Enquête Archives Ouvertes COUPERIN 2017 : résultats de l’enquête

Auteurs/Authors : Emmanuelle Ashta, Louise Béraud, Christelle Caillet, Mathilde Gallet, Marine Laffont, Diane Le Henaff, Léa Maubon, Christine Okret, Nicolas Pinet, Anne Slomovici, Sandrine Girod

Les archives ouvertes s’inscrivent de plus en plus solidement et durablement dans le paysage documentaire de l’enseignement supérieur. Si les organismes de recherche ont été précurseurs pour la création d’archives ouvertes, les grandes écoles, mais surtout les universités ont désormais massivement rejoint le mouvement.

Signe de cette progression notable, 82 % des répondants disposent en 2017 d’une archive en production ou en cours de mise en œuvre, contre 62 % en 2014. L’adoption majoritaire de la plate-forme HAL (qui représente 79 % des archives en production et 84 % des archives des universités parmi les répondants) se renforce encore depuis 2014.

La structuration d’un réseau des utilisateurs de HAL au sein du club utilisateur CasuHal, même si elle est relativement récente (septembre 2016), semble portée par une vraie dynamique puisque 68 % des établissements ayant une archive ouverte adhèrent ou projettent d’y adhérer.

L’intégration des archives ouvertes à leur environnement technique progresse globalement mais toujours partiellement depuis 2014. L’intégration aux sites web institutionnels ainsi qu’aux catalogues de bibliothèques est désormais majoritairement effective, mais elle reste insuffisante vers les systèmes d’information des établissements, ENT, SI Recherche et outils de gestion RH.

La place des archives ouvertes dans le contexte global d’un marché de la publication scientifique en plein questionnement (conflits ouverts avec les éditeurs, généralisation du Gold Open Access, questionnements autour de nouveaux modèles possibles de publication et d’évaluation, Open Science) progresse depuis 2014 mais semble encore insuffisamment prise en compte par les établissements porteurs, seule une petite majorité d’entre eux (53 %, contre 30,6 % en 2014) ayant inscrit en 2017 leur Archive Ouverte dans une politique globale d’établissement.

D’où des freins récurrents au développement des projets, que l’on observe d’une part via des politiques de dépôt encore majoritairement, et notamment pour les universités, peu contraignantes et peu efficaces, mais aussi par la constance des obstacles identifiés pour la réussite des projets qui restent les mêmes depuis 10 ans : manque d’implication politique, communication institutionnelle insuffisante, faiblesse des moyens humains dédiés mais surtout et structurellement une trop faible implication des chercheurs dans la démarche.

Resserrer toujours plus les liens entre les acteurs les plus actifs du développement des archives ouvertes que sont les bibliothèques et services de documentation (72 % des répondants 2017 ne travaillent qu’en bibliothèque) et les organes scientifiques, politiques et décisionnels des établissements semble donc plus que jamais de mise pour que ce mouvement se pérennise et continue durablement de croître.

URL : https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_01858348

The rent’s too high: Self-archive for fair online publication costs

Authors : Robert T. Thibault, Amanda MacPherson, Stevan Harnad, Amir Raz

The main contributors of scientific knowledge, researchers, generally aim to disseminate their findings far and wide. And yet, publishing companies have largely kept these findings behind a paywall.

With digital publication technology markedly reducing cost, this enduring wall seems disproportionate and unjustified; moreover, it has sparked a topical exchange concerning how to modernize academic publishing.

This discussion, however, seems to focus on how to compensate major publishers for providing open access through a « pay to publish » model, in turn transferring financial burdens from libraries to authors and their funders.

Large publishing companies, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, PLoS, and Frontiers, continue to earn exorbitant revenues each year, hundreds of millions of dollars of which now come from processing charges for open-access articles.

A less expensive and equally accessible alternative exists: widespread self-archiving of peer-reviewed articles. All we need is awareness of this alternative and the will to employ it.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.06130

Simplifying OA Policy Compliance for Authors Through a Publisher- Repository Partnership

Authors : Mariya Maistrovskaya, Judy Hum-Delaney

In April of 2015, Canadian Science Publishing (CSP) in partnership with the University of Toronto Libraries launched an automated manuscript deposit service. Upon author’s opt-in, an automated workflow transfers their accepted manuscript from the publisher system into the University of Toronto research repository, TSpace, where it is made openly available with a reference to the final version on the journal website.

This free service is available to authors publishing their work in CSP’s NRC Research Press journals and is of particular interest to grant recipients looking to comply with the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications that came into effect in 2015.

This paper provides an overview of the partnership and the workflow that makes over 1,200 manuscripts openly available annually. It also shares the script that can be adopted by other libraries and publishers looking to provide automated deposit service to authors for the purpose of funder mandate compliance, green OA, or preservation.

URL : https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01816819v1

Opportunities and Barriers of Indian Open Access Repositories

Author : Bijan Kumar Roy

Provides a brief overview of open access (OA) and highlights on growth of open access repository (OAR) movement all over the World including India. Highlights on some of the major initiatives taken by Indian government time to time in order to popularizing OARs movement throughout the country.

The main objective of the study is to discuss some of the open access self archiving policies as adopted by repositories registered in OpenDOAR database. The paper also discusses some of the problems of Indian OARs along with suggestions in the line of global recommendations.

URL : Opportunities and Barriers of Indian Open Access Repositories

Alternative location : http://irjlis.com/opportunities-and-barriers-of-indian-open-access-repositories/

The influence of journal publisher characteristics on open access policy trends

Authors : Elizabeth Gadd, Jenny Fry, Claire Creaser

Examines SHERPA/RoMEO publisher open access (OA) policy information for 100 publishers over a 13 year period (2004–2016) to consider whether their size, type or country (UK or US) affected the development of their OA policy over time.

A publisher’s RoMEO colour code, whether they offered a Gold OA option, and the mean number of restrictions as to when, how and where papers may be self-archived, were all mapped. Kruskal–Wallis tests were run to assess whether the differences between their 2004 and 2016 positions were statistically significant.

Finds that the growth of Green and Gold OA policy approaches has not been evenly distributed amongst publishers with some significant differences amongst publishers of different size, types and country (UK and US).

Large commercial publishers are more likely to be allocated a RoMEO colour code, but at the same time place a high volume of restrictions as to where and how authors might self-archive. Small publishers are less likely to have a RoMEO green colour code, but the volume of restrictions they place on self-archiving are minimal.

University presses appear not to be engaging with either OA agenda to any considerable degree. UK and US publishers’ OA policies appear to be influenced by the national OA policy environment which, considering the global nature of the scholarly journals market, was more pronounced than might have been anticipated.

URL : The influence of journal publisher characteristics on open access policy trends

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2716-8

Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories

Author : Ruth Kitchin Tillman

INTRODUCTION

The literature of institutional repositories generally indicates that faculty do not self-deposit, but there is a gap in the research of reported self-deposit numbers that might indicate how widespread and common this is.

METHODS

This study was conducted using a survey instrument that requested information about whether a repository allowed self-deposit and what its rates of self-deposit were, if known.

The instrument contained additional questions intended to gather a broader context of repositories to be examined for any correlations with higher rates of self-deposit. It also included questions about the kinds of labor required to populate an IR as well as satisfaction with the rates of self-deposit.

RESULTS

Of 82 respondents, 80 were deemed to fall within the study’s parameters. Of these, 55 respondents’ institutions allowed self-deposit, and 10 reported rates of self-deposit of more than 20 items per month.

More than half the total respondents reported using at least three methods other than relying on self-deposit to add content to their repository. Respondents are generally unsatisfied with their deposit profiles, including one at a school reporting the highest rate of self-deposit.

DISCUSSION

From the responses, no profile could be formed of respondents reporting high rates of self-deposit that did not entirely overlap with many others reporting little or no self-deposit. However, the survey identifies factors without which high rates are unlikely.

CONCLUSION

The results of this survey may be most useful as a factor in administrative prioritizations and expectations regarding institutional repositories as sites of scholarly self-deposit.

URL : Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories

DOI : http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2203