Monitoring of Open Access publishing in the Dutch academic system Thed van Leeuwen CWTS, Leiden University DANS Workshop on OA Monitoring Den Haag, 23 rd May, 2018
Outline of the presentation Some background on the study for the UKB Werkgroep Licenties Data collection and indicators applied Results on national level Conclusions and discussion 1
Some background on the study 2
What is the study all about Question : can CWTS help out in calculating shares of OA outputs per university/umc, and per publisher, as that would create better informed negotiations with the publishing industry, while preparing for the Big Deals. Kind permission by the UMCs to re-use their data for this study 3
Data collection & indicators applied 4
Data collection for the study Use the CWTS in-house version of WoS, selecting publications from 2009-2016 (focus on Art-Let-Rev). Select all publications from Dutch universities and UMCs therein (data from the Leiden Ranking facilities, as well as the annual analysis for the UMCs) Identify most important/largest publishers in the system for the Netherlands. Add field labels to the publications (use the NOWT classification). Analysis of the choice of journals for publishing (for which JFIS was selected, see van Leeuwen & Moed, 2002). Be aware of the limitations of the study for the social sciences, humanities, and law with respect to publishing culture (e.g., van Leeuwen, 2013)
Define data sources of OA labels in WoS Data sources should comply with two criteria: Sources have to be sustainable Data are in the public domain, without immediate and direct risk of disappearing behind a pay-wall. Sources need to be legal Inclusion in the data source should not be based on illegal acts by individual researchers.
Sources that comply with both criteria The DOAJ list Gold OA The ROAD list Gold OA CrossRef Green OA PubMedCentral Green OA OpenAIRE Green OA Data sources that did not comply with the second requirement are: ResearchGate SciHub
Updating of the database and future plans The first update of the database created some challenges: Change in the coverage of the DOAJ List of Gold Open Access journals Change in the way publications are indexed and disclosed in OpenAIRE Currently, we are working on Unpaywall for inclusion in the process (due to the type and scale of implementation, we need to negotiate usage) A next challenge is to define Hybrid OA in the database, which might be helped by inclusion of Unpaywall
1 - Indicators used in analysis of OA in WoS Number of publications: P The number of normal articles, reviews, and letters as processed for journals covered in the Web of Science database Field normalized citation impact: MNCS The comparison of the real impact of a set of publications with expected citation scores, based upon output similarity in the exact same fields, years, and documents. Journal to field normalized citation impact: JFIS Comparison of the impact of journals selected for publishing with the expected field citation impact, based upon output similarity in the exact same fields, years, and documents. JFIS is used as indicative of the prestige of the journal in the field.
2 - Indicators used in analysis of OA in WoS Corresponding authorships are given in WoS For every publication in the Web of Science database from 2009 onwards, we know the corresponding author and thus have also information on the affiliation Scientific cooperation is defined by mutually exclusive classes SI = Single Institute, only one address mentioned IC = International Cooperation, when two country names are mentioned NC = all remaining publications
Results for the period 2009-2015 Annual output numbers per university/umc Annual output numbers Open/Closed per university/umc Annual output numbers per type of Open per university/umc Annual output numbers per publisher per university/umc Annual output numbers Open/Closed per publisher per university/umc Annual output numbers Open/Closed per JFIS-class per university/umc Annual output numbers Open/Closed per JFIS-class per publisher per university/umc Annual output numbers Open/Closed per field/domain per publisher per university/umc 11
Results for the period 2009-2015/2016 (not yet available!) Overall impact per university/umc Overall impact Open/Closed per university/umc Overall impact per type of Open per university/umc Overall impact per publisher per university/umc Overall impact Open/Closed per publisher per university/umc Overall impact Open/Closed per JFIS-class per university/umc Overall impact Open/Closed per JFIS-class per publisher per university/umc Overall impact Open/Closed per veld per publisher per university/umc 12
Results of our analysis 13
Overall situation for all Dutch Universities 14
Overall situation for all Dutch Universities 100% 90% 80% 70% % OA % Gold OA % Green OA 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 15
Corresponding authorships used in analysis of OA Why use Corresponding authorships as given in WoS? By using CorrAuth, the total number of publications under the national OA mandate becomes visible, and in practice, also smaller! What is the situation on CorrAuth? 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 All pubs All CorrAuth pubs 5000 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1 - Corresponding Authorships: Netherlands total 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% % CorrAuth /all % CorrAuth OA /all OA % CorrAuth Gold OA /all Gold OA % CorrAuth Green OA /all Green OA 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 17
2 - Corresponding Authorships: Netherlands, international scientific coop. 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% % CorrAuth /all % CorrAuth OA /all OA % CorrAuth Gold OA /all Gold OA % CorrAuth Green OA /all Green OA 5% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 18
MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNALS ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS PHYSICS AND MATERIALS SCIENCE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES BASIC LIFE SCIENCES EARTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY MATHEMATICS AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY INSTRUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTA TIO N BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES STATISTICAL SCIENCES SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY HEALTH SCIENCES COMPUTER SCIENCES PSYCHOLOGY CLINICAL MEDICINE BASIC MEDICAL SCIENCES CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND AEROSPACE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SCIENCES ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND TELECOMMUNICATION HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS GENERAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY ENERGY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY CIVIL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION CREATIVE ARTS, CULTURE AND MUSIC LITERATURE Average % OA for CorrAuth output (2009-2016) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 19
% OA for CorrAuth output in 2016 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNALS ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS BASIC LIFE SCIENCES PHYSICS AND MATERIALS SCIENCE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES EARTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES HEALTH SCIENCES PSYCHOLOGY MATHEMATICS SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY INSTRUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTA TIO N CLINICAL MEDICINE ENERGY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BASIC MEDICAL SCIENCES STATISTICAL SCIENCES ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION COMPUTER SCIENCES CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SCIENCES MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND AEROSPACE EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCE SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS CIVIL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND TELECOMMUNICATION GENERAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LITERATURE CREATIVE ARTS, CULTURE AND MUSIC 20
Conclusions and discussion 21
Conclusions so far General conclusions: Our methodology is perhaps on the conservative part when it comes to disclose OA publishing Across fields, there is work to be done when it comes to OA publishing! Focus on corresponding authorships makes sense Changes the definition of what is a Dutch paper Lowers the goals for getting Dutch output OA accessible Temporarily might set us back, as our share OA is not developing as quickly as our international scientific cooperation Makes clear what part of the Dutch output is within our OA mandate 22
Thank you for your attention! Any questions? Ask me now, or mail me Leeuwen@cwts.nl