57
5.13. A recent study[1] indicates that seven UK universities have established a co-ordinated approach for the payment of APCs, though the precise nature and extent of those arrangements differs from institution to institution. Nottingham has the biggest and longest-established arrangements, and it spent over £318,000 in 2010-11 on APCs for over 260 articles. Some have suggested that the development and implementation of research information systems by universities will ease the linking of research publications to specific research projects and funders, and thus simplify the process of recouping costs from funders. Some intermediaries such as subscription agents are also considering the possibility of managing accounts and handling the administration of APCs.[2] And the larger open access publishers such as BioMedCentral, PLoS and Hindawi have membership and prepayment schemes to ease the administrative burdens .
5.14. Nevertheless, it is clear that difficulties in securing funding to meet APCs is a significant barrier to wider uptake;[3] and the administrative arrangements add to the difficulties. Even where university funds are available, as at the University of Nottingham, only a small proportion of the papers produced by researchers are published in open access journals: Nottingham authors publish around 3,500 papers in journals each year, and a further 500 conference papers. Simplifying the funding and the payment arrangements is essential if there is to be wider take-up by researchers in all institutions.
Current developments
5.15. The various problems and difficulties relating to both repositories and open access publishing outlined above—along with simple inertia—have acted as brakes on moves towards open access. Moreover, for many researchers, the key goal remains to secure publication of their results in the highest-status journal they can manage, in order to secure the credibility and the career rewards that follow from such publications, as well as to maximise readership and impact in their fields. Open access tends to be a secondary consideration, even though the evidence seems to indicate that it leads to increased usage.[4]
5.16. But the policy proposals we have referred to earlier from Government, the Funding Councils, and the Research Councils, together with those expected from the European Union, are likely to give a further push towards open access. We consider the possible impact of these policies in Sections 7 and 8.
- ↑ Stephen Pinfield and Christine Middleton, Open access central funds in UK universities, Learned Publishing 21 (2) 2012
- ↑ A dedicated service for that purpose has been launched by Open Access Key: www.openacceskey.com
- ↑ Dallmaier, Tiessen, Suenje et al, Highlights from the SOAP project survey: what scientists think about open access publishing, available from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.5260.pdf
- ↑ The evidence depends on the reliability and consistency of download statistics from different publication archives. Evidence on whether open access leads to more citations is less even less clear-cut. See PM Davis, ‘Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing’, FASEB Journal, 25, pp 2129-2134, 2011
