Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Developing a framework for open access policies in the United States
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Developing a framework for open access policies in the United States

291
views

Published on

Palestra apresentada à CONFOA 2013 (Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil, de 06 a 08 de outubro de 2013) na Mesa I - Políticas públicas de acesso aberto - Heather Joseph - ESTADOS UNIDOS - …

Palestra apresentada à CONFOA 2013 (Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil, de 06 a 08 de outubro de 2013) na Mesa I - Políticas públicas de acesso aberto - Heather Joseph - ESTADOS UNIDOS - SPARC

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
291
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. A Framework for Creating Open Access Policy in the United States Heather Joseph Executive Director, SPARC IV Open Access Luso-Brazilian Conference Sao Paolo, Brazil October 7, 2013
  • 2. Our Mission: Expand the distribution of research in a way that leverages digital networked technology, reduces financial pressures on libraries, and creates a more open system of scholarly communication.
  • 3. Why “Open” as the Endgame?
  • 4. Each Year, the U.S. Government spends ~US$60 billion on scientific research.
  • 5. We Make this Investment In Order to: • • • • • Generate new ideas Accelerate scientific discovery Fuel innovation Grow the economy Improve the welfare of the public
  • 6. This can only happen if we can access and use the results of this research.
  • 7. “If I as a scientist go through the work of designing and conducting an experiment, but don’t tell anyone the results, what what the point of me doing the work in the first place?” - Dr. Keith Yamamoto, Executive Vice Dean, UCSF Medical School
  • 8. Over 200,000 articles report on U.S-funded research each year...
  • 9. …But the majority of these can still only be read by purchasing access through a journal.
  • 10. Current system is not optimized to achieve desired outcomes.
  • 11. Need to remove the barriers (financial, legal and technical) that are blocking us from achieving these outcomes.
  • 12. “Removing access barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge.“ 12 Budapest Open Access Initiative – February 14, 2002 www.boai.org www.arl.org/sparc
  • 13. “By open access, we mean the free availability of articles on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full text of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software or use them for any other lawful purpose…” - The Budapest Open Access Initiative – February 14, 2002 14 www.arl.org/sparc
  • 14. Open Access = Access + Reuse
  • 15. Open Access has become a Policy Imperative.
  • 16. Governments would boost innovation and get a better return on their investment in publicly funded research by making research findings more widely available…. And by doing so, they would maximize social returns on public investments.” -- International Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Report on scientific publishing, 2005
  • 17. The U.S. increasingly recognizes the need to create a policy framework that supports all stakeholders in a transition to a more open system of sharing research results.
  • 18. Sources of U.S. Information Policy • • • • • Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 105) Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) Electronic FOIA Amendments of 1996. Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998. • Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-130, “Management of Federal Information Resources,” (61 FR 6425, February 20, 1996)
  • 19. OMB Circular A-130 “Open and unrestricted access to public information at no more than the cost of dissemination” “…government information is a valuable national resource, and… the economic benefits to society are maximized when government information is available in a timely and equitable manner to all.” - From OMB Circular No. A-130, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a130/a130trans4.html
  • 20. Policy Focus: Public is entitled to access and use the results of research their tax dollars pay for.
  • 21. Untill now, only 1 U.S. Funding Agency had enacted policy to make this a reality.
  • 22. But it’s a Big One…
  • 23. The U.S. National Institutes of Health funds ~US$30 billion in basic and applied biomedical research each year.
  • 24. This represents fully one-half of the U.S. total US$60 billion annual investment in scientific research.
  • 25. After piloting a voluntary Open Access policy for 3 years, U.S. Congress enacts NIH Public Access Policy into law in 2008.
  • 26. “The National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peerreviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication.”
  • 27. Policy Requirements are Not Complicated…
  • 28. But Outcomes Have Been Substantial.
  • 29. NIH Policy Outcomes • More than 2.5 million full text articles are now available though agencies repository. • More than 1,000,000 unique users access those articles - every day. • More than 2/3rds of the users come from outside of the academic community. • Over 80% of eligible researchers comply. • Policy costs less than 1/100th of 1% of NIH’s overall operating budget to implement.
  • 30. Note: NIH Policy leaves copyright negotiations up to indivudal authors.
  • 31. 5 Years of Data from NIH Helped Drive Progress Towards More Open Access Policies in the U.S.
  • 32. Extensive Public Discussion/Consultation between 2009-2012.
  • 33. Open Access advocates organized; and community responded with thousands of detailed comments...
  • 34. …focused on highlighting how Open Access Policies would advance Federal Governments Objectives.
  • 35. Objectives of Open Access Policies • • • • • • Generate new ideas Accelerate scientific discovery Fuel innovation Grow the economy/create jobs Improve the welfare of the public Increase transparency and accountability
  • 36. Advocates Also Responded with Calls for Action.
  • 37. For White House to respond, petitions need 25,000 signatures in 30 days.
  • 38. We Did it in 13 Days.
  • 39. And Ended up with 65,000 Signatures.
  • 40. In February 2013, The White House Issued an Executive Directive Supporting Expansion of NIH Policy to All Other U.S. Federal Science Agencies
  • 41. White House Directive requires more than 20 U.S. Federal Agencies and Departments to now develop Open Access Policies.
  • 42. “The Obama Administration is committed to the proposition that citizens deserve access to the results of scientific research their tax dollars have paid for. ”
  • 43. “Public access policies will accelerate scientific breakthroughs and innovation, promote entrepreneurship and ehance economic growth and job creation…”
  • 44. Directive presents useful guidance on objectives that the policies must meet, and also on elements policies should contain.
  • 45. Policies must “ensure that the public can read, download and analyze” articles in an appropriate time frame.
  • 46. Very Good.
  • 47. However, it is a regulation, not legislation.
  • 48. Continued push for legislation to make Open Access the “law of the land”; not just the “preference of a president.”
  • 49. The Proposed Legislation: “The Fair Access to Science and Technology (FASTR) Act”
  • 50. Both FASTR and WH Directive: • Are “green” policies – requiring deposit in open access repositories • Have provisions to ensure that articles can be both accessed and fully used.
  • 51. However, FASTR: • Shortens the allowable embargo period to 6 months (from 12): • Requires that articles be made available under license terms that enable productive reuse. • Specifically requires agencies to examine use of CC-BY license.
  • 52. Much of the action in U.S. now (and for the forseeable future) is centered around interpretation, codification, implementation of the White House Directive…
  • 53. Much, but not all.
  • 54. University/Campus Based Open Access Policies
  • 55. More than 35 U.S. Higher Education Institutions have implemented Open Access policies.
  • 56. “The broad dissemination of the results of scholarly inquiry and discourse is essential for higher education to fulfill its long-standing commitment to the advancement and conveyance of knowledge. Indeed, it is mission critical.” - U.S. University Provosts, in an Open Letter to the Higher Education Community, 7/24/06 www.arl.org/sparc 60
  • 57. 61 www.arl.org/sparc
  • 58. 62 www.arl.org/sparc
  • 59. And a new front open up in 2013…
  • 60. State Open Access Policies.
  • 61. New legislation proposed on state level in 3 States: - Illinois (Passed; signed into law) - California (Passed Assembly, vote due in Senate in January 2014) - New York (Pending first vote)
  • 62. All three proposed State bills are built on framework set out in FASTR, and are complimentary with the WH Directive.
  • 63. First time that the U.S. has had active Open Access policy proposals in play at Executive Branch level, in Congress, in States and on local campus Level.
  • 64. Biggest challenges center around how policies are interpreted and implemented.
  • 65. Especially in the area of reuse rights.
  • 66. The details matter. A lot. “Download” vs. “Download in Bulk” “Analyze” vs. “Enable Full Computational Analysis”
  • 67. The details matter. A lot. “Download” vs. “Download in Bulk” “Analyze” vs. “Enable Full Computational Analysis”
  • 68. Community must continue to keep pressure on to ensure the strongest possible implementation of Open Access policies – and to make them permanent.
  • 69. With nearly 2-dozen federal agencies, 50 States, and hundreds of campuses in play, it will not be an easy or fast process, but…
  • 70. It’s awfully hard to put the genie back in the bottle once the bottle is truly Open.
  • 71. Thank You Heather Joseph Executive Director, SPARC 21 Dupont Circle, Ste. 800 Washington DC 20036 USA heather@arl.org (202) 296-2296 http://www.arl.org/sparc

×