“The Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) provides a range of information on the knowledge exchange activities of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in England. ‘Knowledge exchange’ is what we call the wide range of activities HEIs undertake with partners. You can use the KEF to explore data and explanations of the different ways they work with their external partners, from businesses to community groups, for the benefit of the economy and society….”
“The aim of the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) is to increase efficiency and effectiveness in the use of public funding for knowledge exchange (KE) and to further a culture of continuous improvement in universities. It will allow universities to better understand and improve their own performance, as well as provide businesses and other users with more information to help them access the world-class knowledge and expertise embedded in English HEPs….
Work to create the KEF began in 2017, when the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation commissioned the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to provide more information about HEP achievements in serving the economy and society for the benefit of the public, business and communities,
Following publication of the first iteration of KEF results in March 2021, we will undertake a review of the KEF, including seeking feedback from the sector and users. If you would like to be notified of updates on the KEF or feedback opportunities, please sign up to email alerts below….”
“In January 2021, the implementation of Plan S began in earnest. This month we take a look at the effect Plan S might have on the volumes of output in the scholarly publishing market. We also examine the potential effects of the OSTP and UKRI agencies adopting Plan S policies. Next month we will look at the effect on market value….
For the full year 2020, we estimate that:
cOAlition S funders accounted for around 5.2% of all publications (or over 130,000 papers) that would fall under Plan S policy if it had been in place during that year.
The proportion of cOAlition S funded OA papers in hybrid journals is over twice that of the average (12.7% or over 28,000 papers). This represents the proportion of output that would notionally need to be “rehomed” in Fully OA journals once transformative policies expire….”
We also consider what might happen if Plan S principles were adopted globally. The variation in policies around the world suggest that this is unlikely in the short term at least. However a couple of key funding groups stand out.
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), which oversees the UK’s highly centralized publicly funded research, is currently reviewing its position on Plan S. It accounts for 1.3% of global output.
Similarly, the US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is thought to be reviewing its public access policy. Should it adopt Plan S principles, they would cover another 13.4% of global output.
The effects on highly-cited papers are less profound for the UK’s funding bodies, probably reflecting their early adopter position in driving OA. These effects are notably more profound for funding agencies under the OSTP’s umbrella.
Note: The numbers vary slightly compared with previous analyses, as the sample now covers different funders. In 2018 (not shown above), we estimated around 6.25% of output was covered by current Plan S and UK funders, compared with 6.4% of 2018 output in the analysis carried out by ISI in March 2019.
To put this in context, our market sizing suggest that at least 25% of all content is published in fully OA journals. We might deem this as already Plan S compliant assuming things such as licenses and rights retention are appropriate. The remaining three quarters of all papers would be affected if Plan S principles were adopted globally….”
A recent analysis outlining alternative scenarios for the publishing market development in the United Kingdom (UK) suggests a strong likelihood of lose-lose outcomes for publishers and universities for mandate-driven transitions to Open Access.
“2. Key findings
2.1 The UK’s academic publishing sector is world-leading and generates nearly 60% more value for the UK economy than it earns in profits. The UKRI Policy will affect the ability of all types of academic publishers – commercial organisations, learned societies and university presses alike – to contribute to the UK’s research ecosystem.
2.2 If the proposed UKRI Policy is pursued, the estimated loss to UK-based journals would be in the order of GBP 292 million per year or approximately GBP 2.0 billion in the period from 2022 to 2027. For some, monograph publishing will become unsustainable. This would prevent publishers from making the necessary investment to maintain the quality and impact of UK research, and perhaps even lead to some smaller publishers going out of business. The associated loss of economic output would be in the order of GBP 3.2 billion.
2.3 A significant proportion of the loss to UK-based journals would represent the loss of export revenue, with foreign entities standing to gain the most financially from the UK transition. Indeed, there would be a substantial ‘first-mover’ disadvantage for the UK, as a research-intensive nation, to transition at a faster rate than the rest of the world.
2.4 The UKRI Policy could also mean an increase in expenditure for research intensive universities in the UK in the order of GBP 130-140 million per annum, if a significant number of journals were to transition to ‘Fully OA’ in response to the UKRI Policy. In this scenario, the ‘Top 20’ most research-intensive universities in the UK would need to cover approximately half of the anticipated increase in publication costs.
2.5 Moreover, UK libraries would still need to subscribe to content that is not currently available on an OA-basis. The cost saving associated with certain journals or monographs transitioning to ‘Fully OA’ would be modest, in the order of a few million pounds per year.
2.6 Importantly, the UKRI Policy would inhibit scholars’ ability to conduct research in their respective disciplines in an effective and accurate way, with an associated cost to research productivity. Indeed, the Policy could dilute the benefits that could be expected from OA to the published outputs of academic research. Ultimately, UK research would risk becoming less impactful and less wellregarded, with a knock-on effect on the UK’s standing as a global research hub….”
“While we are not setting out to provide an extensive review and analysis of this report, we do want to generally refute the assertion that OA via the UKRI policy is economically damaging, and we’ll provide some references that support this position….
PLOS believes that publishers globally should be leading the efforts to devise and develop the next generation of business models that are able to support their operations in an Open Access context. This will, of course, require deep, and sometimes difficult, work by transitioning publishers. But we strongly believe this work is not outside the acceptable effort level of conscientious members of the scholarly publishing industry that have been aware of Open Access, and its benefits, for at least the last 20 years….
to successfully set up the most efficient, frictionless Open Access ecosystem, we should leverage the existing budgets and infrastructures of scholarly publishing but with OA as the outcome. This way, Open Access is not viewed as a destructive force, or something external and different that traditional publishers are not part of, but simply as the new way to publish and communicate research that all publishers can facilitate..”
“On this page you will find resources predominantly referring to open access and open research data. However, we recognise that open research covers a much broader range of activities than this and new resources will be added as they become available.
This was an active policy area before UKRI was formed, so much of the guidance refers to RCUK and HEFCE policies. UKRI is currently in the final stages of reviewing its open access policy and will then be undertaking a review of open research data and software policy and practice. These activities will support the formation of new UKRI materials….”
“The economic impact of a new Open Access (OA) policy from UK Research and Innovation Report (UKRI) is assessed in this report, produced by FTI Consulting.
The main focus of this exercise was to:
assess the impact of specific policy conditions that have been proposed for journal articles and long-form research publications (monographs), using the existing policy framework as a benchmark;
consider the impact of the UKRI policy on different groups of stakeholders within the scholarly communications ecosystem;
understand the immediate economic impact of the proposed policy and how this might change in the future in light of industry trends; and
compare the impact of the policy proposals against UKRI’s stated policy objectives….”
“Open Research is crucial to ensure the UK can benefit from the high quality and impactful R&D and maintain public and international trust in the reliability of the research we fund. We have publicly committed to ensuring openness and transparency in research, recognising it as a key foundation for research and innovation. In order to lead positive change across UKRI, nationally and internationally, we have established the UKRI Open Access review to achieve full OA to peer reviewed publications and the team is leading on the adoption of openness in research processes, information and technology to enable efficiency, collaboration, research quality and innovation and to support maximum access, impact and participation in research and innovation. …”
“Researchers can now have their grant peer review contributions made visible and recognised when added to their ORCID Record by the UKRI’s Je-S funding platform.
UKRI and nearly 100 UK Higher Education and research organisations are members of ORCID, an international non-profit organisation that is committed to help achieve recognition and support for researchers by linking their contributions to the researcher’s unique ORCID identifier.
UKRI have recently announced that they have implemented the ORCID reviewer recognition feature in their grants management system, Je-S….”
“UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has developed a new feature in its current funding systems to recognise formally the contributions of UKRI reviewers via ORCID, a unique identifier tool for individuals.
The implementation of ORCID reviewer recognition went live today (23 November 2020). It will enable UKRI review contributions to be publicly displayed without compromising the anonymity and confidentiality of the assessment process. This will be done by issuing a ‘review credit’ that will be displayed in individual reviewers ORCID profiles….”
“UKRI is to launch a new UKRI Early Career Researchers’ Forum, Chief Executive Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser has told the Future Leaders Fellowships conference.
A pilot for the forum will launch later this year and will seek to recruit 400 Early Career Researchers….”
“Funded by UKRI’s Arts and Humanities Research Council, Towards a National Collection is supporting research that breaks down the barriers that exist between the UK’s outstanding cultural heritage collections, with the aim of opening them up to new research opportunities and encouraging the public to explore them in new ways….
Collections United is a social media campaign connecting and highlighting the rich and diverse range of cultural heritage collections across the UK. The aim is to bring together material from more than one collection, telling the stories that connect them, and encouraging the public to do the same….”
“Today, more than ever, a resilient and efficient research infrastructure is critically important. Persistent identifiers (PIDs) are an essential element of global research data infrastructures and have become central to building and maintaining reliable and robust links between people, communities and infrastructures.
Professor Adam Tickell’s 2018 independent advice to the UK government on open access to research publications, included a recommendation for Jisc to “lead on selecting and promoting a range of unique identifiers … in collaboration with sector leaders with relevant partner organisations”.
During this online event, we will share progress made towards implementing this recommendation and establishing a persistent identifier roadmap for open access – and open research more broadly – in in the UK. We will highlight the role PIDs can play in improving open access workflows, in the context of Plan S requirements and the recently published UKRI OA review.
You will hear from practitioners, as well as from the Jisc team working on the project. And we want to hear from you too, so there will be plenty of time for Q&A….”
“The publisher must make efforts to advertise the existence of a freely available version on the DOI-landing page of the publisher version of the work, and in all metadata supplied in the form of MARC records, ONIX feeds, and CrossRef DOI associated metadata. The licence of the work should be clearly given on the DOI-landing page and in all forms of associated metadata that the publisher supplies be it MARC or ONIX or DOI or all. If the publisher is known to not provide adequate metadata about open access and open access licensing, then withhold all Book Publishing Charges from that publisher until they provide it. Better still, warn authors not to submit to the publisher with a ‘blacklist’ of non-compliant publishers.
Some publishers both in journals and in monographs have been doing rather sneaky things to hide the existence of a freely accessible version. See Piwowar (2018) ‘Where’s Waldo With Public Access Links’. For ‘gold’ open access works, ensure the publisher creates a link from which the entirety of the book can be downloaded as PDF (or other format e.g. EPUB) in one-click – far too many platforms break-up books into chapters with absolutely no provision of a link to download the work in its entirety – this is annoying for users….”