Wellcome peer review report

Copyright Wellcome Trust CC BY 2.0

Copyright Research Information Network

A Wellcome Trust commissioned report centred around the issue of peer review was published last month. The report, conducted by the Research Information Network, sets out a detailed analysis of peer review, the critiques, and the new alternative systems for peer review that have appeared in recent years.

The report defines traditional peer review as 'the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly manuscript to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field’ (p.6) These experts must assess whether the research is of sufficient quality to be included in the journal. Many journals also require reviewers to assess the originality and significance of research, however it is worth noting that some open access mega-journals such as PLOS ONE and Collabra do not require this.

The report details many of the criticisms commonly made of peer review. One criticism is that peer review is not effective at weeding out unsound research. The report makes mention of the fact that retraction rates have increased in recent years, although the volume of retractions is a very small proportion of the 2 million papers published each year globally. Another criticism mentioned in the report is the burden faced by reviewers, the vast majority of whom are unpaid. Research suggests that around 3 million papers are submitted for review each year, and many are submitted and reviewed more than once. This represents a significant burden on reviewers, half of whom spend more than 6 hours on each review (see our recent blog post on the new journal Collabra that compensates reviewers by paying them a proportion of APC income). Other criticisms include potential for bias, expense, delays, and the potential for subversive behaviour.

Given the criticisms and the potential new avenues afforded by new digital technologies there have been many experiments with alternative forms of peer review. To take one example, open review sees both author's and reviewer's names disclosed from the outset (for example BMJ and PeerJ) and is designed to encourage constructive comments and avoid overly harsh reviews. Journals such as Frontiers (see previous blog post here) have expanded on this idea and introduced an interactive communication element to their open review process.

After investigating the various forms of peer-review the report concludes that peer review "remains a bedrock of the scholarly communications system", but reflects that there is likely to be increasing pressure on traditional peer review systems as the rate and volume of scholarly communication increases. It is this continuing pressure that will ensure experimentation with new forms of peer review will continue with cooperation between research and publishing communities:

'[W]e detect a sense in which while publishers will continue to explore new approaches in the ways we have described, they would welcome more guidance from key sections of the research community on the kinds of peer review services they want from publishers, and on the purposes that they should seek to fulfil. Unless the purposes are defined with greater clarity than they are at present, at least some of the current experimentation may prove to be of little point.' Scholarly Communication and Peer Review: The Current Landscape and Future Trends, p.30. CC BY

The full report, Scholarly Communication and Peer Review: The Current Landscape and Future Trends, can be found here.

Why Open Access Really Matters

Wondering why your funder has an open access policy? Trying to decide if that hybrid open access journal is for you? Come and hear the expert view on open access:

‘Why Open Access Really Matters: A Discussion with Professor Stuart Shieber.’ Old Library (School of Psychology), University of St Andrews,
Thursday 5 June, 9.30-10.30 am



Stuart M Shieber is Professor of Computer Science at Harvard and Faculty Director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication.

Open Access to research outputs is a way of scholarly publishing which began as a philosophical and moral choice for academic authors, but has become – at least in the UK – an increasingly stringent requirement of research funding by Research Councils, funders like the Wellcome Trust, and now the Funding Councils as they look ahead to the next REF.

Stuart Shieber is Professor of Computer Science at Harvard and Faculty Director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication. He is an academic author who has been involved with the Open Access movement for many years, and is an acknowledged expert and blogger on the subject.  Come and hear him give his views and answer questions on the future of Open Access and the development of Harvard’s open access policies in a conversation with University Librarian John MacColl.

Tea and coffee provided.

See the University Events page for more information

Open Access opportunities from a Learned Society and a Cheeky Monkey

It's obvious that Open Access is becoming ever more mainstream when one of the world’s oldest and most reputable publishers is broadening its open access opportunities. Following quickly after the launch of their first purely open access journal Open Biology in 2011, the Royal Society have now announced that they will be launching their second. The new open access journal Royal Society Open Science will cover the entire range of science and mathematics and aims to publish work without the length and scope restrictions observed by more traditional journals. What is of particular interest is that the publishing model aims to offer open peer review as an option, will offer open access to data, implement article level metrics and offer researchers the opportunity to add post-publication comments.

In contrast to the historic Royal Society is the relatively youthful PeerJ, an open access publisher that has invented one of the most daring and innovative open access business models in years. PeerJ uses a model which differs enormously from the major open-access publishers in that the publication fees are levied not per article but per publishing author and at minimal cost.

PeerJ's 'Cheeky Monkey' mascot

Essentially, an author is charged a one-time membership fee that allows them to publish in the journal for the rest of their life. Authors are charged $99 to publish one paper a year, $199 for two papers a year and $299 for unlimited publications per year. Submitted research is judged solely on scientific and methodological soundness and there is a facility to view peer reviews alongside published papers. The PeerJ model is proving increasingly popular with researchers and was judged 'Publishing Innovation' of 2013 by the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers.

The good news is that St Andrews is currently offering its researchers support to publish open access with these two very distinctive publishers. The Library has recently renewed its Open Access membership with Royal Society Publishing and this will continue to give University St Andrews authors a 25% discount on standard article processing charges. Open access charges for Open Biology and Royal Society Open Science are waived by the publishers for an initial period.

We have also initiated a PeerJ Basic Plan for St Andrews authors. The Library will support the cost of individual membership for grant funded and non-funded researchers. The Basic Plan will allow individual authors to publish one peer-reviewed publication per year for life. A quick reminder as well (see recent blog post) that PeerJ are offering a free submission period for authors until 31 March 2014.

For further information contact open-access-support@st-andrews.ac.uk

St Andrews journal becomes member of Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association

The Journal of Terrorism Research has just become a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). JTR is  published by the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at University of St Andrews and hosted by University of St Andrews Library Journal Hosting Service.

OASPA was established to represent the interests of Open Access (OA) publishers globally in all scholarly disciplines. It does this through 'exchanging information, setting standards, advancing models, advocacy, education, and the promotion of innovation'. The organisation has just announced standards for 'legitimate journals' and the criteria for membership of OASPA. The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing includes expectations for peer review and governing bodies:

1. Peer review process: All of a journal’s content, apart from any editorial material that is clearly marked as such, shall be subjected to peer review. Peer review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers expert in the field who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff. This process, as well as any policies related to the journal’s peer review procedures, shall be clearly described on the journal’s Web site.
2. Governing Body: Journals shall have editorial boards or other governing bodies whose members are recognized experts in the subject areas included within the journal’s scope. The full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors shall be provided on the journal’s Web site.

See the OASPA blog for further details

See the latest issue of Journal of Terrorism Research

Mission statement on quality-assured OA research publishing system

The Max Planck Society has presented a draft mission statement in support of the continuing growth of open access.

Ten years since the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities was written, the Max Planck Society hosted the Berlin Open Access Conference (#Berlin11), 19-20 Nov 2013. These conferences have taken place annually, and have been dedicated to support adoption of the Berlin Declaration principles. During Berlin 11, the new mission statement was announced "in order to exploit the innovative and transformational potential of OA", and includes this call:

We call on the signatories of the Berlin Declaration and on all other organisations that perform or support scholarly research to:

1. increase the support for and interoperability of OA repositories for scholarly materials, while reducing and where possible eliminating embargoes, and improving the ability to re-use works;
2. support new and innovative OA publishing models that meet the highest possible scholarly standards, and invest into a publication infrastructure optimised for the needs of research and scholarship; and
3. cooperate with one another to ensure a smooth transition to a stable and functioning, truly open scholarly publishing system, including access to scholarly source and cultural heritage data, where the full text of every research work is open immediately upon publication.

It also urges a strategy that should address standards, quality, stability and a coordinated transition, and concludes:

We believe that a stable, competitive, and quality-assured OA research publishing system offers immense benefits not only to scholarship but also to society as a whole. Scholarly publishing is a global activity, and organisations that perform and support research, particularly those using public money, have a responsibility to work together globally to realise these benefits. It is time to return control of scholarly publishing to the scholars.

See the full Mission Statement at the Berlin 11 Open Access Conference of the Max Planck Society

University of St Andrews Open Access Policy

To coincide with Open Access Week 2014, the University of St Andrews has published a position statement on open access. John MacColl, University Librarian & Director of Library Services introduces the new Open Access Policy:

Open Access to scholarly outputs is one of the key challenges for those of us working in research institutions at the present time. Researchers want to have their words read, their data presented and their ideas disseminated. The machinery which makes this happen is complex, necessarily involving businesses, funders, library customers and web-based content providers. What is a reasonable price to pay for research dissemination, and at what point in the transaction chain between reviewers accepting an output for publication and the world getting sight of it is it fair to say that the work has been paid for and can now be made open? Which model best suits different academic disciplines with varying cultures of confidentiality and review? Despite the significant difficulties in finding a way to balance the multiple interests involved, the UK has sought to face up to these challenges in order to arrive at systems of open access which are economically viable and provide for public good and the advancement of knowledge. With research funding now being utilised to develop the Open Access agenda, it is important for us to have a shared vision as an academic community on the means as well as the ends of the publication of research by this University. Our new Open Access Policy provides a statement of that shared vision.

The University of St Andrews Open Access Policy states:

Our preference in respect of publishing in journals is for Open Access by means of the Green route.[...] To achieve Green Open Access compliance, researchers should record their publications in PURE at the time of acceptance, and deposit a postprint in the University’s repository via PURE - or in another appropriate repository.

We also support ‘Gold’ Open Access which usually involves paying Article Processing Charges to publishers of Open Access journals. [...] The Library administers Open Access publication funds which are available to academic authors in certain cases where Article Processing Charges require to be paid.

The policy also encourages academic authors to "consider Open Access publication of monographs where possible".

See the full policy at http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/library/services/researchsupport/openaccess/oapolicy/ [print version]

Open Access support and further information is available from the Library webpages and from the Open Access Support team

'Open Access' now open access

Essential reference book Open Access, by Peter Suber, is now available in multiple open access formats from MIT Press:

In this concise introduction, Peter Suber tells us what open access is and isn’t, how it benefits authors and readers of research, how we pay for it, how it avoids copyright problems, how it has moved from the periphery to the mainstream, and what its future may hold. Distilling a decade of Suber’s influential writing and thinking about open access, this is the indispensable book on the subject for researchers, librarians, administrators, funders, publishers, and policy makers.

Peter Suber is  Director of the Office for Scholarly Communication Office at Harvard, Director of the Harvard Open Access Project, a Faculty Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and Senior Researcher at SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition). He is widely considered the de facto leader of the worldwide open access movement.

The book continues to be available in paperback, and is now freely available in ePUB, Mobi, PDF and HTML from http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access

The humanities and open access: opportunities and challenges

It is now a week since the main event hosted by the University of St Andrews Library for Open Access Week: The humanities and open access: opportunities and challenges, and we have had time to reflect on some very interesting presentations and discussions. The keynote address and Q and A session from Professor Gary Hall are now available on YouTube, and a summary of the rest of the day follows.

12:10 Starting the open access journey - why choose open access?Dr Chris Jones (Director of Research, School of English, University of St Andrews) Chris has wide research interests in poetry, especially that of the Anglo-Saxon period and the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. 
Chris started off by giving us his perspectives on open access self-archiving. He remembers being intrigued, though 'a little scared', at the idea of striking out the clause on copyright assignment in his early publishing career. He now finds that more publishers will give permission to deposit in a repository. He is concerned about the authority of published work being accepted when it is open access (he acknowledges the REF may be seen as the ‘problem’ here) but he has also learnt that good metadata and the possibility to add coversheets to author versions ensures that definitive versions can be cited.

12:20 'Why open access is important for the humanities, the University, everyone...'Professor Gary Hall (coventry University and open humanities Press) Gary Hall is Professor of Media and Performing Arts and Director of the Centre for Disruptive Media at Coventry University, UK. He is author of Culture in Bits (Continuum, 2002) and Digitize This Book!: The Politics of New Media, or Why We Need Open Access Now (Minnesota UP, 2008).In 1999 he co-founded the open access journal Culture Machine, which was early champion of OA in the humanities. In 2006 he co-founded Open Humanities Press (OHP), the first OA press dedicated to contemporary critical and cultural theory, which currently has 14 journals in its collective. An OHP monograph project, run in collaboration with the University of Michigan Library’s MPublishing, was launched in 2009.
 
Gary enlightened us with philosophical theories about ‘authorship’ and described the ideological motives behind open access, suggesting scholarship should be about cultivating ideas rather than ‘owning’ a definitive stance on a subject. He asked: ‘Do we need to explore new ways of being academics?’

He went on to describe a number of practical projects that creatively engage with open access, for example allowing contributors to learn about OA issues as they draw content from existing OA sources and repackage it, as in the Living Books about Life series. In the OHP monographs, scholars ‘come together’ around a topic of interest and carry out the editorial work. Each project facilitates a learning experience for authors and reviewers as well as new reusable content for a global readership, thus changing scholarly publishing culture.We heard about the importance of credibility, and this is being answered through the academic networks involved in OHP and the international experts on various Editorial Boards.




The Q & A section focussed on issues of quality, and it was recognised that academics need to consider when, and how far, they push the boundaries of ‘traditional’ publishing.



14:00 Journal hosting services
Angela Laurins & Claire Knowles (Digital Library, University of Edinburgh) [Presentation on slideshare]
Angela gave us an overview of Open Journal Systems (OJS), how it is used globally and the variety of approaches in Edinburgh University’s journal hosting service. We saw how easy it could be to set up and run a new journal with an open access model ‘out of the box’, leaving time for people to concentrate on quality and promotion of content. Claire described how they have helped journal managers use statistics to analyse their readership, for example forging links with Universities in regions where they see a high volume of visitors.

Janet Aucock & Jackie Proven (Library, University of St Andrews) [Presentation on slideshare]
Janet described how a journal hosting service moved from initial conversations about what might be possible, to an embedded service. Jackie continued the idea of conversations to explain the iterative process of setting up hosted journals, and how we have found it a learning experience for all involved.

Gillian Duncan (Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, University of St Andrews)
Gillian gave a case study of how and why the Journal of Terrorism Research uses OJS, particularly the opportunity it gives to students and early career researchers to get experience of publishing. Open access is crucial to many of their readers who could be located in war zones without easy access to subscription journals.

14:45 Disciplinary perspectives
Dr Guy Rowlands (Centre for French History and Culture, University of St Andrews)
Guy gave a detailed account of how he came to publish an open access ebook series: St Andrews Studies in French History and Culture. 2 years ago he saw a need for shorter-length works (25 – 50,000 words), and describes them as ‘midigraphs’. (It is interesting to note Palgrave’s recent move to introduce works of this length in the humanities and social sciences, with its Pivot imprint). Print copies are currently produced for major libraries and as promotional tools, but print versions will be phased out by 2015 when he believes open access versions will have sufficient credibility to stand alone. He is very encouraged by the level of downloads from Research@StAndrews:FullText – far surpassing what print sales would achieve.

Prof Mario Aguilar (School of Divinity, University of St Andrews)
We were given an interesting insight into the Editorial process of an open access journal: Sociology Mind and the way that scholarship happens when ideas are challenged. Through layers of peer review before and after publication, we heard how how ‘open access open a new world’. The quality of articles is improved over time, as well as their ability to reach far corners of the globe.

Dr Sarah Dillon (School of English, University of St Andrews)
Sarah started by saying she found out by accident she was involved with open access – as she had simply chosen to publish with the most appropriate publisher and it turned out to be Open Humanities Press. Work on her research project ‘What Scientists Read’ has also led her to consider visibility and impact of her outputs, and how open access can really help with public engagement. She then described the very real issues faced by academics faced with pressure to publish with ‘reputable’ publishers when research assessment was imminent, perhaps being forced into an outdated publishing format by prevailing culture. She suggested academics have real power to change things, and they need to use it to push boundaries.

In summing up this section, Guy reminded us that what hasn’t changed for scholarly communication since the 17th century is the importance of credibility.

15:35 Open access projects and current awareness [Presentation on slideshare]
Jeremy Upton (Deputy Director of Library Services, University of St Andrews)
Jeremy highlighted new developments with open access ebooks, particularly the OAPEN initiative and Knowledge Unlatched

15:45 Institutional/library perspectives
John MacColl (University Librarian and Director of Library Services, University of St Andrews)
John rounded off the day with some quotes from each of the presenters to illustrate the hopeful and  inspirational opportunities offered by open access, as well as the pragmatic and sometimes difficult challenges we face in this period of transition.

Open access support from RSC

The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has announced a new scheme to help researchers pay for open access publishing.

“UK institutes who are RSC Gold customers will shortly receive credit equal to the subscription paid, enabling their researchers, who are being asked to publish Open Access but often do not yet have funding to pay for it directly, to make their paper available via Open Science, the RSC's Gold OA option.”

http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressReleases/2012/gold-for-gold-rsc-open-access.asp

This follows a series of events that are reshaping the way research outputs are published. Over the last month there has been a flood of announcements about making publicly funded research outputs available to anyone for free (open access). The UK Government has backed a transition to open access, with the release of the report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings (Finch report) which stated:

“The principle that the results of research that has been publicly funded should be freely accessible in the public domain is a compelling one, and fundamentally unanswerable.”

On 28 June The Wellcome Trust announcedthat it will be re-enforcing its open access mandate, with sanctions for institutions on non-compliance including future grant payments being withheld. Earlier this week RCUK announced a new policy on open access to research outputs, significantly strengthening the existing requirements for grant holders to ensure their peer-reviewed articles are freely available to all, and the following day the European Commission released a similar message:

“Scientific data: open access to research results will boost Europe's innovation capacity” (EU press release)

The new RCUK and EU policies continue to allow articles to be accessible either:

• Directly by the publisher (usually through payment of a fee), known as ‘Gold’ open access; or
• Through deposit of an author version in an open access repository (often after a limited embargo period) known as ‘Green’ open access.

There is much debate about how these changes will be managed, funded and resourced. In the meantime, this is an interesting and positive commitment from RSC to help researchers benefit from open access publishing and meet their funders’ requirements.

Finch Report released

The report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings (Finch report) has been released.

The report is very clear on its expectation for open access to become the norm in scholarly communication:

The principle that the results of research that has been publicly funded should be freely accessible in the public domain is a compelling one, and fundamentally unanswerable.

There is much made of the need to sustain publisher revenue, and therefore many of the recommendations relate to the 'gold' route to open access, looking at business models, licensing and funding for Article Processing Charges (APCs). Funders and universities will inevitably need to look at mechanisms for supporting and managing APCs for their researchers.

Repositories are discussed as both a 'threat' (p36) to commercial publishers (while acknowledging no evidence for a disruption to publisher income, p86) and an option (through the 'green' route to open access) with modest operating costs. Amongst the conclusions there is a comment that 'journals can work effectively with repositories' (p91).

It will be interesting to see how the report impacts on policies such as the proposed RCUK revised mandate, due later this summer.

Further useful comments:

BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18497083

Peter Suber - https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/DsBAeSCofDX

Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/19/open-access-academic-publishing-finch-report

Stephen Curry - http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/06/18/the-finch-report-on-open-access/

Cameron Neylon - http://cameronneylon.net/blog/first-thoughts-on-the-finch-report-good-steps-but-missed-opportunities/

EU and World Bank provide boost for open access

The European Union has thrown its weight behind a transition to open access for publicly-funded research outputs, with a proposed requirement for all peer-reviewed research funded under the EU Horizon 2020 programme to be made freely available.

This will mean all researchers receiving funding from the EUR80 billion Horizon programme between 2014 and 2020 will be expected to publish either in an open access journal, or in a journal that allows a version to be deposited in a repository. This is currently the case for some projects in the EU FP7 programme, under the OpenAIRE pilot.

THE reports the latest move to back open access in the article 'Muscle from Brussels as open access gets an €80bn boost'

This follows a recent announcement from the World Bank on its plans for a new open access policy to be implemented in July 2012. The World Bank launched its Open Knowledge Repository in April and will use the repository to publish research including books, journal articles and data under a Creative Commons licence.

International petition in support of open access

A White House 'We the People' petition has been posted to gather international support for open access to scholarly articles arising from publicly-funded research. If the petition receives 25,000 signatures in 30 days, the US Administration must issue an official response.

The petition to the Obama administration states:

"We believe in the power of the Internet to foster innovation, research, and education. Requiring the published results of taxpayer-funded research to be posted on the Internet in human and machine readable form would provide access to patients and caregivers, students and their teachers, researchers, entrepreneurs, and other taxpayers who paid for the research. Expanding access would speed the research process and increase the return on our investment in scientific research.

The highly successful Public Access Policy of the National Institutes of Health proves that this can be done without disrupting the research process, and we urge President Obama to act now to implement open access policies for all federal agencies that fund scientific research."

Calls for action have appeared on Twitter with the tag #OAMonday, and on the morning of the petition's launch (Monday 21 April 2012) over 500 signatures had already been added.

See the petition at https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/require-free-access-over-internet-scientific-journal-articles-arising-taxpayer-funded-research/wDX82FLQ
(requires a White House account to sign)

Open access making a real difference

A new website has been launched to provide real examples of the way that open access can transform scholarship. One of the stories describes the overwhelming response for St Andrews researchers following the decision to publish in an open access journal. The topic of the paper caught the public imagination when described as development of an 'invisibility cloak' in the University press release.

"As a result of the coverage, the paper was downloaded more than 50,000 times in the space of just a few months, and it reached an extremely wide and diverse audience for a technical scientific paper."

Flexible metamaterials at visible wavelengths by Andrea Di Falco, Martin Ploschner and Thomas F Krauss
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/11/113006

Read more open access success stories at http://www.oastories.org/ including:

Professor Tony Doyle, CERN Atlas
Using open access to collaborate on the largest experiment in the world – and inspire the next generation of particle physicists
Open Book Publishers
Cambridge scholars taking monograph publishing into their own hands

Publishers acting as barriers to research

In a recent piece in the Guardian, George Monbiat took on academic publishers and the business models that prevent access for many to scholarly publications. Ben Goldacre takes up the story a few days later in similar hard-hitting style.

Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist
Academic publishers run a guarded knowledge economy

St Andrews researchers - we want your views on OA

Unlocking attitudes to Open Access Survey

We are launching a survey to find out what you think about Open Access and how you use the University’s digital repository. This is part of a national initiative to create a body of evidence about researchers’ attitudes, and will help us develop our services to support research activity in the University.


Research@StAndrews:FullText is the University’s digital repository, where the full text of research publications and theses is securely stored for the institution and made freely and publicly available.  PURE is the University’s research information system where researchers can add their research publications and deposit the full text of those publications for transfer to the repository.

The survey will run from 3 May 2011 to 30 June 2011 and can be accessed at http://www.survey.bris.ac.uk/standrews/openaccess2011

Open approaches to scholarship

Another useful resource that brings together information about open access, repositories and related topics is the EnablingOpenScholarship website. Members of the EOS organisation aim to develop strategies for promoting open scholarship, and the website provides guidance on issues such as developing open access policies, addressing author concerns and the business aspects of institutional repositories.

Worth reading: the useful summary of open access and related briefing papers.

Research blog from RPO

The University's Research Policy Office have just launched a blog to bring you highlights of research activity in St Andrews.

Toolkit addresses researchers concerns

In the midst of Open Access Week the JISC Scholarly Communication Action Handbook has been released:

"This handbook addresses scholarly communication concerns and provides actions that individuals can take to help make positive changes. These actions are targeted for use by key stakeholders, such as researchers, librarians, research mangers, and senior managers, and can also be used by advocates to recommend actions to those they are lobbying."

With helpful navigation and full of useful, practical suggestions this guide is well worth a look. You might want to start with the hot topics section.