Title: PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research1 www.peerproject.eu
1Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
(PEER) A ground-breaking collaborationJulia
Wallace, Project Manager, PEERBritish Library
/ILIAC Open Access Seminar 30 November 2009
-
-
- Supported by the EC eContentplus programme
2Why is PEER needed?
- There is agreement between publishing and
research communities about the importance of
access to results of European funded research - But
- there is no consensus on the need for mandated
deposits or appropriate embargo periods - or the impact this may have on journals
3Current Situation
- Rapid growth of institutional repositories
- Individual funding agency mandates
- Publisher experimentation
- Lack of agreement on evidence to date
4Key Problems Issues
- Impact of systematically archiving stage-two
outputs (accepted manuscripts) is not clear - on journals and business models
- on wider ecology of scientific research
- Varying policies are confusing for authors and
readers - Lack of understanding and trust between
publishers and research community
5The three key stages of publication
Public Investment
Publisher Investment
Stage Three (NISO Version of Record)
Stage One (NISO Authors original)
Stage Two (NISO Accepted Manuscript)
Final published article on journal website
version of record with copyediting, typesetting,
full citability, cross-referencing, interlinking
with other articles, supplementary data
- Primary
- Outputs of
- Research
- raw data
- Draft for submission to a journal
Authors manuscript incorporating peer review
enhancements as accepted for publication
6Purpose of PEER
- PEER has been set up to monitor the effects of
systematic archiving of stage two research
outputs the version of the authors manuscript
accepted for publication (NISO - Accepted
Manuscript) - Publishers and research community collaborate
- Develop an observatory to monitor the impact of
systematically depositing stage-two outputs on a
large scale - Gather hard evidence to inform future policies
- Project duration September 2008 August 2011
- Project budget 4.2 million
7Objectives
- Determine how large-scale deposit of stage-two
outputs will affect journal viability - Determine whether it increases access
- Determine whether it affects the broader ecology
of European research - Determine the factors affecting readiness to
deposit and associated costs - Develop model(s) to show how traditional
publishing can coexist with self-archiving
8Stakeholders in scholarly communication
- Publishers
- Researchers authors and users
- Libraries and repositories
- Funding agencies
- All of the above stakeholder groups are
represented within PEER, both within the
consortium an advisory board
9Project Organisation
10PEER Consortium
- The PEER consortium (5 Executive members)
- International Association of Scientific,
Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) -
Co-ordinator - European Science Foundation (ESF)
- Göttingen State and University Library (UGOE)
- Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG)
- Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et
en Automatique (INRIA) - Plus technical partners SURF Universität
Bielefeld
11Participating Publishers
- BMJ Publishing Group
- Cambridge University Press
- EDP Sciences
- Elsevier
- IOP Publishing
- Nature Publishing Group
- Oxford University Press
- Portland Press
- Sage Publications
- Springer
- Taylor Francis Group
- Wiley-Blackwell
12Participating Repositories
- eSciDoc.PubMan, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur
Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. (MPG) - HAL, CNRS Institut National de Recherche en
Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA) - Göttingen State and University Library (UGOE)
- BiPrints, Universität Bielefeld (UNIBI)
- Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania
- University Library of Debrecen, Hungary
- Plus Koninklijke Bibliotheek (preservation)
13Research Oversight Group (ROG)
- Justus Haucap, University of DuesseldorfChair
German Monopolies Commission - Henk Moed, Leiden UniversityRecipient Derek de
Solla Price Award - Carol Tenopir, University of TennesseeRecipient
International Information Industry Lifetime
Achievement Award
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European
Research 13 www.peerproject.eu
14PEER Advisory Board (1)
- Funders
- Dr Johannes Fournier, DFG, Germany
- Mr Robert Kiley, Wellcome Trust, UK
- Professor Ebba Nexo, Aarhus Universitetshospital,
Denmark - Dr Donald J Waters, Mellon Foundation, USA
- Librarians
- Dr Paul Ayris, University College London, UK
- Dr Elisabeth Niggemann, Deutsche
Nationalbibliothek, Germany - Dr Sijbolt Noorda, VSNU, The Netherlands
- Drs. Bas Savenije, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The
Netherlands
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European
Research 14 www.peerproject.eu
15PEER Advisory Board (2)
- Researchers
- Dr Elea Gimenez-Toledo, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
- Professor Jane Grimson, Trinity College, Dublin,
Ireland - Professor Norbert Kroo, Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, Hungary - Professor Michel Mareschal, L'Université libre de
Bruxelles, Belgium - Publishers
- Mr Mayur Amin, Elsevier, UK
- Ms Stella Dutton, BMJ Group, UK
- Cliff Morgan, Wiley-Blackwell, UK
- Mr John Ochs, ACS, USA
- Wim van der Stelt, Springer SBM, The Netherlands
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European
Research 15 www.peerproject.eu
16Overall Approach - Observatory
- Publishers contribute up to 500 journals (242
plus a control group 200) across 4 broad
subject areas Medicine, Life Sciences, Physical
Sciences and Social Sciences Humanities - Rigorous journal selection process followed
validated by research teams - Maximise deposit and access within participating
EU repositories - 50 publisher-assisted deposit
- 50 author self-archiving
- Collaborate with DRIVER to involve repositories
- Commission research from independent research
teams to assess impact behavioural,
access/usage (and economic)
17Technical outcomes
- Report on the provision of usage data and
manuscript deposit procedures for publishers and
repository managers (available from PEER website) - Full text format PDFA-1/ PDF
- Mandatory metadata fields (from DRIVER) - XML
- SWORD protocol for ingest by repositories (Simple
Web-Service Offering Repository Deposit)
http//www.swordapp.org/
18Challenges faced
- Non uniformity of publisher outputs
- Varying requirements by repositories
- EU filtering of content
- Embargo management for author deposits
- Author authentication for deposit
- Non uniformity of log files
- Inclusion of retained stage-2 content from
publishers
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European
Research 18 www.peerproject.eu
19PEER- Content submission flowchart
20Content submission - Authors
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European
Research 20 www.peerproject.eu
21Research in PEER
- Behavioural research Authors and Users vis-à-vis
Journals and Repositories - Usage research Journals and Repositories
- Economic research
- Open tendering process
- Expert Research Oversight Group (ROG) appointed
- Contribute to Invitation to Tender documents
- Assess tenders received and advise PEER Executive
- Advise on final research questions approach
- Validate research throughout the project
- any potential conflicts of interest declared
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European
Research 21 www.peerproject.eu
22Behavioural research team objectives
- Department of Information Science and LISU at
Loughborough University, UK - Objectives
- Track trends and explain patterns of author
and user behaviour in the context of so called
Green Open Access. - Understand the role repositories play for
authors in the context of journal publishing. - Understand the role repositories play for users
in context of accessing journal articles.
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European
Research 22 www.peerproject.eu
23Behavioural research questions (Examples)
- In seeking information what choices do readers
make in locating and selecting sources and in
what ways do such choices influence the role
played by repositories in information seeking
behaviours? - In publishing research, what choices do authors
make in locating and selecting appropriate
outlets, and what are the major influences on
their choices? Where do repositories fit in the
dissemination landscape? - What common perceptions do readers have in
relation to repositories, e.g. quality, authority
of versions, and availability, and how do such
perceptions influence information behaviours?
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European
Research 23 www.peerproject.eu
24Usage research team objectives
- CIBER group, University College London, UK
- Objectives
- Determine usage trends at publishers and
repositories - Understand source and nature of use of deposited
manuscripts in repositories - Track trends, develop indicators and explain
patterns of usage for repositories and journals.
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European
Research 24 www.peerproject.eu
25Usage research questions (Examples)
- Commercial impact of self-archiving
- Will the usage of publisher stage III articles
increase, decrease or remain constant over the
period of the experiment and to what extent can
this be attributed to repository use and access?
- Effects of embargoes
- Will repository stage II manuscripts with an
embargo receive less use (and how much less use)
that those without an embargo? - New and different users
- Does the experiment result in the use of articles
by groups who might otherwise be not able to
access them? - Different, complementary use
- Whether repositories and publisher platforms
offer different things to readers
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European
Research 25 www.peerproject.eu
26Economic Research
- The Objectives of the economics research
- Investigate the cost of the large-scale deposit
of stage-two research outputs (including the
economic efficiency or cost of the process of
deposit). - Understand the costs incurred by participating
publishers and repositories (of the PEER
Project). - Understand and compare access costs at journals
and repositories. - Understand, principally, for the deposit of
so-called Stage 2 manuscripts the costs. - Analyze the overall effects of large-scale
deposit (Green OA) on the economics of scholarly
communication.
27Where are we now?
- Most publishers validated feeding PEER Depot
- Author submission invitations to commence 1
December 2009 - Usage research team have reviewed the observatory
framework - Behavioural baseline study will be publicly
available soon
28Next steps
- Inclusion of publisher back-file content
- Ingest by repositories following expiration of
embargo periods - Provision of logfiles for usage research (from
publisher platforms and repositories) - Select research team commence Economic research
- Prepare for second round of behavioural research
29PEER - Measuring Success
- Critical success factors
- Observatory collects sufficient reliable data to
draw conclusions - Stakeholders use the evidence gathered
- Success indicators therefore focus on
- Underlying data provided to the observatory
- Success at communicating results
- Not what the observatory measures, e.g. user
uptake
30PEER- Expected Results
- Greater understanding of the effects of
large-scale deposit in OA repositories - Evidence to inform future policies
- Model(s) illustrating how to maximise the
benefits of traditional publishing and archiving - Trust and mutual understanding between publisher
and research communities
31Thank you for your attention
- Questions?
- For further information visit
- www.peerproject.eu
- Or e-mail peer_at_stm-assoc.org