Daniel Ridge:
“Open with purpose, taking action to build structural equity and inclusion” is this year's theme for the International Open Access week, which is being held from October 19 through October 26. At Emerald Publishing, we're marking the event with several podcast episodes in which we discuss open access from different angles. Today, I'm joined by Shelley Allen, Emerald’s publishing Head of Open Research, to discuss themes around openness, transparency and equity in open research
We'll be discussing the findings of a recent global survey which Emerald Publishing commissioned in August 2020, where they gathered views on change within the academic sector. The survey was completed by a total of 1,274 academics, librarians and students within Emerald literati community. These respondents represented 188 countries. The key area the survey touched upon was openness and transparency in academic research.
Daniel Ridge:
Thank you so much for joining me today Shelly.
Shelley Allen:
Thank you for having me Daniel.
Daniel Ridge:
So, let’s start with the, basics when we're talking about open and transparent research, what are we talking about here?
Shelley Allen:
So, what we're talking about for those who aren't familiar with open and open access is we're talking about making research findings openly available to everybody so not pay walled behind subscription but freely available to all who wish to read it. In terms of how I talk about them in terms of Emerald in our approach to open, it's important to note that when I talk about gold, open access I’m talking about the version of record that is made available via an article processing charge or an APC which is where the author or funder pays to make the article, covers the cost of publishing in order to make the article, openly available. We also have platinum, which, by that I mean that there is a sponsoring organization that covers the cost of publishing and makes the that version of record freely available, but we also have our green open access which is really important for our communities, a lot of them aren't in receipt of funding and don't have access to APCs within their institution, so that enables them to make their author accepted manuscripts freely available in their repository or on their website so that's the post peer review version before it's been typeset and copy edited and that's really, really popular among our communities. In terms of transparency, this is really about making it clear, and accessible the process of research to making sure that people understand what data has been collected and how and making that process open so that others can come along and reproduce it, and also so that we can involve more people in the research process beyond just academia.
DR:
Well, we live in a globalized world of research, and I'm wondering how Emerald fits into the open world to support global challenges.
SA:
Well, that's a really good question because Emerald is a smaller publisher working in predominantly the social sciences. I think what Emerald is trying to do in terms of supporting these global challenges is really trying to support a cultural shift away from academic research being siloed within academia and helping it to get more real world impact. And a really good example of this would be really the pandemic. So, we have seen, due to the pandemic there is a need to get research out there more quickly that there is a thirst for knowledge about the disease, way beyond academia, of course, because it affects us all. But what we really saw at the beginning was that there was a real emphasis on the medical research and this the stem response to this and what we've been trying to do is really highlight the societal impact and to showcase the research that is talking to that element, which is such a big part of how this pandemic is affecting everybody in the world. So, I think really that is the role that Emerald is playing in ensuring that the we have the mechanisms to publish that that sort of research quickly. Using our various outlets including things like Emerald Open Research which is our open research platform and enables research to be published pre peer review so we can go out there as quickly as possible.
DR:
So those are the EOR gate ways, right, the Emerald Open Research gateways?
SA:
Yeah, so they are aligned to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. We have seen a lot of research come in for that that is related to COVID, but we have six gateways at the moment which speak to a number of the development goals and, and, for example we have, them on healthy lives. There is a gateway on responsible management and sustainable cities. And so really this is about having a broad approach to solving society's problems openly and ensuring that those research findings are available for all to find, and that they are disseminated quickly.
DR:
So, what is the turnaround time so an author submits to the Emerald open research gateway. How long before the article is up for peer review, and to be read by the public?
SA:
As long as they are adhering to the policies and practices of the platform, which they must be making the data openly available, and they would also need to commit to open peer review. Then we do some initial checks that they have followed our guidelines. But as long as they have done that, then, then it should be published on the platform within days of passing those checks. So, it does change, and we do find that some authors do have some challenges in meeting those standards, so if they're not familiar with open data, we need to help them to identify their data and to put it in the right repositories, for example. But, in general, it's openly published within days. And then the peer review happens straightaway after that
DR:
This is what we're talking about when we're talking about transparency isn't this open review system.
SA:
That's part of what we're talking about absolutely so open peer review particularly for some because it really opens up that process you can see who has reviewed the idea there is that it limits bias and it makes it clear like how rigorous the review has been for all to see. But transparency does go beyond that as well and it's also around making your data openly available involving citizens in your research process and ensuring as a mechanism to help improve the impact of your work as well so absolutely it's part of that.
DR:
Well attitudes are really changing aren’t they, Emerald’s recent survey of the culture survey revealed that there's been a significant shift towards publishing through open access and sharing links to supporting datasets is the type of change the researchers are considering right so it was 29% in 2019 and 51% in 2020. What do you think has been the main driver of this attitude change?
SA:
It’s a fantastic change to see I was so encouraged to see that shift in the responses that we saw, I think, I think there's so much going on behind that I think it's the work that the the entire ecosystem has been doing to try to raise awareness of open access. I think there's more of a cultural shift towards understanding how it can help to mobilize research and to really expand its impact. I think there's more information available. There's more awareness of what it can do. I think also, obviously, funders have been very active we've seen Plan S in the last couple of years and although our authors aren't funded, that what happens through these mandates does impact them so that has definitely been a driver. And I do as well think that with COVID, that is just such an important proof point of why academic research should be openly available as much as possible in order to ensure that the public has access to good quality information.
DR:
There does seem to be a little bit of pushback here, and the survey did show that it showed that there were two main concerns that researchers had. And the first one was limits to funding so the cost and the second one is that their institution has a preference to publish in traditional outlets, specifically journals that have a journal impact factor and a high journal impact factor.
So how do you see these barriers change in the future, and what role does Emerald play in facilitating open research?
SA:
Well, I think that easier if the two barriers to change there is that funding one it's something that's very real, we see it a lot without offers access to funding for APCs or other funding sources for open. It's important that we work with institutions, particularly for our authors because so many of them are unfunded it's really only via agreements with their libraries for example transformative agreements, where our authors can be supported to publish openly, so entering into transformative agreements as much as we possibly can, is, is really important for us and is something that we're actively engaging in. I think it's about also having quality outlets for that research as well which could go some way towards changing that mindset. That's just focused on traditional outlets and impact factors, Emerald is a signatory of Dora, and we really as much as possible we really try to walk the walk on that and have done a lot to really play our part in trying to change the culture as much as we can but that is the bit that will take the longest thing, as long as academics careers are focused and rewarded based on where they publish. We will continue to see that tension that makes it harder to change the model. So there's a lot more we could do we're still learning, I think others are as well. And obviously, we're we're one actor, it's an ecosystem so I don't think it's on one part of that is only so much publishers can do there's obviously a lot that funders can do but also the institutions need to do in order to support their researchers.
DR:
Right so open data is one of those things that there's a lot of pushback on.
So, can you explain a little bit what open data looks like, and why there might be a pushback against it, publishing it.
SA:
I think one of the reasons is sometimes a push back against publishing it particularly in the social sciences because people aren't sure what it looks like. And again, it's a little bit about culture, there isn't that there's no real incentives or rewards for making your data openly available and if you've spent years, collecting data, building trust with your participants. There is real anxiety I think about making data openly available and what that might mean how that might impact on your participants, but also how that might be misused or others might get credit for your work, some of these things, I think as we build the proof points of the value that making your data openly available that will help to build comfort. In the social sciences, because of that lack of funding, it's usually the case when somebody is in receipt of a research grant the funder is usually asked them to consider their data and how they're collecting it and in what way they're collecting it in order to make it openly available. So by the time they publish they've usually been engaged in some form of discussion about their data, several times over and it's been part of their research projects in social sciences at the moment, sometimes the first time they're first asked to consider this is when they've already written up their results and they've, they're attempting to publish. And this is a real challenge for our communities, for sure. So, we do need to do a lot of work in putting together guidance to help them understand what their data could be. Is it an image bank? is it interviews? It's not necessarily what people think of you it's not necessarily in spreadsheet form, which can be really challenging and then finding suitable repositories, as well so that it can be available, and they can have a DOI and can be published.
DR:
Well, another area of pushback is around peer review, and the culture surveys show that 80% of respondents believe that double blind peer reviews is the most effective peer review method. While post publication peer review was selected by the fewest respondents. So, considering how important peer review is to validating the integrity of research, how can publishers like Emerald support a fair and transparent peer review system that highlights the quality of particular research, and particular research that's outside of an impact factor journal for example?
SA:
So, for me it isn't necessarily that there's one good way I think it's important at least at this juncture, no peer review system that has been developed is perfect. I think that there are a number of pros and cons to each one so if you do do post publication peer review you have the benefits of rapid publication you it’s obviously much more transparent. If you're worried about bias so you think that your research is not going get a fair hearing amongst a traditional audience or something like that, then it can be a really good outlet for you it can be a really good approach to publishing your research if it's author led in that way. But at the same time, and quite understandably there's a lot of people out there who would quite like to have their work validated before it was publicly available and be given that chance to improve, rather than working through versioning and and that's how it's been done for a really long time. So, it's understandable that that's where the conflict currently lies. For me, I think it's important at this juncture to just be able to offer that choice to authors so they can choose which is the best method for them. I do think that, although peer review is not perfect, and it's always a challenge to get reviewers. It is important to have that validation but as you say about the integrity of the research, particularly in the era of misinformation, so that people can find that research and know that they have at least some kind of quality check against it as a trusted source
DR:
You mentioned Dora, which is important, and of course with Dora there's a relationship with the journal impact factors. So, in terms of thinking about open access, do we need to consider the role of journal impact Factors?
SA:
Yeah, I think that's clear it's been, it is a barrier to cultural change for sure. And I also think that we're now accepting that when you are trying to achieve real impact and to ensure that your research has a home outside of academia, then measuring it just on how it's received within academia and only really one measure of that receipt the citation is flawed I mean it was always gameable. It was always an imperfect measure to begin. But as we rethink the role of research really and did contribution to our world. It no longer makes sense for it to be used in isolation, and so I think that's really where we sit in that in that we need to rethink what impact looks like, yeah, you know,
DR:
Impact, that's really important and so when you're talking about impact and open access, there's a big difference between publishing in an Impact Factor Journal that sits behind a paywall and publishing in something like the EOR Gateway or having your article available and open access. For example with the Emerald open research, I have spoken with a couple authors who they published on the food supply chain in the UK, and they will reaching an audience that they hadn't reached before they had reached NGOs and also Food Bank workers and that's not a normal audience for them.
SA:
I think we know, just in the analysis that Emerald has done itself you know we can see the the Open Content obviously gets more usage it's being read more widely. You can see it being read in regions that don't have a subscription to the journal so that makes total sense and and is really important. I think the other thing that we're seeing particularly with Emerald Open Research is that we're starting to engage with a much more varied group of people in terms of the output there so that is not just about primary research per se but also other research artifacts that can really support the accessibility of that research to that be that posters be that policy papers and really sort of showing how that that research can inform things and that is an example you gave about the Sustainable Food Systems and how so quickly that research has been published and then put into practice. Within the food banks of the UK which are in crisis and that's a really, really good example of why it's important to publish quickly and to publish openly. When your research could make a real difference in times of need.
DR:
Can you tell us what preprints are and what the consensus is on this?
SA:
Yeah, sure, a preprint is essentially a researcher has almost an early draft of their work it's what they would submit to a journal perhaps or maybe even a stage or two before, but instead of submitting it to a journal if they want to have it published very quickly they would load it to a preprint server. They are pretty popular in STEM subjects as such it's particularly for example physics, and the bio archive as well so archive and bio archive are the most famous of the preprint service. And essentially, this enables that early draft to be publicly available you can still submit it to a journal to be peer reviewed when you're ready, but you can get comments on that and it just gets that research out there, really quickly, and it's just during the pandemic again in particular, they've really come into their own in terms of being able to get research out there, even early research out there, really quickly have others comment have it built upon. And I think they've. They, in terms of consensus, there probably isn't a consensus some people are very worried about pre prints and, you know, if you have somebody published something which then looks to be bad audience, or to be discredited very quickly. Then there is concern with that now out there, how do you put the genie back in the bottle we've all seen what happens even sometimes this happens with peer reviewed research for example, research against vaccines that showed the vaccines were leading to autism, for example, which has been widely discredited over and over again but yet still persists. So I think that those are why there are concerns about pre prints, but my view is that they've really shown their worth during the pandemic in the main, they really have helped to get research out there much more quickly and I think although there's, it's not perfect, although there are issues and we do need to look at how research and ensure research is still validated and that the public have better understanding around what a preprint is and isn't yet validated. I think that's what we need to work on rather than trying to put the genie back in the bottle per se, I think progress can't be stopped and so we do need to embrace it. Having said that, preprints are not as prevalent in the social science at the moment so again it's yet to be seen just how much the take up will be there at the moment. Obviously we have Emerald Open Research so that people can make their article available pre publication and get out there quickly but we haven't seen much demand for a preprint server at the moment but I think it's definitely something that all of us should be engaging with and learning more about.
DR:
So then really the responsibility is with the people who are receiving the article, the audience that if they're going to take this for gospel but then they need to fully realize that it hasn't been peer reviewed they need to understand where it is in the process, don't they?
SA:
Yeah but I also thinks its on academia, publishers and the preprint services to ensure that that audience that finds that paper does understand what it is that they're reading. And I think that the general population, probably isn't as ofay with research practices as we kind of think that they are many of them will be obviously, but I think the system of research and writing research papers and publishing in journals and peer review and and what a preprint is, I think, most people on the street probably these would be quite a lot of these would be new terms for them. So, there's quite a lot of work in education and support there I think to help ensure that those works are understood in the context of the research process
DR:
In the survey we've been talking about earlier that Emerald had done, when asked what publishers could do to help improve academic culture, the top response was offering different options to publish. And this was followed by championing alternative methods of impact. Do you think publishers like Emerald are doing enough in these areas?
SA:
Well I'm a bit biased but I don't think there is another publisher like Emerald and I don't see other publishers doing as much within their communities on these things in terms of offering different options to publish. Yes, absolutely. Emerald does need to do more. We have big plans in this area because we're open has been predominantly driven by Article publishing charges where the author pays or has to have funding in order to pay. We haven't seen the same demand. And so there aren't as many outlets and that's something we'd like to change that with the growing outlets and we're growing, you know we are actively looking to slowly transition journals where possible. In terms of championing alternative methods of impact that's, that's something that is really dear to emeralds heart, and that we do have really big plans to do that into, you know, even just in these early stages of engaging surveys to understand what people are doing and working with our impact council and looking to develop services that can really support our authors on their impact journey which includes open but goes goes way, way beyond that as well, so that they can evidence, how impactful their academia. I think there is a lot more we could do in that area but it's very dear to our hearts that we're actively looking to do that is key to our activities.
DR:
So, the theme of this year's International Open Access Week is “Open with purpose, taking action to build structural equity and inclusion.” How do you think as a research community we can work together to make open publishing more inclusive and accessible to everybody? You talked about price being a barrier, but, you know, there must be other ways that we can make it accessible. And really what does a sustainable open world look like to you?
SA:
I don't think anyone's got the full answer to that at the moment. For us, our mantra is that we are open to all, so we're very keen not to be raising barriers to publish as we lower the barriers to reading. And that is something that we do see happening. And it's a real concern. So, we're in conversations with all of our stakeholders around how we can help to ensure that we overcome those barriers so there's no… My view is there's no right way to do it, to be open, we need to be flexible we need to have approaches that work for the circumstances of the authors be that regionally or within their disciplines in order to support them. There's a huge amount of work to be done in this area. I mean, just, for example, although I've talked a lot here about how the pandemic has really helped push forward open access in so many ways, as a proof point quite tragically so, one of the real things that has been reported in that we've seen that has been a real worry is this drop of submission from women during COVID and that's a huge concern and that's not something that Emerald alone can change. I think it's as a research community it’s on all of us to be playing our part to, to ensure that we're not perpetuating these structural barriers that undoubtedly are in place, but they've been there for a long time it will, it unfortunately I think will take time to change, but we're definitely up for that challenge. It's the cornerstone of what we have in place and why we have so many different routes to publishing a openly at the moment, to ensure that there is a route for everybody, whatever their circumstance. So, you know, we, like I said, we, we have a APC routes, we have Platinum routes, we have green. That is really important to us to have that mix, so that authors can find the right journey for themselves and be supported in that.
DR:
What advice would you give to an author who's seeking to publish open access.
SA:
I would say embrace it wholeheartedly I think if you've never done that before then, to actually make your research article freely available is less of a problem if you don't have funding. Talk to your library about whether or not you have access check the websites of the publishers obviously come to our website and see if we have any deals with your library we're doing a lot of work on our workflows going forward so that we can make this a bit easier for our authors, I guess my big takeaway would be to do it to work with your library or your research offers to identify the best route for you and to work with a publisher, that is happy to support you in that route, as much as possible.
DR:
Thank you so much for joining me today I really had an enjoyable conversation.
SA:
Thanks!
DR:
We hope you enjoyed this podcast and hearing from Emerald’s head of open research. Keep a lookout for more podcasts coming up, which will delve deeper into number of open research topics.