“Representatives from the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford and King’s College London will share their experiences of developing and implementing rights retention pilots and policies at their institution….”
“We’re delighted to announce that the University of Cambridge has a new Self-Archiving Policy, which took effect from 1 April 2023. The policy gives researchers a route to make the accepted version of their papers open access without embargo under a licence of their choosing (subject to funder requirements). We believe that researchers should have more control over what happens to their own work and are determined to do what we can to help them to do that.
This policy has been developed after a year-long rights retention pilot in which more than 400 researchers voluntarily participated. The pilot helped us understand the implications of this approach across a wide range of disciplines so we could make an informed decision. We are also not alone in introducing a policy like this – Harvard has been doing it since 2008, cOAlition S have been a catalyst for development of similar policies, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the University of Edinburgh for sharing their approach with us. …”
“The SAP [self-archiving policy]
The SAP does not amend or alter the IPR Policy.
Unless the Researcher takes an alternative route to compliance with the relevant grant funder’s open access requirements (or the research funder has no open access requirements) and notifies the University of this by emailing info@openaccess.cam.ac.uk, the Researcher will:
(If the grant funder requires it) include the following wording in their submitted manuscript and any submission cover letter/note:
For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission;
and
automatically grant the University a non-exclusive, irrevocable, sub-licensable, worldwide licence, taking effect upon acceptance of the Accepted Manuscript for publication, to make the Accepted Manuscript publicly available in its institutional digital repository under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence from the moment of first publication (and / or such alternative licence as agreed with the relevant grant funder and the University in advance in writing)….”
“I know that I’m not alone in hearing that researchers in Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences disciplines often feel a disconnect between the language and priorities of “Open Science” and their experiences of how research is conducted – this is one of the reasons we choose to frame it as “Open Research” here in Cambridge. I see a strong desire from many to engage with open research practices, paired with frustration with the challenges of translating the terminology of open science to other areas. In order to better understand these issues, we established two working groups (Open Research in the Humanities and Open Qualitative Research), each of which was tasked with forgetting what they think they should do due to how open science is generally described, and instead describe what they see as the opportunities for open research within their disciplines.
The Open Research in the Humanities group was chaired by Prof Emma Gilby and supported by Dr Matthias Ammon. Their excellent report is already available on Apollo and through a series of blog posts here on Unlocking Research. The Open Qualitative Research group was chaired by Dr Meg Westbury and their report is due to come to the university’s Open Research Steering Committee in January. We will be sharing this more widely in early 2023 – it’s well worth watching out for! Both reports will inform how we talk about Open Research at Cambridge and will shape the transformative programme that we are in the process of developing….
We are particularly pleased with the engagement from across the university with the ongoing Rights Retention Pilot, which provides a route to open access for articles that cannot be made immediately available through existing publishing deals, are not eligible for the block grants mentioned above or where the publisher simply does not provide any route to immediate open access. We are now consulting on the development of a Self-Archiving Policy which is buit on what we have learned throught he pilot and will sit within our Open Access Publications Policy Framework. Members of the university can find out more by reading this document (accessible to Raven users only). It has been an honour to lead a dedicated group of library and research staff on this project….”
“The UK universities sector is negotiating a read & publish deal with publisher Springer Nature. Reaching a transitional agreement is particularly important to make it easier for our authors to publish their work open access, as well as continuing to read all of Springer Nature’s content. The deal needs to be affordable for our sector, which is already under financial strain.
The Jisc negotiating team and the University of Cambridge are committed to finding a deal that works well for us, that is our plan A. But we are aware that some previous negotiations between universities and publishers could not find enough mutual ground (for example UCLA and German universities). If a contract can’t be signed, what would that mean for our researchers? …”
by Sam Moore
The University’s one-year rights retention pilot has been running for six months now, during which time many papers containing the rights retention declaration have been submitted by Cambridge authors. As expected, the Office of Scholarly Communication is receiving more queries about rights retention from Cambridge academics, many of which relate to how publishers are responding to submissions containing the rights retention declaration. This post covers some of these queries to offer a picture of how rights retention is being received.
It is worth reminding ourselves what the rights retention pilot entails. All researchers at Cambridge can sign up to participate in the pilot here. In doing so, the researcher enters into a non-exclusive agreement with the university to make all their papers immediately open access under a Creative Commons attribution (CC BY) licence. When a researcher submits an article to a publisher, they include the following statement in the acknowledgements or funding section of the article file:
‘For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission’
Upon editorial acceptance, the researcher uploads a copy of the accepted manuscript to Symplectic Elements. The Open Access team will deposit the manuscript into Apollo and will release it publicly at the appropriate time.
[…]
“The Office of Scholarly Communication wishes to recruit a Scholarly Communication Support to join our team in providing friendly and efficient support to researchers and librarians across the university. The Office of Scholarly Communication is based at the University Library.
A key responsibility of the role-holder is to provide effective support for researchers by uploading article submissions to the University’s institutional repository, Apollo. They will be responsible for checking that submissions meet funder requirements and will also provide helpdesk support to researchers; fielding queries relating to funding and funder policies regularly. The role holder will also occasionally work on the deposit of theses, datasets, and reports into the repository….”
CEU Press and COPIM are pleased to announce that the library at the University of Cambridge is one of the latest subscriber members to Opening the Future.
Cambridge has signed up to the Editors’ Choice package. This means that their staff and students now have unlimited and concurrent access to 50 different eBooks on subjects ranging from mediaeval Europe, to human rights, Jewish studies, European economics, public health, and the fall of communism.
”
In 2008 Harvard’s Faculty of Arts & Sciences voted unanimously to adopt a ground-breaking open access policy. Since then, over 70 other institutions, including other Harvard faculties, Stanford and MIT, have adopted similar policies based on the Harvard model. In Europe such institutional policies have, so far, been slow to get off the ground.
We are beginning to see that situation change.
The University of Cambridge has recently established a pilot rights retention scheme on an opt-in basis, with a view to informing the next revision of the University’s Open Access policy. In the following interview, Niamh Tumelty, Head of Open Research Services at the University of Cambridge, describes the purpose of the pilot, how researchers can benefit from it and shares her tips for any other institution that might consider adopting a similar policy….”
“These webpages contain information on the rights retention pilot currently in place at the University of Cambridge.
The University needs to be able to disseminate research and scholarship as widely as possible and comply with its funder requirements, while enabling its researchers to publish in a journal of their choice.
In order to achieve this, the University has established pilot rights retention scheme on an opt-in basis. This pilot will be closely monitored and reviewed with a view to informing the next revision of the University’s Open Access policy.
To sign up for the pilot, please use this webform.
During this time, if you sign up for the pilot, you should include the following wording in a prominent place in the manuscript (e.g. the acknowledgements and/or funding statement) and cover letter from the initial point of submission:
‘For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission’
Upon editorial acceptance, please upload a copy of the accepted manuscript to Symplectic Elements. The Open Access team will deposit the manuscript into Apollo and will release it publicly at the appropriate time.
This pilot is based on the approach that the University of Edinburgh is taking with their new Research Publications and Copyright Policy and considers the advice of Harvard University, where rights retention statements have been in use since 2008. We thank both universities for sharing their materials and welcome the reuse of the contents of our document by other institutions.?…”
“A Rights Retention pilot at Cambridge
We are setting up a Rights Retention pilot, and more information will be available by April 2022.
By opting into the pilot as a Cambridge author, you will grant the University a non?exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide licence to make the accepted manuscripts of your scholarly articles publicly available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence (or an alternative licence if requested) in line with funder requirements. You will still need to include the Rights Retention Statement when submitting your articles for publication, however the agreement with the University adds an extra layer of protection in case a journal asks you to sign away copyright and impose an embargo. …”
“Here we outline reasons for and against accepting Elsevier’s 7th proposal. It is based on information provided by the University of Cambridge library. …
We recommend the deal be rejected after considering the following pro/cons. If you agree, please consider signing at the bottom of the document, and share with colleagues. (Anyone from UK can sign.) …”
“As negotiations continue between Elsevier and the UK university sector, institutions need to position themselves to ensure that we have a realistic alternative access solution if the decision is to not sign an agreement. But what would happen in the event of a non-renewal scenario? This post explores how we at Cambridge University Libraries are preparing for Plan B and the alternative access solutions we will be providing….
At Cambridge we are doing our best to engage our research communities with the Elsevier negotiation so that any decisions around the deal and potential implementation of Plan B will only take place following communication and engagement with research-active members of the University. If we need to implement a Plan B, it should not come as a surprise; it will be planned and communicated in advance….”
This post by Dr Jessica Gardner, Cambridge University Librarian, introduces the context for the ongoing negotiation between Cambridge University and the publisher Elsevier. It is the first in a series of posts on the negotiation from members of the Cambridge community.
Abstract: Librarians are continuously looking for new ways to make the training they offer accessible and engaging to both colleagues and users. One area where this is especially important is copyright – a topic many librarians identify as vital to their role, but they often find it hard to attend training. Cambridge University Libraries has introduced a range of methods to reach out to even the most reluctant copyright learner and improve the overall copyright literacy of its staff. This article showcases these methods in the form of ‘life hacks’ – simple measures which can be implemented with little or no cost and using existing resources.
Methods outlined include making the best use of knowledge already present within your organisation, using visual methods to attract a new audience and creating interactive online resources. Also discussed is the importance of making copyright training accessible, both to users with disabilities and those who may have constraints on their time and technological ability. The article concludes with a reflection about the challenges faced whilst creating new resources. The techniques outlined in this case study can be adapted for use by a range of libraries no matter the target audience.