UKSG 2014 Breakout Session - Disruptions in a complex ecology: the future of scholarly communications
1. Disruptions in a complex ecology:
the future of scholarly
communications?
Michael Jubb
Research Information Network
UKSG: Harrogate
14 and 15 April 2014
2. Purposes of scholarly
communications
registering research findings, their timing,
and the person(s) responsible
reviewing and certifying findings before
publication
disseminating new knowledge
preserving a record of findings for the long
term efficiency and effectiveness of research
rewarding researchers for their work
3. Purposes of scholarly
communication (2)
discoverable
accessible
intelligible
assessable
usable
Royal Society, Science as an Open Enterprise, 2012
4. Mechanisms for scholarly
communication
oral: lectures, seminars, conference
presentations, tele-conferences
written: theses, working papers, pre-
prints, books, journal articles, blogs, wikis,
emails
public vs restricted audience
peer-reviewed/quality-assured or not?
5. Players and stakeholders:
and their interests
researchers
universities and research institutes
funders
libraries
publishers
learned societies
6. The Research Landscape:
Funders and Do-ers
Elsevier, International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base, 2013: a Report for BIS
11. Publishers
no. of publishers: c 2k
no. of journals: c 28k (10k in WoK, 18k
in SCOPUS)
no. of articles: c 2m a year
12. Publishers (2)
revenues (geog): c52% US
c32% EMEA
c12% Asia/Pacific
c 4% other
revenues (source): 70+%library subs
16% corporate
4% adverts
3% memberships
4% other
Mark Ware and Michael Mabe, The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, 2013
13. Quality assurance and peer review
who?
editors and editorial boards
publishers’ editorial staff
reviewers
types
single-blind, double blind, open
14. Quality assurance and peer review (2)
issues
fairness and bias
delays
inefficiency (repeat submissions and reviews)
data and reproducibility
overload
new types
soundness not significance
cascade
portable
open and interactive
post-publication
Mark Ware Peer Review: An Introduction and Guide, Publishing Research Consortium 2013
15. Open Access: the routes
Fully-OA journals with APC
Fully-OA journals no APC
Hybrid journals
Delayed free access journals
Repository pre-print
Repository accepted ms
16. Open Access: Global take-up 2012
Fully-OA journals with APC 5.5%
Fully-OA journals no APC 4.2%
Hybrid journals 0.5%
Delayed free access journals 1.0%
Repository pre-print 6.4%
Repository accepted ms 5.0%
17. Service infrastructure
subscription agents and other intermediaries
navigation:
abstracts and indexes
citation services
linking services
library systems
reference management services
semantic enrichment
OA infrastructure
green and gold
metadata standards
text and data mining
18. Some issues for the future
balance between sustainability and
innovation
future of peer review
future of journals
First four from Henry OldenburgLast has become increasingly important over past few years, as performance management and assessment has become a bigger part of the research landscape
Science as an open enterprise
Publication not just about dissemination: it’s a vital step in the competition for credit and scholarly reputation. It’s how researchers build the credit to win new research grants and advance in their careersChoices about where to publish are informed not just by the kinds of drivers I’ve just been talking about, but by hard-headed views about which journal will help me get most creditAll this underpinned by systems at national and institutional levels which reward researchers for publications in top journalsSo while perceptions of lower quality for OA publications may be wrong, they are realUncertainties about IP, and reluctance to give away rightsCosts for universities and funders; but also for publishers (existing ones and start ups); and lots of uncertainties about both