Publishing Open Access isn’t the End of the Story
1 like1,455 views
The document discusses the rise of open access (OA) publishing and its implications for research visibility, citation rates, and compliance with funder mandates. It highlights various studies examining the impact of OA on citations, noting mixed results across disciplines, particularly in archaeology. Additionally, it emphasizes OA's potential to reach diverse audiences and accelerate publication timelines, while also addressing concerns regarding the speed and capacity of traditional publishing in the field.
Publishing Open Access isn’t the End of the Story
- 1. Publishing Open Access isn’t the end of the story Rachel Young Maney Publishing r.young@maneypublishing.com
- 3. Enormous increase in OA publishing Source poeticeconomics.com
- 5. Ethics • Research on public assets and/or community cultural heritage/identity • Research has an impact on public policy • Research publicly funded • Results of use to diverse, non-academic audiences
- 6. Public understanding of archaeology • Huge, committed avocational audience • Many and diverse interest groups and local societies globally
- 7. Funder mandates • Acceptable embargo period • Acceptable licence • Funds for Gold OA? • If so, any publication limits (within funded period?)
- 8. Visibility to colleagues • Research consensus • HTML downloads increase, around 2 -2.5 times • PDF downloads from the journal increase too, but by a lesser factor
- 9. Increase citation • But historically the evidence for Open Access increasing citations has been mixed.. • Looking at key, frequently cited studies..
- 10. Nature Publishing Group and RIN (2014) • 2008 articles in Nature Communications • Launch in 2010 to 1st July 2013 • Biological sciences, chemistry, earth sciences, physics • 38% of papers published open access, highest proportion biosci • ‘Slightly’ higher citations in all disciplines except chemistry • BUT median no. cites increased by 4 (medians ranged between 2-11) • Launch/commissioning effect • Quality differences between OA and non-OA papers?
- 11. Eysenbach PLoS Biology (2006) • PNAS articles Jul-Dec 2004 • Study controlled for author profile, circumstances, location and discipline • OA articles twice more likely to be cited 4-10 months after publication.
- 12. Other literature observing an increase in citations • Walker Nature web focus (2004) • Antelman College and Research Libraries (2004) • Harnad and Brody D-Lib 10 (2004) • Norris et al. J Am Soc for Info. Sci. and Techn. (2008)
- 13. Conversely..
- 14. Gaulé & Maystre (2011) Research Policy • Looked at OA and non-OA articles published in PNAS • Optional OA fee $1000 • Observed no significant increase in citations for OA articles • BUT • Very widely subscribed journal • Green OA embargo only 6 months
- 15. Phil Davies, The FASEB Journal (2011) • Large randomised study making some articles OA • Jan 2007 – Feb 2008 • 20 science and 16 social sciences journals • Variety of publishers but all on Highwire • 3245 articles of which 712 made OA • HTML downloads doubled in the first year of free access and PDF downloads increased by 63% • Increase in breadth of readership (unique IP addresses) • No increase in citations or reduction of time to first citation
- 16. Why no research consensus? • Most academic articles published for highly specialised audience in well-defined niche • Many studies could not check for self-selection of articles • Academic social networking less well developed at time studies were made • Citation differences between STM and HSS not always taken into consideration • Studies conducted in early days of open access, when OA channels were fewer and less diverse
- 17. Archaeology lends itself to OA publishing
- 18. • Archaeology has unique breadth of discipline • Employs theory and methods from many different subjects • Multiscalar • Diverse audiences, including professional and avocational audience who do not have university library access
- 19. • Top archaeology journals stuffed with papers, slowing down publishing times • Some parts of the scientific archaeology community have very different expectations of publishing speed • For molecular geneticists 6 weeks to publish from acceptance is normal
- 20. So what can OA publishing bring you? • Green and gold • Visibility • Breadth of audience • Impact – if in right journal and promoted by you • Compliance with your funders mandates
- 21. Gold OA funds – that’ll do nicely sir.. • Appropriate scope and quality • A relatively high impact vehicle (REF etc.) • Sophisticated online platforms with good search visibility • Swift peer review, possibly innovative • Developmental review and editing • Rapid publication • Automated repository deposition • Article promotion • Tools to self-promote
- 22. Relatively high impact publication.. Impact factors 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 PLOS One Journal of Archaeological Science American Antiquity Antiquity Impact factors Data from Thomson Reuters JCR
- 23. Archaeology is a relatively low impact subject 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Nature Science PLOS One BMC Biology PNAS Journal of Archaeological Science American Antiquity Antiquity Impact factors Data from Thomson Reuters JCR
- 24. Plenty of space! 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Nature Science eLife PLOS One BMC Biology PNAS Journal of Archaeological Science American Antiquity Antiquity No. citable articles published Data from Thomson Reuters JCR
- 25. What will the future bring? • Fees for incremental services • Increase in academic ‘partner’ OA journals • OA as a service to members