Slides by Bernard Rentier on the University of Liege OA policy, with data on compliance and deposits.
From Google’s English: “Il y a 10 ans naissait ORBi (Open Repository and Bibliography), un répertoire institutionnel qui vise à collecter, préserver et diffuser la production scientifique des membres de l’Université de Liège. “
From laying the groundwork for the successful passage of a university-wide open access (OA) policy, through the development and planning that goes into a successful implementation, to “Day One” when the official university policy goes into effect, there is a long list of factors that affect faculty interest, participation and compliance. The paper aims to discuss this issue
The authors, Mullen and Otto, having detailed earlier aspects of the Rutgers University OA policy passage and implementation planning, analyze and share the specifics that followed the rollout of the policy and that continue to affect participation.
This case study presents some strategies and systems used to enhance author self-archiving in the newly minted Scholarly Open Access at Rutgers (SOAR) portal of the Rutgers institutional repository, including involvement of departmental liaison librarians, effective presentation of metrics and a focus on targeted communication with faculty.
Roadblocks encountered as faculty began to deposit their scholarship and lessons learned are a focus. Early reaction from faculty and graduate students (doctoral students and postdocs) to various aspects of the policy as well as the use of SOAR for depositing their work are included.
It’s the year 2024: a scientist in Sudan, the family member of a patient with a rare disease in the United States, a farmer in China – assuming they have access to the internet, they are all able to access the latest scientific findings at any time, without restriction and free of charge. On this basis, they can develop new energy supply options for their community, prepare for visits to the doctor or follow the latest research on seeds and breeds. A pipe dream? Or isn’t free access to academic literature something we should have had for a long time, three decades since the development of the world wide web?
“Our department embraces the values of open science and strives for replicable and reproducible research. For this goal we support transparent research with open data, open materials, and study pre-registration. Candidates are asked to describe in what way they already pursued and plan to pursue these goals.”
Freie Universität Berlin was the first university in Berlin to adopt an open access strategy for free access to scientific findings. It is intended to give all members of the university an opportunity to anchor open access publication in their day-to-day research. The new policy takes into account the publication cultures of the individual subjects. It aims to ensure that scholarly and scientific standards are met and high-quality publications are published.
Abstract: Open access proponents argue that scholars are far more likely to make their articles freely available online if they are required to do so by their university or funding institution. Therefore, if the open access movement is to achieve anything close to its goal of seeing all scholarly articles freely available online, mandates will likely play a significant role. In 2008, the Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences adopted a policy that purports not only to require scholars to deposit their works in open access repositories, but also to grant the university nonexclusive copyright licenses to archive and publicly distribute all faculty-produced scholarly articles. A number of other American universities have since adopted similar policies. The principal aim of this Article is to analyze the legal effect of these Harvard-style open access “permission” mandates.
By invoking copyright law terminology in permission mandates, schools might intend that they have the legal effect of transferring nonexclusive rights to the school, thereby clarifying and fortifying the school’s rights to reproduce and publicly disseminate faculty works. However, the legal effect of these mandates is uncertain for several reasons. First, it is unsettled whether scholars or their university employers are the authors and initial owners of scholarly articles under U.S. copyright law’s work-made-for-hire rules, which vest authorship and copyright ownership in the employer for works created by employees within the scope of employment. Second, the mandates are broad university policies that purport to grant the university nonexclusive copyright licenses in every scholarly article unless a faculty member affirmatively opts out on a per-article basis. Are the policies specific enough to provide the essential terms of the grant? Furthermore, can the mere adoption of a school policy, without some additional affirmative act by the author, effectuate such a grant without unduly encroaching upon the author’s autonomy interests? Lastly, even if the policies effectuate nonexclusive license grants, will the licenses survive after the author transfers copyright ownership to a journal publisher as per common practice? Section 205(e) of the Copyright Act provides that a prior nonexclusive license evidenced in a writing signed by the right holder prevails over a subsequent conflicting transfer of copyright ownership, so the answer appears to turn on whether permission mandates satisfy the requirements of § 205(e).
This Article argues that permission mandates can create legally enforceable, durable nonexclusive licenses. First, it argues that although there are important justifications, including academic freedom concerns, for recognizing the controversial “teacher exception” to the work for hire rules for scholarly articles, such an exception may be unnecessary because a strong argument also exists that much scholarship is produced outside the scope of employment for work for hire purposes. Second, it argues that permission mandates provide sufficient evidence of the grantor’s intent and the rights granted to create effective nonexclusive licenses. Third, permission mandates satisfy the requirements of § 205(e) and establish the license’s priority over the subsequent transfer of copyright ownership largely because they fulfill the underlying purposes of § 205(e) by providing sufficient evidence and notice of the license to potential copyright transferees (typically academic publishers). In reaching these conclusions, this Article emphasizes that Courts should consider the uniformity costs (social costs resulting from applying uniform rules and granting uniform entitlements across diverse conditions) that arise from applying to scholarly articles copyright rules developed to address proprietary models of information production. Applying the relevant copyright rules in a manner sensitive to the nonmarket nature of scholarly production is the most effective way to reduce these social costs, and reinforces the conclusion that mandate licenses are enforceable.
Lastly, the Article considers whether the opt-out nature of permission mandates offends notions of authorial autonomy in copyright. It compares permission mandates with another high profile opt-out licensing regime: the proposed Google Books settlement agreement, which the court rejected partly because of authorial autonomy concerns. Authorial autonomy is far less of a concern for scholarly articles than for the books at issue in the Google Books case, however, due to the nonmarket nature of scholarly article production coupled with academic community norms. Accordingly, it does not substantially interfere with authors’ autonomy interests to find that the opt-out structure of permission mandates creates valid nonexclusive licenses in universities.
The costs and workflow of the IR-deposit process at Queen Mary University London.
Abstract: Passing a university Open Access policy creates a sense of accomplishment. Often, the passage of a policy and/or resolution in any university follows a time period of outreach, education, and very hard work on the part of everyone involved in that policymaking. However, an implementation team must quickly be formed, and the real work begun in order for momentum to continue and success to be realized. New groups must be created, traditional silos broken down, and work tied to deadlines in order for the policy to “go into effect” as an active part of researchers’ workflows and mindsets. At Rutgers University, an open access resolution was passed by the University Senate in October, 2012, and was codified in the official Rutgers University Policy Library in October, 2014. All of the work that the authors coordinated to get to the point of passing the policy was only the beginning of making open access a reality at Rutgers. Since the date that the policy has passed, the authors have been leading an implementation effort (using an established timeline) which includes a new web portal for scholarship, as well as developing materials and presentations for various open access policy-focused education and outreach efforts. An added challenge to the Rutgers implementation is that the policy is inclusive of graduate students. This gives Rutgers, the first and only university in the world at this point to include its graduate students (doctoral students and postdoctoral scholars) alongside faculty under its university-wide open access policy, an added opportunity and responsibility to create programs and workflows for this important group of early career researchers. The authors provide background and a case study to illustrate the implementation efforts underway as Rutgers comes closer to the official date that the policy will go into effect university-wide on Sept. 1, 2015.