N8 Research Partnership: Rights Retention means researchers have a strong hand in terms of control over their own work | 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.

But we are beginning to see that situation change. Over the last months, an increasing number of European institutions have started implementing their own rights retention policies, thereby ensuring that research outputs are disseminated as widely as possible, whilst their researchers retain the freedom to publish in the journal of choice.

The N8 Research Partnership is a collaboration of the eight most research-intensive Universities in the North of England: Durham, Lancaster, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and York. Working together, all eight institutions issued a statement on Rights Retention, demonstrating their determination to support their researchers in taking control over their own work. In the following post, Professor Christopher Pressler, John Rylands University Librarian of the University of Manchester, and representative of the N8 Research Partnership, gives us a view from the ground and explains N8’s approach to Rights Retention….”

N8 Research Partnership – Statement on Rights Retention

“The N8 Research Partnership represents the research-intensive universities of the North of England. 12% of all UK academics work at N8 universities as well as almost 200,000 students. The N8 is one of the strongest regional academic consortia in the UK and believes the time is now right to make a coordinated statement on the rights held by our academics over their research….

. In order to achieve this third route to open access researchers need to be able to apply a CC BY licence and place their accepted manuscript in an institutional or other preferred repository. This must now be done without embargo granted to any publisher….”

N8 Research Partnership stands up for researchers with new Rights Retention statement – N8 Research Partnership

“The N8 – which represents 12% of all UK academics and 200,000 students – has released a statement outlining its new stance on the importance of researchers being able to obtain their original rights when their work is published in a journal. The statement was launched at an event held at the University of Manchester’s John Rylands Library, with speakers including the N8’s new chair Professor Charlie Jeffrey and Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell, president and vice-chancellor of the University of Manchester. 

In April 2022, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) made it mandatory for all research published in journals to be made immediately available via Open Access or transformative Gold journals’ APC charges or through journals released on a transitional Read & Publish deal without APC charges. Open access can also be achieved via depositing the author accepted manuscript and making it available without embargo. 

However, in order to achieve this third route to open access researchers need to be able to apply a CC BY license – which allows anyone to make commercial use of the work under the condition of attributing the research in the manner specified by the author or licensor – and place their accepted manuscript in an institutional or other preferred repository. This must now be done without embargo granted to any publisher. 

However, some publishers are no longer compliant with several not accepting that a researcher’s original rights should be retained by them, meaning that publishers may not accept manuscripts where an application has been made for a CC BY license and the researcher has clearly stated that they own their research.  

The N8’s statement – which has been coordinated through the eight universities’ PVCs for Research, Research Offices, Legal Departments and Libraries – reflects the shared conviction of the importance of researchers retaining their rights.  

Each N8 university will have its own position which may supersede the publisher’s requirements, but ultimately if a researcher is able to publish via an APC to a Gold journal or in a journal covered by a Read & Publish deal then researchers do not need to assert their rights.  

However, the N8 statement strongly recommends that researchers do not by default transfer intellectual property rights to publishers and do use a Rights Retention statement as standard practice….”

Open access deal ‘weakens publishers’ position’ | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Several leading UK universities will ask their academics to deposit their accepted manuscripts in free-to-read domains as part of a new pledge to support open access publication.

Under a new commitment agreed by members of the N8 Research Partnership, whose institutions include the universities of Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield, researchers will be urged to retain their intellectual property (IP) rights, rather than sign them over to publishers.

By doing so, scholars would be free to post final versions of research articles on institutional repositories, after obtaining a CC BY licence – a move that some publishers will not permit, or only allow after an embargo period, a route to publication known as green open access.

That has led to a stand-off between academics and publishers – with some journals refusing to publish manuscripts where an application for a CC BY licence has been made, whereby the researcher states they own the research….”

Research Publications and Copyright Policy | Library | The University of Sheffield

“This guidance is designed to ensure that University of Sheffield staff and PGRs can comply with the Research Publications and Copyright policy. The policy enables authors to control copyright, as set out in the University’s new IP policy, to their own journal articles and conference proceedings papers, apply a CC BY licence to them and make them available via the institutional repository, White Rose Research Online (WRRO) without embargo.

This will help you to comply with external funding requirements for open access as well as supporting our commitment to enabling and promoting research excellence across our community as set out in the University’s Statement of Open Research…”

The University of St Andrews enables researchers to use the rights retained in their scholarly works | 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 St Andrews has launched a new Open Access Policy, in effect from 1 February 2023, which harmonises the requirements from research funders, provides greater support to their researchers and aligns with the University’s strategy to “make their research findings widely available for local, national, and global benefit”. In the following interview, Kyle Brady, Scholarly Communications Manager at the University of St Andrews, describes the process which led to the new OA policy, highlights the benefits for the university and its researchers and shares practical tips for other institutions that might consider adopting similar policies towards making all publications openly available as quickly as possible….”

University of Sheffield affirms commitment for research and scholarship access to be ‘open for all’ | News | The University of Sheffield

The University of Sheffield has affirmed its commitment to an open research and scholarship culture, by approving new policies that will ensure its research is accessible to as many people as possible, and encouraging the use and creation of open educational resources throughout its teaching programmes.

Guest Post – Texas Library Coalition for United Action (TLCUA) and Elsevier Conclude Negotiations for Access to ScienceDirect Journals – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Designing an access and pricing model that satisfies the needs of a diverse membership like TLCUA’s presents a unique challenge. Starting with clear objectives and sticking with them is one of the basics of successful negotiation. TLCUA tested that principle by beginning with two goals that could be satisfied in multiple ways. TLCUA’s lofty goal of a single pricing model that meets the needs of all members and is unrelated to historical spend proved untenable, as members were dealing with different financial pressures and different needs for access. Instead, the coalition agreed on several package options for members.

All the options address TLCUA’s concern with financial sustainability, with reduced spends ranging from 2.5% to 30%. All options include a price decrease in the first year. The contract term aligns all TLCUA contracts to end in 2024. Three-year contracts have a 0% price increase in year two and a 2% price increase in year three, while four-year contracts have a 0% increase in year two, a 1% increase in year three, and a 2% increase in year four.

In the agreement, TLCUA and Elsevier agreed to remove references to outdated CONTU guidelines in the interlibrary loan provision. In addition, the parties agreed to remove non-disclosure terms from licenses. Both changes are important for libraries to work together to meet the needs of the scholarly community….

The agreement includes two provisions focused on increasing access to scholarly publications. First, authors affiliated with a TLCUA member are entitled to a discount on APCs during the contract period. Authors publishing in Elsevier Gold OA journals receive a 10% discount, while those publishing in Hybrid OA journals receive a 15% discount. Cell Press titles, The Lancet, and certain society titles are excluded from the discount. Elsevier has extended similar discounts to other groups. There is no cap on the number of articles TLCUA members can publish as open access using these discounts.

Second, TLCUA asked Elsevier to explore alternatives to authors permanently transferring copyright to publishers, without requiring the author to pay an APC for open access publishing. Publishers say that signing over copyright to them allows them to recoup the costs of producing a journal, plus some profit.  In the United States, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years, which seems longer than needed to meet the goal of providing publishers appropriate recompense for the valuable services they provide. Elsevier, like many publishers, has an author rights statement, which outlines ways authors may use their own work without requesting permission from the publisher. TLCUA acknowledges that Elsevier’s author rights statement meets many needs, but seeks a more robust protection for authors. Not only are author rights statements subject to change by the publisher, but when journals are acquired, the new publisher may not offer the same privileges….”

The curious internal logic of open access policymaking – Samuel Moore

“This week, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) declared 2023 its ‘Year of Open Science‘, announcing ‘new grant funding, improvements in research infrastructure, broadened research participation for emerging scholars, and expanded opportunities for public engagement’. This announcement builds on the OSTP’s open access policy announcement last year that will require immediate open access to federally-funded research from 2025. Given the state of the academic publishing market, and the tendency for US institutions to look towards market-based solutions, such a policy change will result in more article-processing charge payments and, most likely, publishing agreements between libraries and academic publishers (as I have written about elsewhere). The OSTP’s policy interventions will therefore hasten the marketisation of open access publishing by further cementing the business models of large commercial publishers — having similar effects to the policy initiatives of European funders.

As the US becomes more centralised and maximalist in its approach to open access policymaking, European institutions are taking a leaf out of the North American book by implementing rights retention policies — of the kind implemented by Harvard in 2008 and adopted widely in North America thereafter. If 2023 will be the ‘year of open science’ in the USA, it will surely be the year of rights retention in Europe. This is largely in response to funders now refusing to pay APCs for hybrid journals — a form of profiteering initially permitted by many funders who now realise the errors of their ways. With APC payments prohibited, researchers need rights retention to continue publishing in hybrid journals while meeting their funder requirements….”

Open access in scholarly publishing: Where are we now? | Research Information

“Notably, 2023 marks a decade since two important events. Not only David Bowie’s return to releasing records, but Research Councils UK’s (the predecessor to UKRI) launch of its open access policy. This was a watershed moment for UK research, a clear statement of intent to make open access a full-scale reality. But 10 years on, it is pertinent to ask, where are we now?…

In fact, 2022 certainly witnessed a continuing paradigm shift, particularly UKRI’s open access policy coming into effect for articles and conference proceedings. This represents a step-change to full and immediate open access for publicly funded research, and essentially incorporates Plan S into the UK research landscape. Similar policies have been launched by other funders, including the National Institute for Health & Care Research and Cancer Research UK. 

 

Moreover, 2022 saw the release of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 results, marking another milestone for open access. REF 2021’s open access mandate for journal articles and conference proceedings has arguably had the greatest impact in driving open access engagement by researchers. What was once a niche pursuit that was opposed by many researchers is now overwhelmingly regarded as an everyday part of the research lifecycle. There is a growing sense of positive engagement too, with researchers increasingly publishing open access because they want to and not just because they have to….”

About Meta-Psychology

“Meta-Psychology publishes theoretical and empirical contributions that advance psychology as a science through critical discourse related to individual articles, research lines, research areas, or psychological science as a field. Important contributions include systematic reviews, meta-analyses, replicability reports, and replication studies. We encourage pre-registered studies and registered reports (i.e., peer-review on the basis of theory, methods, and planned data-analysis, before data has been collected). Manuscripts introducing novel methods are welcome, but also tutorials on established methods that are still poorly understood by psychology researchers. We further welcome papers introducing statistical packages or other software useful for psychology researchers….”

 

University of Leeds Publications Policy – Research and Innovation Service

“Author requirements

Authors must comply with their funders’ policies relating to open access and research data management. 
Authors must register for an individual ORCiD identifier and should link it to their University Publications Database profile [2], include it on any personal webpage, when submitting publications, when applying for grants, and in any research workflow to ensure that the individual is credited for their work and that the correct institutional affiliation is achieved.  
Authors must use a standardised institutional affiliation “University of Leeds” in all research outputs to ensure clear affiliation with the University of Leeds. 
Authors must specify authors’ contributions in all research outputs to ensure individuals’ roles are identifiable and duly recognised. 
Authors must include a Data Access Statement in all research outputs even where there are no data associated with the publication or the data are inaccessible. The statement informs readers where the associated underlying research materials are available and how they can be accessed.  
Authors must acknowledge the source of grant funding associated with a research output in all research outputs. Information about the grant should also be linked, by the author, to the record of the publication in the University Publications Database. Grant information in the University Publications Database is fed automatically from the University’s Grant Information System [3].  
Authors must retain the necessary rights to make the accepted manuscripts of research articles, including reviews and conference papers, publicly available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. Recommended wording to include in manuscript submissions is in Appendix 1. This requirement does not apply but is strongly recommended for outputs solely or jointly authored by PGRs (only).  
Authors must record bibliographic details of all research outputs in the University’s publications database. For peer-reviewed research articles, including reviews and conference papers, this must be done as soon as possible after acceptance for publication. When creating the record in the University’s publications database, complete the appropriate fields to confirm that a data access and a rights retention statement have been added to the output itself. 
Authors must deposit full text copies of final accepted peer-reviewed research articles, including reviews and conference papers into the institutional repository, via the University’s publications database as soon as possible after acceptance for publication. Where the output is already available open access via the publisher website a link may be provided instead. The deposit of other outputs e.g. monographs is also encouraged where copyright permits. 
Where copyright allows and there are no confidentiality or commercial constraints, the research outputs in the institutional repository must be made ‘open access’, i.e. freely accessible over the internet. 
Outputs must be made open access as soon as possible after acceptance [4]….”

New Publications Policy makes rights retention a must | Library | University of Leeds

“A new publications policy takes effect from 1 January 2023.

A major update to the University’s Publications Policy will help authors to follow good open research practices. The policy also supports authors to retain intellectual property rights in their work.

Until recently, open research practices have focused on making journal articles openly accessible. Now open access is seen as one part of the wider open research movement, which considers a broader range of research outputs. One key aim is to make more outputs immediately available so that everyone can benefit from access to the most recent research….

The updated Publications Policy features three new author requirements:

Authors must identify all contributors in all roles in all research outputs.
This aligns with research culture initiatives to make sure all contributions are valued and recognised.
Authors must include a Data Access Statement in all research outputs, even when there are no data associated with the publication or the data are inaccessible. The statement says where the associated research materials are available and how they can be accessed.
This enables compliance with the UKRI open access policy.
Authors must retain the necessary rights to make the accepted manuscripts of research articles publicly available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. This includes reviews and conference papers….”

Thoughts on the Many Different Paths to Achieving Open Access: Keynote with Dr. Ross Mounce – Library Events Calendar – LJMU Library

“Professor George Talbot, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research) and Dean of Arts and Sciences, Edge Hill University will begin Open Research Week 2023 and welcome our keynote speaker, Dr. Ross Mounce. 

In this talk, Ross will reflect on how progress towards providing open access to all academic research is going; the good, the bad, and the ugly. 

The good is: we’re starting to realise that a lot of the problem boils down to copyright issues. The emergence and normalisation of rights retention is undoubtedly healthy.?The bad news is: there are significant problems in the way that money is being spent to enable open access e.g. “transformative agreements” (sic). Transformative for whom??The ugly: Journal Impact Factor™?is statistically illiterate, negotiable, and irreproducible, but some researchers are still making decisions using it.? ?The real question now is not can we get universal open access to research, but how.”

Open Research in Cambridge: 2022 in review – Unlocking Research

“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….”