publishers, academic institutions, and policy makers. An overview of the state of knowledge informs decisions on open access and publishing strategies. In addition, this report identifies aspects of open-access effects that are potentially highly relevant but have not yet been adequately studied. Overall, various advantages of open access can be considered empirically confirmed at the current state of research. These advantages include improved knowledge transfer, increased speed of the publication process, and increased usage by a more diverse readership, both in terms of profession and location. In addition, some presumed negative effects - such as lower quality of publications and disadvantages in the sale of print editions - can be considered empirically refuted. The empirical results on effects of open-access publishing therefore support the goal of a far-reaching transformation to open access, to which the German science organisations, among others, have committed themselves