Takeaways of the PEER Project for Libraries and Repositories

“PEER (Publishing and the Ecology of European Research), the first major research study on the potential effects of systematic, large-scale deposits of peer-reviewed articles into Open Access repositories (i.e. Green OA), has come to a close. At the core of the project was an examination into whether mandated deposits of the peer-reviewed, pre-print versions of articles into repositories will achieve greater use of research outputs and increase the impact of publicly-funded research and how it may affect journal publishing. The PEER project brought together stakeholders from three key communities: publishers, academic researchers, and research libraries to cooperate by setting up an environment in which article downloads from publishing websites and repositories could be systematically compared. Furthermore, the project conducted three research studies to investigate: [1] behaviour of researchers as authors and readers [2] usage of available content from repositories and publishers’ sites [3] economics of peer-review publishing and Green OA... three research studies were commissioned. A summary of findings are included in the Final PEER Report. Of particular importance to libraries and repository managers: [1] There appears to be a difference in usage of and attitudes towards Green OA deposits as compared to the published version of record by researchers depending on whether they are in ‘reader’ mode or ‘author’ mode: ‘Readers have concerns about the authority of article content and the extent to which it can be cited when the version they have accessed is not the published final version. These concerns are more prevalent where the purpose of reading is to produce a published journal article, and are perceived as less of an issue for other types of reading purpose.’ (PEER Final Report, page 10) [2] ‘Open Access Repositories are perceived by researchers as complementary to, rather than replacing, current forums for disseminating and publishing research.’ (PEER Final Report, page 10) In terms of economics: [1] Peer review has real costs and there are no economies of scale. (Average cost $250 per manuscript for salary and fees only, excludes overheads – infrastructure, systems, etc. and is heavily affected by rejection rates). Excluding peer review, average production costs range from $170 to over $400 per article (again excluding all overheads).” (PEER Final Report, page 10) [2] For Green OA, the cost of processing documents for already-established repositories was estimated at 10 EUR maximum per reference, 18 EUR maximum per full-text document, 43 EUR maximum per journal article. However, this does not include the costs associated with starting up a repository or ongoing maintenance. (PEER End-of-Project Meeting, Report by Dr. Paola Dubini on Economics Research) During the end-of-project meeting (Brussels, Belgium, 29 May 2012), representatives from partner organizations shared some insights regarding their experiences in the project. Their points of agreement were summarized into several points: [1] Building a large-scale infrastructure is organizationally and technically challenging. [2] Building a clearing-house with automated workflows is helpful. [3] Author self-archiving is unlikely to generate a critical mass of Green OA content. [4] Stage II [peer-reviewed version of research output] archiving requires manual oversight and intervention. [5] Scholars prefer the Version of Record. [6] Usage scenarios for Green Open Access are more complex than generally acknowledged. [7] The acceptance and utility of open access publishing has increased rapidly. The final project report and slides from the End-of-Project Meeting are available on the PEER Project website...” [Use the link to access the ongoing discussion of key takeaways for libraries]