Okay, so as I mentioned yesterday, last week's lectures tried to give an idea of the bigger picture of reproducibility and open science and why we need to drive for those a lot more in our research. Yesterday we actually looked at the subset of how you might want to start handling your data. Today, the talk's entitled The Changing Face of Publication.

So, even though we've often talked about this idea of publish or perish and how that can often drive researchers to deliver papers which are more of an advert for their research lab rather than a proper piece of understandable research, obviously it's still the way, the

means by which we disseminate a lot of our thoughts, ideas, results. So you're going to need to know how this entire field of publication is actually evolving. So initially, this is actually a report that was released last year, part by collaboration by Jessica in the British Library called Researchers of Tomorrow, and it looks at what

we call Research Y Doctoral Students. So you guys actually should all fall into Generation Y. So you're actually younger than what they call the Google generation. Basically it's all of the researchers nowadays that were born between something like 1982 and 1994. So even though a lot of the technology that's around now obviously didn't exist

at the time you were born, you have kind of started to grow up with that technology and a lot of, you know, a lot of you are therefore integrating it very easily into your research practices. And so what this study did was actually track 17,000 doctoral students in the UK over a three year period, basically their whole doctorate, and actually looked

at the kind of techniques and tools they were using, their working habits, their working practices and actually sort of some of the actual behaviour that came through as a result of that study was really quite, you know, considerable in terms of the picture it gave of your generation of researchers. They found a lot of the time that some researchers

are aware of the idea of open access and open access publishing and openness and what it can actually do for them, but they're not necessarily sure about the details of it. There are a lot of misconceptions about open access and what it actually means for your research. And so there's a huge drive at the moment by a lot of the research councils to kind of, you know, upend a lot of that, uproot a lot of the misconceptions

that you might have about open access and to actually, you know, a lot of what we've been doing on this course is hopefully, even though it's a lot of information in one go, at least giving you some awareness of how your research environment is actually going to be changing because we've had hundreds of years of effectively a very paper bound,

book bound means of disseminating research and obviously that's changing at a really rapid pace and you're about to be thrown into that arena and you're going to have to understand how that is actually likely to change and how you actually need to respond to that. So we'll start off by obviously looking at the group of publishing that most of you will be familiar with the ideas of. Look at how open access actually claims

to be able to change that and what the benefits are. Then I'll look at some alternative models that the research councils are actually pushing for at the moment so you can actually see how, you know, the sort of how your, the way that you will publish your research is likely to change and kind of look a little bit about where we're going to go from here. So under the traditional model your research funders will fund you, they pay you,

you as the researcher writes a paper and then you will submit it to some kind of publisher for peer review, okay, and what they will actually do, the publisher will coordinate the review process, they will select a couple of, you know, academics in the field of your

research, your paper will get sent out to them and they will actually have to appraise your paper, suggest ways in which they think it could be approved if they actually are going to say well I don't think this is a good enough piece of research, we're going to reject it. They might actually send from the peer review some comments back to the publisher that will come out to you again about how they actually want you to change that paper

if they're going to accept it into their journal. So of course the publisher is there to effectively typeset, they're there to coordinate the peer review process and usually to release the publication online. But you notice here the little pound signs are actually showing you where there's a sort of significant cash flow in all of this and one of the things that a lot

of people in the early stages aren't necessarily aware of is the fact that the peer reviewers provide their work gratis, they are not paid, by and large most peer reviewers are not paid for all that time that they take to actually review papers. You as the actual creator of that research are not paid for that paper that you produce,

the idea is the paper is a means of you actually you know moving a couple of steps further up the academic ladder and so it's a good thing you need to be able to do it but actually one of the problems that a lot of modern researchers have with this actual model of publishing, the value that is added to the academic community from the work that you produce

is by and large coming from you and your team that have actually produced the research and these peer reviewers who are in the field who are providing a lot more input to improve that piece of research and a lot of us I think could often feel we'd be happy to accept something that maybe wasn't quite as prickly typeset if we could at least have access to that research

and of course what we're finding is, you can see this pound size here as well, a lot of the academic research rather than being released to the community so it can actually be actively accessed and built upon by people is stuck behind a paywall and it's getting to the stage now where these prices are escalating, it's actually beyond the means of the vast majority

of institutions, I mean there's no institution that can actually subscribe to every single journal that it wants to subscribe to so this is the idea of you know that we're going to be looking at today and obviously even within this kind of framework there's a lot so many fantastic journals out there, the peer review process is really fantastic in you know actually validating

a lot of research but if you're not actually necessarily paying people and then everything gets stuck behind a paywall you can see there are ways in which we can improve this and actually modernise it so that rather than taking a model that was suitable in the age of books and trying to apply it to the internet age that we can actually develop some form of system of disseminating our research that properly you know takes account of the capacity and the

flexibility that we have with being able to you know tell people via the internet about our research so if you look at the handout just now one of the things a lot of people think is you know obviously if it's if it's been through a peer-reviewed journal this must mean it's a great

piece of research obviously there will be loads of amazing papers out there that have been peer reviewed but you can't always rely on peer review just because something has apparently been reviewed as a sign that it must be the gospel truth and it must be great stuff so if you actually have a look at this here this is almost non-entity of a paper that was retracted from elsivir's computers and mathematics with applications last year and for a paper that

has apparently been submitted to a proper academic journal it actually manages to contain pretty much no mathematics if you actually look this in fact i mean it's kind of quite quotable because if you actually turn over to the back and look at the conclusion they actually describe it as this is a problematic problem and it's absolutely if it weren't such

an indictment on the state of some of the minor journals that are available by publishers these days it would actually be just pure comedy gold i mean any paper that actually lists well lists somebody with a budweiser.com address as one of the corresponding authors

is probably not the kind of paper that you want to be trusting uh you should look they did a good one and some mathematicians did a random phrase generator and they submitted it to a journal after this random process and it got accepted see this is an idea of it's actually a good point there you'll actually see a lot of these on a this is one that appeared via a site

called retraction watch and they basically keep an eye out for any dodgy stuff that gets out by the publication channels and then gets retracted later on and so actually from from your story and from this one you see that just because something has gone through a traditional publishing channel doesn't mean it's the gospel truth it doesn't mean it's good research and so it's up to you to actually judge the credibility of the journal and the quality of the

research that you you believe to come from that journal and to actually weight that accordingly when you're actually building on it okay so uh what i'm actually going to do now see i've i've saved you from videos for the last couple of days but this one is actually very good once it's loaded youtube and get it you know with me sir we'll go by this channel instead so this

is actually the phd comic so i looked at it sort of well i might not play a little bit it's an eight minute intro to looking at how i mean i realize we've discussed what the current model is but what you actually want to know access is free immediate online what are all the issues

so they should actually cover a lot of them this is about first of all making all this content available for anyone wherever they are in the world to read and access and build upon so people is it not it's all loaded beforehand we can do interesting things and work in new ways with the material to really make the research literature much more valuable

the history of the model is really publishing scientific manuscripts especially ones with complex detailed color figures was expensive and so if you wanted your article distributed broadly and widely you you know sent it to one of these journals and then you know they

would manage the review process and the communications with reviewers and revisions and eventually something would be accepted in they handled the type setting and the printing and the distribution of your scientific work and and you know it worked it worked great science

progressed pretty well and it became you know a good way to distribute scientific papers and what's changed is you know really two things in essence first is digitization you know you can now do everything electronically instead of printing it and the second is that the journals started ratcheting up the price of subscriptions to many of their journals and so those two things

came sort of to a head where it's become almost the theater of the absurd with the amount that some journals want libraries to pay so actually all loaded very very happily

before you all walked in let's give it a sec subscribe to the journal research has shown that journal prices have actually outpaced inflation by over 250 percent over the past 30 years there are over 15 entire

academic disciplines where the average price for one journal is over a thousand dollars for subscription for one year yeah in chemistry the average uh title is four thousand two hundred twenty seven dollars in physics three thousand six hundred and forty nine and it even goes down

into like agriculture is still over a thousand and geology and botany all over a thousand and those are just the averages those aren't like that you know way out there's there's a journal called catcher hatred that's forty thousand dollars the journals aren't producing the material the journals don't employ the people who write the papers they don't even employ

the people who review the papers and it doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of what science is supposed to be about it's supposed to be about discovering new things and spreading that knowledge around it's so irrational to think that these scientists like me are paid by the government to do research and to discover things and distribute that and then you know two

years of work by 20 people is going to be compressed into a paper and then not made available to people it just doesn't make any sense yeah so i think this problem of access to research is one that people run into all the time but it's not one that they sort of realize i

know when i was a student whenever i would be doing research and come across a great abstract and not have access to it i just sort of moved on and thought you know well this is the way it is there's you know i didn't really realize that there was a system behind this you know that was causing me to not have access and i think students educations literally depend on access to the journal literature i mean professors can only teach what they have access to if you look at

less wealthy countries like low and middle income countries they're really really struggle to get access and you know so that's a real impediment that prevents researchers in those countries from being able to contribute fully or do world-class research i mean i was not even with this lack of access and even with my brother starting the public library of science

i wasn't convinced i didn't understand why this was a big deal and then we had a family medical emergency and i was up at three in the middle of the night in a hospital next to my wife in the hospital room surfing the web on the crappy hospital wireless internet and i was trying to find

out information about a particular medical treatment and i couldn't get access to the damn papers and our doctors didn't know the answer to these particular questions and we needed to decide about what to do with this medical treatment and here i was a trained scientist with the ability to read and interpret and understand many of these papers and i couldn't get them and i just

that was the moment for me i was like you've got to be kidding me here's the what the problem comes down to in most cases and it's in the hospital room i paid i bought dozens of articles the problem is that you don't know which article is relevant until after you pay for it the abstracts don't always make it clear what is contained in the paper so there was no return

policy right i couldn't buy it and then say this is wrong i'm giving it back so now are you gonna spend twelve hundred dollars to just find out if possibly they're relevant i mean if you do that every day you're in a big hole it's not i'm not you know some communist saying

everything should be free and you know corporations nobody is saying that publishing is free what you are saying is that we need to work on models where the government that is already paying for the research and is then paying for the subscriptions and is then paying for the indirect costs for the libraries i mean in the end taxpayers and the government are paying for this

so why can't we do it in a way where the knowledge is distributed broadly as opposed to the knowledge is restricted so there are two components of open access the first is that articles are available for free to read so that you don't hit that paywall when you click to read the full text but the second part of the definition that's every bit as important is that the articles

come with full reuse rights so that scientists and researchers can build you know an entire new tier of tools on top of the research literature and those new tools can interact with these articles right they can mine the articles they can find relationships you know they can find snippets of genetic code that are mentioned in multiple papers or different phrases or

you know concepts that are referenced in a biology paper and a chemistry paper you know that the individual researchers would never be able to uncover because they can't read this many articles so if you actually wanted to do that you couldn't because you'd have to negotiate individual rights with every single publisher in order to do that in an open access role all this information would be open on the internet for free and people would have

unrestricted rights you know to do that kind of data mining i think the main impediment is the incredibly slow movement of scientific cultural practices i mean i think you know scientists despite being great explorers in terms of knowledge are sort of very conservative in terms of changing their practices lots of the community says oh yeah i support openness

but i want a nature paper that sort of reliance upon you know impact factor and the name of the journal does allow some journals to not respond to the community pressure towards openness the scientific publishing model that we have now there's no evidence that it is optimal we need

to experiment with all sorts of different scientific publishing system corporations may figure that out before governments do i'm very open to whoever is going to come up with creative solutions to these issues i view it much more as scientists and scientific publishers

are slow to change some of them are going to be left in the dirt because openness is clearly the future and the creative ones are gonna gonna survive it's really important that graduate students you know start these conversations with the research teams their pis you know just let them know that it's something that they care about and you know there's a real benefit

to researchers to graduate students by doing this right because the more people that see your work the more people can build upon it then they'll say it's not just good for the person that can read your paper it's also good for you i believe that scientific knowledge spreads and increases best if there are no restrictions on access to the knowledge that has been generated in other places i want the discovery of new scientific knowledge to happen

faster and openness helps accelerate that even if for your own reasons you need to publish in a subscription journal there is this other option that even if you don't publish in an open access journal that you can still make you know the text of the article itself freely available

so that people can at least read it and get access to it okay so that gives you a bit of a quite a good intro i think general sort of overview of why like what open access involves and the kind of problems that people are coming up against at the moment so as you can just see i mean there's a couple of points i noted down we've mostly covered a lot

of them over the course of just things we've talked about in last week's lectures and in my meetings with you but obviously this idea of wanting to you know build a really strong and extensive research network of people that you can bounce ideas off that can contribute ideas

and knowledge to you the stronger your research network is and the more people you can actually disseminate your research to you know obviously that's going to help with your actual academic profile and your productivity what they're also looking at the massive advantages to not just in developing countries but you will find that i mean we're very lucky here at oxford we actually have quite a large budget to actually pay for these journals but even even the Bodleian has

had to i don't know if any of you here were aware of the Bodleian having to cut back quite considerably the number of journals it was subscribing to some point last year i think because it's getting to the point where it's so expensive to actually pay for access to all of this stuff it's just not possible for any institution and it means often you might be

contacted by friends at a different university who'll say hey i really need to look at this particular paper i can't access it it's really key to my research would you be able to download a copy and send it to me i don't know if that's happened to any of you here but certainly it's something that i and many people i know have encountered over the course of their research

so this paywall issue is something that's really difficult i usually just download it and send it to them i mean i'm i'm entitled to download it as a university of oxford member it's it's you know one of those things it's kind of a lot of researchers help each other out with that it's a difficult question as you say but i think

we've all been in that situation ourselves and often there's this issue of when you've got a paywall and you know you've seen from some of the papers that you were looking at in phase one you can read a paper and actually from the abstract it's not always that clear what is inside the paper and when you've got these paywalls in operation all that you have to

decide whether or not you're going to purchase a paper is the information in the abstract and so often you'll finally hunt down a paper you think oh yeah this is the one i needed i've got a copy of it and actually the contents of it are nothing like what it promised you so just thought to note down the the issue of you know open access still being a part of that openness generally that we discuss the idea of it not just being free but also being libra

so you've got not only a waving of the financial barriers to accessing that research but you've also got legal rights associated with that research and how it can be used and the issue of text mining given the scope of the problems we're looking at nowadays most publishers most commercial publishers at the moment prohibit text mining as part of their

terms and conditions they will actually say you are not allowed to you know create some bots that will crawl through our literature and find particular links from different papers and that's really actually a useful thing to be able to do in the opening lecture last week we discussed um sir and brunac's work in denmark the idea that they've actually had permission

to effectively text mine danish patient records and actually by doing that that was a fantastic way of looking at a huge sample size and actually using that to direct future research so it's something we need to do and one of the issues that a lot of you may not necessarily always be aware of right now but the vast majority of the time this traditional publishing

model requires you to give up all copyright over your work if you want it published so for example there was a review paper that i had accepted at the end of last year and it's thousands several thousand words long i think now it's like 11 000 words of my own work i actually had to create the figures for it but because it's been accepted and i'm getting

that published i actually have to sign a waiver that says i see all copyright over that work to the publisher that is disseminating it which seems bizarre because it means you get a lot of researchers end up in a situation where later on down the line they want to use the figures that they created in a different paper and you think oh well you know i was the one that did

all of this i was the one that created it in the first place but under the traditional model of publishing it's actually usually the publisher that holds copyright over the stuff that you produce doesn't actually rest with you and that's something i think a lot of people have an issue over now i'm not saying all publishers are evil bad and nasty there's certainly a certain amount of value they add to the work by coordinating that peer review process and by

actually you know providing at least somewhere online where if even if it's behind a paywall you can access it but most academics nowadays are realizing that that's not enough we don't feel that there's enough value added to that to justify the kind of costs that they're asking okay what if you do some bit of paper and ask you to read all rights would you still

ask it to have it published i mean i i've not i mean certainly at that stage you are within your rights to say i don't want to see copyright but in that case you would have to completely step back and say i'm not publishing it with you i don't yet know i mean there may be

some out there but i'm not aware of any of the traditional publishers that are giving non-open sort of closed paywall publishing that do not require you to give them copyright which is quite a horrendous thing when you think about it um that's a little bit off topic is there any sort of published um data for how much money profits these journal companies make

um there will actually be i'll get onto that probably on the next slide actually so it's a bit of a report that came out last year so i can't give you an exact figure off the top of my head but there's a resource that we give at you so as a result of a lot of these issues um some of you may actually have heard of this last year i don't know is anyone familiar with the answer they're boycotts yep okay good there's quite a few of you so what actually happened um tim gowers is a really eminent mathematician over in cambridge he's one

of the recipients he's a recipient of a fields medal which as many of you will know is basically the highest honor you can actually attain really in mathematics it's often likened to being the nobel prize of the mathematics world and tim gowers clearly as a recipient of that prize there is a very high standing in the community and as a result of his own frustration

with the publication process and with paywalls and all these other issues that were mentioned in that video decided he was going to take a stand and in doing so he wasn't you know singling out el sabir as the only culprit but certainly for the journals that he encountered el sabir he felt that the mathematics he worked in was the one that he had the biggest

grievance with so this is actually something that's really directed at a lot of publishers but his particular boycott ran against el sabir and so he actually said on his very very well-read blog actually he's very prolific blogger he actually said i'm actually going to state now i'm declaring

at the beginning of 2012 i will not send any of my papers to el sabir i will not accept any offers of peer review for el sabir and so suddenly because of how high profile he has in the community a lot of people started to follow suit and eventually somebody actually created this website called the cost of knowledge where researchers were actually signing up to boycott

el sabir in different ways and saying i will not publish with them i will not accept items of peer review for them and it's really snowballed because what it's actually done is effectively really catalyze the community into finally doing something about this process as the video said

even though we're actually doing a lot of very dynamic fast-paced research in terms of our methodologies as a community we're very very slow to change and what the el sabir boycott has done is actually made a lot of people stand up and acknowledge what the problems are in the current system so that we can actually start discussing how it needs to change this isn't going to be some problem with a miraculous wonderful solution that's just around the corner

as you enter your research careers it's something that you are going to see played out over a what actually happened shortly after june 2012 was the finch report so-called because it was headed up by named janet finch and this was there were several huge subcommittees involved in this

report and it was all about how to expand access to research publications so you know we can't be naive about this the certain you know reserves of cash that are needed to pay for those different components of the publication process you know you're absolutely living you know in complete pipe dream if you think we can suddenly move over to an open model

and not have to worry about how we are going to fund the different components of that that's a real issue and as you mentioned if you're actually interested in looking at the actual figures for how much research actually costs they actually analyze it in the finch report in a big appendix and start examining how we could move to an alternative model

for releasing our research and how that would actually be funded so worth a look for the first one i'm going to talk about is what we call the gold oa model i have a question um there's this thing called the archive yes yeah i was about to mention that a couple of slides time i was wondering about that how is that right why so the archive is

basically used by lots of mathematicians and thesis where you just upload a not pretty formatted version of your paper before it's usually preprints it's a frequent archive that's actually a couple of slides time it's what's known as green open access so i'll discuss that in a sec but no thank you for that um so as you can see we've got

pretty much similar stages here but the point where the cash flow happens is a little bit different and so what's actually happened the research councils in the wake of the elsader boycott and the finch report and all sorts of other things have started to actually mandate changes to the way that we actually publish and this at the moment is their preferred model where you still have a traditional publisher and they will actually arrange for peer review

because of course one of the biggest misconceptions about open access is that it is not peer reviewed that's completely false you've got to be obviously careful as with as we've seen even with supposed peer review papers just as there's a sort of an entire hierarchy of how much you might trust the output of a given journal that aspect may be no different with

open access but the way it's actually paid for and the actual accessibility of that research will differ so under gold open access you just sort of submit it in the normal way research money goes to you you create your research as a paper send it to your open access publisher hopefully if you give them the coherent research story you'll have you know code and

data and stuff available alongside it you actually get your stuff peer reviewed by the open access publisher they will arrange for typesetting and all the typical things in that traditional model but the difference is this thing which you might often see referred to as an apc an article processing charge okay what it actually means is that at the point of you

having your paper accepted your group or institution has to pay some sort of fee to cover the overheads associated with that publication process now that might initially seem a bit scary because people would go oh god you know i'm used to submitting stuff and not really having to pay what the research councils are generally saying is that they're expecting all of the grants that

get that they will provide for research they're actually through that finch report trying to work out what budget people need to assign when they actually request a research grant when they actually put in a proposal to actually how much money they estimate they will need for that particular research project to pay for these article processing fees okay so it's not as

though it would come out of your own pocket but then of course there's no cash flow here what it's actually doing in the system is i think to a certain extent creating a lot more transparency with how much it like how much cost is associated with each research paper whereas with the traditional model where you've got a lot of these traditional publishers that will do what they call bundling they'll take a popular journal and they'll say well yeah such

and such library you're allowed to subscribe to that really popular journal that you want but you'll have to buy it in a bundle with lots of other smaller less reputable journals and often that's that's touted as the option that they have to go for whereas in this it's you know much more upfront you can see kind of how much each paper is costing

you and so there's a certain degree of transparency in the process and of course as i said under the gold open access model the research councils are looking into ways that they can add money to your grants to help fund that but then of course means you've got no paywall so everyone can actually drag your research down okay and so you can see this is a bit of a plot

on this side of the number of articles shown in blue that have been published in gold open access journals and the red line you can see this scale on on the left hand side is actually showing you the number of journals so you can see there's been a bit of an explosion really particularly in the last decade of the number of open access journals and so now we're getting

to the stage where just as you want to work out how reputable a given journal is to publish in in traditional sort of model you can also estimate you know what are the good open access journals to be publishing in how much is this abc about it will vary again it varies according to particular papers i mean some some of them will levy a hundred pounds it can go

up to a thousand but of course the idea is that your research grant is meant to actually fund that and so groups can actually keep tabs on how much is actually being paid as i say it is in a state of flux and so as this particular model gets fought out and they actually realize what kind of cash flow are we seeing going into these apcs it will become clearer what those

charges are going to be but just be prepared for that kind of model and then we have the green open access model so you mentioned archive so any of you who are physicists or have you know done a lot of maths and ended up on the archive the archive is what we call a preprint server where if you're about to submit to a particular journal and you've got your own

typeset version that you've created in latex for example you would actually what we call archive you've put that copy out for people to see and comment on so research funding goes to the researcher then you actually basically put it upon a self-archiving repository now the way that the research councils are actually requesting green open access

to go is generally that once you've actually gone through a traditional publishing model and you've had your paper accepted after peer review the idea is then that potentially after some sort of embargo period you would then be allowed to take a copy of your paper and pop it up on some

self-archiving repository like the archive where people can actually see it and the great thing about archive there's a lot more interaction with the research community you can see the generation of different people's ideas and other people the community as a whole will keep an eye on the archive on what appears and will actually provide comments to people at the point when that paper is potentially still going through peer review so you actually get a

community under this model there's an even sort of more extreme skewed version of green where some people are saying oh could we even do away with the publishers and effectively instead of having this peer review process have a really transparent way of getting research out in the open in a self-archiving repository but then you know a little bit like on facebook

people can comment on all sorts of things that you post the idea is that all sorts of researchers would actually provide those comments of course that's something that i think would take a lot more trust it would take a lot of organization to actually globally provide a system where that could work so at the moment gold open access is what the research councils

prefer but you may sometimes come across this term of green oa where it involves this self-archiving this was the slide i gave you in the day so you can actually see you guys eventually will actually have to deal with the fact that the research councils want you to deliver open access in some form i did actually have a bit of a question about this so a lot

of people said oh our studentships are funded by epsrc so are we bound to do this for our defills as far as i know that's not the case these kind of mandates from the research councils as far as i'm aware are largely applying to for example if you were a postdoc and you wanted to actually put in your own ground to one of these research councils and they decided to

fund your research in whole or in part that is when these open access regulations would actually come into force but do keep an eye on what's happening is the green open asset group assuming the copyright issue has been solved yeah that's one of the things with the green open access that they're trying to sort of wrangle at the moment which is why it's one of those things

where at the moment they're talking about potentially an embargo period but given that if a lot of the conventional publishers you know don't want to go with this and it's actually sort of totally flying in the face of what all the research councils are requiring if the publishers want to survive they are going to have to adapt so you will see that happening with people you publish with um so yeah just keep an eye on on what happens really

and so actually just as you can see a bit of a sort of timeline on you can see way back here archive was originally founded as uh lanol in 1991 uh rebranded as archive a little bit later so the physicists have actually been miles ahead of the rest of us with the idea of providing more public access to their research uh 2001 creative commons was founded and they started

providing all their licenses but it's actually back in 2001 this is how slow we are to change 2001 is a hell of a long time ago i mean i was kind of doing my a levels the first year of my a levels in 2001 and that was when they actually defined the idea of open access and what it means for something to be open access taken all this time for science to actually get through

to the stage where we're saying how about we actually try implementing this on a larger scale um but then you actually got to the stage in 2003 where the public library of science had been pushing for a lot of open access but then actually rebranded itself as a publisher and so PLOS have actually provided an awful lot of the open access journals so they're always

a great place to start if you actually want more information about the open access process and what it means for your research you can see last year was a bit of an explosion so we had Tim Gower's El Salvador boycott in January and that just snowballed i mean by the time we hit February there was a huge convention was actually held at Rhodes House here in Oxford of

a panel of speakers and i think initially people were expecting a fairly small group to turn up we had hundreds and hundreds in the end attend to debate open access and it's moved really quickly since then obviously we had the Finch report in June 2012 and actually as of later this year this research council policy on open access as a result of any RCUK funded research

is actually coming into force so things are moving pretty quickly so you might want to keep an eye on on how it progresses and i think this is my final slide um this just gives you an idea of you know what it means for a journal to be open access there's not some nice happy dividing

line between a journal is closed and the journal is open okay things are can be open to certain different degrees so if you actually have a look way over here um i know it's slightly small text i couldn't really get it uh sized any bigger so i hope you can all see this but you've got the most closed access things at the bottom moving all the way up to sort of a fully open access

idea so in terms of reader rights you can see right at the bottom we have pay per view right at the top it goes up to free readership rights to all articles immediately after publication then we have things like the amount of copyright or the reuse rights you can see the reuse rights here we've got all rights reserved copyright is the most closed off form obviously but right at

the top if you've got a really open journal they will be potentially releasing your research on a cc by license so again your licensing knowledge will really come in handy if you actually have to make a decision about a journal so i will try and get a version of these slides out to you this grid is actually taken from this particular leaflet that you can find on the

plus website so it's actually really good to have a copy of this if you're faced with having to select an open access journal to actually publish in this table should give you some idea once you've looked at the the terms of publishing with that particular person sort of world group it will give you some idea of how open that journal actually is how will it how is it

likely to strengthen your research network how many people are likely to be able to access your research so that should give you some idea of how you can sort of metrics by which you can measure openness in a journal as far as i'm aware i think that is actually the end of my slideshow so if there are no other questions at all anyone