By Grant Denkinson, open access lead in Library Research Services.
Here are some trends I’ve spotted that might suggest some Open Access futures:
Traditional formats still exist
While innovation moves on, current and traditional forms of knowledge exchange continue to be useful and preferred by some and so are likely to continue.
Plan S
Various policy initiatives are happening, such as Plan S, which involves some national research funding organisations supported by the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC) as cOAlition S. It aims to move us to full and immediate Open Access to research. On 5 November last year, two large funders - Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - endorsed Plan S.
Preprints and Post publication peer review
Some fields such as mathematics and high-energy physics (arXiv from 1991) have, for a while, embraced a thriving preprint culture where results are made available for debate before they go through the usual peer review and editorial processes towards publication. Equivalents in other fields, such as bioRxiv, PhilSci-Archive and others, have followed or been independently created. Some publishers provide fast access to technical books while they are still being finalised.
Post-publication peer review allows the world to examine a publication while it is being reviewed, either by chosen peers or in a more open framework by anyone interested. Readers might be able to review the reviewers.
Own journals
Leicester. Other universities, professional bodies and sometimes funders also provide journal platforms as an alternative to publishers. These can be free for both readers and authors.
No journals – paper level granularity
It is possible think of research papers independently of journals. Depending on rights, they could be collected in multiple ways rather than in just one journal, or might not be in a journal at all. There may be other ways to group editorial decisions and peer review processes. There are several ways of finding other works that might fit a reader’s interest, which could become increasingly personalised, though with care to avoid unwanted algorithmic biases.
Other research outputs, joining them up
We can use linked data tools to link up and discover diverse research outputs as well as research papers for journals: consider catalogues of astronomical observations or archaeological finds, databases, computational objects such as expert systems, dynamic websites, recordings of performances, non-narrative artistic forms and many other ways research may be represented and disseminated.
Different size pieces of research
Print journals had spaces for different sizes for research outputs: papers, letters, comments, monographs, chapters, books. This is replicated in electronic versions and it can be easier to communicate now in a granularity that fits the research and researcher.
One could push updates to a piece of scientific software as each test is completed, or a seminar question could be updated to a poster, a conference presentation, a video blog and later expanded into an article or book or hypertext of writings of thoughts.
Translation across disciplinary boundaries
There could be computational, human or hybrid help available to help people working on one problem find relevant thinking or data from a different field, and to interpret and translate between subject specialisms.
Enhanced browsing through linked data
Well described and linked data should allow us to explore from any point to fit our curiosity. For example: why not find a poster from an event we remember, find the authors’ research groups and be able to search for collaboration opportunities in all of their other outputs?
Enhanced computer tools
Improving computer parsing of texts, and increasingly images or other media, allows indexing and discovery beyond keywords or searching the text. Clusters of similar papers can be identified, webs of citations followed, and perhaps more artificial intelligence or data learning can be applied to suggest fruitful chains or inference or connections between ideas.
Thinking more about attribution on multi-authored papers
Some discovery involves large collaborations with many people playing a part. How might we improve how we record and visualise who did what?
Labour, pay, for what?
Research and explication takes a significant amount of work as we spiral through the stages of discovery and sharing and moving on to new discoveries. How is everyone’s contribution recognised and valued? Is there underappreciated, hidden work going on?
New players, rise of the Owl?
 |
| OA Owl takes a well-earned tea break |
There can be space for new ways of doing things that may become big, be tried and discarded or morph into something else new. How will research as it is done now interact in the future with search engine companies, online entities branching out in commerce from booksellers, social media offerings with big data collection and platforms for influencing behaviour, consumption and policy or new entities that most of us are unaware of yet?
And finally, I’d like to appreciate the ambassadorship of mascots such as #OAOwl (see Twitter)