Earlier this week HEFCE updated their Open Access policy. It had been expected that the time frame for deposit to a repository would shift from 3 months of first online publication to 3 months of acceptance from 1st April 2017 – this has been postponed. The policy has been updated to state:

“To take account of the need for systems to be developed to support deposit-on-acceptance, during the first two years of the policy (1 April 2016 – 1 April 2018), outputs can be deposited up to three months after the date of publication. This flexibility will be subject to a review of the readiness of systems within the sector in autumn 2017.”

Updated HEFCE Open Access Policy.

This uncertainty about the time frames of deposit to a repository is worth reflection. Firstly, it causes continuing problems in administering a policy that has shifted from its initial 3 months from acceptance, to 3 months from publication until April 2017, to, now, 3 months from publication until April 2018, subject to review...

Secondly, this delay highlights another problem with the policy – and it’s not just about having the appropriate systems in place! Where no embargo has been stipulated by the publisher, “deposit at point of acceptance” will often mean making the paper available in a repository before it is made available via the publisher platform.  Now this may well be the intention of the policy, but it’s a cause for concern for both authors and publishers who don’t operate in a Preprint culture.

Given the increasing number of papers in the UK being deposited in institutional repositories I’m unsure how publishers who don’t currently require an embargo will react.  One course of action for publishers would be to simply establish new embargo periods where previously there weren’t any.  But Green Open Access with long embargo periods isn’t really Open Access!  The risk is “deposit at point of acceptance” may provoke a response that undermines the Green Open Access route the policy attempts to exploit.

There 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).

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.”

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?

Are you are publishing from a closed FP7 project?  If so a pilot Open Access scheme may be able to provide monies to make those publications Open Access via the Gold route.

Applications should be made at point of acceptance with the publisher, but reimbursements can be made for Open Access charges already paid for eligible publications.

The EU/OpenAIRE pilot allows you to claim:

• Up to €2,000 per article, €6,000 for monographs.
• Up to three publications per project (you may need to check with the project lead which publications should apply for the funding).

You are eligible for funds if:

• The project finished after 1st January 2014.
• The article is published in a fully Open Access journal i.e. not a hybrid OA journal. (Longer form publications are also be eligible for funding).

OpenAIRE have produced a useful checklist on the service: GoldOAPilot_Checklist_2016.

A list of current OU FP7 projects that are eligible for the funds is available: Closed OU FP7 Projects eligible for Open Access funding via the OpenAIRE pilot.

Applications for the funds should be made via the online central service.

If you have any questions please get in contact with us at library-research-support@open.ac.uk, we are happy to support you apply for this fund.

Due to the various institutional subscriptions we have with academic publishers, several off-setting deals are now available to OU researchers who wish to publish Gold Open Access.

Springer

OU researchers publishing in Springer can get articles published Gold at no extra charge. To be eligible you need to be:

• Publishing in a Springer Open Choice journal i.e. a Springer hybrid journal AND
  
• The corresponding author AND
• Affiliated to the OU AND
• Publishing either an Original Paper, Review Paper, Brief Communication or Continuing Education (Springer terminology)

Sage

Sage currently offer a discounted APC of £200 to all Open University researchers publishing in SAGE Choice journals as the corresponding author.

The reduced rate is a result of the OU’s current subscription to the SAGE Premier Collection.

To access the discounted rate corresponding authors should enter Nesli2015 in the University/Institution Account Code field enter £200 in the Discounts/special journal pricing may apply field and Nesli in the Promo Code field on completion of forms at point of acceptance.

Taylor & Francis

Taylor and Francis currently offer a discounted APC rate of £450 + VAT for OU researchers publishing in a T&F Open Select (hybrid Open Access) journals.  A full list of eligible journals can be found here: T&F eligible Open Select journals.

Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)

RSC have a voucher system – if you are publishing with RSC please contact library-research-support@open.ac.uk and we will issue you with a voucher.

Completing a very simple online form with this voucher & the Digital Object Identifier (doi) or Manuscript Number will get your article published Gold Open Access with no additional costs.

Policy Press

Policy Press offer a 20% discount on APCs for OU authors as the OU currently subscribes to their online content. This reduces the price of an APC with Policy Press from £1,500 to £1,200.

Please note that Library Services can only pay APCs for articles that are the result of a RCUK funded project. For more information see the Open Access intranet site.

Any queries please contact: library-research-support@open.ac.uk