Open Access Barometer to Open Access Indicator: lessons learned from the journey from idea, to a prototype to become instrumental for the Danish Open Access strategy
Download as PPTX, PDF6 likes4,397 views
The document outlines Denmark's national strategy on open access, aiming for 80% of published scientific articles to be open access by 2017 and 100% by 2022. It describes the establishment of an open access indicator to monitor the implementation of this strategy, detailing the methodologies used for data collection and analysis to improve open access. The document also discusses outcomes from a working group that analyzed publication types, metadata, and potential future developments for the open access indicator system.
Open Access Barometer to Open Access Indicator: lessons learned from the journey from idea, to a prototype to become instrumental for the Danish Open Access strategy
- 1. From Open Access Barometer to a national OA indicator Mikael K. Elbæk Senior Project Officer Office for Bibliometrics and Data Management Technical University of Denmark @melbaek
- 2. Danish National Strategy on Open Access Announced on European Science Open Forum (ESOF) in Copenhagen 24th of June 2014. By Minister for Higher Education and Science Sofie Carsten Nielsen Photo: NordForsk/Terje Heiestad
- 3. Open Access goal 2017 80% Published in 2016 2022 100% Published in 2021 To peer review scientific articles
- 4. The strategy: GREEN Open Access
- 5. GREEN Open Access • No additional cost i.e. no hybrid open access • Negotiation with publishers • Establishment of a national Open Access indicator • An OA-publishing service for Danish Journals Zdeněk Chalupský
- 6. The Open Access indicator • Working group established by the Ministry of Higher Education and Science • With the task to specify the development of an Open Access indicator • In relation to the National Danish Research Database. • An indicator that can monitor the implementation of the national Open Access Strategy
- 7. The working group • Mogens Sandfær, Technical University of Denmark (chairman) • Mikael K. Elbæk, Technical University of Denmark • Anne Sandfær, Roskilde University • Bertil F. Dorch, University of Southern Denmark • Birte Christensen-Dalsgaard, The Royal Library Representives from the ministry: • Jonas Bak, Agency for Science and Innovation • Hanne-Louise Kirkegaard, Agency for Science and Innovation
- 8. In accordance with the mandate • The exsisting network of CRIS/research databases (PURE) • The national exchange format DDF-MXD • Harvest to the National Danish Research Database • Include the DEFF project of renewing the National Research Database • Include the result of the DEFF pilot project for a Danish Open Access Barometer (http://www.deff.dk/aktuelt/artikel/dansk-open- access-barometer/)
- 9. A manometer on a steam-engine. Manufactured by Söderströms gjuteri- och mek. verkstads A.-B. in Norrköping, Sweden. Photo: Zaphod Februari 6, 2005. Danish Open Access Barometer – a pilot project
- 10. Vision ”To let the world know how Open Access to science is progressing”
- 11. Vision ”Measuring open access will effect behaviour towards more open access”
- 12. This Image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 030506-N-5862D-128 "If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.” Lord Kelvin
- 13. Strategy • Utilize available data sources • To visualize the (current) state of Open Access • To demonstrate relevant and interesting data views i.e. comparing and showing trends • To make a user-friendly tool that can give incentives to move Open Access forward • Create methods and software to repeat the process again and again.
- 14. Platform • Data: • BFI (latest dataset 2011) • Danish National Research Database (for links to full texts) • SHERPA/ROMEO (for potential) • DOAJ.org for OA-journals • Review (to complement machine data)
- 15. Bibliometric Research Indicator • Or just BFI • B for Bibliometric • F for Forskning = research • I for Indicator • Funding allocation model based on points given to institutions based on publishing in • A number for “expert” selected publication channels: journals and selected publishers for books • A common data model, all institutions have focus on providing as correct and full data as possible, because it is used for the allocation of funds.
- 17. Demarcation of data • The data set from BFI was 38.672 • We limited to publications that has relevance to the research funders OA-policies, i.e.: • Peer reviewed research articles, including • Peer reviewed artilces in conference proceedings. • Result 16.808 records • Peer reviewed BFI-credit giving articles alone 12.808 records
- 18. Two parallel tracks Mapping of Open Access 2011 • Collecting data from authoritative sources • Review result, and get additions from universities • Analyse results • Produce report • Distribute for stakeholders and decision makers A report Prototyping an OA Barometer • Use data from authoritative sources • Automate data collection • To enable repetition on a frequent basis • Identify wanted and possible features • Create prototype • Present results to stakeholders • Document lessons learnt at use for the next gen of the National research database A web site
- 19. The results Mapping open access to Danish research 2011
- 20. Open Access baseline • To peer review BFI-credit giving articles 11 %
- 21. Other types of Access
- 22. Delayed access
- 24. Some are greener than others
- 25. After Review • Open Access to peer review articles 11 % 21 %
- 26. Open Access by type 1096, 8% 1632, 13% 10218, 79% Golden (OA-journals) Green (parallelpublishing) Not-OA
- 27. Open Access potential 5556, 43% 7390, 57% The total OA potential for BFI articles No Yes
- 28. Unused OA-potential 5218, 71% 2172, 29% Total unused OA-potential for BFI articles Yes No Yes Yes
- 29. But take note! Sherpa/Romeo data blue, 674 gray, 983 green, 8102 white, 1621 yellow, 3993 (blank), 1435 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total (blank) yellow white green gray blue
- 32. Perspectives • Open Access metadata / vocabularies • What kind of Open Access (other types of access) • Identification of these OA-types • Dates / embargoes • Licenses • Payments (what, when and who?) • ORCID – to identify researchers • FundRef and unique IDs for grants – to identify grants and links to output
- 33. Publishing the data • How open can we make the data? • Basically we are not doing anything that a kid with some Phyton skills could do in a day or two! • We wish to be as OPEN as possible
- 34. OA Census • Three use cases including • Pop in your ORCID and get a report • OA Hackaton 26-27 August 2013 • http://ananelson.githu b.io/oacensus/
- 35. The outcome of the National Open Access indicator working group
- 36. Outcome • Overview of international experience, trends and standards • Analysis of the national technical and data infrastructure including local (registration) practices • Possible national statistics and presentation of these • Specification fo the technical solution, budget and timeplan estimates
- 37. Main discussion points • Definition of publication types to be measured • Definition of what time stamp to be used • Definition of what way Open Access can be provided • Definition of Open Access potential • Definition of data views
- 38. Definition of publication types to be measured • Should conference contributions in proceedings or book series (anthologies) be included • Final definition: • ”Scientific articles and conference contributions in journals and proceedings with ISSN”. • Close to the UK REF definition • post-2014 REF ” The requirement applies only to journal articles and conference proceedings with an International Standard Serial Number” : http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/201407/
- 39. Definition of what time stamp to be used • Report (to BFI) year or Publication year or more granular dates • Report year was chosen after an analysis for historical data showing that 94,9% of Report Year = Publication year • The benefit is that it enables the Open Access indicator to correlated with the BFI = reuse of deduplication service and/or analysis of BFI data.
- 40. Definition of what way Open Access can be provided • Definition in the strategy is that Open Access shall be provided by deposit to a repository. • First result was: Articles deposited to local repository = Pure CRIS Articles deposited to external subject based repositories, on a authoritative list i.e. PubMed, ArXiv.org etc.
- 41. Definition of what way Open Access can be provided • Questions was raised whether metadata descriptions of publications published in OA- journals should be included • Result was: An add-on to the original proposal to validate articles published in journals was accpeted by the ministry: Listed in DOAJ Listed in the BFI authority lists – to ensure scientific credibility
- 42. Definition of Open Access potential blue, 674 gray, 983 green, 8102 white, 1621 yellow, 3993 (blank), 1435 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Total (blank) yellow white green gray blue
- 43. Definition of Open Access potential • In the DEFF OA-barometer pilot project the ‘green’ category alone was used as the indicator for OA- potential • However this will produce false-negatives • Commissioned a survey of the actual potential • SHERPA/RoMEO categories: • Green = OA • Blue = OA Potential • Yellow ≈ likely OA Potential • White ≠ not likely to have OA Potential • Expected to include “Yellow” in the calculation of OA- potential
- 44. Definition of data views Three primary statistics 1. Status of national Open Access implementation (realised OA, unused OA-potential, unclear OA- potential) 2. A simpel status of realisation of OA-potential 3. Open Access development over time (5-years) All presented for: - Denmark in total - Per university - Per main research areas (hum, soc, sci, med)
- 45. Overview of the Architecture 45 ☑ OAI-PMH harvest ☑ DDF-MXD (national exchange format – with extension) ☑ Import BFI data ☑ Import SHERPA/RoMEO ☑ Interface based on RoR Blacklight suit ✰ DOAJ.org (not on the
- 46. Version 1 of the OA-indicator 46 National Styregruppe for Open Access, møde den 28. januar 2015
- 47. Version 1 of the OA-indicator 47 National Styregruppe for Open Access, møde den 28. januar 2015
- 48. Version 1 of the OA-indicator 48 National Styregruppe for Open Access, møde den 28. januar 2015
- 49. Version 1 of the OA-indicator 49 National Styregruppe for Open Access, møde den 28. januar 2015
- 50. Version 1 of the OA-indicator 50 National Styregruppe for Open Access, møde den 28. januar 2015
- 51. Version 1 – time plan estimates 51 National Styregruppe for Open Access, møde den 28. januar 2015 Developement • Start in Q1-2015 in production Q1-2016 Production • Q1-2016: First (pilot)calculation for for report year 2014 • Q1-2017: Calculation of report year 2015 • Q1-2018: Calculation of report year 2016 • Q1-2019: Calculation of report year 2017 • etc.
- 52. Version 2 – proposal? 52 Working group recommends : • That a project will be initiated to analyze and make the specification for a version 2 of the Open Access Indicator • To be initated after the first version has been launched in the beginning of 2016 The working group made a rapport that stipulates some of the initial considerations of how a version two could look like.
- 53. 53
- 54. 54
- 55. 55
- 56. 56
- 57. 57
- 58. Lessons learned • Policies are reflected in the definitions and workflows that will be agreed upon = they are inclined to have local/national quirks • Existing infrastructures will have a huge impact on the national solutions • When you start to measure some people will most certainly ask for more • Statistics for gender/generation analysis • Statistics for licensing negotiation • Getting better and more data costs ressources/money! • When politics and finance gets involved • When monitoring Open Access becomes a political issue in becomes a compromise / an art of the possible
- 59. Things we want • Getting national licensing information into SHERPA/RoMEO • Discussion is started (ongoing) with SHERPA • Open metadata from publishers • Fuldtexts from publishers • B2B relations between publishers and universities that would meet marked standard i.e. financial sector, travel sector ect.
- 60. The compromise ?
- 61. Some publishers are actually thinking of this http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf “4th edition of the STM report on scholarly publishing”