1 [Slide 1] Good morning, my name is Michaela Willi Hooper, and I’m the new scholarly communication librarian at Oregon State University Libraries. That means I’m available to advise you on topics like retaining copyright to your articles, publishing them open access, and fulfilling federal public access mandates. We’ve heard about the ​
what ​
and the ​
why​
of open access, so today I’m going to talk to you a little bit more about the ​
how​
. I’ll talk about different open access models, major funders that now require public access to research, and support for open access here at Oregon State University. [Slide 2] There are currently two dominant models, or “flavors” of open access: gold and green. Both have pros and cons, which I’ll talk about here. It’s important to note that one doesn’t exclude the other ­­ it’s becoming increasingly common to publish your work on multiple platforms. [Slide 3] The model known as “gold” open access refers to publishing your article in an open access journal. There are around 10,000 open access journals in existence. Some of these publishers, like the Public Library of Science, began as purely open access. But many traditional publishers, like IEEE, Elsevier, and Wiley, are beginning to offer open access journals, as well. There’s another category, known as hybrid journals, where authors can pay extra to make their articles freely available, so some articles are paywalled while others are free. [Slide 4] To me, the biggest ​
advantage​
of gold open access is that the version of record, or final version, is freely available to everyone and the full text can be found on the publisher’s website. A drawback ​
is APCs, or article processing charges. Essentially, publishing still costs some money, even in the digital environment. Some journals, like PeerJ, cover these costs with institutional support. But others charge a publication fee ­ or article processing charge ­ to the authors, instead. There is funding available to cover APCs. They can be written into grants, and last year, the library offered a small fund to researchers to cover APCs. I’m not yet sure if this fund will be renewed, but keep an eye out for an email about this. And, of course, a final drawback to gold open access is that many prestigious journals are still paywalled. This is problematic especially since tenure and promotion guidelines often reward publication in these top journals. [Slide 5] The open access model has brought an explosion of new publishers to the scene, so of course you’ll want to choose one that’s credible. You may have heard of “predatory publishers,” who will solicit manuscripts from researchers, charge very high APCs, and then do little to no vetting of the content they publish. These two organizations ­ the Directory of Open Access Journals and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers’ Association ­ maintain white lists of credible open access journals that you can look at. 2 [Slide 6] The second open access model, green OA, means that researchers submit their manuscripts to any journal, including traditional paywalled journals, but also self­archive a copy through an open access repository, which may be hosted by organizations like universities or government agencies. PubMed Central and ScholarsArchive@OSU are both examples of repositories. [Slide 7] The big benefit of the green OA model is that you can publish in a majority of traditional journals ­ including Elsevier, Springer, IEEE, and others ­ and still make your work freely available to anyone on the web. This can also allow you to avoid APCs. Repositories provide a lot of value­added services like usage stats and altmetrics. They allow you to showcase your work with other literature from your institution or discipline. The drawback to green open access is that it is a little bit more work ­ you, or someone working on your behalf, has to actually deposit the article somewhere, which involves filling out a web form. A bigger problem is publisher embargoes. Even though most major publishers now allow green OA, they often stipulate that the article can’t be visible to the public for a number of years. This reduces visibility of the article when it’s most in demand, which is really unfortunate. And then things get a little bit complicated with different versions of the article, which I’m going to explain on the next slide. [Slide 8] Most publisher policies allow uploading of pre­ or post­prints to institutional repositories, but not the version of record. These terms can be confusing. Pre­print refers to the author’s manuscript before peer­review. Since the ‘90s, physicists have been uploading pre­prints to arxiv.org. It’s also common to be able to upload the post­print, or the version that integrates peer reviewers comments but is not the final typeset version of the article. In OSU’s institutional repository, which I’ll talk about in a second, we link to the version of record so those who have access to it can view that more official version while those who don’t at least have access to the full text pre­ or post­print. [Slide 9] So how do you know if your publisher allows you to distribute the pre­print, post­print, or version of record? The tool I use to determine this is Sherpa Romeo, which provides an overview of publisher self­archiving policies. [Slide 10] The concept of open access is gaining traction in the government and non­profit world. In 2013, the White House office of Science and Technology Policy issued a memo that directed federal agencies to make research they funded publicly accessible. [Slide 11] These are the agencies that have come out with policies or plans for complying with this memo. Agencies generally direct funded researchers to deposit articles and data to a specific platform 3 or platforms within a certain amount of time. If the research isn’t made accessible, this could affect the researchers’ ability to get future grants. [Slide 12] A particular source of confusion for many researchers is understanding the difference between, say, PubMed, which provides citations and indexes, and PubMed Central, which is the full text repository for many of these agencies. The PubMed Central ID is different from the PubMed ID, and you must have a PMCID to fulfill NIH funder mandates. [Slide 13] We have created a guide to these policies as they are implemented, which you can find at this address. I’m also happy to help you navigate the complexity of these policies. [Slide 14] As I said, many major nonprofits also have public access guidelines for their researchers. You can learn more about these policies at Sherpa Juliet, which is a free website, like Sherpa Romeo. [Slide 15] Now I want to talk briefly about support for Open Access at Oregon State University. [Slide 16] While this doesn’t impact non­faculty, I do think it’s important to note that the OSU faculty senate unanimously approved an Open Access Policy in 2013 that gives OSU a non­exclusive, irrevocable license to distribute faculty research. An opt­out waiver is available. [Slide 17] You can read the policy here [Slide 18] The Library is working to get research into the institutional repository. ScholarsArchive@OSU has been around since 2004, and anyone associated with OSU, including students, can publish their research here. The web form only takes about two minutes. [Slide 19] ScholarsArchive accepts articles, data, as well as gray literature like conference presentations, posters, and reports. All OSU theses and dissertations are published in ScholarsArchive. ScholarsArchive provides download numbers and altmetrics for works that are shared on social media. We also provide a pretty cool service to integrate with the NIH and PAGES, the Department of Energy’s system. A few years ago, researchers approached us who were having trouble complying with the federal public access mandate, partly because of the confusion between PMIDs and PMCIDs. To reduce the burden on researchers, when you upload an article, you’re asked for any grant information. A library staff person uses this information to 4 check and see if the article is already deposited ­ or scheduled to be deposited ­ in PubMed Central or Pages. If not, we deposit it on the author’s behalf. So, it goes in both the institutional repository and the government repository by filling out just one web form. [Slide 20] I talked about a lot of nitty gritty details here, but the takeaway is that I encourage both gold and green open access. I just had a colleague who published in PlosOne, an open access journal, and also deposited to Scholars Archive. More platforms means more visibility, and visibility is usually a good thing for scholars. These processes may seem confusing partly because this landscape is so new. I’m here to help, so feel free to contact me if you have any questions.