Unveiling the Future of Open Access Journals: PEER Project Analysis

1. PEERing into the FutureJournals, Self-Archiving &The European Commission-Funded PEER Project Michael A Mabe Chief Executive Officer, STM, & Visiting Professor, Information Science University College London

2. $64,000 Question • Will journals be harmed by systematic free availability of their articles through repositories? • Even if it is not the final version? • Even if there is an embargo period?

3. Publication Stages Model Public Investment Publisher Investment Stage One Stage Two Stage Three • Primary • Outputs of • Research: • raw data • Draft for submission to a journal Author’s draft incorporating peer review enhancements and imprimatur of journal Final published article on journal website: version of record with copyediting, typesetting, full citability, cross-referencing, interlinking with other articles, supplementary data

4. Open Access Experimentation Systematic, mandatory, imposed embargo periods of six to twelve months without any compensation

5. Chemistry Life Sciences Life Sciences – Rapid usage imprint Mathematics Six months Soc Sci 28% Maths 34% Chem 36% Life Rapid 50% Health Sciences Physics Social Sciences Delayed OA: Issues Twelve months Soc Sci 36% Maths 40% Chem 44% Life Rapid 60% Eighteen months Soc Sci 42% Maths 46% Chem 50% Life Rapid 68% Cumulative percent of lifetime full text downloads Years since publication Source: ScienceDirect

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

7. Purpose of PEERPublishing & the Ecology of European Research • 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Consortium • STM • European Science Foundation (ESF) • Goettingen State and University Library (UGOE) • Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG) • Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA)

11. Overall Approach • Publishers contribute 300 journals (and a control group) • Maximise deposit and access within 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

12. Content • Participating publishers collectively volunteer 300 journals • Selection criteria • European content – 20% or greater • Quality – good quality, but reflecting a range by impact factor • Subject – wide range • Publishers set embargo periods appropriate for journal

13. Content

14. Publishers at October 2008 • BMJ Publishing Group • Elsevier • IOP Publishing • Nature Publishing Group • Oxford University Press • Portland Press • Sage Publications • Springer • Taylor & Francis Group • Wiley-Blackwell

15. Awareness & Dissemination • Covered by WP8 led by UGOE • Objectives • Raise awareness of PEER among stakeholders • Communicate project results widely • Engage stakeholders – stimulate discussion and debate, explore issues • Encourage stakeholders to use the evidence to inform future policies • Agree a dissemination plan at start of project

16. Techniques • Project web site – wiki, linked to DRIVER • Engage Advisory Board • Presentations at major conferences • Schedule workshops or seminars as satellite events at major conferences • End of project conference

17. Project Organisation

18. Project Organisation • Executive • Advisory Board • Expert groups • Research oversight group • Repositories task force • Publisher group • Author/user group • Work package leaders

19. Project Timetable • September 2008: project launched • November 2008: issue RFPs for behavioural and usage research • December 2008: establish website and blog • January/February 2009: procedures issued to publishers and repositories for manuscript deposit and logfile harvesting • March 2009: sign contracts for behavioural research; repositories begin receiving content from publishers and authors • April 2009: sign contract for usage research; begin harvesting logfiles from repositories • August 2009: complete behavioural research baseline study • December 2009: sign contract for economic research • March 2010: complete economic research • January 2011: complete behavioural research follow-up study • January 2011: complete usage research • March 2011: collate results of research • May 2011: develop preliminary model • July 2011: develop final model on traditional publishing and archiving • August 2011: project completion conference