“During its March 22 meeting, the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors approved the resolution to establish a scholarly articles open access policy, a revision to the university’s Policy on Intellectual Property 13000. As a result, Virginia Tech authors grant the university nonexclusive license to their scholarly articles in order to make them openly available through the university’s repository, VTechWorks, housed and maintained by the University Libraries at Virginia Tech. …
According to the approved policy, Virginia Tech authors will deposit an electronic copy of their unformatted, post peer-review, accepted manuscript for each scholarly article within one month after the date of its publication. Then, the university grants authors a nonexclusive license to share accepted manuscripts elsewhere. An author may waive the license for an article or delay access for a specified period of time to honor publisher embargoes. According to the policy, the university may not sell the articles. …”
“This policy aims to protect your rights so you can share your work openly.
This policy does not require you to publish in specific journals or share your research against your wishes.
You do not transfer copyright with this policy. You grant the University a nonexclusive license.
There is a no-questions-asked waiver provision built into the policy’s language.
With this policy, you will be able to
Share, teach with, and distribute your work freely
Broaden your scholarship’s reach, increase your scholarship’s impact
Support our institution’s commitment to publicly engaged research more fully
Encourage a more open, robust, equitable scholarly ecosystem…”
The paper describes how Charles Darwin University (CDU) used a three-pronged approach to better serve its researchers: it developed a single interface for improved accessibility and discoverability of its research outputs, consolidated its corresponding policies and procedures and implemented training programs to support the new portal. This in turn made its suite of research outputs more openly accessible and better discoverable. The intention was to make CDU research compliant with the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) policy statement, affirming the need to make Australia’s research more visible, thereby enabling better access, better collaboration locally and internationally and researchers more accountable to their community.
This paper uses case study methodology and a qualitative approach.
CDU Library collaborated with the University’s Research Office in undertaking a series of strategies towards reframing access to its research. The partners migrated their research collections into a single, new, integrated interface; developed new policies and consolidated existing ones; and to this end, rolled out a training and educational program for the research community. The intention of the program was to introduce the Pure repository to new researchers and to train all staff to self archive and curate their own research outputs. This new streamlined approach ensured a more comprehensive and timely availability and accessibility of the University’s research outputs.
A single source of truth was established through the migration of iCDU’s research collections, ensuring data quality was maintained. At the start of this project, there were few institutions in Australia using the Pure system, and even fewer using it as their sole repository for displaying research outputs.
“Faculty members are encouraged to submit scholarly articles to the University of Arkansas for deposit in an open access institutional repository. For each article submitted to the institutional repository and subject to the license revocation exclusion set out in paragraph 3 below, each faculty member would grant non-exclusive distribution rights for the article to the University of Arkansas. This grant of non-exclusive distribution rights would transfer from the faculty member to the University of Arkansas a nonexclusive, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to the article, in any medium, provided that the article is not sold for a profit, nor that the University of Arkansas would gain any right to authorize others to do the same….”
“An institutional open access policy usually covers a certain group of authors, such as faculty members, or members of a certain department or school. The University of California’s Academic Senate policy, adopted in 2013, ensured that scholarly articles authored by senate faculty at all ten UC campuses would be made available to the public at no charge. A precursor to this policy was adopted by the UCSF Academic Senate in 2012.
Senate faculty are, however, only a portion of UC researchers who publish scholarly articles; around 22,000 of the approximately 63,000 total authors within the UC System. In 2015, the UC adopted a Presidential Open Access Policy which expanded open access rights and responsibilities to all other UC staff who write scholarly articles while employed at UC, including non-senate researchers, lecturers, post-doctoral scholars, administrative staff, librarians, and graduate students….”
Abstract. In this article, the authors analyze the legal regulation of the copyright protection of the results of scientific activity in Russia, the United States and the countries of the Near East. Considerable attention is paid to the review of key regulatory acts of the states operating in the designated area, as well as international treaties affecting aspects of the copyright protection of intellectual rights in the field of science. The authors consider the main ways of protecting the scientific results by means of copyright. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the judicial practice of the states, which plays a vital role in defining approaches to the legal regulation of the scientific results. The authors emphasized the similarity and difference between the systems of copyright protection of the results of scientific activity, the role of the judiciary in the functioning of such systems. In the end the conclusion is made about the prospects for harmonization of the approaches to the legal regulation of the results of scientific activity by means of copyright. The article will be relevant to practicing lawyers, researchers, students and everyone who is interested in IP law.
“The AUT Open Scholarship Policy was approved by the University in June 2020. It makes AUT research, specifically journal articles and published conference papers, open by default….
Copyright is not transferred to AUT. Each faculty member grants to Auckland University of Technology permission to make available their scholarly articles, and to exercise the copyright in those articles. In legal terms, the permission granted by each faculty member is a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of their scholarly articles, in any medium, and to authorise others to do the same, for the purpose of making their articles widely and freely available in an open access repository, provided that the articles are not sold for a profit….”
“C-LIB, the Faculty Senate Committee on Libraries, is pleased to be bringing forward a proposal to establish an Open Access policy at Stanford. The proposal will come before the Faculty Senate at their session on November 19th. In advance of that session, C-LIB will be hosting a discussion session via Zoom this Friday, October 30th at 2:00 PM. The registration link for the Zoom session is below.
The full text of the proposal is available for all Stanford affiliates to review and comment via Google Docs:https://drive.google.com/file/d/12L0dsaINtYso_AYlwfe4ohvyIaKZWqfZ/view?usp=sharing …”
Harvard’s open access (OA) policy, which has become a template for many institutional OA policies, intrinsically undermines the rights of scholars, researchers, authors and university staff, and it adulterates a principal tenet of open access, namely, that authors should control the intellectual property rights to their material. Assessing the implications of Harvard’s open access policy in the light of Peter Suber’s landmark book, Open Access, as well as resources from the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) and Title 17 of the United States Code (USC), this article uncovers an intellectual ‘landgrab’ by universities that may at times not work in the interest of the author or creator of research and weakens the appeal of open access.
“U.S. universities are increasingly unable to afford research journal subscriptions due to the rising prices charged by for-profit academic publishers. Open Access appears to be the most backed option to disrupt the current publishing model. However, only about seventy-six U.S. universities/colleges have developed and implemented institutional Open Access policies at this time. The purpose of this study is to understand how selected United States R-1 universities advance Open Access at the institutional level, by investigating how these institutions develop, implement, support, and measure their Open Access Policy efforts. An in-depth qualitative study, including interviews with stakeholders and examination of artifacts, was performed on two R-1universities with Open Access policies that have been implemented for at least five years. The results of this study reveal that an institutional Open Access policy could begin at the university senior administration level or at the faculty level. Dissemination of knowledge and reducing costs were two of the primary motivators for the development of the policies, but only the former reason was explicitly stated and promoted. A lack of definitions for the progress and success of the policies’ implementation has hindered their impact. In summary, there was a tacit acknowledgement that the policies were symbolic and goodwill gestures rather than enforceable mandates.”
“As the technology for such an infrastructure is available off the shelf and institutions are spending multiple amounts of what would be required on legacy publishers, there remain only social obstacles as to why academic institutions keep neglecting their researchers. Given that institutions have now failed for about 30 years to overcome these obstacles, it is straightforward to propose that mandates and policies be put in place to force institutions (and not researchers!) to change their ways and implement such a basic infrastructure.”
“1. Brock University recognizes the importance of sharing the products of research and scholarship as widely as possible.
2. Brock University is committed to providing an Open Access Repository optimized for the online discoverability, preservation and dissemination of research; and to providing the appropriate supports, including publishing and author rights consultation services, to enable its full utilization.
3. Brock Scholars are expected to deposit an electronic copy of their academic journal articles in Brock’s Open Access Repository (“Brock University Digital Repository”) by the date of publication. If needed, articles may be embargoed within the repository upon deposit to meet time periods required by publishers.
4. Each Brock Scholar who deposits their academic journal articles in the Brock University Digital Repository grants the University the non-exclusive permission to archive and disseminate those articles through the Repository, provided that the articles are properly attributed to the authors, and that dissemination is for non-commercial purposes only.
5. Brock Scholars who choose not to deposit an academic journal article in the Brock University Digital Repository shall notify the University Library through the opt-out form made available through the Brock University Library….”