Stop paying to be published Open Access –  a French perspective

“I recommend that they publish in a journal with no APC (‘diamond’ OA journal) or a non-OA journal and make the peer reviewed manuscript or accepted author manuscript (AAM) OA through a repository (‘green’ OA). In some cases, a journal with low and affordable APC may also be suitable. I propose this in accordance with the French national open science policy, which clearly asks that scientific articles must be available OA and encourages its research community to turn to free publication models for both authors and readers….

French national policy invites those who publish in paywalled journals to deposit their AAM as soon as it is published. If the journal  does not allow it, the AAM may be deposited in an open archive with a delay (embargo). The Rights Retention Strategy, developed by the cOAlition S, makes it even possible to publish AAM without embargo. I therefore recommend resorting to this strategy….”

Exclusive licence to publish – now here’s a thing | Plan S

by Sally Rumsey, Jisc’s cOAlition S OA Expert Imagine this scenario. You’ve written an article and want to make it Open Access (OA). To do this, you submit it to a journal that enables gold OA, i.e. the publisher makes the article immediately OA on publication. You decide to apply a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND licence to your manuscript. This licence does not allow users, by default, to make commercial use (NC=non-commercial) nor derivatives (ND=no derivatives) unless they receive a corresponding authorisation. On acceptance, the publisher of the journal presents you with a Licence to Publish (LTP). This is where the problems surrounding the assignment of the CC-BY-NC-ND licence start. The LTP comprises the grant of a licence to the publisher by you, the original copyright holder and licensor, required for the publisher to publish your article. It also includes a long list of Terms & Conditions created by the publisher. For now, I’ll skate over the fact that you, as the author, are the original copyright holder, and as such, it is you who grants the LTP. Nevertheless, the LTP and its terms and conditions are written by the publisher using their terms – I have written about this unacceptable cock-eyed situation previously (see Licence to publish – the boot is on the wrong foot). […]  

New project for SPARC Europe to reform rights retention and open licensing policies in Europe – SPARC Europe

“SPARC Europe has been selected to deliver the first project sponsored under the Knowledge Rights 21 (KR21) programme. KR21 seeks to strengthen access to knowledge in particular through libraries and archives. It is focused on bringing about changes in legislation and practice across Europe that will strengthen rights to knowledge.

This is aligned to the SPARC Europe strategy and speaks to four of our strategic goals: 

Strengthen Open Access, Open Scholarship / Open Science and Open Education policy in Europe and align where possible;
Advocate for open in research and education;
Strive to enable more equity in Open so that all those who wish to publish and share research and education resources openly are better enabled to do so; and 
Promote diversity in publishing Open research and education.

SPARC Europe will lead research to develop a stronger understanding of rights retention and open licensing policies in Europe, with an ambition to reform the way institutions and authors manage their publishing rights to enable Open Access and access to knowledge for all. A key goal is to simplify the rights retention procedures, encourage the adoption of open licences, and better empower authors so that they and their fellow researchers, teachers and students can further benefit from the research they share. …”

Letting Open Access bloom: a bright future for research publishing | Opinion | News | The University of Aberdeen

“In previous blog posts, I have discussed the value of open research, the reasons behind its complexity, and the importance of retaining rights over our research outputs. In this final post of my short series, I look to the future, with an optimism….

I am timing this post to align with the news that the sector has struck a landmark deal with Elsevier for continued access to ScienceDirect. This agreement both saves the sector money and increases its ability to publish openly in Elsevier titles. It is policy compliant and removes a layer of administration, saving time for researchers and for librarians. The work across the sector to achieve this has been enormous, but the result more than vindicates the efforts we have put into it. I am delighted that Aberdeen played a significant part in this work. My colleagues have contributed to a national initiative to test an alternative to a bulk subscription, and I have represented the sector at the strategic level through membership of the Jisc/UUK Content Negotiation Strategy Group. As well as being a major success for this round of negotiations, our collaborative work has also delivered a framework for all future negotiations with major publishers.

This is very timely, as we are now close to the launch date of the new UKRI Open Access Policy, on 1 April. I discussed this in my most recent post, but as a reminder, this policy will restrict your Gold Open Access publishing options, and it will require any Green Open Access deposits to have no embargo imposed on the date of their open access release. The Library has been doing a lot to communicate this, but if you are unaware of the changes and need advice or information, visit our web page about UKRI OA policy.

 

This is not a reason to rest on our laurels, however pleased I am about what we have achieved with Elsevier. There are four reasons I remain enthusiastic to do more….

The best way to guarantee we can achieve open access to our research, in all circumstances, is to stop giving away our control over it. I discussed this in my previous blog, and can now announce that Research Policy Committee have supported my proposal to enshrine this in University policy. I will now start to develop a draft and consult on whether this can replace our existing policy (which is now extremely out of date). From my perspective, asserting that we will no longer give our rights away seems like a blindingly obvious thing to wish to do, but it’s really important that I hear other perspectives, and provide reassurance where there are concerns. You will have formal opportunity to comment as the draft makes its way through the committees, but I’d really like to hear from you now, whether it is to learn more, to express support, or to challenge my views….”

Conclusions on research assessment and implementation of open science

“in order to accelerate the implementation and the impact of Open Science policies and practices across Europe, action has to be taken to move towards a renewed approach to research assessment, including incentive and reward schemes, to put in place a European approach in accordance with the Pact for Research and Innovation in Europe, and strengthen capacities for academic publishing and scholarly communication of all research outputs, and encourage where appropriate, the use of multilingualism for the purpose of wider communication of European research results; …

 authors of research publications or their institutions should retain sufficient intellectual property rights to ensure open access, leading to broader dissemination, valorisation and reuse of results improving the fair balance of the publishing business model…”

 

Why does open access make publishing more complicated?

“Open-access publishing is going mainstream. This is sometimes a requirement, but it is also perceived as complex. That’s understandable, considering that OA comes in so many definitions and shades; gold, green, platinum and diamond journals and more shape a moving landscape where different stakeholders push their own agenda.

For researchers, navigating this landscape requires consideration of costs, funding, licences and copyright issues. All these aspects are relatively new compared with the traditional subscription-based system, where researchers would not worry about subscription costs any more than libraries would care about the details of the reviewing process. Redistribution of tasks along the publishing process forces universities and institutions to reorganise their support system. Who can and who should help? And how to do so? …”

 

Dismantling the ivory tower’s knowledge boundaries

“The major shift to open access during the pandemic began with the Free Read initiative, which launched the petition “

Unlock Coronavirus Research” for scientists in early February of 2020 and to which highly reputable medical publishers quickly responded. Before the pandemic, up to 75 percent of scholarly publications were behind a paywall. By comparison, a preliminary study of over 5,600 articles on PubMed suggests that more than 95 percent of scholarly articles related to COVID-19 are now freely available. This increase in accessibility resulted from the rapid adaptation by biomedical journals and publishers, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Cell Press, New England Journal of Medicine, and The Lancet. These journals and publishers granted open access to research on COVID-19 research, often making it 

immediately accessible on the platform PubMed Central and similar public repositories. Free and open access to COVID-19 research quickly became the new normal for biomedicine, with available findings directly impacting the development of treatment protocols and vaccines. Yet the pandemic became more than a health crisis. Understanding the social, psychological, and economic implications of the pandemic were imperative to its continued management.

Social science research, which delivers insights into human behaviors, relationships, and institutions, was instrumental to policymaking and healthcare solution development during the COVID-19 pandemic. The importance of social science research to pandemic management was demonstrated by the 

shift in the topic of COVID-19 papers, from the initial focus on disease modeling, hospital mortality, diagnostics, and testing to an increasing focus on topics such as business closure, remote work, geographic mobility and migration, inequality, managerial decision-making, as well as accelerating innovation. Once the basic science on the virus were established, research on creating societal and economic resilience played an even larger role for beating the COVID-19 pandemic. One clear area that demonstrated the importance of social science research in informing COVID-19 management was the rollout of vaccines. Psychological, marketing, and information systems research played a central role in vaccine uptake across communities. A recent report by the National Institutes of Health called for the use of evidence-based strategies, such as 

behavioral nudges and strategic social norms, to increase vaccine uptake….”

 

 

RRS campaign preview | Plan S

“Open Access benefits everyone. Retain your rights.
It’s good for you, for science, and for society…

The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) enables authors to exercise the rights they have on their manuscripts to deposit a copy of the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in a repository on publication and provide open access to it. To help researchers acknowledge and assert their rights, cOAlition S is launching an online campaign, under the theme “Publish with Power: Protect your rights“. The campaign aims to encourage researchers to retain their intellectual property rights, explains the steps they need to take and highlights the benefits for them and also for science and society. Below is a suite of resources about the Rights Retention Strategy, freely available for downloading, using and sharing….”

Suber | Publishing Without Exclusive Rights | The Journal of Electronic Publishing

Abstract:  Journal publishers don’t need exclusive rights. Or, they don’t need them for publishing. They don’t need them to make a work public or to add value in the form of peer review, copy editing, metadata, formatting, discoverability, or preservation. Nor do they need them to make enough money to pay their bills and grow. Publishers only need exclusive rights for monopoly control over the published work and any revenue it might yield. Publishers who say they need exclusive rights are saying they need this monopoly control. The best evidence that journal publishers don’t need exclusive rights is that so many peer-reviewed journals do without them, for example, open access journals using CC-BY. 

 

 

A Compendium of Open Access/Open Science Policy Case Studies from African Higher Education Institutions | Zenodo

Abstract:  A Compendium of Open Access/Open Science Policy Case Studies from African Higher Education Institutions for the LIBSENSE Open Science policy development workshops convened as part of activities in the AfricaConnect3 programme.

 The case studies in this compendium have been solicited from partners throughout Africa by the LIBSENSE policy working group. They represent a broad range of open access/open science policy development initiatives from those involved in developing and implementing them. The representative universities cover a range of public and private institutions where research activity occurs. Altogether, they give perspectives on OA/OS policy development at the institutional level, including the motivations, successes, challenges and outcomes. This compendium also includes one case study outlining policy development efforts coordinated at a regional level in Francophone Africa.

Through these workshops, LIBSENSE envisages an opportunity to align institutional level policy with ongoing efforts to deliver on national open science roadmaps as part of the broader Open Science agenda that LIBSENSE wants to achieve across Africa. It is also the impetus for its alignment with UNESCO’s Recommendations on open science, embracing its own Open Science vision on implementing UNESCO open science principles in an African context. In support of this, the compendium includes a recommended checklist for universities to follow when implementing UNESCO recommendations on open science.

How to make it right: a Rights Retention Pilot by the University of Cambridge ahead of shaping a full institutional policy | Plan S

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….”

University of Maryland’s Senate Approves Policy to Enhance Equitable Access to Scholarly Publications | UMD PACT

“At its meeting on April 6, 2022, University of Maryland’s Senate voted to approve a new institutional policy that will advance equitable, open access to the University’s research and scholarship. In alignment with the University’s land-grant mission and its social justice values, the new policy, entitled “Equitable Access to Scholarly Articles Authored by University Faculty,” aids in the removal of price and permission barriers related to discoverability and access for anyone seeking UMD’s peer-reviewed scholarly work. 

The policy was spearheaded by UMD PACT, a campus-wide working group sponsored by the University Library Council, the Office of the Provost, and the Division of Research. The benefits and features of the policy are summarized briefly below: …

Through the policy, faculty members grant certain nonexclusive rights over their scholarly articles to the University of Maryland. This grant of nonexclusive rights, called the Equitable Access License, allows the University to distribute peer-reviewed versions of the articles free-of-charge to the general public, through DRUM, the University of Maryland’s online institutional repository. Faculty members commit to depositing (self-archiving) peer-reviewed versions of their scholarly articles into DRUM. The policy includes waiver and embargo options to enhance author freedom and control over their work….”

UMD’s Senate Approves Policy to Enhance Equitable Access to Scholarly Publications – News | UMD Libraries

“At its meeting on April 6, 2022, University of Maryland’s Senate voted to approve a new institutional policy that will advance equitable, open access to the University’s research and scholarship. In alignment with the University’s land-grant mission and its social justice values, the new policy, entitled “Equitable Access to Scholarly Articles Authored by University Faculty,” aids in the removal of price and permission barriers related to discoverability and access for anyone seeking UMD’s peer-reviewed scholarly work. 

The policy was spearheaded by UMD PACT, a campus-wide working group sponsored by the University Library Council, the Office of the Provost, and the Division of Research. The benefits and features of the policy are summarized briefly below: …”

 

“Our policy is an affirmation that the University of Edinburgh fully supports authors in their open access practices” | Plan S

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 Edinburgh adopted its Research Publications & Copyright policy in 2021. In the following interview, Theo Andrew, Scholarly Communications Manager at the University of Edinburgh, explains how this policy was developed, describes the benefits for the University’s staff and shares his tips for any other institution that might consider adopting a similar policy….”