Open Access and the challenge of quality assurance

EFC Research Forum - Stakeholders' Conference, Barcelona, 9th – 10th Feb 2012

Robert Kiley, Wellcome Trust

r.kiley@wellcome.ac.uk

Agenda

• About Trust and OA policy• Focus on the issue of quality

assurance (QA) in scientific publishing• Both Open Access (OA) and Toll

Access (TA)

• Consider key elements of the QA• Peer review• Sponsorship• Plagiarism

• Discuss the “fairness” of the OA publishing model

The Wellcome Trust

• The Wellcome Trust is a global charitable foundation dedicated to achieving extraordinary improvements in human and animal health.

• Independent charity; UK’s largest non-governmental source of funds for biomedical research

• Spends approx. £600 million p.a. in the UK & internationally

• More information at http://www.wellcome.ac.uk

OA at the Wellcome Trust: policy

All research papers – funded in whole or in part by the Wellcome Trust – must be made freely accessible from the PubMed Central and UKPMC repositories as soon as possible, and in any event within six months of the journal publisher’s official date of final publication

Why did the Trust develop an OA policy?

• “Access denied” – trigger event• Primary aim: to maximise return on our

investment• in line with Trust’s mission• encourage others to build on the research

we have funded• funding the research is a job only part done

– a fundamental part of funders’ missions is to ensure the widest possible dissemination and unrestricted access to that research

• Secondary aim: to better understand the portfolio of the Trust’s research outputs

The importance of quality

• Publishing decisions based on prestige, as measured by:• Reputation• Impact Factor

• If publishers cut corners they run the risk reducing the integrity, reliability and trust in their product….which will turn authors away

OA and the challenge of QA

• QA is a challenge for all journals, regardless of access model

• Danger of “predatory OA publishers” will seek to exploit the author-pays model of open-access for their own profit• Beall’s list of predatory publishers available at:

http://metadata.posterous.com/83235355

• Poynder also highlights a number of publishers who have published work of questionable quality• J of Earth Science and Climatic Change

“global warming is the consequence of an “infection” on the European continent” [

• But QA issues apply to TA as well….

Retraction data: evidence

• Challenge of quality assurance applies to all research – toll access and OA

• Retraction data from PubMed (2006 – 2011)

Journal Retractions Total no. research articles

%

Cell 8 2488 0.32

Nature 9 5656 0.16

Science 17 6679 0.25

Blood 15 7927 0.19

PLoS One 3 29809 0.01

PLoS Medicine 0 1025 0

PLoS Pathogens 2 2046 0.09

Fake article in Science Controversy at The Lancet

QA Issue 1: – Peer review

• Early perceptions that OA = little or no peer review no longer prevalent• OASPA Code of Conduct

• OA publishers more likelyto have some form of open peer review• BMJ, BMJ Open, BMC Medicine• PLoS One lists the Academic

Editor for each paper it publishes

QA issue 2: research sponsored by Pharmas

• Competing interest that arises through the publication of research sponsored by pharmas• “medical journals are an extension of the marketing arms of the

pharmaceutical industry” [Richard Smith]• “journals have devolved into information laundering operations for

the pharmaceutical industry” [Richard Horton]

• Again, this transcends business models• …but OA can help solve the problem because publisher

cannot retain exclusive rights to reprint revenue• PLoS Medicine does not accept drug or medical device

advertising• OA publisher leading the way in terms of policy development with

regard to publisher integrity

And of course…

The infamous example from Elsevier

QA issue 3: other matters

• Plagiarism & figure manipulation are growing problems• See: Nature Volume: 481, Pages: 21–23 (05

January 2012)

• Again, problems which are independent of models

• ….but OA, with more eyes reading these papers, may help to mitigate these problems• Articles assigned to open access were

associated with 89% more full text downloads and 23% more unique visitors [Davis, BMJ, 2008]

eLife

• Scientists at the heart of the publication process• Rapid, transparent, scientifically-based

editorial decisions• Clear guidance to authors• Reviewers comments published

• Open access• Innovative features in way articles are

presented• Supported by three research funders

Is OA “fair”?

• OA publishing typically relies on the “author pays” model

• Is this model “fair”?

Ensuring fairness: how to meet OA publication costs• Most research funders (in the life sciences) provide

funding to cover OA costs• e.g NIH-researchers have had 6800+ articles published in PLoS

One• SOAP study showed that in 83% of cases, OA costs were met by

funder/institution

• Growing number of institutions have set up institutional funds to cover OA costs

• Subscription “windfall”• Heading for Open Road: if, on average, APC’s less than £2k,

overall the UK would save money

• OA waivers

WT spend on OA publishing

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12£0

£500

£1,000

£1,500

£2,000

£2,500

£3,000

£3,500

£4,000

£4,500

Total Open Access Expenditure Oct 2005/06 to Dec 2011/12Includes Open Access Block Grants and Supplementations

Grand Total Open Access

Financial Year

Val

ue

£'00

0

Note: 2011/12 figure will be around £4m

Author–pays costs: extrapolated total costs for Wellcome Trust

Average cost per paper (excl. VAT) $2351

Total number of papers attributed to Trust in typical year 5000

Total projected cost to Trust (5000 x $2351) $11.8m

Trust research spend in 09-10 (£600m) $950m

% spend on OA costs as ratio of total research spend 1.24%

Note: These figures assumes all journals offer an OA option, that this option is used by the author, and Wellcome picks up 100% of costs, even when other funders support the research.

Conclusion

• Quality Assurance (QA) is a challenge for all journals, regardless of access model

• OA has potential to help to improve the quality of published research• Transparent peer review• No exclusive right to reprint revenue• More readers to counter plagiarism and

image manipulation

• Publishing costs have to be met – and funding bodies should develop clear, unambiguous guidance on how OA costs can be met