Monitoring the transition to OA in
the UK
(with some Global comparisons)
Michael Jubb
Research Information Network
STM Conference, Frankfurt
13 October 2015
Context

Finch Group Reports 2012 and 2013


Universities UK Open Access Co-ordination Group
need for ‘authoritative indicators’ of progress
OA options: publishing models and policies
 Accessibility: how much is actually accessible free of charge
 Usage: does OA lead to more usage?
 Financial sustainability: impact on finances of key players
----------------------------------------------------- Quality of service: for authors and readers

1. OA Options for Authors
OA Publishing Models
OA Publishing Models Available to Authors: Journal Types
Global Total (SCOPUS)
Journals in which UK Authors Publish
2012
2014
Gold APC
7.8%
8.2%
Gold no APC
8.7%
8.6%
45.5%
49.0%
2.3%
2.4%
Subscription-only
35.6%
31.7%
Total no. journals
21,741
22,486
Hybrid
‘Delayed OA’
2012
2014
Gold APC
7.2%
7.3%
Gold no APC
6.2%
5.6%
59.9%
63.8%
3.5%
3.8%
23.1%
19.5%
13,411
13,585
Hybrid
‘Delayed OA’
Subscription-only
Posting Policies and Embargoes



Generally permissive for pre-prints, less
so for ‘accepted manuscripts’ (AAMs),
much less so for published Versions of
Record (VoRs)
Similarly most permissive for postings
on author websites, less so for
institutional repositories, subject
repositories, and least permissive for
commercial sites
Some policies difficult to find, and
sometimes difficult to interpret
Deposit and embargo periods, AAMs
2. Accessibility: Take-up of OA
Take-up of OA Publishing Options
Take-up of Publishing Models: Articles Published
Global Total of Articles (SCOPUS)
Articles Published by UK Authors
2012
2014
FWCI
Gold APC
7.9%
9.6%
0.90
Gold no APC
4.9%
4.6%
Hybrid Gold
0.8%
‘Delayed OA'
Subscription-only incl
hybrid non-Gold
Total no.articles
2012
2014
FWCI
Gold APC
7.4%
9.3%
1.58
0.56
Gold no APC
2.4%
2.1%
0.96
2.4%
1.32
Hybrid Gold
2.7%
6.5%
1.65
5.3%
5.4%
1.89
‘Delayed OA'
11.0%
11.2%
2.37
81.1%
78.0%
1.03
Subscription-only incl
hybrid non-Gold
76.4%
70.7%
1.57
2,351,119
2,519,824
148,466
157,240
Postings of Articles
Versions of Articles Posted: Global Sample
Version
Immediate Delayed
OA
OA
(incl hybrid)
Subscription Total
(all
articles)
Preprint
2.7%
2.5%
4.2%
3.9%
3.9%
AAM
1.8%
8.0%
3.2%
3.1%
2.5%
52.5%
39.7%
11.1%
17.8%
9.6%
56.0%
47.2%
17.6%
24.0%
15.1%
56.0%
22.3%
7.9%
VoR
Total (de-duplicated
for multiple versions)
Total (excl illicit
postings)
Total
(all articles
excl illicit)
Postings of UK Articles
Versions of Articles Posted: UK Sample
Version
Immediate
OA
(incl hybrid)
Delayed
OA
Subscription Total
(all
articles)
Total
(all articles
excl illicit)
Preprint
3.7%
2.2%
6.1%
5.5%
5.5%
AAM
2.2%
5.9%
3.4%
3.3%
2.6%
58.0%
39.8%
12.8%
22.4%
12.4%
61.6%
46.6%
21.2%
29.8%
19.0%
61.6%
17.0%
9.2%
VoR
Total (de-duplicated for
multiple versions)
Total (excl illicit
postings)
Where are articles posted?
Overall Proportion of OA Content 2014
3. Usage
Are OA articles used more than nonOA?
All publications
Total number
of articles)







Open Access
HTML/PDF
downloads
Av.
downloads
per article
Non Open Access
Av.
downloads
per article
Ratio of
downloads of
OA/non-OA
Views
and downloadsNo.occur
on an increasing
range of
Journals
articles
No. articles
sites…….
452%
1
678
285,922
58
1,463
620
324
Total
HTML
Full Textdownloads
Av retrieval
245%
2
815No. Articles
887,130
204
1,957 Article PDF
611
799
Publisher
data
suggests
more
for
OA
articles,
Year
Available
Retrieval
Retrieval
per article
619%
3
443
376,065
40
3,579
403
but with huge variations between journals 578
127 248%
2012
2,790,219
251,363,758
4
1,208
1,709,396from
223
2,758 104,153,931
985
1,111 Portal
Confirmed
by
data
Jisc’s
Usage
Statistics
169%
5
452
587,593
65
2,001
387
1,182
Downloads
from
UK
IRs
highly
skewed
and
dwarfed
by
159
2013
3,119,643
389,623,123
106,260,140
405%
654
1,340,695
151 from
4,874
1,202
those 6from publishers
and
PMC 503
2014
3,506,23478,014
513,545,220
7
136
24
1,383 145,227,684
112
400 188 346%
No data
from
sharing
sites8
390%
8
141
23,538
557
133
143
No definitive
to the
until
article-level
n/a
9
136 answer
622,370
136 question
4,576
0
n/a
n/a
10
52
63,606
52 openly
1,223
0
n/a
download
data
made
more
available
352%
Total
961
2,947
3,754
837
No-one
has4,715data5,974,329
on the demographics
of usage
4. Financial Sustainability
Costs for UK Universities and Funders:
APCs

Huge variations between universities

Huge variations in prices paid


Discounts, special deals, offsetting….
Relationship between mean APC paid and
citation impact of journal
Total Cost for UK Universities: APCs
and Subscriptions

APCs now a significant part of some
universities’ total expenditure on journals



range from 1% to 39% across 24 universities
average 14% (12% excl. UCL)
Offsetting clearly an important issue in a
context of financial constraints for
universities and funders
Financial Sustainability: Learned Societies

c280 UK Learned Societies publish journals




24%publish on their own account; 76% use
publishing partners
dependence on publishing revenues for other
charitable activities varies from nil to >100%


63% publish a single journal
22% publish three or more
for more than half of societies, publishing surpluses
represent over 50% of their charitable expenditure
too early to see significant change since 2012
Conclusions?

A baseline picture of OA in the UK



with some international comparisons
A collaborative exercise across different
stakeholders
Building on this exercise for the future
Reference and thanks



Jubb, M et al (2015) Monitoring the Transition to Open
Access: A report for the Universities UK Open Access
Co-ordination Group. London, Universities UK
http://www.researchinfonet.org/oamonitoring/
Thanks to Stephane Goldstein (RIN); Mayur Amin, Andrew Plume,
Stephanie Oeben, M’Hamed Aisati (Elsevier); Stephen Pinfield,
Peter Bath, Jennifer Salter (University of Sheffield); Rob Johnson,
Mattia Fosci (Research Consulting)