Can we further subdivide nuances of open access?

The Public Knowledge Project 2009 conference ultimately made me re-think the way that open access (OA) is defined and subdivided.

The current subdivision is dichotomous.  Open access is subdivided into the gratis and the libre models as described by Peter Suber in his Open Access Newsletter, where gratis OA refers to access without price barriers alone, while libre OA involves the removal of price and at least some permission barriers.  I perceive this to be a hierarchy of use, where gratis OA is less usable as permissions for further use of these items are not clear.

The concept of the hierarchy was echoed in a workshop that I attended at the PKP Scholarly Publishing Conference on Lemon8-XML (L8X).  One of the speakers, MJ Suhonos, underscored that all document dissemination formats are not created equal. If one compares an XML encoded article to the same article available in PDF, we see that the XML encoded article enables enhanced access to the content.  The strength is in the modularity of the XML, which enables the content to be labeled and described explicitly in a standardized way.  The usefulness of XML can be described using the example of citations.  In a PDF, the citations sit lumped with the rest of the PDF and can not be reliably harvested or parsed as discrete citations because to a machine they appear to be identical to the text of the article.  In XML, the citations are denoted as citations and hence can be parsed and analyzed as such.

One can’t help by imagine a world where every document has semantically encoded citations!  We would not need to rely on ISI and Scopus anymore (or pay the Crossref fees).  Everyone would have equal access to citation harvesting and analysis. (Two years ago, a Scopus vendor told me their indexing rejection rate was approximately 80%…talk about an elite society!)  XML markup could enable global barrier-free citation analysis, where elite membership would no longer be necessary.

In this same L8X session, Juan Pablo Alperin discussed other benefits of XML markup besides the infinite possibilities of enhanced bibliometric analysis. He asked us to imagine the benefits of discovering collaboration networks, where enhanced author markup, for example, would enable us to see which institution collaborates with whom. Enhanced document discovery would also be a benefit, where the availability of complete metadata means that we can find related works in many ways such as: by the same author, subject, in same journal, by the same publisher.

While we are already seeing some of these benefits in Google Scholar, not all articles are marked up in a way to be able to fully benefit from what Google Scholar has to offer.

We see then, that there is a divide between articles which are static in their nature like PDF vs. articles that are marked up in such a way that all their components have meaning associated with them. I argue, then, that articles that are not marked up in XML are less usable than those that are, just like research that is available as gratis OA is somewhat less usable than libre OA.

The PKP team has been aware of the benefits of XML early on and responded by creating the Lemon8-XML software.  They recognize the need for equal semantic exposure for all scholarship and have created a tool that puts this ability within everyone’s reach.

The Lemon8 software enables an editor to upload an article, and takes them step by step through marking up that document in XML while abstracting them from the gory details. Lemon8 identifies document metadata such as title and author, and among other features, searches multiple databases to help verify citations by automatically suggesting additional data in a user friendly way. Article markup is still not a quick venture, but if editors were to incorporate Lemon8 into their workflow, it could actually save them time as it would greatly reduce the time it takes to verify citations while at the same time enabling their semantic markup.

I am excited to learn that integration of Lemon8 into the Open Journal Systems software is on the development roadmap for the Public Knowledge Project, and am looking forward to working with this added functionality.

Green OA vs. Gold OA

A post by Stevan Harnad on the JISC repositories listserv directed me to Richard Poynder’s  post and article.  His article “Open Access: Whom would you back” provides an excellent history of the Open Access movement.  It chronicles the devious and fascinating approaches employed by scholarly publishers in adapting to the evolving publishing landscape.

As a librarian in the trenches promoting Green OA in support of our institutional repository, I see on a daily basis the tactics that some publishers are using to appear complicit to open access while at the same time doing their very best to undermine the authority and validity of self-archived works.  As Poynder points out, publishers are doing what they can to shift focus from Green OA to Gold OA as this is a more profitable venue for them.  He points out that we may be disappointed if all that Gold OA accomplishes is a shift from the paying of subscriptions to the paying of APCs.

While I do agree with many of Richard’s arguments, there’s one point I’d like to make. To me, it is not as important who profits most in the transition to OA, because we are all winners in the end.  While I agree that the Green OA would solve both affordability and access challenges and I back it wholeheartedly as an ideal solution,  no matter which OA models win out, as a global community we will all benefit from the barrier-free access to peer-reviewed scholarship.

FSOSS 2008

I attended the Free Software and Open Source Symposium October 23-24, 2008.  As always, it was a rewarding experience, and I intend to go back next year.  For the low price of only $50 (early registration), a delegate has access to two days of sessions, several workshops, and an assortment of goodies including a tee shirt, lunches and a reception. All sessions are recorded and available on-line for viewing after the conference.

I am definitely going to try out the TikiWiki CMS/Groupware application.  It has a very handy database tool that enables the user to create databases through an easy web interface.  Web forms with customized fields can be also easily created to populate your databases. I like the TikiWiki philosophy where each release comes with every available add-on which can then be enabled or disabled through site administration pages.  This ensures that all modules are updated at the time of a new release, and saves one from having to go module-hunting when new functionality is required.

I was happy to see that FSOSS featured a session on open access.  Leslie Chan discussed the convergence of open access with open source. His session reminded us of the significance of the open source contribution to the open access revolution.  John Willinsky was visionary in realizing that a major barrier to publishing journals on-line barrier-free was the cost of creating journal publishing software.  His Open Journal Systems project has enabled over 2000 journals worldwide to make journal content available on-line, most of it without barriers to access. Open source projects like his are contributing to the steady increase of peer-reviewed scholarship freely available on-line.

Marcus Bornfreund was absolutely swarmed with questions after his talk on Creative Commons and creative copyright licensing.  His session helped to bring home the message that assigning a creative commons license to a work does not limit ones ability to make a commercial profit from said work.  The cc license only sets the base standard for all who have not made alternate arrangements with the copyright holder.  It is necessary to remember that once a creative commons license is assigned to a work, any further arrangements made with respect to that work cannot be exclusive.  Marcus will be speaking at York University with Professor Pina D’Agostino on November 19th about copyright in the academy.

National Research Council Canada adopts OA mandate

As introduced in Peter Suber’s Open Access Blog posting, National Research Council Canada (NRC) has adopted an OA mandate effective January 2009.

The NRC will be developing an OA repository called NPArC and will require as of next year that all NRC institutes deposit copies of all peer-reviewed publications and technical reports in the new repository.

It is most exciting to hear that NRC is following in the footsteps of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research with its open access policy that came into effect on January 1st, 2008. I hope that this will help keep the momentum going so that other Canadian granting agencies such as the Social Science and Humanities Research Council will follow suit.

Gratis and Libre Open Access

Peter Suber’s introduction and explanation of gratis and libre open access (OA) nommenclature in August’s Open Access Newsletter has given me a wonderful opportunity to discuss the nuances of open access with my colleagues.

To quickly clarify the terminology, Stephen Harnad and Peter Suber introduced in April 2008 the terminology “strong OA” and “weak OA”.  Strong OA was intended to describe the type of open access that removes price barriers and at least some permission barriers. The term weak OA could be used to describe open access that removed price barriers alone. After some thought, the term “weak” was deemed to not be neutral, which lead to the introduction of some new terms that I believe to be quite elegant.

Gratis OA replaces the weak OA terminology, while Libre OA replaces the strong OA technology.  This is very useful for me in daily conversations as I can introduce the terminology to a colleague without seeming like I am passing a judgment on the different models.  Furthermore, the act of introducing the terminology itself helps to open up discussion about the nuances of the different categories, helping to influence the colleague’s future choices regarding the selection of creative commons licenses or the evaluation of future copyright transfer agreements.

Student outreach and Open Access

SPARC just aired a webcast for librarians on student outreach. The Right to Research brochure was distributed as a preliminary reading. During the webcast, presenters discussed why it is important and appropriate to engage students, and discussed various strategies, ideas and resources available. The slides can be found here.

The SPARC Right to Research Website was highlighted as a portal to resources available. This website links to the Open Students website which is an excellent resource to promote student engagement.  It includes an area where new student journals can be introduced.

SPARC also informally announced the very first annual Open Access Awareness Day on October 14th, 2008! It will be held on October 14, 2008. SPARC plans to work with the Public Library of Science and Students for Free Culture and will host webcast events that feature prominent speakers. Videos will be released that showcase how Open Access is important from different viewpoints. More information to come soon when the announcement is officially made.

Brand names and Open Access

I was reading Peter Suber’s July 08 Open Access Newsletter, and its enough to make my head spin…there are so many developments posted on Open Access News I just can’t keep up anymore, its fantastic that “hot” stories are now tagged and the feed to these stories can be subscribed to here.

I was struck by a particular point Peter raised:  that the availability of funds to pay for access [to research] does not scale to keep pace with the growth of published knowledge.

It made me think about the format problem.  I’ve been hearing it mentioned over and over again, this question: why are we so attached to packaging our research into a journal format?

Is it the brand name that we’re so attached to?  If we’re looking for quality, do we simply just seek out the Prada of journals?  Does not the research stand up for itself, just like a consumer good has to? If your Vuitton luggage falls apart after one trip down the baggage conveyor belt, does the fancy brand matter anymore?

Maybe its about lack of time.  Who has the time to compare quality of consumer goods…we’ve all purchased a generic brand at one point or another that greatly underperformed. To protect against that disappointment, its just easier to pay a little more for the name brand version.  Perhaps we adopt a similar mentality with research?

This worries me a bit.  The fact that research output volumes are multiplying so quickly…is it not in a way working against the cause?…is it not further fueling the demand for these high impact journals to exist? Is it not so much easier to simply save time by trusting the name brand research?

In my mind, the solution lies in the metrics…where citations and downloads can be measured and compared to the opinions of the elite groups of peer reviewers that decide which articles are Vuittons and which are simply generic.   I can’t help but predict that once a more unified and unprejudiced method of tracking impact appears, brand names just won’t matter.  The quality of an item of research will simply stand up for itself, visible for all to see, no longer in need of being sold under a designer label.

Useful guide for developing Open Access Journals

David J. Solomon’s Developing Open Access Journals: A practical guide is well worth the read.  This abridged, point form version of his full length book is an excellent reference resource.  I was impressed with Solomon’s nods to alternative publishing practices, such as suggesting that instead of waiting for regular intervals to publish a journal issue, that journals publish articles as they are ready for publication announcing them to readers via an e-mail subscription list.

Solomon also introduces the reader to alternative flavours of OA to illustrate the multiple methods that journals can use to finance their operation, and in several places indicates the role of institutions and libraries as hosting and research partners for journals.

Research performance metrics and peer rankings

Stephen Harnad, in his article “Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings” creates a solid argument for using both technometrics and peer review to strengthen the validity of both.

Stephen mentions Citebase, a scientometric search engine that reference-links nearly 500,000 papers and ranks papers and authors based on citation counts, download counts and other metrics.

Stephen cites different factors contributing to the OA impact advantage:

(1) early access

(2) quality bias – higher quality articles are more likely to be made OA

(3) quality advantage – higher quality articles benefit more from being made OA

(4) usage advantage – OA articles more accessible quickly and easily

(5) competitive advantage

Useful quote: “Citation counts of OA articles are on average twice as high as those that are not.”
Harnard & Brody 2004 doi: 10.3354/esep00076
Hajjem et al. 2005 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11688/