Slides from a talk at the annual conference of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesell­schaft e. V. (DPG) in Berlin (18/03/2015). I summarise the current OA policy landscape in the UK, use Imperial College London as an example of how a research-intensive university approaches these issues and then take a look at the (UK) data on the cost of open access and total cost of ownership.

1. Großbritannien - Erfahrungen auf
dem Weg zu 100% Open Access //
Lessons from the Road to 100% OA
DPG-Jahrestagung 2015, 18th March 2015
Dr Torsten Reimer (@torstenreimer / t.reimer@imperial.ac.uk)
Scholarly Communications Officer, Imperial College London
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8357-9422

2. Outline
1. UK: The Bumpy Road to Open Access
2. Towards Solutions: OA at Imperial College
3. Open Access and Total Cost of Ownership
4. Conclusion

3. Imperial College London
• Seven London campuses
• Four Faculties: Engineering,
Medicine, Natural Sciences,
Business School
• Ranked 2nd in the world
(QS University Ranking)
• Net income (2014): £855m, incl. £351m research grants and contracts
• ~15,000 students, ~7,200 staff, incl. ~3,700 academic & research staff
• Staff publish ~10,000 scholarly articles per year
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/

4. Imperial Open Access Options
• College Preference for Green OA
• Green OA
• Symplectic Elements (CRIS)
• Spiral (DSpace repository)
• Gold OA (2014-15):
• ASK OA (APC management)
• RCUK fund: £1,35m
• Charity Open Access Fund:
£381,000
• College fund: £500,000
• Existing project budgets
• Uptake of Gold > Green

5. Wellcome Trust OA Policy
WT early adopter, drives OA policy
development.
Policy requires peer-reviewed
papers to be available through
Europe PMC (& monographs!)
Funds for CC BY publications
available through the institution.
Current sector compliance ~2/3,
WT introducing sanctions.
Imperial fund management
described as “exemplary”.
Fund now includes other charities:
Charities OA Fund (COAF).

6. 2012 – Finch Report and Shift to Gold OA
• Driver: boost UK’s digital
economy; research public good.
• In June 2012 UK government
accepts report of the “Working
Group on Expanding Access to
Published Research Findings”
(aka Finch Group).
• Recommends to make publicly
funded research outputs
available as OA, with a
preference for Gold.
• Controversial, some criticise
publisher influence.
www.researchinfonet.org/publish/finch/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/policyexchange/8410110541/ CC BY

7. RCUK Policy on Open Access
• Policy replaces earlier
approach (2005) to pay for
OA from project budgets.
• Effective from April 2013.
• All RCUK-funded papers to
be OA within 5 years.
• 75% gold, 25% green OA
• Gold: CC BY; green 6-12(24)
month embargo periods.
• RCUK allocates annual OA
budget to universities.
• Responsibility to support and
enforce lies with university.
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/ope
naccess/policy/

8. Issues Around OA Fund Management
Publishers/journals
• Pricing and OA conditions often difficult to identify for authors
• Journal OA policies still changing
• Journals offer non-compliant licences
• Invoicing per individual article
• Invoices lack relevant information (such as article title, licence)
• Invoices not always sent to correct address
• Articles only published after payment received
• Publishers sometimes claim copyright for CC BY articles or keep them
behind paywalls
• Outdated page and colour charges add complexity (and costs)
Funders
• Lack of harmonisation of funder policies
• Could sometimes be clearer on compliance procedures
Universities
• Standard invoice payment time is 30 days

9. College performance in the
2020 REF will depend on
open access to research
outputs – currently linked to
~£100m annual income

10. Post-2014 REF Policy as Game Changer for Open Access
“The core of this policy is as follows: to be eligible for submission to the
post-2014 REF, outputs must have been deposited in an institutional
or subject repository on acceptance for publication, and made
open-access within a specified time period. […]. Only articles and
proceedings accepted for publication after 1 April 2016 will need to fulfil
these requirements, but we would strongly urge institutions to
implement the policy now.”
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2014/cl072014/#d.en.86764
 Applies across all funders, aim to get as close to 100% OA as possible
 Gold OA does not help: Green OA, on acceptance (with embargos)
 From part-automated to fully manual process – dependent on author
 However, chance for academia to significantly boost OA

11. Author action RCUK*
compliant
Wellcome**
compliant
HEFCE post-
2014 REF
compliant
NIHR
compliant
(APC paid for) Immediate OA in a
journal
   
(APC paid for) Immediate OA in a
journal with CC BY licence
   
(APC paid for) Immediate OA in a
journal with CC BY licence and
publisher deposit to EuropePMC
   ***
Deposit, following publication, of
accepted/final version with compliant
embargo
   
Deposit, following publication, of
accepted/final version with compliant
embargo and deposit to EuropePMC
   
Deposit on acceptance with closed
access/on request with compliant
embargo
   
Deposit on acceptance with
immediate access
   
Deposit on acceptance with
immediate access and deposit to
EuropePMC
   
Compliance tables by Ruth Harrison (r.e.harrison@imperial.ac.uk)

12. Outline
1. UK: The Bumpy Road to Open Access
2. Towards Solutions: OA at Imperial College
3. Open Access and Total Cost of Ownership
4. Conclusion

13. Imperial College Open Access Project
Open Access
Project (OAP)
working group
Project Manager /
Scholarly
Communications
Officer
OA Implementation
Group (OAIG)
Library
Team Leader:
Education and
Research Support
Scholarly
Communications
Support Manager
5 OA Support
Assistants
Education and
Research Support
Assistant
Team Leader:
Systems and
Innovation Support
Services
ICT
Business Systems
Analyst
Senior Information
Officer
Team Leader:
Research and
Academic Support
Research Office
(Scholarly
Communications
Officer)
Head of Research
Systems and
Information
College
Headquarters
Research Officer
OAP members:
• Chair: Associate Provost: Academic Partnerships
• Academic representatives of the faculties
• College Secretary
• Director of the Graduate School
• Director of Library Services
• Director of the Research Office (Institutional OA Champion)
• Senior Planning Officer
• Project Manager / Scholarly Communications Officer

14. APC Process Improvements
Fund Management 09/2013 Fund Management 09/2014
3 application forms, supported by 4
spreadsheets
1 application form supported by online
database and fund management tool
No way for authors to save drafts or revisit
past applications
Authors can save drafts and revisit past
application
All information added manually by authors Author data entry significantly reduced, data
feeds from staff directory, grants system etc.
Information exchanged via email and phone Tasks delegated through system
Invoices go to authors Invoices go to the library
Backlog Average response time: one working day
30 days invoice payment time Aim to pay within 5-10 working days
Manual reporting through spreadsheets Reporting from single data source

15. ASK Open Access

16. Article published
CRIS detects
publication,
prompts author
Author claims
output, ideally
deposits
manuscript
APC
application
Article
published OA
Current Publications/OA Workflows
1) Two separate workflows
2) “On acceptance” takes away centrepiece of green OA workflow
(notification on publication)

17. 2015 REF OA Compliance Trial
To provide and, following feedback from
the academic community, refine
systems and processes to enable
authors to comply with the REF OA
requirements.
To ensure academic awareness of and
engagement with the REF OA
requirements.
To provide a single workflow / point of
contact for green and gold open
access, thereby facilitating not only
HEFCE but also RCUK and COAF
compliance and wider OA uptake.
To trial additional services such as
mediated deposit and a licensing
advice service.
To provide reporting to departments,
faculties and the College centre,
enabling the College to identify issues
well before April 2016 and to engage
with HEFCE based on evidence.

18. Gold and Green – Single (draft!) Workflow

19. Current process Ideal REF process?
Work on REF “on acceptance” Workflow
Article published
CRIS detects publication,
collects metadata
Author claims output,
ideally adds manuscript
(Manuscript deposited)
Article accepted
Authors uploads manuscript with
metadata
Metadata made public
Manuscript deposited
(closed with embargo)
Article published
CRIS detects publication, ideally
updates metadata, manual
intervention may be required
Article accepted
Publishers share
manuscript and metadata
Metadata made public,
Manuscript deposited
Article published
CRIS detects publication
and claims automatically
REF process

20. ORCID – Open Researcher and Contributor ID
• Emerging global standard for identifying authors of academic outputs
• Allows systems like Symplectic to automatically identify your outputs
• Will reduce burden for reporting with increasing support from funders
• Might play a role in supporting REF open access policy
• The College created ORCID identifiers for academic and research staff
in December – within 7 weeks 1,200 colleagues linked their iD back to
College systems
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/scholarly-communication/orcid

21. New Approach to Licensing
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rooreynolds/243810133 CC BY NC
• Give academics more
control over their outputs
• Reduce admin overheard
(embargos, checking
publisher policies)
• Ensure green OA meets
funder requirements
Two options for universities:
• SPARC Addendum
• Harvard-style policy

22. Outline
1. UK: The Bumpy Road to Open Access
2. Towards Solutions: OA at Imperial College
3. Open Access and Total Cost of Ownership
4. Conclusion

23. Cost of OA - Resourcing
Imperial College OA data:
• Gold OA requires ~3x management effort of Green OA per article
• and about twice the time from academics, in particular hybrid journals
Hypothetical scenarios, assuming 1h per deposit and 3h per gold
application, for 10K articles per year and average APC of £1,800:
• 100% REF compliant: 6 FTE
• 100% REF + 40% Gold (assuming efficiencies): 11 FTE + £7m APC
• 100% Gold: 20 FTE + £18m APC
Potential to reduce costs through prepayment deals – but concerns
about some of the current offers.

24. Counting the Costs of OA
• Cost of compliance
with RCUK OA policy
in 2013/14: £9.2m
• Estimated cost for
2020 REF OA
requirements: £4-5m
• Per article cost:
• Gold : 2 hours / £81
• Green: 45+ min / £33
• Significant scope for
efficiency savings

25. Wellcome Trust release APC Data, 2012-13
• WT released data on 2012-
2013 APC spend:
http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m
9.figshare.963054
• Data cleaned up and
analysed by the community
(http://bit.ly/1qQHet9)
• 2129 APC, 94 publishers
• Michelle Brook’s analysis
highlights massive spend
on hybrid journals:
“In Oct 2012 – Sept 2013, academics spent £3.88 million to publish articles
in journals with immediate online access – of which £3.17 million (82 %
of costs, 74 % of papers) was paying for publications that Universities
would then be charged again for.” http://access.okfn.org/2014/03/24/scale-hybrid-
journals-publishing/
http://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2014/03/24/new-data-on-wellcome-trust-grant-spending/

26. WT Data highlights Cost and Quality of Service Issues
WT highlights the following issues:
• Content remaining hidden behind pay-walls;
• Content not available in PMC/Europe PMC;
• Missing, incorrect, or contradictory licence;
• CC-BY licensed articles still linked to sites
where readers may be charged.
“In summary we contacted 20 publishers in
relation to 150 articles (approximately 7%
of the total number of articles for which an
APC had been paid).”
“The bigger issue concerns the high cost of
hybrid open access publishing, which we
have found to be nearly twice that of born-
digital fully open access journals.”
http://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2014/03/28/the-cost-of-open-
access-publishing-a-progress-report/

27. The Issue with Hybrid Journals
Academia pays twice: through subscription and
APC (“double dipping”).
Very few hybrids “flipping” to Gold; limited (but
growing) number of “offsetting” options.
Developing an Effective Market for Open Access
Article Processing Charges:
• Average APCs vary from $1,418 (OA
journal) to $2,097 (OA journal, subscription
publisher) and $2,727 (hybrid journal)
• Full OA journal market seen as functioning
• Hybrid market extremely dysfunctional
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Spotlight-
issues/Open-access/Guides/WTP054773.htm

28. “Total Cost of Publication”
Based on data from 23 HEI
(incl. Imperial) 2007-2014.
‘Hybrid’ subscription/OA
journals consistently more
expensive (£1,849) than
fully-OA journals (£1,136).
APCs constitute 10% of total
cost of ownership for
publishing (excluding
administrative costs).
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/81227/

29. Universities release APC Data
http://figshare.com/articles/Imperial_APC_data_2006_2014_/1086122
http://figshare.com/articles/University_of_Edinburgh_RCUK_Gold_Open_
Access_APC_data_2013_14_/1146256
http://figshare.com/articles/University_of_Glasgow_APC_data_2013_14_/
1117888
http://figshare.com/articles/Liverpool_APC_data/1083499
http://figshare.com/articles/University_of_Sheffield/1116258
http://figshare.com/articles/University_of_St_Andrews_APC_data_2013_2
014/1150253
http://figshare.com/articles/Sussex_APC_data_2013_14_/1066953
http://figshare.com/articles/Warwick_APC_data/1063704
http://libraryblogs.is.ed.ac.uk/openscholarship/2014/05/01/university-of-
edinburgh-open-access-update-april-2014/
http://figshare.com/articles/Jisc_Collections_aggregated_APC_data_2014/
1060243

30. RCUK Review of OA

31. Data from the Imperial College Response to RCUK
Category Numbers
Papers estimated to relate to RCUK projects ~4,000
Sample known to relate to RCUK-projects 1,326
Papers from sample published as Gold OA 709
Papers from sample deposited in Spiral 31
Total spend from RCUK fund £299,492.12
Average APC paid from RCUK fund £1,837
Spend on hybrid journals £252,683.02
Average hybrid APC £1,974
Average APC for full OA journals £1,337
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk:8443/handle/10044/1/15558 CC BY

32. Outline
1. UK: The Bumpy Road to Open Access
2. Towards Solutions: OA at Imperial College
3. Open Access and Total Cost of Ownership
4. Conclusion

33. Conclusions
• Sustainability of Gold OA at
current prices:
• £163m subscriptions vs
• £245m Gold OA for UK
• Hybrid journals deliver
less and cost more
• Need to make (OA) publication
processes more efficient
• Understand TCO, negotiate OA
and subscriptions together
• HEFCE policy challenge and
chance – trigger for change