Where are we today ?
Berlin Open Access Conference
November 19, 2013
http://orbi.ulg.ac.be
B E R N A R D R E N T I E R ,
R E C T O R
U N I V E R S I T Y O F L I È G E , B E L G I U M
C H A I R , E N A B L I N G O P E N S C H O L A R S H I P ( E O S )
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S T O P A U L T H I R I O N A N D T H E
Where are we today ?
The ORBi Experience
An Institutional OA Policy : why ?
To know what the University produces
To provide researchers with increased visibility for
To provide researchers with increased visibility for
their scientific production
To reduce costs
The Basics
An empty repository is useless, a partly filled repository is
partly useless
It doesn’t work spontaneously: need for an official
institutional policy
Top down first
Top down first
Top down first
Top down first
B
Bottom
ottom up
up comes
comes easy
easy later
later on
on
An official institutional policy must be enforced or else it is
inefficient
However: you cannot force academics nor scientists to do
things they don’t want to do
The Basics
So, don’t impose anything
Just
Just inform
inform your
your researchers
researchers that
that only
only those
those publications
publications that
that
are in
are in the
the repository
repository will
will be
be considered
considered in
in any
any evaluation
evaluation,
,
promotion,
promotion, grant
grant submission
submission, etc…
, etc…
Link publications to
Link publications to address
address book
book
Link publications to
Historic evolution of ORBi, the ULg repository
60000
80000
100000
120000
0
20000
40000
60000
il
.-0
8
é
c.
-0
8
a
i-0
9
ct
.-0
9
a
rs
-1
0
o
û
t-10
n
v
.-11
ju
in
-1
1
o
v
.-11
v
r.
-1
2
p
t.
-1
2
v
r.
-1
3
il
.-13
Total
Full Text
ORBi today
Articles
Other
2012
49,5 % FT
2002
40,3 % FT
49,5 % FT
ORBi today
101,211 references
62,247 full text (= 61,5 %)
Institutional policy : what authorities must do
1.
« Mandate »
2.
Keep the author at the core
3.
Communicate permanently
4.
Be coherent
4.
Be coherent
5.
Reduce constraints
6.
Replace progressively a top-down by a bottom-up
Promote incentives
Maximise the benefits for the researcher
Visibility
Visibility
Long
Long term
term preservation
preservation
Added
Added value services :
value services :
Added
Added value services :
value services :
dynamic reports
widget,
integration with F.R.S-FNRS (funder)
institutional reports
«
« Cosmetic
Cosmetic »
» effects
effects
Promote incentives
Maximise the benefits for the researcher
Automatic
Automatic and
and contextual
contextual help
help
Users
Users’ ’ guides
guides
Pre
Pre--import &
import & import (
import ( PubMed
PubMed, WOS,
, WOS, Scopus
Scopus, Nasa,
, Nasa, EndNote
EndNote,
,
Pre
Pre--import &
import & import (
import ( PubMed
PubMed, WOS,
, WOS, Scopus
Scopus, Nasa,
, Nasa, EndNote
EndNote,
,
BibTex
BibTex…
…))
Statistics
Statistics,
, metrics
metrics (IF, IF5,
(IF, IF5, Eigenfactor
Eigenfactor, citation indexes, h
, citation indexes,
h--index…
index…))
Legal
Legal help
help
Training
Training
Interactive
The
Pre
Actual level ? (8.000/yr)
ORBi Today
New
maximum
Expected level…ULg
researchers
publish more
than we
thought
Still work to do
on previous
years
Results : Evolution of the deposits
Each year,
deposits are
made earlier
Types of documents deposited in ORBi
Theses, 1,3% Books, 2,9% Parts of books (chapters…), 6,8% Papers published in a book, 10,0% Papers published in a serial, 4,4%70.2 % « traditional »
publications
85.7 are peer reviewed
Scholarly articles, 42,4% communications, 10,7%Unpublished
Posters, 6,8% Reports, 3,5%
Learning materials, 1,4% Patents, 0,2%
Diverses speeches and Scientific conferences,
ORBi’s Readership
Among the 100 most consulted ever,
77
77 are in French
are in French
22
22 in English
in English
1
1 in
in Spanish
Spanish
Language
Language
French
Spanish
English
ORBi Visibility
Excluding « spiders » :
3.22 million
3.22 million views
views
1.86
1.86 million
million downloads
downloads
1500
2000
2500
Downloads per day
Including « spider
s » :
>12 million
>12 million views
views
>3.72 million
>3.72 million downloads
downloads
0
500
1000
How accessible are ISI Articles in the UK and in Liège
?
(Data from S. Harnad, Y. Gargouri, V. Larivière, Y. Gingras, L. Carr & A. Swan)
31,6% 0,2% 17,4% 6,4% 1,8% 15,7% 3,5% 0,5% 8,3%
Public Full-Text
Restricted Access
No Full-Text
Articles Not Indexed
UK – No Mandate
UK Mandate ULg « Incentive » Mandate
(24 686) (11 995) (1 452)
50,8%
76.0% 87,7%
Deposit delay - UK vs ULg
(Data from S. Harnad, Y. Gargouri, V. Larivière, Y. Gingras, L. Carr & A. Swan)
71 18 35 37 51 40 60 80
Liège (N=1199)
All UK (N=5930)
UK - Mandated (N=2875)
UK - Non-Mandated (N=3055)
D
e
p
o
si
t
D
e
la
y
(
m
o
n
th
s)
-30 -54 18 -31 -4 -44 17 -9 -60 -40 -20 0 20Public Full-Text
Restricted Access
No Full-Text
D
e
p
o
si
t
D
e
la
y
(
m
o
n
th
s)
Deposit delay - UK vs ULg
(Data from S. Harnad, Y. Gargouri, V. Larivière, Y. Gingras, L. Carr & A. Swan)
20 25 30 No Full-Text (N=3937 ; Avg=5.3 ; SD=4.98) Public FullText (N=1641 ; Avg=2.9 ; SD=2.67) Restricted Access (N=352 ; Avg=1.4 ; SD=0.78) A rt ic le C o u n t 5 6 7 8 9 No Full-Text (N=3 ; Avg=2.4 ; SD=7.7) Public Full-Text (N=459 ; Avg=-1 ; SD=5.5) Restricted Access (N=736 ; Avg=-1.8 ; SD=5.5) A rt ic le C o u n t 0 5 10 15 -3 1 -1 7 -1 4 -1 1 -1 0 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 17
Deposit Delay (months)
A rt ic le C o u n t 0 1 2 3 4 5 -2 8 -1 6 -1 2 -1 1 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -5 -4 -3 -3 -2 -1 -1 0 0 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 12 A rt ic le C o u n t
Deposit Delay (months)
Liège researchers do deposit early
Average delay : -44,7 days
67.75 % before publication date
ORBi now: a wider reach ?
70
Mean number of downloads for 2008-2012 references
(measured October 2013 on 937.271downloads of 27.307 references with FT)
Open Access Restricted Access 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Downloads Downloads ULg From outside ULg
61,73
3,78
57,95
ORBi now: Is Access really Open ?
Proportion of OA deposits
• better compliance with OA principles
• fears tend to disappear
• authors become aware of OA
advantages and benefits
60,0%64%
65,0% 70,0%
Open Access vs Restricted
Access
44%
51%
56%
56%
30,0% 35,0% 40,0% 45,0% 50,0% 55,0% 60,0%2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
The role of the « Back Office »: Quality Control
Authors concerned and responsible
But :
S
Suppression :
uppression : only
only by the
by the ORBi
ORBi team
team
Tool
Tool to
to follow
follow the «
the « in
in press
press », «
», « in
in progress
progress », imports, …
», imports, …
Tool
Tool to
to follow
follow the «
the « in
in press
press », «
», « in
in progress
progress », imports, …
», imports, …
Permanent
Permanent updating
updating of the
of the periodicals
periodicals data
data bank
bank
Hot Line exploitation to
Hot Line exploitation to improve
improve system and help
system and help
Targeted
Targeted comparisons
comparisons with
with WOS,
WOS, Scopus
Scopus, ...
, ...
Tools for false full
Tools for false full text
text detection
detection
Faulty
Innovations from the « Back Office »
Automatic duplication detector
Automatic incoherent data detector
Co-first author tickbox
Export in RIS & CSV formats, soon also in BibTeX
Specific publisher agreement attachment
Proselytism ?
Belgian universities have adopted our mandate but
Without
Without the
the incentive
incentive
Work
Work done
done by
by librarians
librarians :
: little
little involvement
involvement,
, low
low responsibility
responsibility
feeling
feeling
⇒
ULg : 61.5 % FT
⇒
UCL : 25.3 % FT
⇒
