 So, welcome all to Open Access training session today. My name is Harri Ollekainen. I'm from the Uni Arts Library and I'm going to talk to you about Open Access publishing quite in general terms. We'll get more in details with certain things. Certain things we'll have to kind of talk on a very general level. But feel free to ask any questions if you have any. And here's the agenda for today. We'll first talk a little bit about open science and how that relates to open access publishing. We'll talk about models of open access publishing copyright. What are the benefits of publishing openly? There are certain financial aspects to these certain challenges and what current issues are there at the moment. And then finally we'll take a closer look at Uni Arts publishing policy and how to publish open access at Uni Arts. I'll turn off my video during the presentation if I know how. Let's see, where is it? There we go. So this is the agenda and first of all a little bit about open science which is kind of an umbrella term in the spirit defined as a movement which aims to promote open operations models in science and research. And the definition may vary depending on who you ask. So it doesn't only refer to open access publishing and of course openness and transparency are always being part of responsible science and research and one of its core values. But certain current scientific practices in publishing for example are in conflict with the principles of open science and research. So hence all these different open science goals like open access or we can talk about open educational resources or open data or open peer review and so on. And also there's some kind of a ethical side to this in open science. A closer look has been taken into the equity diversity and inclusion in science and research. So that's for the background. And some further background before we go on to open access. I want to talk about the traditional publishing model and why things need to change because in kind of the traditional scholarly publishing. Well first of all the publisher usually owns the rights to the articles which are published in expensive subscription journals and people looking to read these articles encounter a paywall requiring them to pay a fee for access often something like 40 euros per article and universities and libraries help provide access to such paywall research by paying costly subscription fees. But this only applies to people in said universities and other people don't have access to them. And what's more in the 20th century online journal prices have gone up faster than the consumer price index while library budgets or university budgets for the journals have pretty much remained the same. In part leading to something called a serious crisis, meaning that universities have money to buy even fewer journals. But international commercial publishers introduced something called a big deal model where they would sell journal bundles instead of single journals to universities. Effectively making single journal titles cheaper but selling a lot of kind of unneeded journals at the same time. So my uni arts library for example, has journals in chemistry and whatnot, because they sell them in bundles to us so it's cheaper for us to accept all those titles as well. But the big deal model is no longer seen as a very good solution to this problem. And one thing is that this kind of model of disseminating knowledge is still pretty much the same as it was in the Prince age, but in the digital era it is kind of outdated. Furthermore, when you think about research, it's mostly funded by taxpayers in the end. So researchers published their findings in scientific journals for free peer reviewers do their work for free. And in the end, the publishers sell the research back to universities as journals. And internationally scientific publishing is estimated to be worth more than like $10 billion. And one of the problems here is that the journal markets is a distorted market. There's a handful of for-profit companies who have an oligopoly leaving very few options for researchers and universities to choose from. And these big international for-profit publishers have kind of outrageous profit margins higher than Google and Apple and so on. And why the big publishers or why the publishing is so profitable is because the workers, researchers and peer reviewers don't get paid. And finally, there's the question that should information be free. Which maybe clarifies the traditional model where researchers sign away their copyright to commercial publishers who sell journals back to universities. Of course, this is a generalized picture and there are all kinds of different models in the traditional publishing as well. So in traditional publishing, articles are published in expensive subscription journals that your university may or may not subscribe to. While in contrast, Open Access ensures that these scientific articles can be read and built upon by everyone. As an idea, these predates 21st century, but the first time kind of when Open Access was introduced is in 2002 when the Budapest Open Access initiative was introduced or published or released. And in that Open Access publication was defined that it's freely available for everyone without financial, legal or technical barriers. And in Open Access publishing, the copyright to the work remains with the author who may grant different kinds of licenses to the work. And in terms of legality, ethics and academic rigor, the author has to be properly cited and acknowledged in Open Access publications too. So just to dispel some kind of misunderstandings, you don't give away anything, but rather allow everyone to access your work and build upon it for the greater benefit of all. So there are different ways of achieving Open Access different models of Open Access publishing. Open Access refers to scientific journals that are fully open access. But there are always costs to publishing and a number of ways to cover these costs. Sometimes journals achieve this by charging the authors, something called an article processing charge. So this might seem weird that you should pay to publish your article rather than the other way around. But in the traditional publishing model, it's kind of always the institutions that pay for the subscriptions and likewise you don't personally have to pay the article processing charge, rather your institution or the funder covers it. And you make your article available to everyone. So if you don't pay any APCs or any author facing charges from your own pocket, turn to your institution or your research funder. But some open access journals cover their costs in some other way, like through a consortium model or scientific society fees or whatever, and they don't charge the authors or readers, anything. And these journals are sometimes referred to as diamond open access journals. And the DOH DOA J database of open access journals actually has more diamond journals than gold open access journals. The journals published at uni arts trio and for example, are both diamond open access journals. Then there's the green model, which is the way to make your article openly available, even when you have published it through the traditional model in a subscription journal. Because most publishers allow the authors to self archive the usually the final draft version of the article to a non commercial or an institutional repository, such as style at uni arts. Sometimes the publisher allows this only after an embargo period, for example, 12 months after the article first appeared on the journal website. So the original article remains behind a paywall, but your final draft version is available for everyone to read and download. For example, for example. Finally, there's something called a hybrid model which is not really an open access model but it refers to subscription journals, which allow authors to pay for their individual articles to be opened for a fee, while the rest of the journal remains pay world. So this might seem like a good idea. Why not. But these leads to something called double dipping. In essence, the authors pay for their article to be opened, but at the same time, their institutions pay for this journal subscription and essentially we're paying twice for the same article. And there are some other issues too. If you think about the open access movement which was meant to provide universal access to knowledge. The hybrid model seems to defeat this point by hindering the discoverability of open access articles and creating more difficulties in disseminating knowledge. There's a flow chart that explains open access publishing the traditional publishing model as well. If you take a closer look at it, there's the you start with your research manuscript and you submit it to a journal. If they accept it or reject it. When they don't reject it, they accept it and it goes through peer review. You get feedback and do some revisions and you get accepted the final final version gets accepted. Depending on the journal, you either sign away or copyright or or give exclusive rights to the publisher. Or if it's an open access journal, you define the license with which you publish the article in the journal. After the peer review you have your corrected manuscript the final version or the author accepted manuscript it has many names, but kind of the version of the article that is the contents are final but it doesn't yet have the journal layout doesn't have the journal logos and page numbers. But the contents are the same and this is the final draft version that publishers usually allow authors to self archive in their institutional repository, for example, so here's the green model of open access. And this is where all the layout is done. The journal logos and other layout is is done. Resulting in something called a version of record the final publishers PDF version. And in the traditional model this version of the article ends up behind a paywall in the journal or the journal websites. In open access. This final version gets published, and sometimes it's through the diamond root, where there are no author facing charges, or sometimes in a gold open access journal. When there are article processing charges, and with hybrid open access journals. There are always article processing charges involved. Maybe worth mentioning that in the green model. If you self archive your final draft version of your article in repository. Now it's always free. There are no fees to be paid to the publisher. So, maybe enough about the flow charts. We talked about gold open access and green open access so far and there's a couple of slides that explain the differences from a certain point of view in gold open access. For example, you as authors retain your copyright, you may have to pay an article processing judge. It's immediately openly available, and it's licensed in a certain way and innocence it is very efficient, and the dissemination is maximized and social impact is, is high. Well in green open access, you usually assign away your copyright or give exclusive rights to to the publisher. Sometimes there is an embargo period involved in in green open access. As I mentioned, but still the end result is the same the search results become available to to everyone. So, what more benefits are there in publishing open access. Well, there are research results that have shown that open access articles. There is a possibility and are cited more often than paywall articles, which obviously makes sense. The more people who can read your work, the more likely it is that it gets cited. It's also easier to maybe reproduce other researchers findings depending on the field of science obviously. Let's just say that it's science done right, as we discussed earlier about open science. And the smaller universities or the global south often do not have the funds to subscribe to expensive scientific journals which leads to the question. With the current state of affairs is leading to a widening gap between rich and poor institutions. And the traditional publishing model is very Euro centric and discussions about open access often sites, global inequalities and structural issues as a moral reason to advance the open access model. And making research widely available obviously has a wider social impact, not only to policy making, but also by enabling citizen science or in medical science the benefits are more direct when healthcare professionals and patients alike can read the latest research. Not to mention the importance of having the latest research openly available during global pandemics such as Kobe. And something worth mentioning is the Ministry of Education and Cultures open access factor. Open access articles bring 20% more funding to the university compared to a similar article behind the paywall and obviously this isn't something that individual researchers should worry about, but I just wanted to mention it here. So plenty of benefits and these are not. This is not a inclusive or conclusive list of the benefits. So we've already mentioned copyright. We're in the traditional publishing model, authors often need to sign a way that copyright to the publisher, meaning that you don't have the rights to upload your article to academic social media for example if it's published behind a paywall so you can't take the pdf and and distribute it even yourself. But in open access publishing, you retain the copyright to your work and grant a license that allows others to share and reuse your work. And the specific Creative Commons license, there are many different, often depends on the publisher or the journal so the journal already dictates which license they use. So you might not might not be able to choose it yourself. Often the Creative Commons by license is seen as the best option because it allows others to reuse your work. But I again emphasize that the original author and the work has to be acknowledged and attributed correctly, regardless of the license. These slides for example are licensed under CC by license it was on the first very first slide that's a Creative Commons by icon on the first slide meaning that once I share these slides everyone can take the slides modify them, distribute them, print them even if they want to as long as they mentioned that these are my slides originally. So we've talked about money as well quite a bit. So publishing always has some costs. The question is how much is kind of accepted and who should pay for the for for the publishing. It's become obvious that the big commercial publishers have also found a market in open access publishing in in by publishing gold open access journals. So they require the article processing charges or charge ABCs. And who's going to pay for it is it the author, the funder, the, the university library, the government or everyone together through a consultum of sorts. Yeah, talking about article processing charges where the author pays for the publishing costs will not the author themselves but the funder or the university. It's, again, worth repeating that there are more open access journals who don't charge ABCs than those that do. But more articles get actually published in in gold open access journals. So the volume is bigger even if the number of journals is bigger in diamond. And the ABC it can be like a couple of hundred euros or it can be thousands of euros and it changes quite a bit between publishers but it's on average it's maybe 2000 euros who have to give an average to this. And the reason why commercial publishers have been keen in open access publishing is that they've found that the ABCs are a substitute for the income that they have lost in subscription revenue. So there's a market for for it for for profit companies. So the funding model based on article processing charges, which has merged kind of as the dominant funding model of international and especially commercial English language, gold open access publishing. You can argue that it jeopardizes the diversity, equity and inclusion side of things, something we discussed in the beginning and nonprofit scholar led publishers of journals and books in the various local and national languages across the world rely mainly on voluntary work of committed researchers and lack of sufficient resources they need to maintain the high standards of scholarly publishing and therefore one can argue that the diamond open access model needs a sustainable funding mechanism. So that's what we kind of should be supporting instead of giving away our money, whether it's through subscriptions or ABCs, maybe the diamond model is something that is worth supporting and preserving, because there is already enough money within journal publishing to allow for a transition to open access. And there are regional differences in how open access publishing, or what's the dominant model. In Finland, for example, open access journals are mostly run by not for profit scholarly societies. So scholarly societies who don't have any commercial interests. In them, the transition from subscription journals to open access publishing has been kind of a no brainer on an ideological level. But the finance side of things is more tricky. The nonprofit of the journals published by these scholarly societies are actually subsidized by the government, but they still have to find some revenue of their own. These are often small journals who are run by volunteers, researchers of that, that specific field. And it's quite, quite difficult at the moment for many journals, even though most journals operating in Finland are open access already. Another challenge to this is the debate, or how we emphasize and merit researchers when they publish in international journals. So, do we value publishing in Finnish journals as much as we merit researchers in publishing in international journals tricky questions and I don't have answers to them but this is kind of the discussion. That is often taking place in Finland at the moment. There's a journal platform called journal dot fi in Finland, which is, I think a great example of a nonprofit solution which is led by the academic community itself. It's disseminating scientific research results. So it's maintained by the Federation of Learned Societies. It's in part funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture. And currently it hosts more than 100 Finnish open access journals. Maybe something like this is worth supporting instead of the gold open access journals of published by commercial companies. There are kind of many actors who have a part in the world of scientific publishing, not only the researchers or the journals or publishers or the universities, but what about research funders. They have actually kind of realized the same situation that maybe the research results that they fund should be available to everyone, instead of just those who might belong to a university who has a subscription to the journal. And there's a coalition as which is an international coalition of research funders and they have something called a plan as where they have outlined certain policies relating to publishing the research results. The Academy of Finland requires that scientific publications that are the results of Academy funded research projects are open access. And the Academy doesn't, for example, allow publishing in hybrid journals in Academy funded projects anymore. So this is a requirement by a research funder and I think what they have every right kind of to require that. So they fund their research. And they expect the research results to be openly available. Again, this is a another Finland specific thing. There's a national coordination of open science. If you've ever heard about it, go to avonteada.fi and see what what it's about. Basically, it's an open coordination to everyone in the research community so individual researchers can take part. There are all kinds of people there university from university directors to researchers to librarians and the coordination has produced a number of declarations and policies and and recommendations which research institutions take and implement locally in their own way. And this is, I'm not sure if it's unique, but it's at least very rare in the global context. So the academic community itself takes these goals and and tries to think what are the best ways of achieving them. One of the very topical questions is how do we support these diamond open access journals published by Finnish scholarly societies. Well, not only in Finland, this is a question that gets asked in international discussions as well. And if there is enough money already in the system. The question is where, where should we direct it. And these are very, very topical issues at the moment, or have been for for a number of years already. Researchers, publishers, universities and research funders. There are even more actors who have a part in open access publishing or at least they would like to have one. There's something called the sometimes referred to as academic social media, which means companies such as research gates and academia. They are for profit companies who, well, you're probably more familiar with them as users than I am but basically you can set up your author profile there and share your research there. If you remember when I talked about the green open access model. I mentioned that the publishers usually allow authors to self archive the final draft version to a non commercial repository. And these are for profit companies and of publishers often don't allow authors to share the PDFs of the articles in these services. Something maybe worth keeping in mind. And also they're for profit companies and you've heard the expression that if the service is free, then you are the product, which means that they're going they are monetizing your information somehow. If you don't, you use them for free, then they're for profit companies will they're there. They're somehow monetizing it. Then there are, and I like to talk about questionable publishers or questionable practices of publishers. Instead of something that is often called as predatory journals you may have heard this term before. But I like to talk about questionable publishers or questionable practices, because some of the things that these so called predatory journals are accused of. Sometimes even the traditional publishers, maybe fail in their editorial processes and end up doing the exact same things that these predatory journals do. And I don't want to downplay predatory journals or publishers. I want to maybe point you to a website called think check submit.org. It's a kind of a, well, you can look for certain things in a journal, see if it's okay. You can publish there, because there are a lot of journals out there who sent you you may have received these emails from journals that you are not familiar with saying that. There are other Mr, Mrs, whatever, often getting that wrong already, saying that we have read your article this and that in the journal X and we would like to invite you to submit an article to our journal and often the you can operate in the same field as as as you are. And kind of look for the red flags there is this legitimate journal or not have you ever heard of them before. There are other things to look out for and these journals, well, they might have a legitimate looking website. Everything looks fine. They claim to have a journal impact factor and they claim to be indexed by databases while in reality they are not. They don't have peer review. The article probably gets published, actually, on the website but it doesn't go through the peer review process or any editorial process, maybe not at all. And these journals are always operating on the gold open access model so they take the APCs from you and then kind of do some lazy PDF and upload it to their website. But the scam isn't going to be very long if if they're not going to publish anything so they will publish your, your research results but it's not going to go through a proper peer review or proper editorial process. Like I said, sometimes legitimate journals also fail in in what they're supposed to do. And there's a websites called retraction watch which keeps high on research published in legitimate publication channels but afterwards after they've been published something has been published that something is wrong with it and journals sometimes have to retract articles from there. Well, yeah, they have to retract the articles. And this website kind of keeps an eye on on that what happens there and why this has happened. There are kinds of online services and websites where you can get familiar with with kind of the shady side of of academic publishing. Talking about shady. This is some of sometimes jokingly referred to as pirates open access. I mentioned the names are not going to provide any links. Just to let you know that these databases or online portals or services exist. You can go there and download journal articles or academic books which otherwise are behind a paywall, or you have to buy them as ebooks or something but they host kind of pirated copies of journal articles and books, which kind of Well, I think well I need this article anyway so what do I care. Well, I'm not going to cry over the money that the for profit companies are going to lose because someone uses these, but I just maybe want to talk about how these services are not going to change anything. They're not the answer to the problem that we have with subscription journals. So they're not a solution to anything rather than they actually might prolong the current state of affairs. Enough many people think that well I can get this elsewhere anyway. I don't, I don't care. And I think he's probably going to change. So, I think we've already discussed some challenges. Relating to the open access publishing but I think the most relevant question is, is that what kind of system are we willing to support in the future. What is the future that we want. We want to support the for profit companies by paying the article processing challenges forever, or maybe something else, maybe the diamond open access model is is more sustainable and more ethical. I think that makes things more complicated is how researchers are evaluated or merited. You often get it looks good in your academic CV that you have published in prestigious journal somewhere instead of, let's say a fairly new open access journal. And who should be the pioneers in this. I often tell, especially those who are still doing their PhD that I don't kind of want to put the pressure on them, because how researchers are evaluated and merited. has bigger consequences to early career researchers, then, then maybe more experienced professors and so on. So, the way research is evaluated is yet another kind of factor. To be weighed when we talk about open access publishing or we should transition to open access. But this is a question I kind of like to ask that what's in a journal anyway, what is the added value of, of prestigious journals. The editorial processes or the peer reviewers that they use, are they so much better than the ones that open, let's say open access journals use. This is, I know an oversimplified question because journals often function as maybe as platforms or forums for the academic community itself. You know that there's one, one or two central journals in your field and if you don't publish in those then your peers don't get to read your work because they only follow that few prestigious journals. So, it was maybe a bit generalized but something kind of worth thinking about anyway. And then finally, with the way research is evaluated in Finland, journal impact factors don't matter here. At not, not officially at least, but there's something called a publication forum or you guys are for me, which is an index of, of scientific journals, which are placed on certain level, depending on how good they are ranked. So it's a ranking system of scientific journals in Finland. And the way it should be used it's an instrument for evaluating the research on an institutional level, or even national level, but it should, it should never be used to evaluate individual researchers. But I know that this happens, even though it's not supposed to happen. So we need a cultural change we need a reform in, in scholarly assessment or the evaluation of research and researchers. A lot of things need to change. Again, maybe the question is from where it is going to change first or who is going to take the first step. Well, there are obviously been taking a lot of steps during the last 20 years, for example, but still many questions remain unanswered. And the way you can argue that, that the gold open access journals or the APCs and the how the for profit companies have found a market in it. It's, it's exactly what they're supposed to do. That's kind of capitalist logic. The markets will handle it and so on and in a new liberal university. This might go on challenged quite a lot. The problem with APCs is that we're actually moving. We're just moving the paywall. We had access barrier that now we have a participation barrier. So before, let's say, smaller and poorer institutions were unable to pay for the subscriptions, and now they don't have money to pay the APCs. And this holds true within the global south, for example. So, and to further complicate things there isn't just one, but many open access agendas, or maybe the final final idea is the same. More research results should be available to everyone. That's the goal. But how we get there, what are the models that we support? What compromises are we willing to make? These are the questions that there's no real consensus globally and within the research community or between publishers and so on. When we come back to the global south, sometimes open access has open access as a movement or a goal has been accused of having kind of this post-colonialist agenda where the publishing model still remains Eurocentric and doesn't take different models in the global south into account. I mentioned Finland as an example where we have these non-profits, scholarly societies, publishing diamond open access journals, but in fact in southern America, South America, for example, they've been doing that for years and they have a brilliant system going on there. It doesn't just get talked about very much. So I think that was on general level about open access, a lot going on, different points of view, different actors, a lot of challenges and questions from different angles and so on. Maybe the final slides deal with uni arts more specifically. What's the state of open access at uni arts? I think of all the books, journals and other publication series published by uni arts itself are mostly open access already. So we publish most of our research openly, open access. There's only some monographs or journals that are for subscribers or you have to buy the book in print form or something like that, but most of the publications are already open access. But researchers at uni arts publish elsewhere obviously as well, but still 91% of peer reviewed scientific journal articles published in last year were open access, published in the scientific journals or through uni arts publication channels. 91%. And that was the highest percentage between Finnish universities last year. And I think uni arts researchers can be proud of themselves regarding how things are at the moment at uni arts. So something still gets published behind a paywall in subscription journals and so on and I think that uni arts has taken a big step forward in making self archiving even more easier than it was previously and things got even more better. I think when the new Greece system was introduced, so you can now self archive at the same time when you report your publication, just upload the PDF while you, while you report the publication. And quite recently, a new open access publishing policy was also introduced at uni arts. I can't remember the exact date, but it was in October. It has been signed and there's, there have been a couple of events where this has been already discussed after the after it has been launched. The policy itself isn't even on the uni arts website yet. It's so new, but it has 10 sections and I think we should maybe concentrate on a couple of things on on the publishing policy. So, first of all, the number two uni arts requires open access publishing when possible. So, this is a big change to the previous policy. Open access publishing is now a requirement. Of course, there's the when possible there that gives you some leeway. You can still publish behind a paywall if it's if there's no other way around it. Well, I've kind of been critical of the APC model. But it's something that's not going to go away very soon or they're probably going to be there. For now, at least, and uni arts is going to pay the APC through a centralized APC fund. So, you don't have to pay the APC yourself you don't have to start looking for funding for it uni arts has a specific fund for it. It has some criteria where you can use it, you can't use it in publishing in hybrid journals, for example, but other than that. It's fairly straightforward. I also recommend the use of creative commons licenses, which is pretty standard. Anyway, if you publish in open access journals. Some funders have more strict requirements in which license should be used. There's a recommendation that researchers register an orchid identifier. Well, this kind of doesn't relate to open access publishing anymore, but I just wanted to mention it anyway. And another requirement is that researchers self archive their scientific and peer reviewed research publications when allowed by the publisher. So, previously this wasn't a requirement, you could do it if you wanted to, and sometimes we may be kind of approached individual researchers that all this seems interesting and it's behind a paywall which you maybe want to upload the final draft version to tell you. Well, now it's a requirement. So, keep hold of the final draft of the author accepted manuscripts when you submit your article or when you publish in a subscription journal. That way you can self archive it in in title, maybe after an embargo period or sometimes not. There are other points there as well. And the reason why this training session is given at all is number nine training support and guidance is provided to open access publishing so you ask kind of has its requirements but also gives support in all of this. I think the couple requirements for the most trend central to this session and maybe just just this slides to show you that kind of recap things and talk about the options that you have at uni arts in publishing open access. So we go back to the beginning where we discussed the different models of open access. For example, you can publish in open access journals or publication channels, and if they have APCs, if they're gold open access journals, you can apply for the APCs from the centralized fund at uni arts, or if you publish in a subscription journal, you can self archive your final draft version of the article in in title. If you can do it in in the Chris system or you if it's a let's say an older article, then you can just send it to the library by email and all in all we check the publishers policy anyway so you don't have to worry about it. The publishing in hybrid journals is still allowed, you can publish in hybrid journals, just remember the double dipping and other issues that these journals have, and there's no centralized funding in publishing in these journals so you have to look elsewhere. Or optionally you can publish in these journals and just opt out of the open access option that they have. So just leave it behind a paywall in the journal and self archive it instead, and you don't have to pay anything. And there's an online guide with guides dot uni arts dot fi, where you can find more information and guidance and the APC funding form is available there. This pretty much concludes my presentation there's some further reading if you're interested in the topic. And finally, we have plenty of time for questions and comments and feedback but I mentioned in the beginning that you can save your questions afterwards when we stop the recording of this session so I think I will stop the stop the recording now and we can move on to questions. After that. So thank you so far to everyone for coming to this session. So, yeah, thanks.