Anthony Hollander, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research and Impact, University of Liverpool
Transitioning to open research is incredibly important for the University of Liverpool for two reasons: the external environment we are now operating in, and our own philosophy and approach to research.
But there are barriers, particularly the research culture and the attitude of publishers.
Nevertheless, Liverpool has a strong desire to move to team-based research and open research supports that, particularly in terms of open data.
Sharing data encourages collaboration both within and outside the university and encourages research integrity.
We also want to see transparency during every step of the research we undertake.
While that shift to open research is partly driven by Plan S and by funder and research excellence framework (REF) requirements on open access, we embrace it as part of our own approach to research.
We are also very clear that our obligation is to our research communities and our funders, not to publishers.
What barriers exist?
In my experience, the biggest barrier is culture: researchers are used to operating in a particular way. Changing practice and mindset takes time and must be conducted sensitively.
Open research benefits all researchers, so having their support on this journey is vitally important.
Some researchers are concerned that publishing their work open access has implications for their intellectual property (IP) rights. In fact, this is a perceived problem, since the same IP protections apply to all work, whether published behind a paywall or published open access.
Despite the recognition that citation metrics are not a suitable proxy for research assessment, some researchers continue to seek the kudos of publishing in a so-called prestige journal with a high-impact factor, such as ‘Nature’. They see this as a key career goal and worry their progression will falter without this achievement.
While I understand this concern, I am hopeful that colleagues increasingly recognise there are plenty of other ways through which excellent research can be promoted and shared.
However, to some extent the high-impact mindset prevails and publishers encourage it. Indeed, some publishers link the cost of publishing in their journals directly to the journal’s impact factor.
Cost and lack of funding to pay expensive article processing charges (APC) is an obvious barrier for some. The APC for Nature is a huge €9,500, for example. This is why equitable access to publishing is important.
We need to enable knowledge generation globally and not just for those who can afford to pay costly APCs. Publishing open access does not always have to be about paying a fee and researchers can, and should, explore other more innovative publishing models.
How can publishers support open research?
Firstly, publishers ought to support the implementation of the declaration on research assessment, DORA. Many publishers have signed DORA yet continue to reference journal impact factors on their websites.
As a member of the reader and chair of the promotion committee at the University of Liverpool, I can confirm that the journal impact factor is never discussed. Instead, the focus is, quite rightly, on the quality of the research.
One of the key aspects of good quality research is reproducibility and open research methods enable that. Publishers need to keep pace with universities , which would require them to place less emphasis on plaudits for their platforms.
When agreements come up for renewal, publishers should try harder to bring offers to the table that are beneficial to the sector, that move the dial and show leadership in open research.
We need agreements that allow universities and researchers to access and publish in a way that is simple and helps them easily comply with funder policies, as well as supporting the transition to open research more broadly.
I’d also like to see publishers more readily sharing information and collaborating with the sector. It would be helpful if, for example, journals’ open access publishing policies were aligned and there was clearer signposting to appropriate data repositories.
The potential for bias should be removed from all aspects of scholarly publishing and publishers should be clear in their support for inclusivity.
So, while I acknowledge there has been significant progress towards open access globally, and in particular compliance with UKRI’s open access policy, the attitude of publishers which are driven by profit margins continues to be an unacceptable barrier.