Public access policy in the United States: Impact of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable – Plutchak – – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

“Key points

 

The Scholarly Publishing Roundtable was formed in 2009 at the request of a US Congressional Committee to develop recommendations for public access policy.
Published in January 2010, the Roundtable’s recommendations had a significant impact on the guidelines for federal funding agencies issued in 2013.
The Roundtable was unique in bringing together individuals holding divergent views about open access policy.
The success of the Roundtable may provide important lessons for policymakers in addressing open access issues….”

Gearing Up for 2023 Part II: Implementing the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy – NIH Extramural Nexus

“NIH has a long history of developing consent language and, as such, our team worked across the agency – and with you! – to develop a new resource that shares best practices for developing informed consents to facilitate data/biospecimen storage and sharing for future use.  It also provides modifiable sample language that investigators and IRBs can use to assist in the clear communication of potential risks and benefits associated with data/biospecimen storage and sharing.  In developing this resource, we engaged with key federal partners, as well as scientific societies and associations.  Importantly, we also considered the 102 comments from stakeholders in response to a RFI that we issued in 2021.

As for our second resource, we are requesting public comment on protecting the privacy of research participants when data is shared. I think I need to be upfront and acknowledge that we have issued many of these types of requests over the last several months and NIH understands the effort that folks take to thoughtfully respond.  With that said, we think the research community will greatly benefit from this resource and we want to hear your thoughts on whether it hits the mark or needs adjustment….”

Guest Post – Open Access in Japan: Tapping the Stone Bridge – The Scholarly Kitchen

“April Fool’s Day is not really a thing in Japan, so whereas many companies in the West tend to avoid the first of the month when making important announcements, it is in no way unusual that the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), the nation’s second-largest public-sector research funder chose April 1st, 2022 to unveil its revised open access policy and implementation guidelines with a typical lack of fanfare outside of its home country….

Such a comparatively low-key approach is in line with past precedent as Japanese funding bodies such as JST, have typically opted for a light-touch and iterative approach to open access policies – which for the most part have been developed in consultation with publishers – in contrast to counterparts in other countries that have put forward more radical and headline-generating open access initiatives such as the US OSTP “Holdren Memo”, Plan S, and UKRI’s open access policy announced in mid-2021. Previous versions of the JST open access policy issued in 2013 and 2017 went little remarked upon in many open science circles and were notable for their conciliatory approach, in contrast to the openly-stated ambition to disrupt and reform the world of scholarly publishing of many other funders. Following this consultative tradition, the current policy was circulated in draft form to publisher members of CHORUS, of which JST is a participating funder, for comment prior to publication….

The most noticeable difference between the new policy and previous iterations is the introduction of an embargo period which stipulates that at minimum the Accepted Manuscript (AM) of any paper arising from a project submitted for funding to JST after the go-live date of April 1, 2022, must be made publicly accessible in an institutional or public repository in Japan within 12 months of publication of the resultant journal article. Whilst cautious by European standards, this is the first time that an embargo of any type has been included in the JST policy. In addition to AMs of research articles, the policy covers those of review articles and conference papers. While the revised policy signals a preference for the green route and does not mandate that the VoR be made available open access, publication as an open access article is a “permitted” route and under the new policy, APCs are fully reimbursable from grant money….

Furthermore, it is notable that both the policy and its implementation guidelines are silent on the twin subjects of transformative journals and transformative agreements. …

Advocates of faster and more radical transformation will probably lament the lack of clarity or silence on certain issues – such as a ban on publishing in hybrid journals and gaps around CC BY licensing for the AM – that have become totemic in many open access circles and offer a more lukewarm response. Those in the latter group may find some consolation in the knowledge that in Japan, caution does not necessarily indicate disapproval and is often regarded as a virtue, encapsulated in the phrase: ???????? (Ishibashi wo tataite wataru) “to tap on a stone bridge before crossing.” Cautious progress may initially be slower than those who rush headlong, but caution helps avoids missteps. And you’re still going across the bridge.”

 

RE: Copyright Concerns With Public Access Language in U.S. Innovation and Competition Act – Section 2527(b)

“We write to express our serious concerns about Section 2527(b) of the United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 (“USICA,” S. 1260). Instead of supporting American innovation and competitiveness, this provision—which addresses public access requirements for certain copyrighted works that discuss federally funded research—would undermine copyright protection and weaken American intellectual property exports, ultimately impeding the commercialization of research and stifling American competitiveness. We understand that this language remained in the Senate-passed USICA last year largely because of procedural challenges with amending the bill following its introduction. We were grateful that this language was not included in the House’s America COMPETES Act 2022 (“COMPETES,” H.R. 4521), and we urge you to ensure that Section 2527(b) of USICA is not included in the final legislation following a conference on these two bills….”

Is Canada ready for open access? — University Affairs

“Canadian science could benefit enormously if all research articles in the country were made freely available to anyone immediately upon publication. But there are significant barriers that need to be overcome to achieve this.

Last year, 30 per cent of Canadian research was published as paid open access (OA). That’s slightly below the global average of 34 per cent but trailing many other high research output countries such as Sweden (54 per cent), Netherlands (50 per cent) and the United Kingdom (48 per cent), according to the  dimensions.ai database. As one of the top-quality research output countries in the world, according to Nature Index, Canada should be doing better. In our opinion, the fundamental reasons for the slow uptake of open access in Canada are (1) the lack of coordinated funding to support OA publishing, and (2) barriers that researchers face to publish in OA.

The Tri-Councils’ OA policy stipulates that any publications coming from research should be freely accessible within 12 months of publication. However, there is low compliance with this request. Researchers are expected to pay for open access via article publishing charges (APCs). As noted in the “Open Science Dialogues,” organized by the Office of the Chief Science Advisor (OCSA) to gain feedback on their Roadmap for Open Science, researchers are expected to pay these APCs from their research grants. Unfortunately, the APCs commanded by the high impact factor journals can represent an unfeasibly large percentage of the researchers’ total grant. APCs of US$5,000 to $10,000 are not uncommon for the prestige journals published by the large commercial publishers. But even the more moderate APCs of US$1,000 to $3,000 of lesser journals and those of not-for-profit publishers can also quickly deplete smaller research grants. For example, average NSERC grants in 2020 ranged from C$26,000 to $53,000, which leaves little room, if any, for the added expense of APCs….

The slow adoption of OA in Canada is probably not due to a lack of money per se. A back-of-the-envelope calculation of the number of Canadian articles being published as OA multiplied by the average APCs (from publisher websites), suggests that C$30-40 million was spent on OA publishing last year, 80 per cent of which was spent with the large commercial publishers….

So can Canada achieve a national OA strategy? We believe so, but to overcome the barriers we need an approach that captures the following principles:

Unity: bring together all stakeholders in the scientific research enterprise to establish a unified front and determine priorities, requirements and challenges.
Coordination: to move beyond consultation, there is a need for a coordinating body to establish a path forward, timelines, funding needs and to organize this collaborative action.
Evidence: There is an immediate need to assess data on costs, sources of funds being allocated to subscriptions and APCs, trends in OA publishing outputs, and to determine if there is sufficient existing funding to support a full switch to OA….”

The findings from publicly-funded research should be accessible to all – UKRI

“UK Research and Innovation’s (UKRI) new open access policy is based on one simple principle, that findings from publicly-funded research should be accessible to all. The policy was published in August 2021 and comes into effect on 1 April….

After wide-reaching and measured consultation we are setting that key requirement for journal articles, while addressing other issues including:

constraining costs (and increasing our funding to pay our way)
supporting multiple routes for both publishers and authors
aligning with other key funders such as Wellcome and the European Commission to simplify publishing for our authors.

Without preempting future decisions on research assessment, our funding body colleagues have committed to being no stricter on open access than the UKRI policy, again simplifying choices for authors.

 

This is a reset, but one that follows on naturally and very simply from Finch as we abolish embargoes and target the use of UKRI funds to avoid increased costs. In essence, it is as simple as no embargoes, no hybrid payments….”

UKRI Strategy 2022–2027

“Championing open research. Open research improves research efficiency, quality and integrity through collaborative, transparent and reproducible research practices. UKRI’s priorities include open access to research publications and making research data as open as possible but as secure as necessary. UKRI is building on the UK’s longstanding global leadership in open research with our new open access policy, which was developed through extensive consultation with the sector. The policy delivers on the ambition in the government’s R&D Roadmap, for publicly funded research to be accessible to all, and will boost the global impact of UK research by increasing opportunities for findings to be shared and used across all disciplines and sectors….”

Open Access as a Regulation of Scientific Information in Health – Information Practices and Knowledge in Health – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  This chapter aims to give an account of the regulations generated by Open Access and which today link the field of scientific communication with the field of Health. It addresses the way these regulations affect the publication and dissemination models of digital scientific information. The aim is to provide an account of the nature of these regulations and the issues they raise regarding scientific certification, regulations and issues that are crucial in Health. The evolution of the scientific publishing sector in the field of Health, subject to policy requirements, has therefore encouraged the development of the Gold model, and particularly the Gold Author-Pays model. It is no longer possible to address Gold Open Access journals without the phenomenon of predatory journals being included in the debate. Funding agencies very quickly began paying attention to the rise of Open Access.

 

Accelerating Open Research: A Multi-stakeholder Discussion – The Scholarly Kitchen

“As we move through a transition to a fully open research environment, there are challenges for all stakeholders in the ecosystem. Many funders have taken a leadership role in driving this transition, yet even with funder mandates in place for nearly two decades, the transition to open research globally has been slow (Larivière and Sugimoto, 2018). 

A recent study led by the Research on Research Institute (Waltman et al., 2021 ) found that commitments to open research and data sharing fell short during the pandemic and that lack of collaboration was a key factor. 

On the 10th February 2022, the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) Publisher-Funder Task Force convened a closed forum of funders, publishers, librarians and academics to discuss how collaborating among stakeholder groups may accelerate a transition to open research. The meeting was conducted under the Chatham House Rule, enabling 22 international participants to freely express opinions and ideas without fear of comments being attributed to those present. …

To this end, they discussed these questions:

Where have funder policies and mandates succeeded as tools for change? What are some of the challenges?
How might we collaborate to ensure that researchers are able to engage constructively with this transition?
How might we collaborate to ensure that we are building a truly equitable global system of open research? 
How might we collaborate to ensure a sustainable approach to accelerating the transition to open research, allowing for stakeholders to thrive amidst a culture of openness? …”

4 weeks until new UKRI open access policy – key points about the green route – Cranfield University Blogs

“Did you know?

The policy permits two routes to compliant OA (open access) publishing. Route 2 is to go green.

Green route key points:

The AAM (author accepted manuscript) must be made publicly available on CERES at the same time as the version of record (publisher branded version). No embargo is permitted.
You must include a sentence of prescribed text in your acknowledgements and any cover letter accompanying the submission. This text reads: ‘For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence (where permitted by UKRI, ‘Open Government Licence’ or ‘Creative Commons Attribution No-derivatives (CC BY-ND) licence’ may be stated instead) to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising’.
Depending on where you choose to publish, you may need to negotiate with the publisher to get permission to include the text in the AAM and publish it with no embargo. Some publishers do not impose an embargo (e.g. IEEE, AIAA, Emerald)….”

Implementing the new UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) open access policy | Jisc

“isc is planning to:

Identify and agree with our members their requirements for transformative journals and incorporate transformative journals as one of the models that publishers can adopt/authors can publish in
Increase our engagement and negotiations with the many small and medium sized publishers and societies to provide them with opportunity to adopt open access models that enable compliant options for UKRI funded authors and meet the requirements of our members
Complete the first phase of our data work which will focus on expanding our data collation and analysis to enable us to deliver quality data and intelligence to our members and UKRI to drive value and evaluate the impact of transitional arrangements
Establish new partnerships that will support the accurate and timely sharing of data so that authors have the most up to date information to support publication decisions, in particular with the cOAlition S supported Journal Checker Tool
Run a series of roundtables, workshops and webinars with our members, research organisations, publishers and funders, to discuss challenges around the implementation and to consider solutions that will reduce bureaucracy and increase efficiency…”

UKRI publishes guidance and resources for new open access policy – UKRI

“Peer-reviewed research articles that acknowledge UKRI funding will need to comply with UKRI’s new open access policy from 1 April 2022.

The following new guidance and resources are available:

an FAQ for the policy
supporting guidance for authors
an information pack for research organisations to use to engage their researchers about the policy
CC BY-ND licence exception process and guidance
the policy document….”

Data Policies and Principles

“Recognizing the crucial role of open and effective data and information exchange to the Belmont Challenge, the Belmont Forum adopted open Data Policy and Principles based on the recommendations from the Community Strategy and Implementation Plan (CSIP) at its 2015 annual meeting of Principals in Oslo, Norway. The policy signals a commitment by funders of global environmental change research to increase access to scientific data, a step widely recognized as essential to making informed decisions in the face of rapid changes affecting the Earth’s environment….

Data should be:

 

Discoverable through catalogues and search engines
Accessible as open data by default, and made available with minimum time delay
Understandable in a way that allows researchers—including those outside the discipline of origin—to use them
Manageable and protected from loss for future use in sustainable, trustworthy repositories…

Research data must be:

Discoverable through catalogues and search engines, with data access and use conditions, including licenses, clearly indicated. Data should have appropriate persistent, unique and resolvable identifiers.
Accessible by default, and made available with minimum time delay, except where international and national policies or legislation preclude the sharing of data as Open Data. Data sources should always be cited.
Understandable and interoperable in a way that allows researchers, including those outside the discipline of origin, to use them. Preference should be given to non-proprietary international and community standards via data e-infrastructures that facilitate access, use and interpretation of data. Data must also be reusable and thus require proper contextual information and metadata, including provenance, quality and uncertainty indicators. Provision should be made for multiple languages.
Manageable and protected from loss for future use in sustainable, trustworthy repositories with data management policies and plans for all data at the project and institutional levels. Metrics should be exploited to facilitate the ability to measure return on investment, and can be used to implement incentive schemes for researchers, as well as provide measures of data quality.
Supported by a highly skilled workforce and a broad-based training and education curriculum as an integral part of research programs. …”

Accelerating Open Access 2021 Annual Review [cOAlition S]

“This report presents an overview of the activities we have undertaken in 2021, the levels of OA compliance amongst cOAlition S funders, and the latest news on the tools and services we are developing, such as the Journal Checker Tool and the Journal Comparison Service. Next, we outline our support for new publishing models, highlighting the progress on the Transformative Journals framework, the publishers’ reaction to the Rights Retention Strategy, and our role in encouraging small society publishers to move to Open Access. cOAlition S has also supported the publication of a report on Diamond journals and has issued a statement on Open Access for academic books. Looking forward, cOAlition S has identified three strategic priorities for 2022, which we present in the last part of this review….”