 myself just to be sure. And I'd like to, I'm delighted to let Eamon and Tom talk about some of the research that they've been doing around open access publishing. So they'll be presenting a session on open and shut and analysis of open access public publishing in hybrid educational technology journals. So I'll hand over to you. Eamon and Tom, what just wanted me to give you a thank you, Eamon. Yeah, thank Martin. I'll knock off my mic now. And I'll come in then. Okay, let's look at it. Thank you. Thank you, Martin. And thank you, Verena. I hope people can hear me. Please reassure me that you can hear me by just typing in the chat there. And I think Verena's was a wonderful presentation on a research and she did on on a note where she said, well, there used to be an open learner and are an open student. But what we're going to talk about is something related. And it's about open scholarship, whether you choose to be an open scholarship or whether you don't choose or not. And in contrast to Verena's fantastic research, this is not primary research, we don't know what the participants involved in publishing what their motivations are. We're just looking at some indirect evidence of the publications they've produced. Sometimes no one has seen on a metrics. But we're trying to interrogate a bit about open access publishing and what that looks like and where people publish how they publish what that is. And the title of this article, it's based on a an article we published in a road earlier this year. And I'm just going to type in the chat and there's some tweets there that I summarize the article in if you if you don't get a chance to read it, you can see that. Or if you're still non the wiser following this session. But one of the terms there in it is in the title of the article is hybrid journal, hybrid educational technology journals. So as soon as we had this published, I thought that's actually not a great title because it's not maybe immediately apparent to people what hybrid actually means. It's possibly a bit of a jargonistic term. It's from the literature. And it means you can publish both closed access and open access in the same journal. But I'm also minded of Kurt Vonnegut's admonition against using jargon. And he had a great one in the novel Cats Cradle. I don't know if anybody's familiar with Cats Cradle and Kurt Vonnegut. I'm just going to paste in the chat a great quote. I was just minded of from Kurt Vonnegut in his novel Cats Cradle about about sharpens and the dangers of using jargon. So hybrid really means closed journal. So let's go on. So we're going to look at the prevalence of different access types of article published in these prominent educational technology journals with a hybrid publishing model that publish open and closed. In reality, as you'll see, they're really just sort of closed journals by and large. If you want to publish by the in the most open of open access forums, you usually pay an article processing charge or you have that waived. And so those are some of the things we wanted to look at. And how we went about that was we conducted literature review and we looked at what other scholars are doing in different areas, looking at open access publishing. We used a great service column paywall, which is a Canadian not for profit company doing amazing work. They're cataloging all of the research in the world of this amazing data sets and seeing what what levels of open access it is or not. And we then verified a lot of the data from Scopus in particular using hand searches, manual searches of the journal websites. And we also looked for what process article processing charge these journals are citing. Then we analyzed all this. So an interesting thing about it is we we found a disparity in some of these sources when we looked at journals and what they're publishing. And there were some differences. Scopus doesn't index everything. On paywall is a much more accurate description of open access and perhaps that journal is owned by Elsevier, which is a big publisher in itself. And maybe there's less incentive for publishers to show what's really open access. Certainly they don't show green open access, which I should mention in a bit. So this picture here shows a bit about our results. And it shows you that the general proportion, 89 percent, 90 percent of articles are in this this this big black area here. Somebody who's my pointer, not really. Yeah, so yeah, exactly. That's the one. So and then there's green over here. And does anybody know what this green box is? Anybody want to hazard a guess as to what green means? And gold here. And there's no box gray down here. Yeah, that's exactly it. Lindsay, yeah, it can be it can be e-prints or sometimes known as preprints. Exactly. Carolina, yeah. It generally means you've you've put it in an institutional repository or a preprint server self published. Exactly. Yeah. Now, most of the people in this huge big black box here could actually be publishing in this green one if they knew a bit more about it. So let's look at that a bit further. So you can see there's been a bit of increase in this in sorry in the gold bar at the bottom. And would anybody like to hazard a guess as to what the gold part might mean? Anybody hazard a guess what gold open access is? Not quite Gemma, of course. Well, yes, no, you're right. It does mean an open access journal. Yeah, but the problem is that fully open access journals only comprise a fraction of the entire journal landscape. And a danger is that we can get into a bit of a bubble. Those fantastic journals like erodol or research and technology alts journal, major amazing journals that don't charge APCs as well. So there's different types of open access journals, journals, some charge APCs. Some are subsidized by learners ladies and professional buddies. So but these ones, the gold ones, basically say creative comments if you go on to the website. And this little gray sliver here is a kind of an interesting category just above the gold. These are ones that are free on the journal websites. But we're what we're cautioning is that we're this is kind of a gray area. It's a bit murky this this area because they're free on a journal website. And a lot of people think they're open access, but really, the journal are just turning that on and off. And you are right to really use that in your students. You can't download it. So it's it's a bit complex. And we really think that those should be counted as closed articles. So for instance, say you have a course in your institution, you maybe have a graduate program. And you want your students to read articles. This is never more apparent than now. Maybe they can't go on campus to access articles and so on, or you're trying to reach learners from around the world, they don't have the same rights to these journals as you do. These may not be available to them. And they're often used just to drive traffic to a journal website as well. So they may make something free. It's also a kind of term of a type of open washing, whereby journals may say our articles are free, particularly highly cited articles. And they can drive, hit citations, all this to the publisher websites. So the publishers are essentially they own the journals and they get revenue. And it's a very, very big business. And we're going to show some of the numbers we estimated that if people were to pay these article processing charges of all these prominent journals, what that would have cost and what that looks like. And it's a big, it's a huge, big, topical area at the moment. Content marketing, can you send me a link to that? We'll now check that out. I'm not fully sure what you mean exactly. But give me, give me, give me a primer on that. And I'd love to check that out. So basically, so say in my institution, lost leaders, yeah, they, we have a, I have a privilege to have a really good access to loads of journals, true, a collective agreement of the Irish universities that they negotiate with the big publishers. What the problem is, I don't really notice that I have access because I'm on campus, it seems I'm geolocated by my firewall. I have access to all this literature. It's only kind of when I'm at a conference or maybe I'm at home, I'm not on a VPN that I don't notice that all these articles are locked up behind paywalls. And there's a lot of educational research that I can't have access to or my students can and so on. So with that, I'm going to hand over to Tom for the next remainder of this session. And I think we have the, we don't have the second percentage of the case here. Yeah, sorry, we've hidden them there. I just a little reference there to money for nothing from their straights. As I said, it's a staggeringly profitable business. Where else would you actually get people to give you their work for free? And then, then they actually, if you want, if they want to have their work to be more readily accessible, they then pay the reader. They then pay the publisher to present. It's great. As I said, it's like asking a builder to build a wall. And then you ask the builder then to pay for the privilege then of actually people coming and looking at the wall. It's a great, it's a great idea. So, and I think particularly now, as Amy just said there, those of us in higher education, we were fairly cosseted. But what about all the people who've been our students? Those people who went out to be nurses and doctors and teachers and all of those professions where we talk about the importance of evidence based practice, but actually, you can't get access to evidence a lot of the, a lot of the time. So we just updated the cost per publishers here and there. And as I said, you know, quite, quite a, so as a matter of interest, are people surprised or did the prices seem about right or did any thoughts and did they think they were higher or just as I said, that we haven't had about right yet. And that's the thing about it is, if you are an early career researcher, so we have this, you know, situation where, you know, in order to get up the ladder, you have to be published in the journal of really important, you know, floral arrangement or wherever that happens to be. And then, you know, you're, you're, you're actually asked to pay, you know, quite, quite a lot of money to get your, to get your papers out there. So quite an amount of money there. We then, as I said, we just articles paid at the article or author processing to the publisher to publish gold open access. And of course, that's the thing there. One of the big things was that idea around what we mean by the journal title. So as I said, strictly speaking, open access means gold open access when you're actually paying an author processing charge. We self-enaming our editors of the Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning. And we would be more accurately described as a platinum or a diamond journal because we don't charge our readers to read it, nor our authors to publish. So that's, that's strictly speaking, where I say when gold, we think about paying. So the articles could cost the authors up to this amount of money if we extrapolate those figures and then we looked at the articles that people had paid. So quite a lot of money there when we extrapolated those figures. But we then went, if all of those 8,425 articles in the corpus had paid an APC to have gold access, this would have cost $21 million. So I think that's no, I agree, Martin, not just a problem for early career research, but for all people, what I meant there was that people who are more established may have access to research funding, to institutional funding, which are quite right. It's an issue for everybody. But as I said, that was 8,500. When we talk about the search, yeah, doing the manual hand search, certainly was a difficult problem. And that was one of the other issues there, which arose that even when you actually go looking through the papers, it's often quite hard. Somebody used to drill right down. So we all taught the idea of the open access logo would help. But it's not always as easy to find open access as you would imagine. But as I said, certainly just come back here, 21 million, if that was 8,500. Now, we've extrapolated a little bit, but certainly you can see it's a hell of a lot of money there. That's that idea, the fool's gold. And I'm just briefly talked about the gray. And one of the things we've done that this is an additional thing, this is not in the erode paper, which was published earlier this year, but just we've also tracked those three papers. And in September 18, there was 161 of that body. And by December just gone, that 161 had gone down to 41. So that's a hell of a drop there. So as I said, it's a fool's gold in many ways there. So whether journals are using it as a way of enticing readers into a particular issue. But as I said, those three papers are not, not particularly very useful, useful data, they're like that, a much larger sample. And I don't fancy doing a hand search of 23 million papers, no money joking. But thank you very much for that, for that suggestion there. So one of the things I even just mentioned there about the green open access, we certainly think that you can see a lot more people shifting from the green and into the black and taking, you know, more of that black, because certainly would appear that there's a lot more options open for those pre prints, those early editions there. So thanks very much. And there's only, only joking about that. But as I said, you know, I think that's where I think the librarians in particular have a great role to play in what we're talking about facilitating open scholarship is that, you know, the things are changing so much now. So I think we're under pressure to try and understand all the nuances. So I think certainly we should always look for options where we can get out green versions of our paper. Ideally, we will see far more, you know, gold open access and not other big fees. But in the meantime, I think certainly you need to take doing your green open access. Overall, then, our findings toilet that most research is behind paywalls. And by and large, it would still seem to be a minority activity for a lot of the scholars there. And, you know, as I said, so there is, I think it's a complexity in the costs, maybe inhibiting accessibility. I don't know people are familiar with or familiar with what happened there. We're about 15 months ago or so. Research the Center for Uncivil Publishing, which is basically an organization representing publishers, insisted on research gate taken down, I think something in the order of 1.2 or 1.4 million papers, which which were up there and shouldn't have been up there. So as I said, if people start to understand the nuances, because I think there's a lot of people who are philosophically committed to openness, but in reality, they need they need some guidance and help. So for the research here, we require to explore the factors and finding out. So, you know, the idea of a focus or focus of a follow up story is to it's actually ascertain points of people who have published open access in hybrid journals. Why did they do it? So as I said, I think a lot of people talk about openness as a self-evident good and a lot of people are philosophically committed to it. But the reality is, as I said, like, you know, we need help and support and guidance to do that. I think the plan S in Europe will certainly hopefully have have an impact. But as I said, if we want to look upon open journals or journals as a form of OER, we need to help provide support and guidance for those who want to be open scholars. So this is, as I said, there's Amel there. You can see, just to see the pictures, myself and our colleague, Tony Morphy. And that's the actual paper, which fittingly enough is in a free journal, the Eurodo journal published there this year. So we'd like to invite any questions. Thanks for that, Tom and Amel. So again, if there are any questions you'd like to ask, feel free to raise your hand and we can get a microphone to you. Or feel free to put them in the chat as well. It's quite staggering the costs. I'd never really seen those in black and white before. Yeah, to actually say them and remember, we only just looked at educational technology journals. It's a huge area out there. But I suppose, thanks for that. Yeah, I think when we were talking about possible outlets, we said we better at least publish an open journal. Do as we say, as well as as well as do as we do. But I think when we all have an idea of the figures to actually say them laid out is really is really staggering, as I say, Martin, I think someone wanted to come in there. Sorry, was there. Tiana wanted to put her hand. Yeah. So Lindsay has a has a comment there to plan S prioritizing gold as opposed to diamonds journals. And that is true. They seem to be operating on an APC model that where you pay the APCs. And in many sense, it appears to be perpetuating the existing system. Like it's a very difficult problem, because the higher education institutions are entangled in this system with the publishers over a long time. And higher education itself is very expensive. So we are part of the problem as well. You know, it's not we can't just blame all the publishers. That would be a bit easy. And I mean, if you look at what's happening now with, I think, open education and OER and creative comments, we need to be pushing this and making sure we're pushing it because if you look at what's happening now, you see all the providers that are making things available till July 1st, you can get full access to audible kids books or, you know, big push your doors to X until the sixth. And they're all just opening the paywall to get customers. Then they'll close it and they'll monetize them. Like, so we need to be looking at things that are open from the ground up and they have open built in as a principle for their accessible. And we need to figure out ways of funding that. And it's it's going to be difficult. Yeah, I think just responding there as well, Lindsay, but the plan is, yeah, I think it's a bit disappointing where what my fear will be is when researchers and academics are putting in for for European money, they'll put in an APC, they're building it in. So the European Commission, the European Union is then paying for basically paying its own money to put the money into the profits of private publishers. So I agree it's a bit disappointing if it's only going to be used that way. And I think we certainly should move more to diamond and platinum journals. That that said, though, I suppose, like I said speaking, like, you know, my self name, and I heard a colleague Fiona Concanon do a lot of work. But I suppose the thing is like when it comes to completely free open access journals, someone somewhere is paying, you know, like whether the sponsorship body is having to fund that, whether people are giving up their time. So I think we also need to think about sustainability in some way. So are you there? Anybody else would like to raise an issue or I'm mindful of not hogging the time, American? No, we'll squeeze every last question out. I think generally, people are very grateful we tackling this this topic and providing information about it. In terms of, you know, there's government governments increasingly are saying, you know, linking research to open access application. Are people just getting around that requirement? Well, that's where I think some of the research game was problematic. People meant well, but there was sort of sidestepping. I think one of the things I don't know what you think. Yeah, that's see a comment from Carlin there as well. That's very true Carlin. But if something is creative commons, it should last forever. I think that's the value of journals can disappear. You put something in your institutional repository you put in places. As Tom mentioned, there's there is a study that we cite in the article that the name doesn't come to my mind now where people are over sharing some things, they're putting them on research gain and contravening these licenses. And sometimes they're undersharing. They're not talking to the librarian, they're not putting it in an institutional repository. There's a national Irish repository that the National Forum hosts as well. But to come back to Martin's question about whether funders are there's research out there to show that funders who that people have not complied with the OA mandates of funders. But and I guess like there's there's a kind of a there's all these plans and everything else. But there's there's also a way to appeal to people's sense that like a lot of people are paid by the public person some way to public servants. They're they're engaging in education. They may be being paid in taxpayers money. If they're producing new knowledge, they should be giving that to the world and to the public. And they should all should be allowed to make money off that they're already been paid for us. So the publishers shouldn't be paid. But neither should the scholars and the academics. They should be given that back and putting that into the domain so it can help the most people and it can be the best research it could be as well because you can validate in more context and so on. There is some embargo for green. Yeah. Yeah. But the preprint version, you see, you need you need to kind of talk to librarians because it's very complex, probably purposefully so, just to Taskine's comment. But if preprint, the one that you submit to the journal, you usually have a huge number of rights over that. And generally, you can almost put that in without embargo, straight away. So can I just jump in there and ask ask people how many people here have published using the green open access options? Just surely? Yes or no? Just a quick just just a matter of interest. So, as I said, we suspect that, you know, certainly it has been used, but I think a lot more people and can do it quite legally and get get the material out there like that. So I think that's certainly an important thing. I think one of the things that we're certainly keen on looking at the open access publishing as an open educational practices, simply as I said, hoping that, you know, are believing something because it's a self evident good. That's the right thing to do. I think we need to seriously look at how we do it. And I won't mention any specific publisher, but it makes some of the money that some of those publishers are making is truly eye watering on the back of people's hard work. And the problem is as well, I think if we're going to look at long term, we also need to look at the policies and procedures. How many people if they're looking for tenure if they're looking for promotion, if they're looking for grants, they are effectively forced to play a game, which is asking them to make sure that our publication output is in high ranking journals and getting it out. And so as I said, as I said, people maybe philosophically committed to openness, but if they want to retain their position, they're often forced to make difficult decisions. Let's stop now. I suppose one of the other is like when you talk about that in terms of career progression, and you know, forever, so in the UK, we have breath is, you know, certainly for the Alts Journal, one of the issues is impact factor. And, you know, as a platinum publication, they sometimes were not in that cartel and to impact factors which are controlled by, you know, the central publication. Houses seem a bit harder to reach. Yeah, there's there's also like as a there's there's the extrinsic motive or the intrinsic motive is rather that people should be doing this as a public good and to be an open scholar and because it's because the right thing to do, you know, but also there is, as you talk about Martin, the pressures that academics are under to publish in certain prestigious outlets and so on. But what might persuade them as an extrinsic motivation is the open access citation advantage and where I'll have have a lot of research building that shows that like if you public open access has more impact, it's it's purely common sense. It's intuitive. You can reach more people. It can affect more people. So this is going to be I think for that, too. And I think there should be more support and people in the rest should be able to say, well, look, I've I've published in an open access and that should be an open and accessible way and that should be taken into account somehow. I think you're right. Well, on that note, I think we'll call this session to close and if we could show our