Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Danish National Strategy on Open AccessAnnounced 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
Open Access goal
2017
80%Published in 2016
2022
100%Published in 2021
To peer review scientific articles
The strategy: GREEN Open Access
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
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
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 LibraryRepresentives from the ministry:• Jonas Bak, Agency for Science and Innovation• Hanne-Louise Kirkegaard, Agency for Science and
Innovation
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/)
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
Vision
”To let the world know how Open Access to science is progressing”
Vision
”Measuring open access will effect behaviour towards more open access”
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
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.
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)
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.
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
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
The resultsMapping open access to Danish research 2011
Open Access baseline
• To peer review BFI-credit giving articles
11 %
Other types of Access
Delayed access
Hybrid Open Access
Some are greener than others
After Review
• Open Access to peer review articles
11 % 21 %
Open Access by type
Open access fordelt på grøn og gylden
1096; 8%
1632; 13%
10218; 79%
Golden (OA-journals)Green (parallelpublishing)Not-OA
Open Access potential
5556; 43%
7390; 57%
The total OA potential for BFI articles
NoYes
Unused OA-potential
5218; 71%
2172; 29%
Total unused OA-potential for BFI articles
Yes NoYes Yes
But take note! Sherpa/Romeo data
Total0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
blue; 674gray; 983
green; 8102
white; 1621
yellow; 3993
(blank); 1435
(blank)
yellow
white
green
gray
blue
University overview
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
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
OA Census
• Three use cases including• Pop in your ORCID and
get a report
• OA Hackaton 26-27 August 2013• http://ananelson.github
.io/oacensus/
The outcome of the National Open Access indicator working group
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
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
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/
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.
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.
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
Definition of Open Access potential
Total0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
blue; 674gray; 983
green; 8102
white; 1621
yellow; 3993
(blank); 1435
(blank)
yellow
white
green
gray
blue
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
Definition of data views
Three primary statistics1. Status of national Open Access implementation
(realised OA, unused OA-potential, unclear OA-potential)
2. A simpel status of realisation of OA-potential3. Open Access development over time (5-years)All presented for:
- Denmark in total- Per university- Per main research areas (hum, soc, sci, med)
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
diagram)
Version 1 of the OA-indicator
46National Styregruppe for Open Access, møde den 28. januar 2015
Version 1 of the OA-indicator
47National Styregruppe for Open Access, møde den 28. januar 2015
Version 1 of the OA-indicator
48National Styregruppe for Open Access, møde den 28. januar 2015
Version 1 of the OA-indicator
49National Styregruppe for Open Access, møde den 28. januar 2015
Version 1 of the OA-indicator
50National Styregruppe for Open Access, møde den 28. januar 2015
Version 1 – time plan estimates
51National Styregruppe for Open Access, møde den 28. januar 2015
Developement• Start in Q1-2015 in production Q1-2016Production• 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.
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 2016The working group made a rapport that stipulates some of the initial considerations of how a version two could look like.
@melbaek 53
@melbaek 54
@melbaek 55
@melbaek 56
@melbaek 57
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
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.
The compromise
?
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”
