Monthly Archives: March 2016

Are your publications in line with the REF policy on open access which comes into effect on 1st April 2016?

HEFCE new logo blue eps

In order to be eligible for the next Research Excellence Framework (REF), all journal articles and conference proceedings (ISSN) accepted for publication from 1 April 2016 must be deposited within an institutional or subject repository within three months of the date of publication. This is a requirement of HEFCE’s Policy for open access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework which comes into effect on that date. For the purposes of the OU REF submission this means depositing in ORO.

 

What type of publications need depositing?

All journal articles and conference proceedings with an ISSN must be deposited along with their full text.

Monographs, book chapters, conference proceedings with an ISBN or any other long form publication are not covered by the HEFCE REF policy. These types of output are still eligible for submission to the next REF, but do not need to be made open access.

 

Which version of the full text needs depositing?

The author’s accepted manuscript (AAM). This is the version of the output that has been accepted for publication following peer review but has not undergone copy-editing and type setting.

 

When is the date of publication?

The date of publication is considered to be the first date at which the article is available. In most cases, articles are available first on the journal website before the journal has been printed. The online publication date will be, in most cases, the date of publication.

 

What are journal embargo periods?

Many journals do not allow articles they publish to be made available in an open access repository until a certain amount of time after publication has elapsed. This period is called a journal embargo period. Outputs may still be deposited within an open access repository during the embargo period, however, the full text will not be publically accessible until the embargo period has ended.

Authors can use the database SHERPA RoMEO to check their journal’s embargo period and any other depositing restrictions.

 

How are journal embargo periods dealt with by this policy?

The ORO team in the Library will apply any necessary embargo to the full text of your article / conference proceeding to ensure that the publisher’s rights are not infringed.

HEFCE have specified maximum embargo periods that they consider acceptable – 12 months for Main Panels A and B (Medical and Physical Sciences); 24 months for Main Panel C and D (Social Sciences and Humanities).

Most UK-based journals will have embargo periods that align with the HEFCE REF policy. However, some publishers based outside of the UK may have policies regarding open access that do not correspond with the HEFCE REF policy. Authors are encouraged to use SHERPA RoMEO to check their journal’s policy and to contact the ORO team in the Library with any questions.

 

Are there any exceptions?

There are a number of exceptions to the HEFCE policy. Please see the “Are there any exceptions?” section of the Library’s HEFCE Open Access Policy (REF) intranet page.

 

Will this change in future?

On 1st April 2017, HEFCE’s policy will change so that journal articles and conference proceedings (ISSN) will need to be deposited into ORO within three months of being accepted for publication. This is the point at which the article has been peer reviewed but not type set and copy edited. Follow the Library’s research support blog The ORB for updates.

 

Who can I contact with any questions?

Questions about the REF policy on open access should be directed to research-strategy@open.ac.uk.

To find out about how to deposit into ORO, contact library-research-support@open.ac.uk.

 

Reference management tools at a glance

Reference management tools can save a lot of time when you’re carrying out research and writing it up. However, there are many tools on the market and knowing which one to choose can be tricky.

This grid looks at a few of the most popular tools: EndNote, EndNote Basic, Mendeley and Zotero. It gives some basic information and lists a few features of each that we have found particularly noteworthy (click to enlarge):

reference management tools grid-2

Please note that this grid is not comprehensive – see our bibliographic management page for a more details on these tools, other tools and assistance in choosing the one that’s right for you.

The Rise of Preprints

bioRxivThere has been a host of media coverage on the growth of preprints in scholarly communications recently. The continuing adoption of bioRxiv a preprint server for biology has been reported in mainstream media, in The New York Times and Wired as well as scholarly journals (Nature).

arxiv

Preprint servers are, of course, not new.  arXiv has served the the physical sciences and mathematics for the best part of 20 years.  In fact arXiv is the most popular repository of scholarly papers in the world with well over a million papers freely available.

So what to make of it?  Will bioRxiv succesfully follow in the tracks of arXiv? Firstly let’s define the practice.

A preprint is a research paper that is posted to a server before it has been submitted for publication to a journal.  As such it has not gone through formal peer review, or been type set, copy edited or any other of the services offered by traditional publishing.

The preprint is posted for good reasons:

  • Speed.  A preprint is posted online immediately once research has been conducted, getting results out to the research community immediately without having to wait for a publisher to arrange peer review and conduct other publisher add on services.  Research papers posted on preprint servers are more likely to benefit from early citations.
  • Instant peer review. A preprint can garner a mass of comments and feedback that traditional closed peer review cannot match.  These comments can be incorporated into the final version of the paper that is finally published in a journal.

And that raises an important point… does posting preprints undermine the traditional process of publishing in a journal.  Spotting a good story most of the news outlets focus on this, the headlines say it all: Handful of Biologists Went Rogue and Published Directly to Internet (NY Times) and A Rainbow Unicorn Wants to Transform Biology Publishing (wired).

Some researchers may well feel this.  Frustrated with the time delays between submission and final publication, and with potentially little actually being gained by the peer review process. And why, in a networked world, should scholarly communications remain in thrall to academic journals?

One scenario is that if scholarly communications are freely available on preprint servers then what is the requirement for costly subscriptions to academic journals? And (so it goes) traditional publishers may choose to restrict the preprint culture by refusing to accept papers that have already been disseminated by the preprint route.

However, that is not the only scenario, as one commentator points out “It’s not beer or tacos, it’s beer AND tacos.” Posting preprints provides the key benefits of quick dissemination and instant feedback whilst the journal provides add on publication services (type setting and copy editing) and a final published version with whatever prestige is associated with that particular journal.

There remain other concerns with preprints.

  • Early Career Researchers may be more dependent on gaining prestige and reputation than established researchers and so are more likely to seek publication in established journals that may not allow preprints.
  • Should you cite preprints (when there is no currently no final published version to cite, or even, if the final version turns out to be substantially different to the preprint version). The answer is, yes, cite the preprints you use, albeit this means a citation count is likely to be distributed across different versions of a research paper.
  • Having your research scooped (either in it’s entirety or in having it used to improve a competitor’s research) is a foreboding concern.  And as such will be a central plank of those that will advocate against preprints.  The Selfish scientists Guide to Preprint Posting suggests posting at point of submission to the journal “At this point, the risk of being scooped is small, while the benefits of preprint precedence and early citation are still substantial.”

rainbow unicorn

So there is some way to go before the rainbow unicorn sings.

However, if preprints work in the biological sciences where might it spread next?  Which disciplines might follow suit?

And what role might existing institutional repositories have in disseminating preprints?

ORO Pilot of Mediated Deposit

There are a number of data sources that identify research publications of OU researchers at point of acceptance or publication.  We can use these data sources to help populate ORO and ease the burden of data entry for the researcher.

For a month (in the first instance) we will be using Scopus, Web of Science, Jisc Publications Router and some publisher feeds to identify OU research outputs and push them into the respective OU researcher’s ORO user area.  Once here the researcher will receive an email telling them that the ORO record has been created.  We will ask the researcher to check the record and to add a copy of the Author’s Accepted Manuscript (if required by the HEFCE Open Access Policy) before returning the item to the ORO review area.  The item will then be checked in the usual way before being made live.

I expect there will be some duplication and the purpose of the pilot is to see how effective this approach is in helping researchers meet the HEFCE Open Access Policy.  All comments on the pilot are welcome.

Academic Social Networking sites and Open Access Publishing

This is the second of 2 posts on Academic Social Networking sites.  In the first I wrote about them generally from a user perspective and in the second I’ll talk about them in relation to Open Access Publishing.

When commenting on the proposal to charge Academia.Edu users for recommendation services Richard Price, the founder of Academia.edu, outlined what the purpose of the “silly idea” was:

“We wanted to start the conversation with users around how to fund academic publishing when paywall revenues dry up (which I think they will over the coming years). The sciences are switching to an APC-funded model, but that model doesn’t straightforwardly work for non-grant funded people in the humanities. It seems to us that either you figure out a super low-cost APC for humanities publishing ($50 or so) or you have the normal APC (around $1,500), and figure out a way for universities to cover the fee. When Adnan reached out to users, he was probing the first idea.”

Firstly, Price sees Academic Social Networking sites as innovators (or disruptors) in scholarly communications, in particular in competition with publishers. Both Academia.edu and ResearchGate have form when it comes to encroaching into traditional publisher activities: individuals can get Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) from ResearchGate, and Academia.edu has a version of peer review called sessions.

Secondly, he expects a future where paywall revenues no longer exists – in other words everything is Open Access and subscription publishing vanishes. Maybe that’s not such a surprising scenario as it once was, it also seems to be the opinion of Jo Johnson the Minister for Universities and Science.

Publishers are attempting to manage this in two distinct ways.  Firstly, by transitioning existing subscription journals to hybrid Open Access journals.  In hybrid journals individual articles can be made Open Access for the price of an Article Processing Charge (APC) and they sit alongside articles that have been published in the traditional subscription model (i.e. behind a paywall).  Secondly, publishers operate pure Open Access journals – where all the content is freely available.  This is achieved using various models ranging from volunteerism, direct institutional (HEI) support or APCs.

However, this transition is still not clear to me, there is much to be ironed out:

  • The administration of financing the publication of articles at an individual level (e.g. individual Article Processing Charges) isn’t scaleable.
  • Will hybrid journals fully transition to pure Open Access journals? Where is that extra APC money going to come from?
  • What exactly is an acceptable price for an Article Processing Charge?
  • ‘Predatory’ publishers look to exploit a publish or perish culture with low quality publishing.
  • Subject repositories are an embedded feature in some academic disciplines.
  • Institutional repositories appear, at least in the short term, to have a more prominent role.

And here come the Academic Social Networking sites… it’s beginning to feel a bit crowded!

Workshop 16th March: Open Science / Open Data: what’s it all about?

the data are mine

Open Science is all about maximising benefit for all from academic research by increasing access to both published papers and supporting data. But researchers worried about protecting their intellectual property or long term career prospects can take heart from knowing that Open Science approaches to sharing their work can increase their citations and impact.

Want to know more? Come along to the FOSTER1 sponsored training session on 16th March to find out about Open Science; what it is, how it can benefit you, and how to work with your data in ways that support open access.

Open Science: Applications and Benefits

Wednesday 16th March 2-4 pm

Library Research Meeting Room, 2nd Floor

Refreshments provided!

Email library-training@open.ac.uk to register for the session, with a brief description of your research area.

1 EU-funded project FOSTER https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/

Cartoon CC-BY www.msgerry.com/www.aukherrema.nl

Altmetrics: a brief introduction

What are altmetrics?

Altmetrics measure the mentions and uses of research. They can complement or provide an alternative to traditional bibliometrics, such as citation counts, Journal Impact Factor and h-index.

In practice, altmetrics look at how many times research is mentioned, used, saved and shared on:

    • Blogs
    • Social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Google +, Reddit etc.)
    • Social bookmarking services (e.g. Mendeley, Connotea, CiteULike etc.)
    • Video services (e.g. YouTube, Vimeo etc.)
    • Other online platforms (e.g. Wikipedia, GitHub, StackOverflow etc.)

However, it is worth noting that some altmetrics services also include traditional citation counts in the data they provide.

Why should I care about altmetrics?

Altmetrics are becoming increasingly widespread. You are more likely to see them being provided for articles (and other research outputs) you find and used by academics to help show the value of their work.

Where do I get altmetrics?

You can find altmetrics embedded in databases, such as Scopus, Biomed Central, PLOS, Wiley Online Library and Taylor & Francis Online. They are usually shown when you look at the record for an article.

In Scopus they appear as part of the metrics box in the bottom-right corner of an article record, here highlighted red:

scopus-altmetrics-2

You will also see them in Open Research Online (ORO) for all items that have a DOI. They appear at the bottom of a record, again highlighted red:

ORO-altmetrics-2

The altmetrics you see in databases are often provided by third party services such as Altmetric or Plum Analytics but some databases calculate them themselves.

Altmetric provide free tools for you to access their data too.

Also of note is Impactstory, a fee-based service that allows users to create a CV-style profile and provides altmetrics on their research outputs.

How can I use altmetrics?

You can use altmetrics alongside bibliometrics in any scenario where you are trying to demonstrate the value and impact of your work, such as proposals, personal websites, job applications and CVs.

Here are some examples of researchers using altmetrics:

list of pubs-altmetrics-3

    • In their CV:

CV-altmetrics

What are the pros and cons of altmetrics?

Pros

    • Help provide a fuller picture of the use of research than citation counts alone
    • Don’t just apply to journals and books. They can be used to gather information on presentations, data sets, software and other research outputs too
    • Allow measurement of early reaction to papers because social media, for example, can provide feedback on research in less time than citations in journal articles
    • Can demonstrate broader impact because they allow you to show how people from outside of academia have engaged with your work
    • Mean you can follow the trail of who has mentioned or used your research in order to discover new papers, peers or collaborators

Cons

  • Altmetrics look at how many times research is used or mentioned but not at the context. As a result, a simple altmetric count cannot be used to demonstrate the value of research alone
    • For example, a piece could be blogged about many times due to negative feedback
    • Some people feel that articles get mentioned on social media because they relate to popular topics, not because they are examples of good research
  • Altmetrics can be abused by individuals who want to artificially increase their altmetric scores
  • Some people question the significance of the processes altmetrics measure, arguing that Twitter, for example, is too brief a place for “serious” academic conversations and that tweets are not a useful measure of the value of a paper. Indeed, many articles are behind paywalls – can people from outside academia re-tweeting articles read the full article in order to verify its content and quality?

Conclusion

Altmetrics are becoming increasingly established and can provide a useful way for researchers to show the value of their work. However, as with bibliometrics, they need to be fully understood and their limitations accepted. Altmetric themselves state:

Altmetrics don’t tell the whole story: As described above, altmetrics are a complement to, not a replacement for, things like informed peer review and citation-based metrics. Think of altmetrics as just one tool of many you’ve got in your toolbox for understanding the full impact of research.

Academic Social Networking Sites

This is the first of 2 posts on Academic Social Networking sites.  In the first I’ll write about them generally and in the second in relation to Open Access Publishing.

Academia.edu recently got some backlash on social media for a suggestion that a user might pay to get a paper submitted for potential recommendation – payment would only occur if a paper was recommended.  The premise being that recommended papers get more visibility and downloads.  The story is covered in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Most Academia.edu users seem to think this is a bad idea – paying to potentially get a recommendation and therefore more clicks or views is seen as dishonest.  Moreover, payment for recommendations would appear to undermine the whole recommendation system.  Consequently, the hashtag #DeleteAcademiaEdu was created and some users, at least, decided the service was not for them.

But we shouldn’t be so surprised.  Academic Social Networking sites are commercial operations and are clearly seeking to monetize their networks… and they certainly aren’t the only commercial entities in the Scholarly Communications ecosystem.

We get asked about Academia.edu and ResearchGate a lot and so I thought I’d post some of the issues you need to consider when using these sites.

The Pros

  1. They will increase the dissemination of your research outputs.
  2. They allow you to make connections with other researchers you may never otherwise connect with.
  3. If you use them think about using them in conjunction with repositories and publisher sites and, if you can, link to items.

The Cons

  1. They are commercial operations and they will seek some kind of return on the network somewhere down the line. You need to be comfortable that you comprise part of that network.
  2. They are not considered an Open Access repository by funders – as such posting papers to them will not mean compliance with a funder’s  Open Access policy. (See A social networking site is not an open access repository for more details on the repository functions of openness, interoperability and preservation.)
  3. Publishers may have stricter rules on what you can post on academic social networking sites than on repositories.  Elsevier currently require commercial organizations to have an agreement with them before papers can be posted to commercial platforms.  Wiley only allow archiving in author websites, institutional repositories and not for profit subject-based preprint servers or repositories.
  4. Whilst these sites host an array of outputs, rights holders (e.g. publishers) may issue take down notices for materials posted that infringe their rights.  These sites have indemnity clauses where users will bear the cost of legal claims arising from materials users upload to the site.
  5. They are closed networks – “it’s up to Academia.edu to decide what you can and can’t do with the information you’ve given them“, and that includes your personal data.

And lastly… it’s a 2 way thing… these sites need you to strengthen their network as much as you might need them to promote your research.

 

 

Spectacular information and visualising data – an event for OU research students and early career researchers

On Wednesday 13th April 2016, from 10:00 – 13:00, a workshop is being held on visualizing data, aiming to help attendees enhance communication of their research.

It is open to research students and early career researchers at the OU and takes place in the Research Meeting Room on the 2nd floor of the library.

You can get more information and sign up through Eventbrite.