PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research1 www.peerproject.eu - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research1 www.peerproject.eu

Description:

Publishing and the Ecology of European Research (PEER): A ground-breaking collaboration Julia Wallace, Project Manager, PEER British Library /ILIAC Open Access ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:148
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 32
Provided by: Julia215
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research1 www.peerproject.eu


1
Publishing 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

2
Why 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

3
Current Situation
  • Rapid growth of institutional repositories
  • Individual funding agency mandates
  • Publisher experimentation
  • Lack of agreement on evidence to date

4
Key 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

5
The 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
6
Purpose 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

7
Objectives
  • 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

8
Stakeholders 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

9
Project Organisation
10
PEER 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

11
Participating 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

12
Participating 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)

13
Research 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
14
PEER 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
15
PEER 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
16
Overall 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)

17
Technical 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/

18
Challenges 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
19
PEER- Content submission flowchart
20
Content submission - Authors
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European
Research 20 www.peerproject.eu
21
Research 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
22
Behavioural 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
23
Behavioural 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
24
Usage 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
25
Usage 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
26
Economic 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.

27
Where 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

28
Next 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

29
PEER - 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

30
PEER- 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

31
Thank you for your attention
  • Questions?
  • For further information visit
  • www.peerproject.eu
  • Or e-mail peer_at_stm-assoc.org
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com