Publishing and the Ecology of European Research (PEER):
A ground-breaking collaboration
Julia Wallace, Project Manager, PEER
British Library /ILIAC Open Access Seminar 30 November 2009
Supported by the EC eContentplus programme
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
1
www.peerproject.eu
Why is PEER needed?
There is agreement between publishing and research
communities about the importance of access to results of
European funded research
But
– there is no consensus on the need for mandated
deposits or appropriate embargo periods
– or the impact this may have on journals
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
2
www.peerproject.eu
Current Situation
• Rapid growth of institutional repositories
• Individual funding agency mandates
• Publisher experimentation
• Lack of agreement on evidence to date
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
3
www.peerproject.eu
Key Problems & Issues
• Impact of systematically archiving stage-two outputs
(accepted manuscripts) is not clear
– on journals and business models
– on wider ecology of scientific research
• Varying policies are confusing for authors and readers
• Lack of understanding and trust between publishers and
research community
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
4
www.peerproject.eu
The three key stages of publication
Publisher Investment
Public Investment
Stage One
(NISO Author’s
original)
Primary
Outputs of
Research:
•raw data
•Draft for
submission to
a journal
Stage Two
(NISO Accepted
Manuscript)
Stage Three
(NISO Version of Record)
Author’s
manuscript
incorporating
peer review
enhancements
& as accepted
for publication
Final published article on
journal website: version of
record with copyediting,
typesetting, full citability, crossreferencing, interlinking with
other articles, supplementary
data
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
5
www.peerproject.eu
Purpose of PEER
PEER has been set up to monitor the effects of systematic
archiving of ‘stage two’ research outputs: the version of the
author’s manuscript accepted for publication (NISO - Accepted
Manuscript)
•
Publishers and research community collaborate
•
Develop an “observatory” to monitor the impact of systematically depositing
stage-two outputs on a large scale
•
Gather hard evidence to inform future policies
•
Project duration: September 2008 – August 2011
•
Project budget: €4.2 million
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
6
www.peerproject.eu
Objectives
• Determine how large-scale deposit of stage-two outputs
will affect journal viability
• Determine whether it increases access
• Determine whether it affects the broader ecology of
European research
• Determine the factors affecting readiness to deposit and
associated costs
• Develop model(s) to show how traditional publishing can
coexist with self-archiving
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
7
www.peerproject.eu
Stakeholders in scholarly communication
•
•
•
•
Publishers
Researchers – authors and users
Libraries and repositories
Funding agencies
All of the above stakeholder groups are
represented within PEER, both within the
consortium & an advisory board
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
8
www.peerproject.eu
Project Organisation
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
9
www.peerproject.eu
PEER Consortium
The PEER consortium (5 Executive members):
• International Association of Scientific, Technical and
Medical Publishers (STM) - Co-ordinator
• European Science Foundation (ESF)
• Göttingen State and University Library (UGOE)
• Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG)
• Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en
Automatique (INRIA)
Plus technical partners: SURF & Universität Bielefeld
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
10
www.peerproject.eu
Participating Publishers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
BMJ Publishing Group
Cambridge University Press
EDP Sciences
Elsevier
IOP Publishing
Nature Publishing Group
Oxford University Press
Portland Press
Sage Publications
Springer
Taylor & Francis Group
Wiley-Blackwell
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
11
www.peerproject.eu
Participating Repositories
• eSciDoc.PubMan, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur
Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. (MPG)
• HAL, CNRS & Institut National de Recherche en
Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA)
• Göttingen State and University Library (UGOE)
• BiPrints, Universität Bielefeld (UNIBI)
• Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania
• University Library of Debrecen, Hungary
Plus Koninklijke Bibliotheek (preservation)
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
12
www.peerproject.eu
Research Oversight Group (ROG)
• Justus Haucap, University of Duesseldorf
Chair: German Monopolies Commission
• Henk Moed, Leiden University
Recipient: Derek de Solla Price Award
• Carol Tenopir, University of Tennessee
Recipient: International Information Industry Lifetime
Achievement Award
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
13
www.peerproject.eu
PEER Advisory Board (1)
Funders:
• Dr Johannes Fournier, DFG, Germany
• Mr Robert Kiley, Wellcome Trust, UK
• Professor Ebba Nexo, Aarhus Universitetshospital, Denmark
• Dr Donald J Waters, Mellon Foundation, USA
Librarians:
• Dr Paul Ayris, University College London, UK
• Dr Elisabeth Niggemann, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, Germany
• Dr Sijbolt Noorda, VSNU, The Netherlands
• Drs. Bas Savenije, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Netherlands
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
14
www.peerproject.eu
PEER Advisory Board (2)
Researchers:
• Dr Elea Gimenez-Toledo, CSIC, Madrid, Spain
• Professor Jane Grimson, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland
• Professor Norbert Kroo, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary
• Professor Michel Mareschal, L'Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
Publishers:
• Mr Mayur Amin, Elsevier, UK
• Ms Stella Dutton, BMJ Group, UK
• Cliff Morgan, Wiley-Blackwell, UK
• Mr John Ochs, ACS, USA
• Wim van der Stelt, Springer SBM, The Netherlands
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
15
www.peerproject.eu
Overall Approach - Observatory
• Publishers contribute up to 500 journals (242 plus a control group
~200+) across 4 broad subject areas: Medicine, Life Sciences,
Physical Sciences and Social Sciences & Humanities
• Rigorous journal selection process followed & validated by research
teams
• Maximise deposit and access within participating EU repositories
– 50% publisher-assisted deposit
– 50% author self-archiving
• Collaborate with DRIVER to involve repositories
• Commission research from independent research teams to assess
impact – behavioural, access/usage (and economic)
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
16
www.peerproject.eu
Technical outcomes
• Report on the provision of usage data and manuscript
deposit procedures for publishers and repository
managers (available from PEER website)
• Full text format PDFA-1/ PDF
• Mandatory metadata fields (from DRIVER) - XML
• SWORD protocol for ingest by repositories (Simple WebService Offering Repository Deposit)
http://www.swordapp.org/
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
17
www.peerproject.eu
Challenges faced
• Non uniformity of publisher outputs
• Varying requirements by repositories
• EU filtering of content
• Embargo management for author deposits
• Author authentication for deposit
• Non uniformity of log files
• Inclusion of ‘retained’ stage-2 content from publishers
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
18
www.peerproject.eu
PEER- Content submission flowchart
Publishers
select
eligible journals / articles
100% metadata
deposit
50%
manuscripts
50% manuscripts
inform
Authors
deposit
deposit
PEER Depot
deposi
t
deposit
Central Deposit Interface
deposit
deposit
PEER Repositories
UNIBI
KTU
HAL
LTP Depot
UGOE
MPG
ULD
External
Repositories
deposit
(e.g. institutional)
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
19
www.peerproject.eu
Content submission − Authors
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
20
www.peerproject.eu
Research in PEER
• Behavioural research: Authors and Users vis-à-vis
Journals and Repositories
• Usage research: Journals and Repositories
• Economic research
• Open tendering process
• Expert ‘Research Oversight Group’ (ROG) appointed
–
–
–
–
Contribute to Invitation to Tender documents
Assess tenders received and advise PEER Executive
Advise on final research questions & approach
Validate research throughout the project
• any potential conflicts of interest declared
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
21
www.peerproject.eu
Behavioural research team & objectives
Department of Information Science and LISU at
Loughborough University, UK
Objectives:
• Track trends and explain patterns of author and user
behaviour in the context of so called Green Open
Access.
• Understand the role repositories play for authors in the
context of journal publishing.
• Understand the role repositories play for users in context
of accessing journal articles.
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
22
www.peerproject.eu
Behavioural research questions (Examples)
• In seeking information what choices do readers make in
locating and selecting sources and in what ways do such
choices influence the role played by repositories in
information seeking behaviours?
• In publishing research, what choices do authors make in
locating and selecting appropriate outlets, and what are
the major influences on their choices? Where do
repositories fit in the dissemination landscape?
• What common perceptions do readers have in relation to
repositories, e.g. quality, authority of versions, and
availability, and how do such perceptions influence
information behaviours?
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
23
www.peerproject.eu
Usage research team & objectives
CIBER group, University College London, UK
Objectives:
• Determine usage trends at publishers and
repositories;
• Understand source and nature of use of
deposited manuscripts in repositories;
• Track trends, develop indicators and explain
patterns of usage for repositories and journals.
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
24
www.peerproject.eu
Usage research questions (Examples)
“Commercial” impact of self-archiving
• Will the usage of publisher stage III articles increase, decrease or
remain constant over the period of the experiment and to what
extent can this be attributed to repository use and access?
Effects of embargoes
• Will repository stage II manuscripts with an embargo receive less
use (and how much less use) that those without an embargo?
New and different users
• Does the experiment result in the use of articles by groups who
might otherwise be not able to access them?
Different, complementary use
• Whether repositories and publisher platforms offer different things to
readers
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
25
www.peerproject.eu
Economic Research
The Objectives of the economics research:
• Investigate the cost of the large-scale deposit of stagetwo research outputs (including the economic efficiency
or cost of the process of deposit).
• Understand the costs incurred by participating publishers
and repositories (of the PEER Project).
• Understand and compare access costs at journals and
repositories.
• Understand, principally, for the deposit of so-called
Stage 2 manuscripts the costs.
• Analyze the overall effects of large-scale deposit (Green
OA) on the economics of scholarly communication.
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
26
www.peerproject.eu
Where are we now?
• Most publishers validated & feeding PEER Depot
• Author submission invitations to commence 1 December
2009
• Usage research team have reviewed the observatory
framework
• Behavioural baseline study will be publicly available
soon
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
27
www.peerproject.eu
Next steps
• Inclusion of publisher ‘back-file’ content
• Ingest by repositories following expiration of embargo
periods
• Provision of logfiles for usage research (from publisher
platforms and repositories)
• Select research team & commence Economic research
• Prepare for second round of behavioural research
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
28
www.peerproject.eu
PEER - Measuring Success
• Critical success factors
– Observatory collects sufficient reliable data to draw
conclusions
– Stakeholders use the evidence gathered
• Success indicators therefore focus on
– Underlying data provided to the observatory
– Success at communicating results
– Not what the observatory measures, e.g. user uptake
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
29
www.peerproject.eu
PEER- Expected Results
• Greater understanding of the effects of large-scale
deposit in OA repositories
• Evidence to inform future policies
• Model(s) illustrating how to maximise the benefits of
traditional publishing and archiving
• Trust and mutual understanding between publisher and
research communities
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
30
www.peerproject.eu
Thank you for your attention
Questions?
For further information visit
www.peerproject.eu
Or e-mail: peer@stm-assoc.org
PEER Publishing and the Ecology of European Research
31
www.peerproject.eu