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.

Overview of Open Access journals resources

The ISSN register recently launched a new resource: ROAD, Directory of Open Access scholarly Resources. It is an attempt to describe various Open Access resources. Journals, of course. Besides the journals they describe serials, book series and conference proceedings, but also repositories. The latter was new to me that databases could get an ISSN as well. They have not come very far with their inventory of repositories. Currently they have only indexed 172 Open Access repositories. As can be expected the ROAD directory is far more comprehensive for Open Access journals, currently indexing 7194 Open Access journals and a mere 68 conference proceedings. Book series are not yet included but apparently they will follow in 2014.

The effort of the ISSN organisation to index Open Access repositories is in stark contrast with OpenDOAR which has registered 2582 Open Access repositories worldwide and the Registry of Open Access Repositories with 3585 repositories.

For a comparison of the various initiatives to build and maintain databases of Open Access journals the following databases deserve special mention:

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
Probably the best know collection of Open Access journals. Currently a collection of 9804 free full text, peer reviewed Open Access Journals are described. More than 5636 journals are searchable at the article level on the standard bibliographic metadata of the articles.

Livre!
Livre! is the a journal portal from Brazilian origin, it covers more than 5916 scientific journals, magazines, bulletins and newsletters but you can easily limit the selections to peer reviewed scientific journals.

Jan Szczepanski’s lists of OA-journals
Jan Szczepanski, a librarian at Göteborg University, has collected links and information on Open Access journals for years. His lists contain over 22,000 current OA-journals (end 2013). Het estimates that about 10% of the links in this anthology are dead, but the metadata provided make it possible to find the journal with web search engines or in the Internet archive.

The Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB (Electronic Journals Library)
Covers some 44,000 OA journals. The collection is therefore one of the most comprehensive free journal collections. Just select only the “green” journals and you can browse or search through this impressive collection. The collection covers more than only peer reviewed scholarly journals. Unfortunately you can’t filter out peer reviewed yournals only. You can filter journals by some 41 subject areas.

Walt Crawford’s overview of early E-zines
In Cites & Insight 6(12) Walt Crawford provides an overview of early OA Journals “They weren’t generally called Open Access journals in 1995: If that term existed before 2001 or 2002, it certainly wasn’t the standard name for free online scholarship. But there were examples of free online scholarship, some dating back to 1987.”

I had some doubt whether to include Highwire Press as well. They do list journals from various publishers, but the majority are Toll Access journals, and most of those in Open Access, are delayed open access. Free content as they call it. So it doesn’t fit this collection.

Not a list of journals, but highly suspicious Open Access publishers, is Beall’s list. Most of the resources listed in this post include journals uncritically. Beall’s list is a useful resource to counter some of the Open Access positivism.

The week in review – Week 5, 2014

For a Dutch Open Access advocate there was one event that stood out this week. The speech of @SanderDekker our junior minister Science Policy at the Academic Publishing in Europe 2014 conference this week. His speech ‘Going for Gold‘ was a passionate plea for Open Access that should be achieved through the Golden Road.

Open access is a moral obligation, essential for society and inescapable.

He did not debunk the Green route entirely, but for Dekker the Green Road to Open Access was like coming fourth on a major championship. In the end “if you are going for gold, fourth place is the most frustrating place you can achieve”.
As a product manager, responsible for our repository Staff Publications, I see one clear and present danger in the view of our junior minister. If he accepts the Golden Route as the only route, it might lead to the negligence of the Green Route and subsequently the deterioration repository infrastructure in the Netherlands.

The repository infrastructure in The Netherlands and how it can be improved

The Netherlands has a unique repository infrastructure. All universities have their Open Access repository, in most instances managed by the university libraries. Next to that many research institutes maintain Open Access Repositories as well. All the contents of these repositories are harvested and presented in Narcis the overarching repository of the Netherlands. In total 37 institutes participate in Narcis. But lo and behold the 13 universities are the main contributors to Narcis. There are two different policies practiced at the universities in dissemination their publications to Narcis. A group of universities that disseminate complete metadata on all their output to Narcis and a group of universities that only disseminate their open access publications through their repository to Narcis. Some universities can be placed somewhere between these extremes. Since all universities are in the process of acquiring new Current Research Information Systems, there is the opportunity to seize this moment and make arrangements on the exchange of comprehensive metadata for all official university publication output. Make the Academic Bibliography public, and aggregate that output in Narcis.
All universities have to report their publication output to the Association of Dutch Universities (VSNU) according to a strictly defined protocol. At this moment only the final figures are reported to the VSNU by each university independently. With a small change in policy regulations Narcis could be made the overall repository used for the reporting of these figures and by making these reports publicly available the systems becomes transparent and availability, traceability and verifiability mentioned in the VSNU protocol are all safeguarded. In a much better way than the current situation. The new demands from the Junior Minister of Education to the universities to report on Open Access production should be implemented on Narcis as well. The advantage of a comprehensive publication output registration system is that success of open access achievement can be measured as part of total publication output. If we use for this reporting Narics as well we are nog longer dependent on third party providers for bibliographic data provision and we don’t end up with incomparable numbers.

Comprehensive registration will lead to more publications

If the universities manage to achieve a more comprehensive publication output registration it will subsequently become clear that apart from peer reviewed publications, universities publish a lot more than only peer reviewed publications. Many of those other publications contribute considerably and importantly to the open access production of the universities. These publications are more in the realm of grey literature and play a substantial role in knowledge dissemination to other parties than colleague scholars and universities. These publications reach an audience in other parts of public sector, the industry etc. contributing to the so important knowledge circulation within the Netherlands (WRR, 2014). These other publications have always been produced, but where simply not registered, and more importantly not efficiently disseminated. Registration in a CRIS, dissemination trough a repository and aggregation in Narcis will help to spread the word about this grey literature.

Narcis as a link resolver target

There is another way that can reinforce the role of Narcis as well. If we could make Narcis a link resolver target as well for Open Access versions of Toll Access publications the role of Narcis could gain in importance as well. Some OA advocates rely on the Google’s and Google Scholar to identify Open Access versions of articles. But it would better fit in the academic workflow if an Open Access repository could double function as a link resolver as well. If a researcher is using Scopus to find relevant material for his research, he can locate OA versions of articles he might not have access to when they are present in one of the 37 Dutch repositories. Sugita et al. 2007 already reported on a solution like this in Japan. There is some more information on their AIRway project and the existing targets, where Netherlands is lacking completely. Ross Singer blogged a proposal on this subject as well, but I didn’t see it come to implementation.

Reinforcing the green road in the Netherlands

Sander Dekker happily proclaimed the Golden Route to Open Access as his major policy. I do hope that he, in cooperation with the VSNU, would implement a few minor policy changes that enforce the importance of the Dutch repository infrastructure. If the developers of Narcis manage to make Narcis an Open Access target for link resolvers we get a meaningful and sustainable repository infrastructure for relatively little money.

What else caught my eye this week?

Some selected tweets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

resources

Sugita, S., K. Horikoshi, M. Suzuki, Shin Kataoka, E.S. Hellman & K. Suzuki 2007. Linking service to open access repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 13(3-4) http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/sugita/03sugita.html

WRR. 2013. Naar een lerende economie : Investeren in het verdienvermogen van Nederland. WRR report Vol. 90. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 440pp. http://www.wrr.nl/publicaties/publicatie/article/naar-een-lerende-economie-1

The week in review – week 4

The week in review, a new attempt to get some life back into this weblog. It is inspired of course (for the Dutch readers) on TWIT The Week In Tweets by colleague @UBABert and the older monthly overviews which Deet’jes used to do on Dymphie.com

The new Web of Science interface
Whilst I was in Kenya the previous week to give training for PhD students and staff at Kenyatta University and the University of Nairobi, Thomson Reuters released their new version of the Web of Science. So only this week I had a first go at it. We haven’t been connected to Google Scholar yet, still waiting to see that come through, but in general the new interface is an improvement over the old one. Albeit, searching for authors is still broken for those who haven’t claimed their ResearcherID. But apart from that, what I hadn’t noticed in the demo versions of the new interface is the new Open Access facet in Web of Science. I like it. But immediately the question arises how do they do it jumps to my mind. The is no information in the help files on this new possibility. So my first guess would be the DOAJ list of journals. Through a message on the Sigmetrics list a little more confusion was added, since various PLoS journals are included in their ‘Open Access Journal Title List’, but for PLoS ONE. Actual searches in Web of Science quickly illustrate that for almost any topic in the past view years PLoS ONE is the largest OA journal responsible for content within this Open Access facet. I guess this new facet in Web of Science will spark some more research in the near future. I see the practical approach of Web of Science as a first step in the right direction. The next challenge is of course to indicate the individual Open Access articles in hybrid journals. Followed by -and this will be a real challenge- green archived copies of Toll Access articles. The latter is badly needed since we can’t rely only on Google Scholar to do this for us.

Altmetrics
Two interesting articles in the unfolding field of Altmetrics deserve mention. The groups of Judit Barr-Ilan and Mike Thelwall cooperated in “Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics” . They show that Research Blogging is a good post peer review blogging platform able to pick the better cited articles. However, the number of articles covered by the platform is really too small to be meaningful to become a widely used altmetric indicator.
The other article, at the moment still a working paper, was from CWTS (Costas et al. 2014). They combined Web of Science covered articles with the Altmetric.com indicators and investigated many different Altmetric indicators such as as mentions on Facebook walls, Blogs, Twitter, Google+ and News outlets but not Mendeley. Twitter is by far the most abundant Altmetric source in this study, but blogs are in a better position to identify top publications. However the main problem remains the limited coverage by the various altmetrics tools. For 2012 24% of the publications had an altmetric mention, but already 26% of the publications had scored already a citations. Thus confirming the other study that coverage of the peer reviewed scholarly output is only covered on a limited scale by social media tools.

Scholarly Communication
As a follow up on my previous post on the five stars of transparent pre-publication peer review, a few articles on peer review came to my attention. The first was, yet another, excellent bibliography by Charles W. Bailey Jr. on transforming peer review. He did not cover blogposts, only peer reviewed journals. The contributions to this field are published in many different journals, so an overview like this still has its merits.
Through a tweet from @Mfenner

I was notified on a really interesting book ‘Opening Science‘. It is still lacking a chapter on changes in the peer review system, but it is really strong at indicating new trends in Scholarly Communication and Publishing. Worth further perusing. Rankings Although the ranking season has not started yet. The rankers are always keen of putting old wine in new bags. The Times Higher Education presented this week the 25 most international universities in the world. It is based the THE WUR, released last year, this time only focusing on the ‘international outlook indicator’only which accounts for 7.5% of their standard ranking. Of the Dutch universities Maastricht does well. Despite the fact that Wageningen university host students from more than 150 countries, we only ranked 45th on this indicator. More interesting was an article of Alter and Reback (2014) where they show that rankings actually influence the number of freshman applying for a college in the United States as well as the fact that quality of college life plays an important factor as well. So it makes sense for universities to invest in campus facilities and recreation possibilities such as sports grounds etc. Random notes A study on copy rights, database rights and IPR in Europe for Europeana by Guibault. Too much to read at once, and far too difficult to comprehend at once. But essential reading for repository managers.

 

Resources
Alter, M., and R. Reback. 2014. True for Your School? How Changing Reputations Alter Demand for Selective U.S. Colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0162373713517934 (Free access)
Bailey Jr., C. W. 2014. Transforming Peer Review Bibliography. Available from http://digital-scholarship.org/tpr/tpr.htm
Binfield, P. 2014. Novel Scholarly Journal Concepts. In: Opening Science, edited by Sönke Bartling and Sascha Friesike, 155-163. Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_10. OA version: http://book.openingscience.org/tools/novel_scholarly_journal_concepts.html
Costas, R., Z. Zahedi, and P. Wouters. 2014. Do ‘altmetrics’ correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. CWTS Working Paper Series Vol. CWTS-WP-2014-001. Leiden: CWTS. 30 pp. http://www.cwts.nl/pdf/CWTS-WP-2014-001.pdf
Guibault, L., and A. Wiebe. 2013. Safe to be open : Study on the protection of research data and recommendation for access and usage. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen 167 pp. http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/univerlag/2013/legalstudy.pdf
Shema, H., J. Bar-Ilan, and M. Thelwall. 2014. Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology: n/a-n/a. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23037. OA version: http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/blogCitations.pdf

A census of Open Access repositories in the Netherlands

Open Access receives a lot of attention in the Netherlands. All universities have formulated OA policies explicitly, signed the Berlin OA declaration. Erasmus University Rotterdam Stipulated a mandated OA policy for its researchers. All Dutch universities have repositories in place and there is an overarching repository, narcis.nl, which harvest the repositories of all universities and major research institutions. The UNESCO Global Open Access Portal (GOAP) reported last year “Netherlands has a strong OA awareness and an active promotion of open access through institutional mandates, establishment of OA repositories, OA publishing agreements. SURFfoundation, a Dutch programme for information and communication technology innovation focuses on Open Access and it is the Dutch partner in Knowledge Exchange along with DFG (Germany), DEFF (Denmark) and JISC (UK)”. In 2011 some milestones were celebrated, the 250,000 Open Access publication was harvested by Narcis, and Wageningen UR deposited its 30,000th Open Access publication in Narcis by which it became the largest depositing institution in Narcis .

Despite some early assessments (van Westrienen & Lynch, 2005) no recent analyses on the actual deposit rates by Dutch universities have been made. Let alone a systematic analysis of trends in depositing rates. In this blogpost I want to give a status update of deposits in Open Access repositories in the Netherlands, concentrating on the regular Dutch universities. I hope to follow this up next year to give insight into actual deposit rates.

Data collection
Narcis was used as overarching repository for all OA publications from the Netherlands. Narcis facilitates to estimate deposits per institution, document type and publication year in a uniform and efficient way for 27 repositories in the Netterlands. Data was collected from Narcis in the period December 27th 2011 to January 2nd 2012, during that week no additional deposits to Narcis were made. The total number of deposits in Narcis during that week was 270,519 Open Access items, and did not change during the period while retrieving the data.

Results
As mentioned under data collection an impressive number of 270,519 Open Access deposits have been harvested by Narcis from the 27 OA repositories in the Netherlands. In the following graph the distribution of total deposits over the 27 repositories in the Netherlands is shown.
Total deposits in Narcis 2011
The smallest repository is the Theological University of Kampen with only 4 deposits and the largest Wageningen University with 30,704 deposits. The 13 regular universities in the Netherlands have the largest repositories as measured in Narcis. NWO with 10,179 deposited items is the largest repository of the group of none universities (this group includes the Open University). The NWO repository is just a fraction smaller than the repository of Radboud university Nijmegen. Also indicated in the graph is the recency of the deposits. The share of deposits from recent (since 2006) publication years is indicated in red, whereas the blue part of the bars represents the deposits from the older (pre 2006) publication years. Of the regular universities Wageningen UR and the VU university have the largest share recent deposits, whereas TU Eindhoven and Tilburg University have the largest share of older publications.

The next graph looks into more detail in the Open Access deposits of the most recent publication years of the 13 Dutch universities. The deposits per publication year for the period 2006-2011 are depicted. In all cases deposits from the publication year 2011 trailed behind, which doesn’t come as a surprise. In a few cases however I observe clear negative trends in the number of deposits made during the period 2006-2011. This is clearly the case for the universities of Groningen, Leiden, Maastricht and Utrecht.
OA deposits in narcis by publication year 2006-2011
The trend in deposits per publication year is more or less stable in Nijmegen and Twente. For the universities of Rotterdam, Delft, Eindhoven, University of Amsterdam, Tilburg, VU Amsterdam and Wageningen UR an increasing trend in deposits is observed. The VU Amsterdam shows a clear outlier in number of deposits for publication year 2009. About half of the universities have more than 1000 deposits per publication year. Rotterdam, Nijmegen, Eindhoven, Leiden, Maastricht and Tilburg are lagging behind in this respect. Wageningen UR has more than double the number of deposits per publication year compared to any other university.

Yearly trends SI
By far most of the smaller institutions have less than 100 open access deposits per publication year. NWO, NIVEL, KNAW and the Open University have on average between the 100 and 300 open access deposits per publication year. It is interesting to note that the deposits for publication year 2011 are more in line with the preceding publication years than for the general universities. An indication that it appears easier to manage the publication output for smaller institutions.

In the next graph I actually looked to the document type breakdown of deposits for the period 2006-2011 for the regular universities. In the first place it should be noted that there exists a large range of document types in Narcis. Some of these document types seem superfluous. The difference between Student thesis and Master thesis is entirely unclear, and technical documentation versus reports is another example. Narcis should look into this matter and some universities should clean up their document formats as well. Having said that, most universities have three major types of open access publications: articles, reports and PhD theses.
OA desposits Pub type
The VU university excels at OA article deposits over the last six years, followed by Groningen and Utrecht. Wageningen UR excels at depositing reports, followed at quite some distance by TU Eindhoven and the UvA. For the PhD theses, Utrecht has the lead, followed by the VU and Delft. OA PhD theses are an important source of material since they consists in most cases of a chapters which are preprints of articles to be published at a later date. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Maastricht and Tilburg are the universities with the largest share of working papers. Wageningen UR has a very large share of contributions to periodicals. This is a group of publications that have hardly any deposits at other universities. Looking at the overall picture Wageningen UR clearly stands out as a results of the large share of reports and contributions to periodicals. On top of that they have the largest share of conference papers as well. It can easily be argued that Wageningen UR, of all repositories in the Netherlands excels at disseminating grey literature by means of their open access repository Wageningen Yield.

At this moment there aren’t comparative repository usage statistics in the Netherlands, but the early trial results indicate that repositories with more recent content also get more article downloads. To draw firm conclusions on the trial implementation of SURE2 is a bit too early.

The share of OA in NL
The absolute numbers of OA deposits themselves are not so meaningful as long as they are not related to the actual scientific output of the institutions. Although we have the current set of figures on OA deposits as measured through Narcis in the Netherlands, the share of OA in total institutional output is a difficult figure to establish. A few institutions deposit metadata records of all their publications to Narcis, but other institutions limit themselves to OA deposits only. Whereas a third group deposits only a subset of all their publications metadata to Narcis. To arrive at figures for the full publication output we have to consult other sources. The VSNU would be an obvious source, but the disadvantage of these figures is that they are based on reporting years rather than publication years (a rather odd approach). A point in case are the PhD theses output reported by the VSNU compared to the OA theses reported in Narcis over the period 2006-2010 in the following table.

University

VSNU

OA (narcis)

coverage

    Erasmus University Rotterdam

1524

993

65%

    RU Nijmegen

2266

1992

88%

    RU Groningen

1690

1082

64%

    TU Delft

1319

1079

82%

    TU Eindhoven

900

776

86%

    University Leiden

1791

919

51%

    University Maastricht

1367

1542

113%

    University Twente

1321

1077

82%

    University Utrecht

455

333

73%

    University van Amsterdam

1276

1297

102%

    University van Tilburg

896

790

88%

    Vrije University Amsterdam

878

772

88%

    Wageningen UR

1075

1032

96%

At Maastricht University and UvA there were actually more theses deposited in NARCIS over the period 2006-2010 than reported to the VSNU. For actual years the fluctuations can be quite extensive, but over a period of consecutive years the fluctuations become smaller. Apparently all theses defended at Maastricht and the UvA are available in OA. Wageningen follows closely with 96%, whereas Radboud University Nijmegen, TU Delft, TU Eindhoven, Twente University, Tilburg University and VU Amsterdam follow with percentages of OA PhD theses in the 80%. Erasmus University, RU Groningen University of Leiden and Utrecht University are lagging behind in depositing their PhD theses in OA.

Coverage of OA article ouput
For an actual estimate of articles produced per institution multiple sources exist. The VSNU figures based on reporting years are useless in this respect. The databases Scopus or Web of Science (WoS) could be used to estimate the actual article output per university, but to disambiguate all the name variations of the universities (and their institutes or hospitals) is a cumbersome task. In this respect Scopus actually performs better than WoS. However other sources based on either WoS or Scopus have already carried out this disambiguation. The reports by CWTS for example are useful in this matter. The most recent WTI2 report (Jager et al. 2011) (the successor of the NOWT reports) gives figures for the publication output of Dutch universities for the period 2007-2010 (table 30, p. 48) that have been disambiguated by CWTS. These figures are derived from Web of Science and underestimate the actual peer reviewed article output. For a life sciences university as Wageningen UR some 70% of the actual article output is published in journals covered by WoS and included in the WTI2 report. For broad, general universities with more social sciences and humanities this percentage is expected to be lower. For Tilburg this figures appears to be only 30%, whereas for Nijmegen this seems to be 51% and for TU Eindhoven 67%.

In table 2 the total number of articles for the period 2007-2010 reported in Narcis, the total number of articles according to CWTS (WTI2 report, Jager et al. (2011)) and the actual OA articles reported in Narcis are presented. The percentage OA coverage is calculated in two ways. In the first place we look at the %OA(CWTS) by comparing the OA articles in Narics to the articles reported by CWTS. In the second place we look at the total number of articles reported in Narcis compared to the OA articles reported in Narcis. In the third percentage column we look the minimum value of both methods. The last column is probably the best estimate of %OA coverage per institution.

Table 2, total articles per university for the period 2007-2010 reported in NARCIS and WTI2 and %OA coverage based on comparison with CWTS figures and total articles registered in Narcis

University

Articles

In Narics

Articles by

CWTS

OA

articles

%OA

(CWTS)

%OA

(Narcis)

Minimum

%OA coverage

    Erasmus University Rotterdam

1072

10663

1072

10%

100%

10%

    Radboud University Nijmegen

19803

10126

1189

12%

6%

6%

    RU Groningen

4067

10461

4067

39%

100%

39%

    TU Delft

2150

6521

2145

33%

100%

33%

    TU Eindhoven

7041

4732

520

11%

7%

7%

    University Leiden

730

10616

730

7%

100%

7%

    University Maastricht

519

7086

482

7%

93%

7%

    University Twente

3665

3740

880

24%

24%

24%

    University Utrecht

4803

15243

3039

20%

63%

20%

    University van Amsterdam

16191

13030

2727

21%

17%

17%

    University van Tilburg

5791

1782

1285

72%

22%

22%

    VU Amsterdam

5354

10912

4410

40%

82%

40%

    Wageningen UR

10572

7419

2479

33%

23%

23%

    Aggregate

81758

112331

25025

22%

31%

22%

Comparing the OA articles in NARCIS for the period 2007-2010 with the figures from CWTS report results in a very favourable figure of 72% of the articles available in OA at Tilburg university. This favourable figure is largely due to the under estimation of Tilburg University article output based on articles covered in WoS journals only. VU Amsterdam is the next highest (40%) %OA articles based on the CWTS figures, followed closely by Groningen (39%). The aggregate figure for all universities in the Netherlands is 22% of the articles are OA based on WoS estimates of article output. Since WoS under estimates the actual article output it is useful to look at the total number of articles in Narcis as well.

Compared to the self deposited articles in Narcis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, RU Groningen, TU Delft and Leiden University only deposit OA articles in Narcis whereas the other universities also deposit metadata for none OA articles. However, coverage of this share of publications varies among universities. Radboud University Nijmegen and TU Eindhoven for instance, who score already low on the %OA articles based on the CWTS figures, score even lower considering their self reported article output in Narcis. In those instances where the %OA(Narcis) is higher than the %OA(CWTS) there is an underestimation of the actual article output registration of metadata deposited in Narcis.

The minimum %OA coverage of reported in the third percentage column is the best estimate for OA coverage for universities in the Netherlands based on OA articles reported in Narcis. VU Amsterdam, RU Groningen and TU Delft are the most successful in making their article output available in OA. The reported coverage lies clearly above the 20% of OA reported for most institutions without mandated OA policies (Harnad, 2009) Twente University, Utrecht University, Tilburg University, Wageningen UR and UvA are performing around the average of 22%, this percentage is in line with the figure of %OA for universities without mandated OA policies. Whereas Erasmus Rotterdam, RU Nijmegen, TU Eindhoven, Leiden university and Maastricht university are under performing in this respect. It remains a question whether OA article numbers reported by Narcis are actually correct, or wether in the case of Radboud and TU Eindhoven, the total article output reported in Narcis are correct. It is possible that the document types actually include more than only peer reviewed scholarly articles.

Despite having signed the Berlin OA declaration by all Dutch universities, this has resulted only in a few universities with substantial higher shares of OA peer reviewed articles than is to be expected on the basis of a “normal” publication output which results in about 20% articles published in OA. For the universities where I arrive at even lower %OA articles we have to wonder whether Narcis actually harvest and reports all the universities output.

Another valuable approach is to concentrate on the grey literature are Wageningen UR does. But for this type of documents it is even more difficult to arrive at a share of OA coverage. This can only be established by the institutions themselves since it can be doubted whether all institutions have their output registration complete.

Lessons to be learned

  • Narcis could and should improve the type reporting as performed in this report. They should produce overviews like this preferable twice a year.
  • Narcis should look into some of the obsolete document types to reduce the wild array of documents (are technical documentation different from reports?, student theses and master theses are probably not the type of research output to be registered in Narcis)
  • Institution should look at the document types deposited in Narcis as well.
  • The role of Narcis and the importance of OA could be improved if VSNU and Narcis (KNAW) make Narcis the standard reporting tool for research output registration in the Netherlands (The VSNU should abandon the ridiculous reporting years and use the publication years in their reports instead)
  • Universities should use metis (or a comparable CRIS) to upload all the metadata of the institutional output to Narcis.
  • Having comprehensive output registration, makes the minimum goal of at least 20% in OA better attainable since you are not depended on actual article submission by the authors, but based on Sherpa/Romeo and DOAJ OA versions can be chased down.
  • Mandates such as those in Rotterdam, announced at the beginning of 2011, have no effect whatsoever if there is no actual stick behind the policy

References
Harnad, S. (2009) Waking OA’s Slumbering Giant: Why Locus-of-Deposit Matters for Open Access and Open Access Mandates. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/522-Waking-OAs-Slumbering-Giant-Why-Locus-of-Deposit-Matters-for-Open-Access-and-Open-Access-Mandates.html
Jager, C.-J., J. Veldkamp, D. Aksnes, R. te Velde & P. den Hertog (2011). Wetenschaps-, Technologie & Innovatie Indicatoren 2011. Utrecht, Dialogic innovatie ● interactie http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2011/11/15/wetenschaps-technologie-innovatie-indicatoren-2011.html.
Westrienen, G. van & C. A. Lynch (2005). Academic Institutional Repositories: Deployment Status in 13 Nations as of Mid 2005 D-Lib magazine, 11(9) http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/westrienen/09westrienen.html