A Clean House at the Directory of Open Access Journals

The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is an international directory of journals and index of articles that are available open access. Dating back to 2003, the DOAJ was at the center of a controversy surrounding the “sting” conducted by John Bohannon in Science, which I covered in 2013. Essentially Bohannon used journals listed in DOAJ to try to find journals that would publish an article of poor quality as long as authors paid a fee. At the time many suggested that a crowdsourced journal reviewing platform might be the way to resolve the problem if DOAJ wasn’t a good source. While such a platform might still be a good idea, the simpler and more obvious solution is the one that seems to have happened: for DOAJ to be more strict with publishers about requirements for inclusion in the directory. 1.

The process of cleaning up the DOAJ has been going on for some time and is getting close to an important milestone. All the 10,000+ journals listed in DOAJ were required to reapply for inclusion, and the deadline for that is December 30, 2015. After that time, any journals that haven’t reapplied will be removed from the DOAJ.

“Proactive Not Reactive”

Contrary to popular belief, the process for this started well before the Bohannon piece was published 2. In December 2012 an organization called Infrastructure Services for Open Access (IS4OA)  (founded by Alma Swan and Caroline Sutton) took over DOAJ from Lund University, and announced several initiatives, including a new platform, distributed editorial help, and improved criteria for inclusion. 3 Because DOAJ grew to be an important piece of the scholarly communications infrastructure it was inevitable that they would have to take such a step sooner or later. With nearly 10,000 journals and only a small team of editors it wouldn’t have been sustainable over time, and to lose the DOAJ would have been a blow to the open access community.

One of the remarkable things about the revitalization of the DOAJ is the transparency of the process. The DOAJ News Service blog has been detailing the behind the scenes processes in detail since May 2014. One of the most useful things is a list of journals who have claimed to be listed in DOAJ but are not. Another important piece of information is the 2015-2016 development roadmap. There is a lot going on with the DOAJ update, however, so below I will pick out what I think is most important to know.

The New DOAJ

In March 2014, the DOAJ created a new application form with much higher standards for inclusion. Previously the form for inclusion was only 6 questions, but after working with the community they changed the application to require 58 questions. The requirements are detailed on a page for publishers, and the new application form is available as a spreadsheet.

While 58 questions seems like a lot, it is important to note that journals need not fulfill every single requirement, other than the basic requirements for inclusion. The idea is that journal publishers must be transparent about the structure and funding of the journal, and that journals explicitly labeled as open access meet some basic theoretical components of open access. For instance, one of the  basic requirements is that  “the full text of ALL content must be available for free and be Open Access without delay”. Certain other pieces are strong suggestions, but not meeting them will not reject a journal. For instance, the DOAJ takes a strong stand against impact factors and suggests that they not be presented on journal websites at all 4.

To highlight journals that have extremely high standards for “accessibility, openness, discoverability reuse and author rights”, the DOAJ has developed a “Seal” that is awarded to journals who answer “yes” to the following questions (taken from the DOAJ application form):

have an archival arrangement in place with an external party (Question 25). ‘No policy in place’ does not qualify for the Seal.

provide permanent identifiers in the papers published (Question 28). ‘None’ does not qualify for the Seal.

provide article level metadata to DOAJ (Question 29). ‘No’ or failure to provide metadata within 3 months do not qualify for the Seal.

embed machine-readable CC licensing information in article level metadata (Question 45). ‘No’ does not qualify for the Seal.

allow reuse and remixing of content in accordance with a CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC BY-NC license (Question 47). If CC BY-ND, CC BY-NC-ND, ‘No’ or ‘Other’ is selected the journal will not qualify for the Seal.

have a deposit policy registered in a deposit policy directory. (Question 51) ‘No’ does not qualify for the Seal.

allow the author to hold the copyright without restrictions. (Question 52) ‘No’ does not qualify for the Seal.

Part of the appeal of the Seal is that it focuses on the good things about open access journals rather than the questionable practices. Having a whitelist is much more appealing for people doing open access outreach than a blacklist. Journals with the Seal are available in a facet on the new DOAJ interface.

Getting In and Out of the DOAJ

Part of the reworking of the DOAJ was the requirementand required all currently listed journals to reapply–as of November 19 just over 1,700 journals had been accepted under the new criteria, and just over 800 had been removed (you can follow the list yourself here). For now you can find journals that have reapplied with a green check mark (what DOAJ calls The Tick!). That means that about 85% of journals that were previously listed either have not reapplied, or are still in the verification pipeline 5. While DOAJ does not discuss specific reasons a journal or publisher is removed, they do give a general category for removal. I did some analysis of the data provided in the added/removed/rejected spreadsheet.

At the time of analysis, there were 1776 journals on the accepted list. 20% of these were added since September, and with the deadline looming this number is sure to grow. Around 8% of the accepted journals have the DOAJ Seal.

There were 809 journals removed from the DOAJ, and the reasons fell into the following general categories. I manually checked some of the journals with only 1 or 2 titles, and suspect that some of these may be reinstated if the publisher chooses to reapply. Note that well over half the removed journals weren’t related to misconduct but were ceased or otherwise unavailable.

Inactive (has not published in the last calender year) 233
Suspected editorial misconduct by publisher 229
Website URL no longer works 124
Ceased publishing 108
Journal not adhering to Best Practice 62
Journal is no longer Open Access 45
Has not published enough articles this calendar year 2
Wrong ISSN 2
Other; delayed open access 1
Other; no content 1
Other; taken offline 1
Removed at publisher’s request 1

The spreadsheet lists 26 journals that were rejected. Rejected journals will know the specific reasons why their applications were rejected, but those specific reasons are not made public. Journals may reapply after 6 months once they have had an opportunity to amend the issues. 6  The general stated reasons were as follows:

Unknown 19
Has not published enough articles 2
Journal website lacks necessary information 2
Not an academic/scholarly journal 1
Only Abstracts 1
Web site URL doesn’t work 1

The work that DOAJ is doing to improve transparency and the screening process is very important for open access advocates, who will soon have a tool that they can trust to provide much more complete information for scholars and librarians. For too long we have been forced to use the concept of a list of “questionable” or even “predatory” journals. A directory of journals with robust standards and easy to understand interface will be a fresh start for the rhetoric of open access journals.

Are you the editor of an open access journal? What do you think of the new application process? Leave your thoughts in the comments (anonymously if you like).

The Library as Research Partner

As I typed the title for this post, I couldn’t help but think “Well, yeah. What else would the library be?” Instead of changing the title, however, I want to actually unpack what we mean when we say “research partner,” especially in the context of research data management support. In the most traditional sense, libraries provide materials and space that support the research endeavor, whether it be in the physical form (books, special collections materials, study carrels) or the virtual (digital collections, online exhibits, electronic resources). Moreover, librarians are frequently involved in aiding researchers as they navigate those spaces and materials. This aid is often at the information seeking stage, when researchers have difficulty tracking down references, or need expert help formulating search strategies. Libraries and librarians have less often been involved at the most upstream point in the research process: the start of the experimental design or research question. As one considers the role of the Library in the scholarly life-cycle, one should consider the ways in which the Library can be a partner with other stakeholders in that life-cycle. With respect to research data management, what is the appropriate role for the Library?

In order to achieve effective research data management (RDM), planning for the life-cycle of the data should occur before any data are actually collected. In circumstances where there is a grant application requirement that triggers a call to the Library for data management plan (DMP) assistance, this may be possible. But why are researchers calling the Library? Ostensibly, it is because the Library has marketed itself (read: its people) as an expert in the domain of data management. It has most likely done this in coordination with the Research Office on campus. Even more likely, it did this because no one else was. It may have done this as a response to the National Science Foundation (NSF) DMP requirement in 2011, or it may have just started doing this because of perceived need on campus, or because it seems like the thing to do (which can lead to poorly executed hiring practices). But unlike monographic collecting or electronic resource acquisition, comprehensive RDM requires much more coordination with partners outside the Library.

Steven Van Tuyl has written about the common coordination model of the Library, the Research Office, and Central Computing with respect to RDM services. The Research Office has expertise in compliance and Central Computing can provide technical infrastructure, but he posits that there could be more effective partners in the RDM game than the Library. That perhaps the Library is only there because no one else was stepping up when DMP mandates came down. Perhaps enough time has passed, and RDM and data services have evolved enough that the Library doesn’t have to fill that void any longer. Perhaps the Library is actually the *wrong* partner in the model. If we acknowledge that communities of practice drive change, and intentional RDM is a change for many of the researchers, then wouldn’t ceding this work to the communities of practice be the most effective way to stimulate long lasting change? The Library has planted some starter seeds within departments and now the departments could go forth and carry the practice forward, right?

Well, yes. That would be ideal for many aspects of RDM. I personally would very much like to see the intentional planning for, and management of, research data more seamlessly integrated into standard experimental methodology. But I don’t think that by accomplishing that, the Library should be removed as a research partner in the data services model. I say this for two reasons:

  1. The data/information landscape is still changing. In addition to the fact that more funders are requiring DMPs, more research can benefit from using openly available (and well described – please make it understandable) data. While researchers are experts in their domain, the Library is still the expert in the information game. At its simplest, data sources are another information source. The Library has always been there to help researchers find sources; this is another facet of that aid. More holistically, the Library is increasingly positioning itself to be an advocate for effective scholarly communication at all points of the scholarship life-cycle. This is a logical move as the products of scholarship take on more diverse and “nontraditional” forms.

Some may propose that librarians who have cultivated RDM expertise can still provide data seeking services, but perhaps they should not reside in the Library. Would it not be better to have them collocated with the researchers in the college or department? Truly embedded in the local environment? I think this is a very interesting model that I have heard some large institutions may want to explore more fully. But I think my second point is a reason to explore this option with some caution:

2. Preservation and access. Libraries are the experts in the preservation and access of materials. Central Computing is a critical institutional partner in terms of infrastructure and determining institutional needs for storage, porting, computing power, and bandwidth but – in my experience – are happy to let the long-term preservation and access service fall to another entity. Libraries (and archives) have been leading the development of digital preservation best practices for some time now, with keen attention to complex objects. While not all institutions can provide repository services for research data, the Library perspective and expertise is important to have at the table. Moreover, because the Library is a discipline-agnostic entity, librarians may be able to more easily imagine diverse interest in research data than the data producer. This can increase the potential vehicles for data sharing, depending on the discipline.

Yes, RDM and data services are reaching a place of maturity in academic institutions where many Libraries are evaluating, or re-evaluating, their role as a research partner. While many researchers and departments may be taking a more proactive or interested position with RDM, it is not appropriate for Libraries to be removed from the coordinated work that is required. Libraries should assert their expertise, while recognizing the expertise of other partners, in order to determine effective outreach strategies and resource needs. Above all, Libraries must set scope for this work. Do not be deterred by the increased interest from other campus entities to join in this work. Rather, embrace that interest and determine how we all can support and strengthen the partnerships that facilitate the innovative and exciting research and scholarship at an institution.

Data, data everywhere…but do we want to drink?

The role of data, digital curation, and scholarly communication in academic libraries.

Ask around and you’ll hear that data is the new bacon (or turkey bacon, in my case. Sorry, vegetarians). It’s the hot thing that everyone wants a piece of. It is another medium with which we interact and derive meaning from. It is information[1]; potentially valuable and abundant. But much like [turkey] bacon, un-moderated gorging, without balance or diversity of content, can raise blood pressure and give you a heart attack. To understand how best to interact with the data landscape, it is important to look beyond it.

What do academic libraries need to know about data? A lot, but in order to separate the signal from the noise, it is imperative to look at the entire environment. To do this, one can look to job postings as a measure of engagement. The data curation positions, research data services departments, and data management specializations focus almost exclusively on digital data. However, these positions, which are often catch-alls for many other things do not place the data management and curation activities within the larger frame of digital curation, let alone scholarly communication. Missing from job descriptions is an awareness of digital preservation or archival theory as it relates to data management or curation. In some cases, this omission could be because a fully staffed digital collections department has purview over these areas. Nonetheless, it is important to articulate the need to communicate with those stakeholders in the job description. It may be said that if the job ad discusses data curation, digital preservation should be an assumed skill, yet given the tendencies to have these positions “do-all-the-things” it is negligent not to explicitly mention it.

Digital curation is an area that has wide appeal for those working in academic and research libraries. The ACRL Digital Curation Interest Group (DCIG) has one of the largest memberships within ACRL, with 1075 members as of March 2015. The interest group was intentionally named “digital curation” rather than “data curation” because the founders (Patricia Hswe and Marisa Ramirez) understood the interconnectivity of the domains and that the work in one area, like archives, could influence the work in another, like data management. For example, the work from Digital POWRR can help inform digital collection platform decisions or workflows, including data repository concerns. This Big Tent philosophy can help frame the data conversations within libraries in a holistic, unified manner, where the various library stakeholders work collaboratively to meet the needs of the community.

The absence of a holistic approach to data can result in the propensity to separate data from the corpus of information for which librarians already provide stewardship. Academic libraries may recognize the need to provide leadership in the area of data management, but balk when asked to consider data a special collection or to ingest data into the institutional repository. While librarians should be working to help the campus community become critical users and responsible producers of data, the library institution must empower that work by recognizing this as an extension of the scholarly communication guidance currently in place. This means that academic libraries must incorporate the work of data information literacy into their existing information literacy and scholarly communication missions, else risk excluding these data librarian positions from the natural cohort of colleagues doing that work, or risk overextending the work of the library.

This overextension is most obvious in the positions that seek a librarian to do instruction in data management, reference, and outreach, and also provide expertise in all areas of data analysis, statistics, visualization, and other data manipulation. There are some academic libraries where this level of support is reasonable, given the mission, focus, and resourcing of the specific institution. However, considering the diversity of scope across academic libraries, I am skeptical that the prevalence of job ads that describe this suite of services is justified. Most “general” science librarians would scoff if a job ad asked for experience with interpreting spectra. The science librarian should know where to direct the person who needs help with reading the spectra, or finding comparative spectra, but it should not be a core competency to have expertise in that domain. Yet experience with SPSS, R, Python, statistics and statistical literacy, and/or data visualization software find their way into librarian position descriptions, some more specialized than others.

For some institutions this is not an overextension, but just an extension of the suite of specialized services offered, and that is well and good. My concern is that academic libraries, feeling the rush of an approved line for all things data, begin to think this is a normal role for a librarian. Do not mistake me, I do not write from the perspective that libraries should not evolve services or that librarians should not develop specialized areas of expertise. Rather, I raise a concern that too often these extensions are made without the strategic planning and commitment from the institution to fully support the work that this would entail.

Framing data management and curation within the construct of scholarly communication, and its intersections with information literacy, allows for the opportunity to build more of this content delivery across the organization, enfranchising all librarians in the conversation. A team approach can help with sustainability and message penetration, and moves the organization away from the single-position skill and knowledge-sink trap. Subject expertise is critical in the fast-moving realm of data management and curation, but it is an expertise that can be shared and that must be strategically supported. For example, with sufficient cross-training liaison librarians can work with their constituents to advise on meeting federal data sharing requirements, without requiring an immediate punt to the “data person” in the library (if such a person exists). In cases where there is no data point person, creating a data working group is a good approach to distribute across the organization both the knowledge and the responsibility for seeking out additional information.

Data specialization cuts across disciplinary bounds and concerns both public services and technical services. It is no easy task, but I posit that institutions must take a simultaneously expansive yet well-scoped approach to data engagement – mindful of the larger context of digital curation and scholarly communication, while limiting responsibilities to those most appropriate for a particular institution.

[1] Lest the “data-information-knowledge-wisdom” hierarchy (DIKW) torpedo the rest of this post, let me encourage readers to allow for an expansive definition of data. One that allows for the discrete bits of data that have no meaning without context, such as a series of numbers in a .csv file, and the data that is described and organized, such as those exact same numbers in a .csv file, but with column and row descriptors and perhaps an associated data dictionary file. Undoubtedly, the second .csv file is more useful and could be classified as information, but most people will continue to call it data.

Yasmeen Shorish is assistant professor and Physical & Life Sciences librarian at James Madison University. She is a past-convener for the ACRL Digital Curation Interest Group and her research focus is in the areas of data information literacy and scholarly communication.

Educating Your Campus about Predatory Publishers

The recent publication of Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella’s piece in College and Research Libraries News “Beyond Beall’s List: Better understanding predatory publishers” is a reminder that the issue of “predatory publishers” continues to require focus for those working in scholarly communication. Berger and Cirasella have done a exemplary job of laying out some of the issues with Beall’s list, and called on librarians to be able “to describe the beast, its implications, and its limitations—neither understating nor overstating its size and danger.”

At my institution academic deans have identified “predatory” journals as an area of concern, and I am sure similar conversations are happening at other institutions. Here’s how I’ve “described the beast” at my institution, and models for services we all can provide, whether subject librarian or scholarly communication librarian.

What is a Predatory Publisher? And Why Does the Dean Care?

The concept of predatory publishers became much more widely known in 2013 with a publication of an open access sting by John Bohannon in Science, which I covered in this post. As a recap, Bohannon created a fake but initially believable poor quality scientific article, and submitted it to open access journals. He found that the majority of journals accepted the poor quality paper, 45% of which were included in the Directory of Open Access Journals. At the time of publication in October 2013 the response to this article was explosive in the scholarly communications world. It seems that more than a year later the reaction continues to spread. Late in the fall semester of 2014, library administration asked me to prepare a guide about predatory publishers, due to concern among the deans that unscrupulous publishers might be taking advantage of faculty. This was a topic I’d been educating faculty about on an ad hoc basis for years, but I never realized we needed to address it more systematically. That all has changed, with senior library administration now doing regular presentations about predatory publishers to faculty.

If we are to be advocates of open access, we need to focus on the positive impact that open access has rather than dwell for too long on the bad sides of it. We also need faculty to be clear on their own goals for making their work open access so that they may make more informed choices. Librarians have limited faculty bandwidth on the topic, and so focusing on education about self-archiving articles (otherwise known as green open access) or choosing no-fee (also known as gold) open access journals is a better way to achieve advocacy goals than suggesting faculty choose only a certain set of gold open access journals. Unless we are offering money for paying article fees, we also don’t have much say about where faculty choose to publish. Education about how to choose a journal and a license responsibly is what we should focus on, even if it diverges from certain ideals (see Meredith Farkas on choosing creative commons licenses.)

Understanding the Needs and Preparing the Material

As I mentioned, my library administration asked for a guide that that they could use in presentations and share with faculty. In preparing this guide, I worked with our library’s Scholarly Communications committee (of which I am co-chair) to determine the format and content.

We decided that adding this material to our existing Open Access research guide would be the best move, since it was already up and we shared the URL widely already. We have a robust series of Open Access Week events (which I wrote about last fall) and this seemed to ideal place to continue engaging people. That said, we determined that the guide needed an overhaul to make it more clear that open access was an on-going area of concern, not a once a year event. Since faculty are not always immediately thinking of making work open access but of the mechanics of publishing, I preferred to start with the title “Publishing Your Own Work”.

To describe its features a bit more, I wanted to start from the mindset of self-archiving work to make it open access with a description of our repository and Peter Suber’s useful guide to making one’s own work open access. I then continued with an explanation of article publication fees, since I often get questions along those lines. They are not unique to open access journals, and don’t imply any fee to accept for publication, which was a fear that I heard more than once during Open Access Week last year. I only then discussed the concept of predatory journals, with the hope that a basic understanding of the process would allay fears. I then present a list of steps to research a journal. I thought these steps were more common sense than anything, but after conversations with faculty and administration, I realized that my intuition about what type of journal I am dealing with is obvious because I have daily practice and experience. For people new to the topic I tried to break down research into easy steps that help them to figure out where a journal is on the continuum from outright scams to legitimate but new or unusual journals. It was also important to me to emphasize self-archiving as a strategy no matter the journal publication model.

Lastly, while most academic libraries have a model of liaison librarians engaging in scholarly communications activities, the person who spends every day working on these issues is likely to be more versed in emerging trends. So it is important to work with liaisons to help them research journals and to identify quality open access journals in their disciplines. We plan to add this information to the guide in a future version.

Taking it on the Road

We felt that in-person instruction on these matters with faculty was a crucial next step, particularly for people who publish in traditional journals but want to make their work available. Traditional journals’ copyright transfer agreements can be predatory, even if we don’t think about it in those terms. Taking inspiration from the ACRL Scholarly Communications Roadshow I attended a few years ago, I decided to take the curriculum from that program and offer it to faculty and graduate students. We read through three publication agreements as a group, and then discussed how open the publishers were to reuse of material, or whether they mentioned it at all. We then included a section on addenda to contracts for negotiation about additional rights.

The first workshop received modest attendance, but included some thoughtful conversations, and we have promised to run it again. Some people may never have read their agreements closely, and never realized they were doing something illegal or not specifically allowed by, for instance, sharing an article they wrote with their students. That concrete realization is more likely to spur action than more abstract arguments about the benefits of open access.

Escaping the Predator Metaphor

If I could go back, I would get rid of the concept of “predator” attached to open access journals. Let’s call it instead unscrupulous entrants into an emerging business model. That’s not as catchy, but it explains why this has happened. I would argue, personally, that the hybrid gold journals by large publishers are just as predatory, as they capitalize on funding requirements to make articles open access with high fees. They too are trying new business models, and those may not be tenable either. As I said above, choosing a journal with eyes wide open and understanding all the ramifications of different publication models is the only way forward. To suggest that faculty are innocently waiting to be pounced on by predators is to deny their agency and their ability to make choices about their own work. There may be days where that metaphor seems apt, but I think overall this is a damaging mentality to librarians interested in promoting new models of scholarly communication. I hope we can provide better resources and programming to escape this, as well as to help administration to understand how to choose to fund open access initiatives.

In the comments I’d like to hear more suggestions about how to escape the “predator” metaphor, as well as your own techniques for educating faculty on your campus.

Making Open Access Everyone’s Business

Librarians should have a role in promoting open access content. The best methods and whether they are successful is a matter of heated debate. Take for an example a recent post by Micah Vandergrift on the ACRL Scholarly Communications mailing list, calling on librarians to stage a publishing walkout and only publish in open access library and information science journals. Many have already done so. Others, like myself, have published in traditional journals (only once in my case) but make a point of making their work available in institutional repositories. I personally would not publish in a journal that did not allow such use of my work, and I know many who feel the same way. 1 The point is, of course, to ensure that librarians are not be hypocritical in their own publishing and their use of repositories to provide open access–a long-standing problem pointed out by Dorothea Salo 2, among others3 We know that many of the reasons that faculty may hesitate to participate in open access publishing relate to promotion and tenure requirements, which generally are more flexible for academic librarians (though not in all cases–see Abigail Goben’s open access tenure experiment). I suspect that many of the reasons librarians aren’t participating more in open access has partly to do with more mundane reasons of forgetting to do so, or fearing that work is not good enough to make public.

But it shouldn’t be only staunch advocates of open access, open peer review, or new digital models for work and publishing who are participating. We have to find ways to advocate and educate in a gentle but vigorous manner, and reach out to new faculty and graduate students who need to start participating now if the future will be different. Enter Open Access Week, a now eight-year-old celebration of open access organized by SPARC. Just as Black Friday is the day that retailers hope to be in the black, Open Access Week has become an occasion to organize around and finally share our message with willing ears. Right?

It can be, but it requires a good deal of institutional dedication to make it happen. At my institution, Open Access Week is a big deal. I am co-chair of a new Scholarly Communications committee which is now responsible for planning the week (the committee used to just plan the week, but the scope has been extended). The committee has representation from Systems, Reference, Access Services, and the Information Commons, and so we are able to touch on all aspects of open access. Last year we had events five days out of five; this year we are having events four days out of five. Here are some of the approaches we are taking to creating successful conversations around open access.

    • Focus on the successes and the impact of your faculty, whether or not they are publishing in open access journals.

The annual Celebration of Faculty Scholarship takes place during Open Access Week, and brings together physical material published by all faculty at a cocktail reception. We obtain copies of articles and purchase books written by faculty, and set up laptops to display digital projects. This is a great opportunity to find out exactly what our faculty are working on, and get a sense of them as researchers that we may normally lack. It’s also a great opportunity to introduce the concept of open access and recruit participants to the institutional repository.

    • Highlight the particular achievements of faculty who are participating in open access.

We place stickers on materials at the Celebration that are included in the repository or are published in open access journals. This year we held a panel with faculty and graduate students who participate in open access publishing to discuss their experiences, both positive and negative.

  • Demonstrate the value the library adds to open access initiatives.

Recently bepress (which creates the Digital Commons repositories on which ours runs) introduced a real time map of repositories downloads that was a huge hit this year. It was a compelling visual illustration of the global impact of work in the repository. Faculty were thrilled to see their work being read across the world, and it helped to solve the problem of invisible impact. We also highlighted our impact with a new handout that lists key metrics around our repository, including hosting a new open access journal.

  • Talk about the hard issues in open access and the controversies surrounding it, for instance, CC-BY vs. CC-NC-ND licenses.

It’s important to not sugarcoat or spin challenging issues in open access. It’s important to include multiple perspectives and invite difficult conversations. Show scholars the evidence and let them draw their own conclusions, though make sure to step in and correct misunderstandings.

  • Educate about copyright and fair use, over and over again.

These issues are complicated even for people who work on them every day, and are constantly changing. Workshops, handouts, and consultation on copyright and fair use can help people feel more comfortable in the classroom and participating in open access.

  • Make it easy.

Examine what you are asking people to do to participate in open access. Rearrange workflows, cut red tape, and improve interfaces. Open Access Week is a good time to introduce new ideas, but this should be happening all year long.

We can’t expect revolutions in policy and and practice to happen overnight, or without some  sacrifice. Whether you choose to make your stand to only publish in open access journals or some other path, make your stand and help others who wish to do the same.

  1. Publishers have caught on to this tendency in librarians. For instance, Taylor and Francis has 12-18 month repository embargoes for all its journals except LIS journals. Whether this is because of the good work we have done in advocacy or a conciliatory gesture remains up for debate.
  2. Salo, Dorothea. “Innkeeper at the Roach Motel,” December 11, 2007. http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/22088.
  3. Xia, Jingfeng, Sara Kay Wilhoite, and Rebekah Lynette Myers. “A ‘librarian-LIS Faculty’ Divide in Open Access Practice.” Journal of Documentation 67, no. 5 (September 6, 2011): 791–805. doi:10.1108/00220411111164673.

Responsibilities For Open Access

In honor of Open Access Week, I want to look at some troubling recent discussions about open access, and what academic librarians who work with technology can do. As the manager of an open access institutional repository, I strongly believe that providing greater access to academic research is a good worth pursuing. But I realize that this comes at a cost, and that we have a responsibility to ensure that open access also means integrity and quality.

On “stings” and quality

By now, the article by John Bohannon in Science has been thoroughly dissected in the blogosphere 1. This was not a study per se, but rather a piece of investigative journalism looking into the practices of open access journals. Bohannon submitted variations on an article written under African pseudonyms from fake universities that “any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry…should have spotted the paper’s short-comings immediately.” Over the course of 10 months, he submitted these articles to 304 open access journals whose names he drew from the Directory of Open Access Journals and Jeffrey Beall’s list of predatory open access publishers. Ultimately 157 of the journals accepted the article and 98 rejected it, when any real peer review would have meant that it was rejected in all cases. It is very worth noting that in an analysis of the raw data that Bohannon supplied some publishers on Beall’s list rejected the paper immediately, which is a good reminder to take all curative efforts with an appropriate amount of skepticism 2.

There are certainly many methodological flaws in this investigation, which Mike Taylor outlines in detail in his post 3, and which he concludes was specifically aimed at discrediting open access journals in favor of journals such as Science. As Michael Eisen outlinesScience has not been immune to publishing articles that should have been rejected after peer review–though Bohannon informed Eisen that he intended to look at a variety of journals but this was not practical, and this decision was not informed by editors at Science. Eisen’s conclusion is that “peer review is a joke” and that we need to stop regarding the publication of an article in any journal as evidence that the article is worthwhile 4. Phil Davis at the Scholarly Kitchen took issue with this conclusion (among others noted above), since despite the flaws, this did turn up incontrovertible evidence that “a large number of open access publishers are willfully deceiving readers and authors that articles published in their journals passed through a peer review process…” 5. His conclusion is that open access agencies such as OASPA and DOAJ should be better at policing themselves, and that on the other side Jeffrey Beall should be cautious about suggesting a potential for guilt without evidence. I think one of the more level-headed responses to this piece comes from outside the library and scholarly publishing world in Steven Novella’s post on Neurologica, a blog focused on science and skepticism written by an academic neurologist. He is a fan of open access and wider access to information, but makes the point familiar to all librarians that the internet creates many more opportunities to distribute both good and bad information. Open access journals are one response to the opportunities of the internet, and in particular author-pays journals like “all new ‘funding models’ have the potential of creating perverse incentives.” Traditional journals fall into the same trap when they rely on impact factor to drive subscriptions, which means they may end up publishing “sexy” studies of questionable validity or failing to publish replication studies which are the backbone of the scientific method–and in fact the only real way to establish results no matter what type of peer review has been done 6.

More “perverse incentives”

So far the criticisms of open access have revolved around one type of “gold” open access, wherein the author (or a funding agency) pays article publication fees. “Green” open access, in which a version of the article is posted in a repository is not susceptible to abuse in quite the same way. Yet a new analysis of embargo policies by Shan Sutton shows that some publishers are targeting green open access through new policies. Springer used to have a 12 month embargo for mandated deposit in repositories such as PubMed, but now has extended it to all institutional repositories. Emerald changed its policy so that any mandated deposit to a repository (whether by funder or institutional mandate) was subject to a 24 month embargo  7.

In both cases, paid immediate open access is available for $1,595 (Emerald) or $3,000 (Springer). It seems that the publishers are counting that a “mandate” means that funds are available for this sort of hyrbid gold open access, but that ignores the philosophy behind such mandates. While federal open access mandates do in theory have a financial incentive that the public should not have to pay twice for research, Sutton argues that open access “mandates” at institutions are actually voluntary initiatives by the faculty, and provide waivers without question 8. Additionally, while this type of open access does provide public access to the article, it does not address larger issues of reuse of the text or data in the true sense of open access.

What should a librarian do?

The issues above are complex, but there are a few trends that we can draw on to understand our responsibilities to open access. First, there is the issue of quality, both in terms of researcher experience in working with a journal, and that of being able to trust the validity of an individual article. Second, we have to be aware of the terms under which institutional policies may place authors. As with many such problems, the technological issues are relatively trivial. To actually address them meaningfully will not happen with technology alone, but with education, outreach, and network building.

The major thing we can take away from Bohannon’s work is that we have to help faculty authors to make good choices about where they submit articles. Anyone who works with faculty has stories of extremely questionable practices by journals of all types, both open access and traditional. Speaking up about those practices on an individual basis can result in lawsuits, as we saw earlier this year. Are there technical solutions that can help weed out predatory publishers and bad journals and articles? The Library Loon points out that many factors, some related to technology, have meant that both positive and negative indicators of journal quality have become less useful in recent years. The Loon suggests that “[c]reating a reporting mechanism where authors can rate and answer relatively simple questions about their experiences with various journals seems worthwhile.” 9

The comments to this post have some more suggestions, including open peer review and a forum backed by a strong editor that could be a Yelp-type site for academic publisher reputation. I wrote about open peer review earlier this year in the context of PeerJ, and participants in that system did indeed find the experience of publishing in a journal with quick turnarounds and open reviews pleasant. (Bohannon did not submit a fake article to PeerJ). This solution requires that journals have a more robust technical infrastructure as well as a new philosophy to peer review. More importantly, this is not a solution librarians can implement for our patrons–it is something that has to come from the journals.

The idea that seems to be catching on more is the “Yelp” for scholarly publishers. This seems like a good potential solution, albeit one that would require a great deal of coordinated effort to be truly useful. The technical parts of this type of solution would be relatively easy to carry out. But how to ensure that it is useful for its users? The Yelp analog may be particularly helpful here. When it launched in 2004, it asked users who were searching for some basic information about their question, and to provide the email addresses of additional people whom they would have traditionally asked for this information. Yelp then emailed those people as well as others with similar searches to get reviews of local businesses to build up its base of information. 10 Yelp took a risk in pursuing content in that way, since it could have been off-putting to potential users. But local business information was valuable enough to early users that they were willing to participate, and this seems like a perfect model to build up a base of information on journal publisher practices.

This helps address the problem of predatory publishers and shifting embargoes, but it doesn’t help as much with the issue of quality assurance for the article content. Librarians teach students how to find articles that claim to be peer reviewed, but long before Bohannon we knew that peer review quality varies greatly, and even when done well tells us nothing about the validity of the research findings. Education about the scholarly communication cycle, the scientific method, and critical thinking skills are the most essential tools to ensure that students are using appropriate articles, open access or not. However, those skills are difficult to bring to bear for even the most highly experienced researchers trying to keep up with a large volume of published research. There are a few technical solutions that may be of help here. Article level metrics, particularly alternative metrics, can aid in seeing how articles are being used. (For more on altmetrics, see this post from earlier this year).

One of the easiest options for article level metrics is the Altmetric.com bookmarklet. This provides article level metrics for many articles with a DOI, or articles from PubMed and arXiv. Altmetric.com offers an API with a free tier to develop your own app. An open source option for article level metrics is PLOS’s Article-Level Metrics, a Ruby on Rails application. These solutions do not guarantee article quality, of course, but hopefully help weed out more marginal articles.

No one needs to be afraid of open access

For those working with institutional repositories or other open access issues, it sometimes seems very natural for Open Access Week to fall so near Halloween. But it does not have to be frightening. Taking responsibility for thoughtful use of technical solutions and on-going outreach and education is essential, but can lead to important changes in attitudes to open access and changes in scholarly communication.



  1. Bohannon, John. “Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?” Science 342, no. 6154 (October 4, 2013): 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60.
  2. “Who Is Afraid of Peer Review: Sting Operation of The Science: Some Analysis of the Metadata.” Scholarlyoadisq, October 9, 2013. http://scholarlyoadisq.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/who-is-afraid-of-peer-review-sting-operation-of-the-science-some-analysis-of-the-metadata/.
  3. Taylor, Mike. “Anti-tutorial: How to Design and Execute a Really Bad Study.” Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week. Accessed October 17, 2013. http://svpow.com/2013/10/07/anti-tutorial-how-to-design-and-execute-a-really-bad-study/.
  4. Eisen, Michael. “I Confess, I Wrote the Arsenic DNA Paper to Expose Flaws in Peer-review at Subscription Based Journals.” It Is NOT Junk, October 3, 2013. http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439.
  5. Davis, Phil. “Open Access ‘Sting’ Reveals Deception, Missed Opportunities.” The Scholarly Kitchen. Accessed October 17, 2013. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/10/04/open-access-sting-reveals-deception-missed-opportunities/.
  6. Novella, Steven. “A Problem with Open Access Journals.” Neurologica Blog, October 7, 2013. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/a-problem-with-open-access-journals/.
  7. Sutton, Shan C. “Open Access, Publisher Embargoes, and the Voluntary Nature of Scholarship: An Analysis.” College & Research Libraries News 74, no. 9 (October 1, 2013): 468–472.
  8. Ibid., 469
  9. Loon, Library. “A Veritable Sting.” Gavia Libraria, October 8, 2013. http://gavialib.com/2013/10/a-veritable-sting/.
  10. Cringely, Robert. “The Ears Have It.” I, Cringely, October 14, 2004. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2004/pulpit_20041014_000829.html.

Citation Manager Roundup

In April of this year, the two most popular free citation managers–Mendeley and Zotero–both underwent some big changes. On April 8th, TechCrunch announced that Elsevier had purchased Mendeley, which had been surmised in January. 1 Just a few days later, Zotero announced the release of version 4, with a number of new features. 2 Just as with the sunsetting of Google Reader, this has prompted many to consider what citation managers they have been using and think about switching or changing practices. I will not address subscription or paid products like RefWorks and EndNote specifically, though there are certainly many reasons you might prefer one of those products.

Mendeley: a new Star Wars movie in the making?

The rhetoric surrounding Elsevier’s acquisition of Mendeley was generally alarmist in nature, and the hashtag “#mendelete” that popped up immediately after the announcement suggests that many people’s first instinct was to abandon Mendeley. Elsevier has been held up as a model of anti-open access, and Mendeley as a model for open access. Yet Mendeley has always been a for-profit company, and, like Google, benefits itself and its users (particularly the science community) by knowing what they are reading and sharing. After all, the social features of Mendeley wouldn’t have any value if there was no public sharing. Institutional Mendeley accounts allow librarians to see what their users in aggregate are reading and saving, which helps them make collection development decisions– a service beyond what the average institutional citation manager product accomplishes. Victor Henning promises on the Mendeley blog that nothing will change, and that this will give them more freedom to develop more features 3. As for Elsevier, Oliver Dumon promises that Mendeley will remain independent and allowed to follow their own course–and that bringing it together with ScienceDirect and Scopus will create a “central workflow and collaboration site for authors”.4

There are two questions to be answered in this. First, is it realistic to assume that the Mendeley team will have the creative freedom they say they will have? And second, are users comfortable with their data being available to Elsevier? For many, the answers to both these questions seem to be “no” and “no.” A more optimistic point of view is that if Elsevier must placate Mendeley users who are open access advocates, they will allow more openness than before.

It’s too early to say, but I remain hopeful that Mendeley can continue to create a more open spirit in academic publishing. Peter Hoyt (a former employee of Mendeley and founder of PeerJ) suggests that much of the work that he oversaw to open up Mendeley was being stymied by Elsevier specifically. For him, this went against his personal ethos and so he was unable to stay at Mendeley–but he is confident in the character and ability of the people remaining at Mendeley.  5. I have never been a heavy user of Mendeley, but I have maintained a free account for the past few years. I use it mainly to create a list of my publications on my personal website, using a WordPress plug-in that uses the Mendeley API.

What’s new with Zotero

Zotero is a very different product than Mendeley. First, it is open-source software, with lots of ways to participate in development. Zotero was developed by the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, with foundation and user support. It was developed specifically to support the research work of humanists. Originally a Firefox plug-in, Zotero now works as a standalone piece of software that interacts with Firefox, Chrome, and Safari to recognize bibliographic data on websites and pull them into a database that can be synced across computers (and even some third party mobile software). The newest version of Zotero includes several improvements. The one I am most excited about is detailed download display, which tells you what folder you’re saving a reference into, which is crucial for my workflow. Zotero is the citation manager I use on a daily basis, and I rely on it for formatting the footnotes you see on ACRL TechConnect posts or other research articles I produce. Since much of my research is on the open web, books, or other non-journal article resources, I find the ability of Zotero to pick up library catalog records and similar metadata more useful than the Mendeley import bookmarklet.

Both Zotero and Mendeley offer free storage for metadata and PDFs, with a cost for storage above the free level. (It is also possible to use a WebDAV server for syncing Zotero files).

Zotero Mendeley
300 MB Free
2 GB $20 / year 2 GB Free
6 GB $60 / year 5 GB $55 / year
10 GB $100 / year 10 GB $110 / year
25 GB $240 / year Unlimited $165 / year
Some concluding thoughts

Several graduate students in science 6 have written blog posts about switching away from Mendeley to Zotero. But they aren’t the same thing at all, and given the backgrounds of their creators, Mendeley is more skewed to the sciences, and Zotero more to the humanities.

Nor, as I like to point out, must they be mutually exclusive. I use Zotero for my daily citation management since I much prefer it for grabbing citations online, but sync my Zotero library with Mendeley to use the social and API features in Mendeley. I can choose to do this as an individual, but consider carefully the implications of your choice if you are considering an institutional subscription or requiring students or members of a research group to use a particular service.

  1. Lunden, Ingrid. “Confirmed: Elsevier Has Bought Mendeley For $69M-$100M To Expand Its Open, Social Education Data Efforts.” TechCrunch, April 18, 2013. http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/08/confirmed-elsevier-has-bought-mendeley-for-69m-100m-to-expand-open-social-education-data-efforts/.
  2. Takats, Sean. “Zotero 4.0 Launches.” Zotero, April 11, 2013. http://www.zotero.org/blog/zotero-4-0-launches/.
  3. Henning, Victor. “Mendeley and Elsevier – Here’s More Info.” Mend, April 19, 2013. http://blog.mendeley.com/community-relations/mendeley-and-elsevier-heres-more-info/
  4. Dumon, Oliver. “Elsevier Welcomes Mendeley.” Elsevier Connect, April 8, 2013. http://elsevierconnect.com/elsevier-welcomes-mendeley/.
  5. Hoyt, Jason. “My Thoughts on Mendeley/Elsevier & Why I Left to Start PeerJ,” April 9, 2013. http://enjoythedisruption.com/post/47527556151/my-thoughts-on-mendeley-elsevier-why-i-left-to-start.
  6. For one, see “Mendeley Sells Out; I’m Moving to Zotero.” LJ Villanueva’s Research Blog. Accessed May 20, 2013. http://research.coquipr.com/archives/492.

Revisiting PeerJ

A few months ago as part of a discussion on open peer review, I described the early stages of planning for a new type of journal, called PeerJ. Last month on February 12 PeerJ launched with its first 30 articles. By last week, the journal had published 53 articles. There are a number of remarkable attributes of the journal so far, so in this post I want to look at what PeerJ is actually doing, and some lessons that academic libraries can take away–particularly for those who are getting into publishing.

What PeerJ is Doing

On the opening day blog post (since there are no editorials or issues in PeerJ, communication from the editors has to be done via blog post 1), the PeerJ team outlined their mission under four headings: to make their content open and help to make that standard practice, to practice constant innovation, to “serve academia”, and to make this happen at minimal cost to researchers and no cost to the public. The list of advisory board and academic editors is impressive–it is global and diverse, and includes some big names and Nobel laureates. To someone judging the quality of the work likely to be published, this is a good indication. The members of PeerJ range in disciplines, with the majority in Molecular Biology. To submit and/or publish work requires a fee, but there is a free plan that allows one pre-print to be posted on the forthcoming PeerJ PrePrints.

PeerJ’s publication methods are based on PLoS ONE, which publishes articles based on subjective scientific and methodological soundness rather with no emphasis placed on subjective measures of novelty or interest (see more on this). Like all peer-reviewed journals, articles are sent to an academic editor in the field, who then sends the article to peer reviewers. Everything is kept confidential until the article actually is published, but authors are free to talk about their work in other venues like blogs.

Look and Feel
PeerJ on an iPhone size screen

PeerJ on an iPhone size screen

There are several striking dissimilarities between PeerJ and standard academic journals. The home page of the journal emphasizes striking visuals and is responsive to devices, so the large image scales to a small screen for easy reading. The “timeline” display emphasizes new and interesting content. 2 The code they used to make this all happen is available openly on the PeerJ Github account. The design of the page reflects best practices for non-profit web design, as described by the non-profit social media guide Nonprofit Tech 2.0. The page tells a story, makes it easy to get updates, works on all devices, and integrates social media. The design of the page has changed iteratively even in the first month to reflect the realities of what was actually being published and how people were accessing it. 3 PDFs of articles were designed to be readable on screens, especially tablets, so rather than trying to fit as much text as possible on one page as many PDFs are designed, they have single columns with left margins, fewer words per line, and references hyperlinked in the text. 4

How Open Peer Review Works

One of the most notable features of PeerJ is open peer review. This is not mandatory, but approximately half the reviewers and authors have chosen to participate. 5 This article is an example of open peer review in practice. You can read the original article, the (in this case anonymous) reviewer’s comments, the editors comments and the author’s rebuttal letter. Anyone who has submitted an article to a peer reviewed journal before will recognize this structure, but if you have not, this might be an exciting glimpse of something you have never seen before. As a non-scientist, I personally find this more useful as a didactic tool to show the peer review process in action, but I can imagine how helpful it would be to see this process for articles about areas of library science in which I am knowledgeable.

With only 53 articles and in existence for such a short time, it is difficult to measure what impact open peer review has on articles, or to generalize about which authors and reviewers choose an open process. So far, however, PeerJ reports that several authors have been very positive about their experience publishing with the journal. The speed of review is very fast, and reviewers have been constructive and kind in their language. One author goes into more detail in his original post, “One of the reviewers even signed his real name. Now, I’m not totally sure why they were so nice to me. They were obvious experts in the system that I studied …. But they were nice, which was refreshing and encouraging.” He also points out that the exciting thing about PeerJ for him is that all it requires are projects that were technically well-executed and carefully described, so that this encourages publication of negative or unexpected results, thus avoiding the file drawer effect.6

This last point is perhaps the most important to note. We often talk of peer-reviewed articles as being particularly significant and “high-impact.” But in the case of PeerJ, the impact is not necessarily due to the results of the research or the type of research, but that it was well done. One great example of this is the article “Significant Changes in the Skin Microbiome Mediated by the Sport of Roller Derby”. 7 This was a study about the transfer of bacteria during roller derby matches, and the study was able to prove its hypothesis that contact sports are a good environment in which to study movements of bacteria among people. The (very humorous) review history indicates that the reviewers were positive about the article, and felt that it had promise for setting a research paradigm. (Incidentally, one of the reviewers remained anonymous , since he/she felt that this could “[free] junior researchers to openly and honestly critique works by senior researchers in their field,” and signed the letter “Diligent but human postdoc reviewer”.) This article was published the beginning of March, and already has 2,307 unique visits to the page, and has been shared widely on social media. We can assume that one of the motivations for sharing this article was the potential for roller derby jokes or similar, but will this ultimately make the article’s long term impact stronger? This will be something to watch.

What Can Academic Libraries Learn?

A recent article In the Library With the Lead Pipe discussed the open ethos in two library publications, In the Library With the Lead Pipe and Code4Lib Journal. 8 This article concluded that more LIS publications need to open the peer review process, though the publications mentioned are not peer reviewed in the traditional sense. There are very few, if any, open peer reviewed publications in the nature of PeerJ outside of the sciences. Could libraries or library-related publications match this process? Would they want to?

I think we can learn a few things from PeerJ. First, the rapid publication cycle means that more work is getting published more quickly. This is partly because they have so many reviewers and so any one reviewer isn’t overburdened–and due to their membership model, it is in the best financial interests of potential future authors to be current reviewers. As In the Library With the Lead Pipe points out that a central academic library journal, College & Research Libraries, is now open access and early content is available as a pre-print, the pre-prints reflect content that will be published in some cases well over a year from now. A year is a long time to wait, particularly for work that looks at current technology. Information Technology in Libraries (ITAL), the LITA journal is also open access and provides pre-prints as well–but this page appears to be out of date.

Another thing we can learn is making reading easier and more convenient while still maintaining a professional appearance and clean visuals. Blogs like ACRL Tech Connect and In the Library with the Lead Pipe deliver quality content fairly quickly, but look like blogs. Journals like the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication have a faster turnaround time for review and publication (though still could take several months), but even this online journal is geared for a print world. Viewing the article requires downloading a PDF with text presented in two columns–hardly the ideal online reading experience. In these cases, the publication is somewhat at the mercy of the platform (WordPress in the former, BePress Digital Commons in the latter), but as libraries become publishers, they will have to develop platforms that meet the needs of modern researchers.

A question put to the ACRL Tech Connect contributors about preferred reading methods for articles suggests that there is no one right answer, and so the safest course is to release content in a variety of formats or make it flexible enough for readers to transform to a preferred format. A new journal to watch is Weave: Journal of Library User Experience, which will use the Digital Commons platform but present content in innovative ways. 9 Any libraries starting new journals or working with their campuses to create new journals should be aware of who their readers are and make sure that the solutions they choose work for those readers.



  1. “The Launch of PeerJ – PeerJ Blog.” Accessed February 19, 2013. http://blog.peerj.com/post/42920112598/launch-of-peerj.
  2. “Some of the Innovations of the PeerJ Publication Platform – PeerJ Blog.” Accessed February 19, 2013. http://blog.peerj.com/post/42920094844/peerj-functionality.
  3. http://blog.peerj.com/post/45264465544/evolution-of-timeline-design-at-peerj
  4. “The Thinking Behind the Design of PeerJ’s PDFs.” Accessed March 18, 2013. http://blog.peerj.com/post/43558508113/the-thinking-behind-the-design-of-peerjs-pdfs.
  5. http://blog.peerj.com/post/43139131280/the-reception-to-peerjs-open-peer-review
  6. “PeerJ Delivers: The Review Process.” Accessed March 18, 2013. http://edaphics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/peerj-delivers-review-process.html.
  7. Meadow, James F., Ashley C. Bateman, Keith M. Herkert, Timothy K. O’Connor, and Jessica L. Green. “Significant Changes in the Skin Microbiome Mediated by the Sport of Roller Derby.” PeerJ 1 (March 12, 2013): e53. doi:10.7717/peerj.53.
  8. Ford, Emily, and Carol Bean. “Open Ethos Publishing at Code4Lib Journal and In the Library with the Lead Pipe.” In the Library with the Lead Pipe (December 12, 2012). http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2012/open-ethos-publishing/.
  9. Personal communication with Matthew Reidsma, March 19, 2013.

What Should Technology Librarians Be Doing About Alternative Metrics?

Bibliometrics– used here to mean statistical analyses of the output and citation of periodical literature–is a huge and central field of library and information science. In this post, I want to address the general controversy surrounding these metrics when evaluating scholarship and introduce the emerging alternative metrics (often called altmetrics) that aim to address some of these controversies and how these can be used in libraries. Librarians are increasingly becoming focused on the publishing side of the scholarly communication cycle, as well as supporting faculty in new ways (see, for instance, David Lankes’s thought experiment of the tenure librarian). What is the reasonable approach for technology-focused academic librarians to these issues? And what tools exist to help?

There have been many articles and blog posts expressing frustration with the practice of using journal impact factors for judging the quality of a journal or an individual researcher (see especially Seglen). One vivid illustration of this frustration is in a recent blog post by Stephen Curry titled “Sick of Impact Factors”. Librarians have long used journal impact factors in making purchasing decisions, which is one of the less controversial uses of these metrics 1 The essential message of all of this research about impact factors is that traditional methods of counting citations or determining journal impact do not answer questions about what articles are influential and how individual researchers contribute to the academy. For individual researchers looking to make a case for promotion and tenure, questions of use of metrics can be all or nothing propositions–hence the slightly hysterical edge in some of the literature. Librarians, too, have become frustrated with attempting to prove the return on investment for decisions–see “How ROI Killed the Academic Library”–going by metrics alone potentially makes the tools available to researchers more homogeneous and ignores niches. As the alt metrics manifesto suggests, the traditional “filters” in scholarly communication of peer review, citation metrics, and journal impact factors are becoming obsolete in their current forms.

Traditional Metrics

It would be of interest to determine, if possible, the part which men of different calibre [sic] contribute to the progress of science.

Alfred Lotka (a statistician at the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, famous for his work in demography) wrote these words in reference to his 1926 statistical analysis of the journal output of chemists 2 Given the tools available at the time, it was a fairly limited sample size, looking at just the first two letters of an author index for the period of 16 years compared with a slim 100 page volume of important works “from the beginning of history to 1900.” His analysis showed that the more articles published in a field, the less likely it is for an individual author to publish more than one article. As Per Seglen puts it, this showed the “skewness” of science 3

The original journal impact factor was developed by Garfield in the 1970s, and used the “mean number of citations to articles published in two preceding years” 4.   Quite clearly, this is supposed to measure the general amount that a journal was cited, and hence a guide to how likely a researcher was to read and immediately find useful the body of work in this journal in his or her own work. This is helpful for librarians trying to make decisions about how to stretch a budget, but the literature has not found that a journal’s impact has much to do with an individual article’s citedness and usefulness 5 As one researcher suggests, using it for anything other than its intended original use constitutes pseudoscience 6 Another issue with which those at smaller institutions are very familiar is the cost of accessing traditional metrics. The major resources that provide these are Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports and Web of Science, and Elsevier’s Scopus, and both are outside the price range of many schools.

Metrics that attempt to remedy some of these difficulties have been developed. At the journal level, the Eigenfactor® and Article Influence Score™ use network theory to estimate “the percentage of time that library users spend with that journal”, and the Article Influence Score tracks the influence of the journal over five years. 7. At the researcher level, the h-index tracks the impact of specific researchers (it was developed with physicists in mind). The h-index takes into account the number of papers the researcher has published in how much time when looking at citations. 8

These are included under the rubric of alternative metrics since they are an alternative to the JCR, but rely on citations in traditional academic journals, something which the “altmetric” movement wants to move beyond.

Alt Metrics

In this discussion of alt metrics I will be referring to the arguments and tools suggested by Altmetrics.org. In the alt metrics manifesto, Priem et al. point to several manifestations of scholarly communication that are unlike traditional article publications, including raw data, “nanopublication”, and self-publishing via social media (which was predicted as so-called “scholarly skywriting” at the dawn of the World Wide Web 9). Combined with sharing of traditional articles more readily due to open access journals and social media, these all create new possibilities for indicating impact. Yet the manifesto also cautions that we must be sure that the numbers which alt metrics collect “really reflect impact, or just empty buzz.”  The research done so far is equally cautious. A 2011 study suggests that tweets about articles (tweetations) do correlate with citations but that we cannot say that number of tweets about an article really measures the impact. 10

A criticism expressed in the media about alt metrics is that alternative metrics are no more likely to be able to judge the quality or true impact of a scientific paper than traditional metrics. 11 As Per Seglen noted in 1992, “Once the field boundaries are broken there is virtually no limit to the number of citations an article may accrue.” 12 So an article that is interdisciplinary in nature is likely to do far better in the alternative metrics realm than a specialized article in a discipline that still may be very important. Mendeleley’s list of top research papers demonstrates this–many (though not all) the top articles are about scientific publication in general rather than about specific scientific results.

What can librarians use now?

Librarians are used to questions like “What is the impact factor of Journal X?” For librarians lucky enough to have access to Journal Citation Reports, this is a matter of looking up the journal and reporting the score. They could answer “How many times has my article been cited?” in Web of Science or Scopus using some care in looking for typos. Alt metrics, however, remind us that these easy answers are not telling the whole story. So what should librarians be doing?

One thing that librarians can start doing is helping their campus community get signed up for the many different services that will promote their research and provide article level citation information. Below are listed a small number (there are certainly others out there) of services that you may want to consider using yourself or having your campus community use. Some, like PubMed, won’t be relevant to all disciplines. Altmetrics.org lists several tools beyond what is listed below to provide additional ideas.

These tools offer various methods for sharing. PubMed allows one to embed “My Bibliography” in a webpage, as well as to create delegates who can help curate the bibliography. A developer can use the APIs provided by some of these services to embed data for individuals or institutions on a library website or institutional repository. ImpactStory has an API that makes it relatively easy to embed data for individuals or institutions on a library website or institutional repository. Altmetric.com also has an API that is free for non-commercial use. Mendeley has many helpful apps that integrate with popular content management systems.

Since this is such a new field, it’s a great time to get involved. Altmetrics.org held a hackathon in November 2012 and has a Google Doc with the ideas for the hackathon. This is an interesting overview of what is going on with open source hacking on alt metrics.


The altmetrics manifesto program calls for a complete overhaul of scholarly communication–alternative research metrics are just a part of their critique. And yet, for librarians trying to help researchers, they are often the main concern. While science in general calls for a change to the use of these metrics, we can help to shape the discussion through educating and using alternative metrics.


Works Cited and Suggestions for Further Reading
Bourg, Chris. 2012. “How ROI Killed the Academic Library.” Feral Librarian. http://chrisbourg.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/how-roi-killed-the-academic-library/.
Cronin, Blaise, and Kara Overfelt. 1995. “E-Journals and Tenure.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46 (9) (October): 700-703.
Curry, Stephen. 2012. “Sick of Impact Factors.” Reciprocal Space. http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/08/13/sick-of-impact-factors/.
“Methods”, 2012. Eigenfactor.org.
Eysenbach, Gunther. 2011. “Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact.” Journal Of Medical Internet Research 13 (4) (December 19): e123-e123.
Gisvold, Sven-Erik. 1999. “Citation Analysis and Journal Impact Factors – Is the Tail Wagging the Dog?” Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 43 (November): 971-973.
Hirsch, J. E. “An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102, no. 46 (November 15, 2005): 16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
Howard, Jennifer. 2012. “Scholars Seek Better Ways to Track Impact Online.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 29, sec. Technology. http://chronicle.com/article/As-Scholarship-Goes-Digital/130482/.
Jump, Paul. 2012. “Alt-metrics: Fairer, Faster Impact Data?” Times Higher Education, August 23, sec. Research Intelligence. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=420926.
Lotka, Alfred J. 1926. “The Frequency Distribution of Scientific Productivity.” Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 26 (12) (June 16): 317-324.
Mayor, Julien. 2010. “Are Scientists Nearsighted Gamblers? The Misleading Nature of Impact Factors.” Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement: 215. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00215.
Oransky, Ivan. 2012. “Was Elsevier’s Peer Review System Hacked to Get More Citations?” Retraction Watch. http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/was-elseviers-peer-review-system-hacked-to-get-more-citations/.
Priem, J., D. Taraborelli, P. Groth, and C. Neylon. 2010. “Altmetrics: A Manifesto.” Altmetrics.org. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
Seglen, Per O. 1992. “The Skewness of Science.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43 (9) (October): 628-638.
———. 1994. “Causal Relationship Between Article Citedness and Journal Impact.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45 (1) (January): 1-11.
Vanclay, Jerome K. 2011. “Impact Factor: Outdated Artefact or Stepping-stone to Journal Certification?” Scientometrics 92 (2) (November 24): 211-238. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0.
  1. Jerome K. Vanclay,  “Impact Factor: Outdated Artefact or Stepping-stone to Journal Certification?” Scientometrics 92 (2) (2011):  212.
  2. Alfred Lotka, “The Frequency Distribution of Scientific Productivity.” Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 26 (12) (1926)): 317.
  3. Per Seglen, “The Skewness of Science.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43 (9) (1992): 628.
  4. Vanclay, 212.
  5. Per Seglen, “Causal Relationship Between Article Citedness and Journal Impact.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45 (1) (1994): 1-11.
  6. Vanclay, 211.
  7. “Methods”, Eigenfactor.org, 2012.
  8. J.E. Hirsch, “An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102, no. 46 (2005): 16569–16572.
  9. Blaise Cronin and Kara Overfelt, “E-Journals and Tenure.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46 (9) (1995): 700.
  10. Gunther Eysenbach, “Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact.” Journal Of Medical Internet Research 13 (4) (2011): e123.
  11. see in particular Jump.
  12. Seglen, 637.

PeerJ: Could it Transform Open Access Publishing?

Open access publication makes access to research free for the end reader, but in many fields it is not free for the author of the article. When I told a friend in a scientific field I was working on this article, he replied “Open access is something you can only do if you have a grant.” PeerJ, a scholarly publishing venture that started up over the summer, aims to change this and make open access publication much easier for everyone involved.

While the first publication isn’t expected until December, in this post I want to examine in greater detail the variation on the “gold” open-access business model that PeerJ states will make it financially viable 1, and the open peer review that will drive it. Both of these models are still very new in the world of scholarly publishing, and require new mindsets for everyone involved. Because PeerJ comes out of funding and leadership from Silicon Valley, it can more easily break from traditional scholarly publishing and experiment with innovative practices. 2

PeerJ Basics

PeerJ is a platform that will host a scholarly journal called PeerJ and a pre-print server (similar to arXiv) that will publish biological and medical scientific research. Its founders are Peter Binfield (formerly of PLoS ONE) and Jason Hoyt (formerly of Mendeley), both of whom are familiar with disruptive models in academic publishing. While the “J” in the title stands for Journal, Jason Hoyt explains on the PeerJ blog that while the journal as such is no longer a necessary model for publication, we still hold on to it. “The journal is dead, but it’s nice to hold on to it for a little while.” 3. The project launched in June of this year, and while no major updates have been posted yet on the PeerJ website, they seem to be moving towards their goal of publishing in late 2012.

To submit a paper for consideration in PeerJ, authors must buy a “lifetime membership” starting at $99. (You can submit a paper without paying, but it costs more in the end to publish it). This would allow the author to publish one paper in the journal a year. The lifetime membership is only valid as long as you meet certain participation requirements, which at minimum is reviewing at least one article a year. Reviewing in this case can mean as little as posting a comment to a published article. Without that, the author might have to pay the $99 fee again (though as yet it is of course unclear how strictly PeerJ will enforce this rule). The idea behind this is to “incentivize” community participation, a practice that has met with limited success in other arenas. Each author on a paper, up to 12 authors, must pay the fee before the article can be published. The Scholarly Kitchen blog did some math and determined that for most lab setups, publication fees would come to about $1,124 4, which is equivalent to other similar open access journals. Of course, some of those researchers wouldn’t have to pay the fee again; for others, it might have to be paid again if they are unable to review other articles.

Peer Review: Should it be open?

PeerJ, as the name and the lifetime membership model imply, will certainly be peer-reviewed. But, keeping with its innovative practices, it will use open peer review, a relatively new model. Peter Binfield explained in this interview PeerJ’s thinking behind open peer review.

…we believe in open peer review. That means, first, reviewer names are revealed to authors, and second, that the history of the peer review process is made public upon publication. However, we are also aware that this is a new concept. Therefore, we are initially going to encourage, but not require, open peer review. Specifically, we will be adopting a policy similar to The EMBO Journal: reviewers will be permitted to reveal their identities to authors, and authors will be given the choice of placing the peer review and revision history online when they are published. In the case of EMBO, the uptake by authors for this latter aspect has been greater than 90%, so we expect it to be well received. 5

In single blind peer review, the reviewers would know the name of the author(s) of the article, but the author would not know who reviewed the article. The reviewers could write whatever sorts of comments they wanted to without the author being able to communicate with them. For obvious reasons, this lends itself to abuse where reviewers might not accept articles by people they did not know or like or tend to accept articles from people they did like 6 Even people who are trying to be fair can accidentally fall prey to bias when they know the names of the submitters.

Double blind peer review in theory takes away the ability for reviewers to abuse the system. A link that has been passed around library conference planning circles in the past few weeks is the JSConf EU 2012 which managed to improve its ratio of female presenters by going to a double-blind system. Double blind is the gold standard for peer review for many scholarly journals. Of course, it is not a perfect system either. It can be hard to obscure the identity of a researcher in a small field in which everyone is working on unique topics. It also is a much lengthier process with more steps involved in the review process.  To this end, it is less than ideal for breaking medical or technology research that needs to be made public as soon as possible.

In open peer review, the reviewers and the authors are known to each other. By allowing for direct communication between reviewer and researcher, this speeds up the process of revisions and allows for greater clarity and speed 7.  Open peer review doesn’t affect the quality of the reviews or the articles negatively, it does make it more difficult to find qualified reviewers to participate, and it might make a less well-known researcher more likely to accept the work of a senior colleague or well-known lab.  8.

Given the experience of JSConf and a great deal of anecdotal evidence from women in technical fields, it seems likely that open peer review is open to the same potential abuse of single peer review. While  open peer review might make the rejected author able to challenge unfair rejections, this would require that the rejected author feels empowered enough in that community to speak up. Junior scholars who know they have been rejected by senior colleagues may not want to cause a scene that could affect future employment or publication opportunities. On the other hand, if they can get useful feedback directly from respected senior colleagues, that could make all the difference in crafting a stronger article and going forward with a research agenda. Therein lies the dilemma of open peer review.

Who pays for open access?

A related problem for junior scholars exists in open access funding models, at least in STEM publishing. As open access stands now, there are a few different models that are still being fleshed out. Green open access is free to the author and free to the reader; it is usually funded by grants, institutions, or scholarly societies. Gold open access is free to the end reader but has a publication fee charged to the author(s).

This situation is very confusing for researchers, since when they are confronted with a gold open access journal they will have to be sure the journal is legitimate (Jeffrey Beall has a list of Predatory Open Access journals to aid in this) as well as secure funding for publication. While there are many schemes in place for paying publication fees, there are no well-defined practices in place that illustrate long-term viability. Often this is accomplished by grants for the research, but not always. The UK government recently approved a report that suggests that issuing “block grants” to institutions to pay these fees would ultimately cost less due to reduced library subscription fees.  As one article suggests, the practice of “block grants” or other funding strategies are likely to not be advantageous to junior scholars or those in more marginal fields 9. A large research grant for millions of dollars with the relatively small line item for publication fees for a well-known PI is one thing–what about the junior humanities scholar who has to scramble for a few thousand dollar research stipend? If an institution only gets so much money for publication fees, who gets the money?

By offering a $99 lifetime membership for the lowest level of publication, PeerJ offers hope to the junior scholar or graduate student to pursue projects on their own or with a few partners without worrying about how to pay for open access publication. Institutions could more readily afford to pay even $250 a year for highly productive researchers who were not doing peer review than the $1000+ publication fee for several articles a year. As above, some are skeptical that PeerJ can afford to publish at those rates, but if it is possible, that would help make open access more fair and equitable for everyone.


Open access with low-cost paid up front could be very advantageous to researchers and institutional  bottom lines, but only if the quality of articles, peer reviews, and science is very good. It could provide a social model for publication that will take advantage of the web and the network effect for high quality reviewing and dissemination of information, but only if enough people participate. The network effect that made Wikipedia (for example) so successful relies on a high level of participation and engagement very early on to be successful [Davis]. A community has to build around the idea of PeerJ.

In almost the opposite method, but looking to achieve the same effect, this last week the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3) announced that after years of negotiations they are set to convert publishing in that field to open access starting in 2014. 10 This means that researchers (and their labs) would not have to do anything special to publish open access and would do so by default in the twelve journals in which most particle physics articles are published. The fees for publication will be paid upfront by libraries and funding agencies.

So is it better to start a whole new platform, or to work within the existing system to create open access? If open (and through a commenting s system, ongoing) peer review makes for a lively and engaging network and low-cost open access  makes publication cheaper, then PeerJ could accomplish something extraordinary in scholarly publishing. But until then, it is encouraging that organizations are working from both sides.

  1. Brantley, Peter. “Scholarly Publishing 2012: Meet PeerJ.” PublishersWeekly.com, June 12, 2012. http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/52512-scholarly-publishing-2012-meet-peerj.html.
  2. Davis, Phil. “PeerJ: Silicon Valley Culture Enters Academic Publishing.” The Scholarly Kitchen, June 14, 2012. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/06/14/peerj-silicon-valley-culture-enters-academic-publishing/.
  3. Hoyt, Jason. “What Does the ‘J’ in ‘PeerJ’ Stand For?” PeerJ Blog, August 22, 2012. http://blog.peerj.com/post/29956055704/what-does-the-j-in-peerj-stand-for.
  4. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/06/14/is-peerj-membership-publishing-sustainable/
  5. Brantley
  6. Wennerås, Christine, and Agnes Wold. “Nepotism and sexism in peer-review.” Nature 387, no. 6631 (May 22, 1997): 341–3.
  7. For an ingenious way of demonstrating this, see Leek, Jeffrey T., Margaret A. Taub, and Fernando J. Pineda. “Cooperation Between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy.” PLoS ONE 6, no. 11 (November 9, 2011): e26895.
  8. Mainguy, Gaell, Mohammad R Motamedi, and Daniel Mietchen. “Peer Review—The Newcomers’ Perspective.” PLoS Biology 3, no. 9 (September 2005). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1201308/.
  9. Crotty, David. “Are University Block Grants the Right Way to Fund Open Access Mandates?” The Scholarly Kitchen, September 13, 2012. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/09/13/are-university-block-grants-the-right-way-to-fund-open-access-mandates/.
  10. Van Noorden, Richard. “Open-access Deal for Particle Physics.” Nature 489, no. 7417 (September 24, 2012): 486–486.