Narcis refreshed, but not improved

Narcis is the overarching repository of (Open Access) repositories in the Netherlands. The website was entirely refreshed last week. It got a fresh, modern look. This new look was badly needed.
What did not change was the underlying database and quality of the data. That is a rally missed opportunity. Changing the paint, where repairing the woodwork is really needed is actually a waste of time and money.

Of course Narcis can’t repair it’s framework without the co-operation of the underlying repositories. With at least all universites buying in to better Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) this is the moment to prepare Narcis for the future.

I have pleaded on this blog before to make Narcis the comprehensive metadata aggregator for all scholarly output in the Netherlands. Not only Open Access (OA) publications. But the comprehensive university output. The numbers for the official VSNU reports on scholarly productivity should be based on Narcis, and all metadata underlying those reports should become verifiable in Narcis. This improves the transparency of reporting and transparency of the generated reports. Then, it should go without saying that meaningful reports of the status of Open Access in the Netherlands, as requested by the minister of education, should be generated on the basis of Narcis.

Narcis should serious work on the deduplication of all information. Currently many metadata descriptions reported by separate universities are reported separately, leading to over reporting of actual figures. Based on the estimated of national co-publlication, an overreporting of at least 20% is currently expected. Narcis should merge those records and offer link outs to all repositories contributing the metadata. This deduplication can be greatly improved if they also make better use of standard identieifers such as the Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Currently the DOI is not part of the metadata exchange protocol and this is a serious miss of course.

Narcis should take up the role as metadata exchange platform. e.g. If Groningen and Wageningen have both a co-publication and there is an OA version available in Groningen. There should be service that Wageningen can use to check and harvest that OA version as well and thus safeguard the item on basis of the Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe (LOCKSS) principle. Similar for the exchange of Digital Author Identifiers (DAI). If Utrecht has indicated a DAI for an author in Utrecht in a co-publication with Wageningen, we should be able to resolve the DAI from the author in Utrecht through Narcis and complete the metadata in our systems, starting with the CRIS of course, and harvest the DAI for the none Wageningen authors from Narcis.

Narcis as a link resolver. It should’s be too difficult to change Narcis into a link resolver to find OA versions of Toll Access articles. Exchange of the DOI would help of course, since you want to resolver on the article level and not on the journal level as is done in the current link resolvers. The benefits would be great to the Dutch public and the relevance of the individual repositories would increase.

Narcis got a new colour and letter type. It looks really nice now, but I look forward to bold steps in the direction of improving the database. Making the database an essential part in the Dutch repository infrastructure and boosting the importance and relevance of the institutional repositories.

The costs for going Gold in the Netherlands

For a meeting of the Open Access work group of Dutch university libraries and the licenses work group of those same universities I was asked to make an estimate of the Costs for a 100% Gold OA model for the Netherlands. In this blog post I want to explain the methodology how I arrived at the outcome of the current calculation and contribute to this subject.

In the first slide I compare the Dutch output registered in the two most suitable databases for this research question. Scopus and Web of Science. To my own amazement Scopus only covered more Dutch publications after 2004. For the calculation of the Article Processing Charges (APC) paid by the Dutch research community it is fair to concentrate on the articles and reviews only. Editorials, letters and conference proceedings were therefore left out the equation. Scopus had the lead in articles and reviews already in 2003. Also striking in this graph is that WoS is slower in updating the database than Scopus, since year 2013 is clear trailing behind. Based on the presented graph, it is likely that we will see some 40,000 articles and reviews published by Dutch (co-)authors.

Since the Web of Science interface was renewed, in the search results an Open Access facet was added. The open access facet identifies the journals covered by Web of Science and registered in the DOAJ. The list of Open Access journals covered by Web of Science, i.e. the Open Access journals with an impact factor, or those that will soon receive an impact factor is freely available from Thomson Reuters. Because of the improved OA identification -but not perfect- Web of Science was the database of choice for this exercise. In the second slide I show the increase share of Open Access articles in journal articles covered by Web of Science in the Netherlands. In 2013 3,776 of 35,267 articles and reviews were published in Gold Open Access journals. That is 10.7%

Looking into more detail at the share of open access articles from the Netherlands in graph 3. I distighuish two points of inflection. After 2004 the share of Open Access articles really took off. I guess that this has to do with the expanded coverage of Open Access journals by Web of Science. Since 2007 Web of Science really started to expand its journal coverage. The second point of inflexion seems to be 2010, when PLoS ONE really started to become popular after it had received its first Impact Factor listing.

So far I talked about the Dutch publication as if they were all produced by the universities. In actual fact 13% of the output in 2013 was not produced by universities and 87% by universities and their academic hospitals.

Comparing the number of Open Access articles found in Web of Science and the refereed articles registered in Narcis, we see a big gap in the older years that closes in the current years. The gap is largely caused by green Open Access articles, Hybrid Open Access article, and Open Access articles published in journals not covered by Web of Science. The relative importance of these three factors need to be established. The lines touching in 2014 is an indication that Gold Open Access is important in filling the repositories immediately and that registering the Green articles in repositories actually take some time. Also because of publisher’s embargoes.

Price information for Article Processing Charges (APC) can be found on the eigenfactor website. Looking into detail to the articles published in 2013. 3314 articles were published in journals APCs , and only 404 in journals without APCs. The average APC for the paid OA journal was on average € 1220,- Taking the free journal articles into account as well, the PAC dropped to € 1087,- on average. All these prices are VAT exclusive.

The total costs for gold Open Access publishing for the Netherlands as covered by journals indexed in Web of Science increased nearly linearly from € 1.5 million in 2009 to just over € 4 million in 2013.

Over this five year period we paid quite substantial APC to the following publishers. As to be expected most to Springer/BMC and PLoS. Followed by Oxford University Press. The mentioned European Geosciences Union is in fact published by Copernicus publishers in Germany. Frontiers was recently acquired by the Nature Publishing Group. The license work group really has a list to consider next to the ‘traditional’ big deals with the standard publishers. It is wisely to see if deals can be struck on APC with Open Access publishers as well. Heather Morrison showed just the other day that we have had some steep price increases by BMC/Springer.

There are some points to consider. Not all research published by Dutch researchers is produced by Dutch Researchers only. In the Science, Technology and Innovation indicators it is indicated that some 50% of publications involve international collaboration. So for 50% of the articles Dutch authors don’t always have to pay the full APC. It is paid by the corresponding author from another country. The bill is shared. Or any other variation. Some research in this area is badly needed.
The APC are another issue. The eigenfactor collection was a good starting point, but are perhaps a bit behind reality for some journals already. Some publishers provide lists of all their journals, but often the lack sufficient metadata -e.g. issn- to do actually something useful with the lists. But in most cases APC are well hidden away, somewhere deep down in the instructions to authors for a single journal only. Publishers should be more transparent in this area.
Where the number of ‘Dutch’ articles might be an over estimation, 21% VAT is not.
In WoS currently only 718 Open Access journals are indexed, out of 9744 listed in DOAJ. Those 718 journals are an increase of 99 OA journals from the 619 I found in december 2010. But it is still a long way from the nearly 10,000 Open Access journals we know of. Of course WoS wants, and should, only cover the top tier journals, but there is more values in those 10,000 DOAJ journals than the current WoS selection. In addition to that, WoS should find a way to indicated OA articles in Toll Access journals as well.

Having made these considerations. My estimate is that in 2014 some 40,000 articles and reviews will be published by Dutch researchers. Applying the average APC of € 1087,- I arrive at an estimated € 43,500,000,- for the Netherlands if all Dutch research would be published in Gold Open Access journals. That figure should be compared to the current spending on journal subscriptions in the Netherlands by Dutch Universities, which is about € 34 million per year Euro at the moment. Going for gold will cost therefore € 10.5 million. That is a lot of money.