Sharing knowledge:                        open access                        and preservation                        in Eu...
EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDirectorate-General for Research and InnovationDirectorate B – European Research AreaUnit B.6 – Ethics ...
EUROPEAN COMMISSION         SHARING KNOWLEDGE:           OPEN ACCESS AND        PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                Conc...
EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers               to your questions about the European Union.             ...
ContentsExecutive Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������...
Section TWO: Discussion of the outcomes�����������������������������������������������������������23  2.1 Stakeholder enga...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                                                            AWor...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY    7good self-archiving levels (‘Green’ Open Access) and raising awareness; and thedevelopmentofinfrastr...
8SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                                                            Reco...
Section ONE: The workshop
10SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                                                            1.1...
SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP    11 • FrancescoFusaro • GillesLaroche • MatthieuKleinschmager • Alexis-MichelMugabushaka • The...
12SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                                                            1.6...
SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP    13    advantagesmentionedinthepreviouspoint.Untilnow,institutionalmanagers    havenotbeenable...
14SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                                                            bio...
SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP    151.7.2.4.  Copyright:  Researchers who are not properly informed about Open Accessbelieve (e...
16SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                                                            1.7...
SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP    171.8  Suggestions for concrete actions TheseconddayoftheWorkshopbeganwithaProActionCafésessi...
18SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                                                            1.8...
SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP    191.8.4.   Measuring Open Access outputs and collecting evidence of the         benefits of O...
20SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                                                            1.8...
SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP    211.8.8. Linking European and national levelsTherearedefinedrelationshipsbetweentheCommission...
22SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                                                            Tab...
Section TWO:Discussion of the outcomes
24SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                                                            Thi...
SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES     25frontingthem.Infrastructurecanmeansofterthingstoo,though.Forexample,TheNethe...
26SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                                                            bel...
SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES         27misunderstanding5.Someofthismaybeduetoincorrectinformationeitherinnocent...
28SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE                                                            age...
SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES     29Asidefromthispoint,coordinationactivityatEuropeanlevelhasmuchpotentialbenefi...
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe

1,994 views
1,914 views

Published on

A workshop held in Brussels in November 2010 gathered around 20 invited national experts from EU Member States, with the aims of getting an understanding of Member States’ implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions on scientific information in the digital age. This report documents the proceedings, sets them in the context of developments so far on open access and preservation at an international level and makes a set of recommendations for future EC action.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,994
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe

  1. 1. Sharing knowledge: open access and preservation in Europe Conclusions of a strategic workshop - Brussels, 25-26 November 2010ReseaRch & InnovatIon POLICY
  2. 2. EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDirectorate-General for Research and InnovationDirectorate B – European Research AreaUnit B.6 – Ethics and genderContact: Francesco FusaroOffice SDME 03/17B-1049 BrusselsTel. (32-2) 29-87458Fax (32-2) 29-84694E-mail: francesco.fusaro@ec.europa.eu RTD-OPEN-ACCESS@ec.europa.eu
  3. 3. EUROPEAN COMMISSION SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Conclusions of a strategic workshop Brussels, 25-26 November 2010 REPORT by Alma Swan (Rapporteur)Prepared by:Alma Swan, Enabling Open Scholarship2 Denver PlaceElm Grove RoadTopshamDevonEX3 0EPUnited Kingdom+44 (0)1392 879702a.swan@talk21.comwww.openscholarship.org
  4. 4. EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.LEGAL NOTICENeither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission isresponsible for the use which might be made of the following information.The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authorand do not necessarily refl ect the views of the European Commission.A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011ISBN 978-92-79-20449-4doi:10.2777/63410© European Union, 2011Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
  5. 5. ContentsExecutive Summary �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������5Section ONE: The workshop ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 1.1 The background to the Workshop...................................................................10 1.2 Aims and objectives ........................................................................................10 1.3 Representation at the Workshop ....................................................................10 1.4 Format of the Workshop ................................................................................. 11 1.5 Why national experts attended the Workshop ............................................... 11 1.6 The overall vision: why Open Access and preservation are important..........12 1.7 Progress in the Member States .....................................................................13 1.7.1. Open Access-related experiences of Member States ........................13 1.7.1.1. At institutional level.......................................................................................................... 13 1.7.1.2. At national level................................................................................................................ 13 1.7.2. Problems or bottlenecks encountered ................................................14 1.7.2.1. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst researchers..................14 . 1.7.2.2. Lack of awareness and understanding amongst policymakers...............14 1.7.2.3. Lack of policy...................................................................................................................14 1.7.2.4. Copyright............................................................................................................................15 1.7.2.5. Financial cost of implementation............................................................................15 1.7.2.6. Quality control..................................................................................................................15 1.7.3. The key success factors in overcoming these bottlenecks and problems .......................................................................................15 1.7.3.1. Open Access policies .........................................................................15 1.7.3.2. Advocacy and cultural change work...................................................15 1.7.3.3. Infrastructural aspects of implementation ...........................................16 1.7.3.4. Funding ..............................................................................................16 1.7.3.5. Collaborative approaches ..................................................................16 1.7.4. The results, impacts and benefits .......................................................16 1.7.4.1. Policy development .............................................................................16 1.7.4.2. Culture change ...................................................................................16 1.7.4.3. Infrastructure ......................................................................................16 1.8 Suggestions for concrete actions ..................................................................17 1.8.1. Preservation of scientific information and experimental data ............17 1.8.2. How Open Access can make knowledge more connected and accessible ..................................................................18 1.8.3. Publisher relations and negotiations .................................................18 1.8.4. Measuring Open Access outputs and collecting evidence of the benefits of Open Access ...........................................19 1.8.5. National policies on Open Access ......................................................19 1.8.6. Making repositories user/researcher-friendly .....................................20 1.8.7. Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing research bibliometric systems..........................................20 1.8.8. Linking European and national levels .................................................21 1.9 Priorities for the recommended actions .........................................................21
  6. 6. Section TWO: Discussion of the outcomes�����������������������������������������������������������23 2.1 Stakeholder engagement / involvement (advocacy).......................................25 2.2 Top-level engagement and support (policy development) ............................27 2.3 Collaborations and partnerships (coordination).............................................28 2.4 Implementation and manifestations (infrastructure) ......................................29Section THREE: Recommendations���������������������������������������������������������35 3.1 Advocacy .........................................................................................................36 3.2 Policy ...............................................................................................................36 3.3 Rights ..............................................................................................................36 3.4 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................37 3.5 Business models .............................................................................................37References���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38Appendices �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 41APPENDIX ONE: Workshop participants �������������������������������������������������42APPENDIX TWO: The format of the Workshop ��������������������������������������44APPENDIX THREE: Open access – The European context �������������������45APPENDIX FOUR: Questionnaire on national open accessand preservation policies �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 51
  7. 7. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  8. 8. 6SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE AWorkshopwasheldinBrusselson25-26November2010,attendedbyaround20invited nationalexpertsfromEUMemberStates,withtheaimsof:gettinganunderstanding of Member States’ implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions on scientific informationinthedigitalage;sharingexperiencesandknow-howregardingsuccessful implementationsandbestpractices;andcreatingacommonvisionofwhatcanbedone nextintermsofpolicyandactionatMemberStateandatEuropeanlevels. Thisreportdocumentstheproceedings,setstheminthecontextofdevelopments sofaronOpenAccessandpreservationataninternationallevelandmakesasetof recommendationsforfutureECaction. OneissueaddressedwaswhyOpenAccessandpreservationareimportant.Theexperts listedbothhigh-level,principle-basedreasonsandmorepragmaticones.Theformer categoryincludedthemoralargumentthattheresultsofpublicly-fundedresearchshould bepubliclyavailable,thatOpenAccessenablesresearchfindingstobesharedwiththe widerpublic,helpingtocreateaknowledgesocietyacrossEuropecomposedofbetter- informedcitizens,andthatOpenAccessenhancesknowledgetransfertosectorsthatcan directlyusethatknowledgetoproducebettergoodsandservices.Themorepractice- focusedreasonswerethatOpenAccessimprovesresearchefficiency,andenablesre-use ofresearchoutputs,providesthebasisforbetterresearchmonitoringandevaluation. PreservationofresearchoutputsensuresthattheculturalheritageofEuropeisprotected andcuratedforfuturegenerationsandthatscientificoutputsarekeptinformatsthat ensuretheyarepermanentlyusableandaccessible. ParticipantsreportedonprogressonOpenAccessandpreservationintheindividual MemberStates.AtinstitutionalleveltherehavebeenprojectsonOpenAccessinindividual universities, progress on the development of CRIS (Current Research Information Systems),andsomeprogressonpolicydiscussion.AtnationallevelOpenAccesshas beenincorporatedintonationalstrategyforscienceandresearchinsomecountries.At infrastructurallevel,nationalarchivesforOpenAccesscontent–ornationalharvesting systems,presentingOpenAccessmaterialthroughnationalportals–havebeensetupin someMemberStates. Bottleneckshaveprimarilybeen:lackofawarenessandunderstandingofOpenAccess amongstresearchersandpolicymakers;limitedpolicydevelopment;issuesaround copyright(authorsoftenbelievethatmakingtheirworkOpenAccessinfringescopyright andinsomeMemberStatescopyrightlawimpedesOpenAccess);misconceptionsamong authorsaboutqualitycontrol,whichtheybelieveerroneouslytobeabsentfortheOpen Accessliterature;andthefinancialcostofimplementationofOpenAccess. Keysuccessfactorsinovercomingthesebottleneckshavebeen:goodpolicydevelopment atinstitutionalandnationallevel;well-designedadvocacyandculture-changeworkat authorandpolicymakerlevels;infrastructuraldevelopments;adequatefundingfor infrastructuralandadvocacywork;andthedevelopmentofeffectivecollaborative approachesinvolvingvariousstakeholderswhosharethemission. The results and impacts of overcoming the bottlenecks and barriers are: policy implementationatinstitutionalandnationallevel;culturechangeintermsofachieving
  9. 9. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  7good self-archiving levels (‘Green’ Open Access) and raising awareness; and thedevelopmentofinfrastructuresthatsupportOpenAccessandpreservation,suchasnationalharvestingsystemsandnationalpreservationarrangements.ParticipantsagreedalistofprioritiesforconcreteactionsthatcanbetakenasaresultoftheWorkshop.Thesewere: • Stakeholderengagement/involvement(advocacy).Suggestedactionpointsin thisareawere:creationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent;developmentof indicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess;furtherawareness-raising activities;developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasethe amountofOpenAccesscontent;encouragingthesharingofgoodpractices • Top-levelengagementandsupport(policydevelopment).Suggestedactionpoints underthisheadingwere:makingthe‘Green’routetoOpenAccess(through repositories)mandatory; developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,and institutionallevelacrossEurope;explorationofcopyrightlawsinEUstateswitha viewtorecommendingmodificationorcreatinganewlawpertainingtoacademic researchoutputs • Collaborationsandpartnerships.Suggestedactionpointsforthisareawere: coordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupportingactionsforOpen Access;identifyexistinginitiativesandbuilduponthem;encouragethesharingof goodpractices • Implementationandmanifestations(infrastructures).Suggestedactionpointsfor thistopicwere:developmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess;funding forinfrastructuraldevelopments;investmentine-researchinfrastructuresin Europe,especiallythosethatsupportthedevelopmentoftheOpenDataagenda; investmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData; developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs;fund workondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term;developmentoftoolsto supportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccesscollections;investigation ofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccessTheseoutcomesarediscussed(bytheRapporteur)inthisreportinthelightofcontextualbackgroundinformationanddevelopments.Aseriesofrecommendationsarethenmadeasfollows:Recommendation 1: BuildonwhatwasachievedbytheWorkshoptostrengthenthenascentnetworkandenableandencouragefurtherinteractionsandcollaborations(coordination)Recommendation 2: EncourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtodevelopadvocacyprogrammesacrosstheUnionRecommendation 3:FundthedevelopmentofindicatorsthatbetterassessscientificprogressandmeasurethebenefittostakeholdercommunitiesacrosssocietyRecommendation 4: EnablecoordinationofpolicyatEuropeanlevel
  10. 10. 8SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Recommendation 5:Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtoincreaseawarenessand understandingoftheissuesaroundOpenAccessandpreservationatpolicymakerlevels Recommendation 6:Informandencourageauthorsandinstitutions(andfunderswhere appropriate)toretaintherightsthatarenecessarytoprovideOpenAccessandenable adequatepreservationofscientificoutputs Recommendation 7:Enableasharedunderstandingacrossallstakeholders(researchers, institutions,funders,librariesandpublishers)ofthelegalterminologyandconcepts involved Recommendation 8: Build upon the investment in OpenAIRE by further enabling coordinateddevelopmentsthatjoinupemerginginfrastructurestomaximumeffect Recommendation 9:ProvideEuropean-levelguidanceandleadershiptoMSonthe principleofthelong-termnecessityandbenefitofaccesstoandpreservationofscientific information Recommendation 10:Examinethelong-termprospectsfortheinfrastructuralbasis forOpenAccesssofardevelopedinEurope.Assessthisinthecontextofcreatinga coordinated,viable,sustainablesystemthatwillenablethecreationoftheInnovation Unionoverthenext15years
  11. 11. Section ONE: The workshop
  12. 12. 10SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.1  The background to the Workshop TheWorkshopwasconvenedtoexplorethestateofplayandprogresswithinMember States(MS)withrespecttoOpenAccessto,andpreservationof,scientificresearch outputs.BothhavebeenontheCommission’sagendaforsomeyears,beginningwiththe studyintoscientificpublishingcarriedoutonbehalfoftheCommissionandpublishedin 2006(seebelowformoredetail). Thetwothings–OpenAccessandpreservation–areseparatebutrelatedissues.Open Accessisaboutfree-of-chargeaccessibilityofoutputs(researchtextsanddata)without delayassoonastheyarereadyforpublication:preservationconcernsensuringthelong- termstorage,careandcontinuingfreeaccessibilityoftheseoutputs.Thepresentpolicy situationonthesetwothings,bothatEuropeanandatMemberStatelevel,hasarisenout ofanumberofinitiativesandsteps,somecoordinatedandsomenot,sincethebeginning ofthemillennium.ThiscontextislaidoutmorefullyinAppendix1. 1.2  Aims and objectives Thehigh-levelaimsoftheWorkshopwere: • togetanunderstandingofMemberStates’implementationofthe2007Council Conclusionsonscientificinformationinthedigitalage • toshareexperiencesandknow-howregardingsuccessfulimplementationsand bestpractices • tocreateacommonvisionofwhatcanbedonenextintermsofpolicyandaction atMemberStateandatEuropeanlevels • tosustainMemberStateinvolvementandcommitment • toidentifyareasinwhichEuropean-level(EC-level)actionmakessenseandwould bewelcome. TheCommissionwouldliketodevelopconcrete policy recommendationsonhowtomove forwardatMemberStateandEuropeanlevelonaccessandpreservationissuesandthe Workshopwasconvenedtoinformthedevelopmentofthatpolicy. 1.3  Representation at the Workshop Representationwasasbelow. i)ExpertsfromMemberStates: Austria,Belgium,CzechRepublic,Denmark,Estonia,France,Germany,Greece,Iceland, Ireland,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,Netherlands,Poland,Portugal,Slovakia,Slovenia,Spain, Sweden,UnitedKingdom ii)TheEuropeanCommission • Jean-MichelBaer • Jean-FrançoisDechamp
  13. 13. SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP  11 • FrancescoFusaro • GillesLaroche • MatthieuKleinschmager • Alexis-MichelMugabushaka • TheodorePapazoglou • JuanPelegrin • CarlosMoraisPires • CelinaRamjoué • LorenzaSaracco • JarkkoSiren • EcaterinaStamateiii)Rapporteur:Alma Swan,EnablingOpenScholarshipandKeyPerspectivesLtd1.4  Format of the WorkshopTheWorkshopemployedavarietyoftechniquestoensuredelegateparticipation.ThesefellunderanoverallapproachcalledtheArt of Hosting and Convening MeaningfulConversations(www.artofhosting.org).ThespecifictechniquesemployedatthiseventaredescribedinAppendix2.1.5  Why national experts attended the WorkshopTherewerefivemainreasonsgivenbythenationalexpertsforattendingtheWorkshop.Theywere: • TolearnaboutdevelopingpoliciesonOpenAccessandPreservation,andhowto implementthem • ToshareexperiencesoftryingtopromoteOpenAccess,includingonpolicy developmentandimplementation • ToexplorethepossibilityofcollaboratingwithotherstoachieveOpenAccess • ToobtaininformationthatwillhelptoguideOpenAccessdevelopmentintheir homestate • ToencourageandhelpguideactionatEuropeanlevelThereweresomeother,lesscommonreasonsgiven,suchasbeinginterestedinOpenData, exploring business models for Open Access, and developing infrastructuresforpreservation.Ingeneral,though,participantshadcometolearnfromandshareexperiencesandwiththehopethattheeventmighthelpcatalysepartnershipandnetworkingactivitiesandmovedevelopmentsalongatEuropeanlevel.
  14. 14. 12SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.6    he overall vision: why Open Access and preservation   T are important  ThroughWorldCaféconversationsthenationalexpertsgavetheirpersonalviewsasto whyOpenAccessandPreservationofscientificinformationareimportant.Thereasons werecollectedattheendofthesessionandrelatedreasonsweregroupedtogether. Overall,theyfellintotwocategories. First,therewerethehigh-level,principle-basedreasons: • Themoralargument,whichisthattheresultsofpublicly-fundedresearchshould bepubliclyavailable • OpenAccessenablesresearchfindingstobesharedwiththewiderpublic,helping tocreateaknowledgesocietyacrossEuropecomposedofbetter-informedcitizens • OpenAccessenhancesknowledgetransfertosectorsthatcandirectlyusethat knowledgetoproducebettergoodsandservices.Manyconstituenciesoutsidethe researchcommunityitselfcanmakeuseofresearchresults.Theseincludesmall andmedium-sizedcompaniesthatdonothaveaccesstotheresearchthrough companylibraries,organisationsofprofessional(legalpractices,familydoctor practices,etc),theeducationsectorandsoforth Secondthereweremoreprosaic,practice-focusedreasons: • OpenAccessimprovesresearchefficiencybyobviatingtheneedforresearchersto spendtimeseekingwaysofaccessinginformation,gettingpermissiontousethat information,findingoutwhatpermissionsforre-useexistandsoon.Theyalso finditeasiertoavoidduplicationofpreviousworkifitissimpletofindoutwhat previousworkhasbeendone,andeasiertoavoidblindalleysifpreviousworkhas shownthemtoexist.Allofthisismadepossiblebyhavingfreeandeasyaccess tothewholeliteratureratherthantojustthesubsetofitavailablethroughthe subscriptionspurchasedbyanyoneuniversitylibrary • Re-useofresearchoutputsisimprovedbyOpenAccess(whosedefinitionincludes there-useofresearchoutputswithoutrestrictionsimposedbyconventional copyrightpractice).OpenAccessarticlescanbeharvestedbymachinesintonew, usefulcollections,canbeminedformeaningorfactsbytext-miningcomputer technologieswhichthencreatenewknowledge,andcanbeusedforteachingand alliedpurposeswhichnormallyfallfoulofcopyrightrestrictions • OpenAccessenablesbetterresearchmonitoringandevaluation.Insteadofa systemwhereonlyaproportionofjournalsaretrackedforcitationstothepapers theypublish,andaresearcher’sworthismeasuredbythe‘quality’ofthejournalin whichtheypublish,OpenAccessenablescitationsandothermeasuresofimpact fromacrossthewholeresearchliteraturetobetrackedtotheindividualarticleor researcherratherthanthejournal.Eachinstitution’sOpenAccessrepository(digital collectionofresearchoutputs)alsoenablesresearchmanagersatthatinstitution toassessandstudyresearchprogresslocallyandcomparethattocompetitor institutions • ThedevelopmentoftechnologiestolinkOpenAccessrepositoriesandCurrent ResearchInformationSystems(CRIS)inresearchinstitutionsbuildsuponthe
  15. 15. SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP  13 advantagesmentionedinthepreviouspoint.Untilnow,institutionalmanagers havenotbeenabletosayhowmanypapershavebeenpublishedfromtheir institution,wheretheyhavebeenpublished,whoauthoredthem,whatprojects thoseauthorsworkedon,whatresearchgrantsthoseprojectshavebenefitedfrom, whatequipmenthasbeenpurchasedfromthosegrants,andsoon.Nowallthis informationcanbecollected,collatedandlinkedupinmeaningfulwaystoproduce acompletemanagementinformationsystemforanyresearch-basedinstitution • PreservationofresearchoutputsensuresthattheculturalheritageofEuropeis protectedandcuratedforfuturegenerations;thatscientificoutputsarekeptin formatsthatensuretheyarepermanentlyusableandaccessible1.7  Progress in the Member States National experts reported on developments in Member States since the CouncilConclusionswereissuedlatein2007.TheydidthisbyworkinginWorldCaféformat.Onepersondescribedtheirexperienceswhiletheothersatthetablelistened,helpedthespeakertobringoutthekeyissuesofthatexperience,andrecordedthemonpaper.Eachdelegateinturndescribedtheirexperiencesinthisway.Thekeyissueswererecordedfinallyonsmallpiecesofpaperandthenationalexpertsarrangedtheseintogroupsofrelatedissuesunderthefourmainheadingquestions,whichwere: • WhataretheOpenAccess-relatedexperiencesofyourMemberState? • Whatproblemsorbottleneckswereencountered? • Whatwerethekeysuccessfactorsinovercomingthesebottlenecksandproblems? • Whatweretheresults,impactsandbenefits?1.7.1. Open Access-related experiences of Member StatesSomeMShavemadeconsiderableprogressonOpenAccess,whileothersareslowertoinitiatedevelopments.Thedevelopmentsthatwerereportedwere:1.7.1.1.  At  institutional  level:  there have been projects instigated on Open Accessin individual universities, progress on the development of CRIS (Current ResearchInformation Systems; see section 2.4, penultimate bullet point), and some progress onpolicydiscussion.1.7.1.2.  At national level: theargumentforOpenAccesshassuccessfullybeentakentogovernmentlevelinsomeMSandinsomecaseshavebeenincorporatedintonationalstrategyforscienceandresearch.OpenDatapolicyhasalsobeenimplementedinonecase. At infrastructural level, national archives for Open Access content have been setup (for example, the national Open Access repository for theses in Greece), a nationalCRIShascollected10%ofpublicationsinDenmark,andanationalOpenDatarepositoryand a national portal for Open Access journals has been established. The most far-reaching development has occurred in Portugal, with the establishment of the RCAAP(RepositórioCientíficodeAcessoAbertodePortugal)whichharvestsOpenAccesscontentfromPortugueseuniversityrepositoriesandpresentsthemthroughanationalinterface.This is paralleled at disciplinary level by UKPMC (UK PubMed Central) which collects
  16. 16. 14SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE biomedicalresearchoutputsfromUKinstitutionsandpresentsthemthroughanOpen Accessportal. 1.7.2. Problems or bottlenecks encountered TwomainbottlenecksthatwerementionedbymanyMSrepresentatives–lackof awarenessaboutOpenAccessonthepartofresearchersandpolicymakers,andlackof policy.LackoffinancialsupportwasalsoraisedasabarriertoachievingOpenAccessand properprovisionforpreservationofresearchfindings.Someotherissueswerealsoraised andallarereportedbelow. 1.7.2.1.  Lack  of  awareness  and  understanding  amongst  researchers:  This is not confined to European researchers. Surveys have repeatedly shown that researchers are still not properly aware of the concept and that, even if they have some knowledge of OpenAccess,thereisusuallysomelackofunderstandingoftheissues.Inparticular,the issuesofqualitycontrol,theroleofrepositoriesandthematterofcopyrightareespecially prominentasfactorsaboutwhichresearchersareconfusedanduninformed(seebelow for more on these bottlenecks). Some researchers even appear to be resistant to the ideaofopennessitself,thoughthisresistanceismoreusuallyapplicabletoresearchdata thantoresearchpublications.TheresultisdemonstrableresistancetotheideaofOpen Access,misunderstandingsandbaselessprejudiceagainstitwithinpartsoftheresearch community. 1.7.2.2.  Lack of awareness and understanding amongst policymakers: Policymakers are, with notable exceptions, even more unaware than researchers about Open Access and can often be uninformed about the issues around scientific communication in general.Lackofawarenessandunderstandingisattherootofthegenerallackofpolicy developmentatMSlevel(andatinstitutionallevel).Nationalexpertsreporteddifficulty ingettinginterestandattentionfrompolicymakersonOpenAccessandrelatedissues. 1.7.2.3.  Lack  of  policy:  Some MS do have high-level policies on Open Access and preservation.TheNetherlands,forexample,hasasysteminplacenationallyforpreserving researchoutputsinthecustodianshipoftheRoyalLibrary(KB).MostMSdonothavesucha system,thoughinsomecasesitisindevelopment(forexample,theBritishLibraryisworking onanambitiousplanforpreservationofthenation’sscientificandculturalheritage). Thereisapolicythatcovers20%ofFrameworkProgramme7(FP7)-fundedresearch outputsandsomeMShavepoliciesinplaceatnationalresearchfunderlevel(some examplesare:theAustrianResearchCouncil,theSwedishResearchCouncil,theseven UKResearchCouncils),andthereisanOpenAccesspolicyfromtheEuropeanResearch Council.Inthemain,though,thereislittleinthewayofpolicydevelopmentatMSlevel, andnotmuchmoreatinstitutionallevel1.ThisisahindrancetotheadvanceofOpen Accessbecausepoliciesservenotonlytosupportanimplementationprogramme,butalso toinformresearchersaboutOpenAccess.Theyareexcellentadvocacytools. 1 S eelistofextantpoliciesatROARMAP(RegistryofOpenAccessRepositoryMaterialArchivingPolicies) http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
  17. 17. SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP  151.7.2.4.  Copyright:  Researchers who are not properly informed about Open Accessbelieve (erroneously) they will be infringing copyright if they self-archive their workin repositories and do not believe that Open Access is compatible at all with scientificpublishing.NationalexpertsfromsomeMS(forexample,Germany)reportedthattheirownnationalcopyrightlawsdonotpermitOpenAccessbyself-archiving.1.7.2.5.  Financial cost of implementation: TherewasagreementamongstanumberofparticipantsreportedthatthecostofimplementingOpenAccessandgoodpreservationpracticesintheirMSwasinhibitingtheadvanceofthesethings.1.7.2.6.  Quality control: Manyresearchers–andsomepolicymakers–whoarenotproperlyinformedbelievethatOpenAccessisaboutpublishingmaterialwithoutpeerreview.Thisisanerroneousbelief(asOpenAccessjournalsimplementpeerreviewasdotheirsubscriptioncounterparts,andrepositoriescollecttheauthor’sfinalversionofarticles,afterpeer-review)butitremainsquiteprevalent.AuthorsthereforefrequentlyandincorrectlybelievethatOpenAccesscontentequateswithlowerstatusthancontentpublishedinthe‘traditional’way.1.7.3. The key success factors in overcoming these bottlenecks and problemsByfarthemost-mentionedkeysuccessfactorwasgettingapolicyonOpenAccessinplace.Itforceschangeinawaythatadvocacyandexampledonot.Yetadvocacyhasitsplace,andengagementofkeystakeholdersthroughadvocacyhasprovedtobeaveryeffectiveroutetoresearcherinvolvementandpolicymakingprogress,especiallywheretheexistingcultureandpracticescanbeusedtosupportOpenAccess.Othersuccessfactorsreportedwereinfrastructuraldevelopments,securingappropriatefundingandcollaborativeapproaches.1.7.3.1.  Open Access policiesExpertsfromMSwherenational-levelorinstitutional-levelpolicieshavebeenadoptedreportedthattheyaresuccessfulinincreasingtheamountofmaterialopenlyavailableandinraisingawarenessofOpenAccessamongstauthors.PoliciesusuallyexplainthecaseforOpenAccessandaresupportedbyclearguidancetoresearchersonhowtoprovideOpenAccesstotheirwork.1.7.3.2.  Advocacy and cultural change workExpertsreportedthatinvolvingkeystakeholders(authors,institutionalmanagers,nationalresearchpolicymakers)hasbeencriticallyimportantinadvancingOpenAccess.Successfuladvocacyhasincludededucationandinformationcampaigns,usingbibliometricindicatorstomakethecaseforOpenAccess,promotingthevisibilityandusabilityofOpenAccessmaterialandexplainingthereach(andsubsequentimpact)itcanhaveoutsideofthe‘normal’researchcommunityaudience.
  18. 18. 16SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.7.3.3.  Infrastructural aspects of implementation Well-designedinfrastructuraldevelopmentscanenhanceOpenAccess.Somenational expertsreportedthatintegratingrepositoriesonlocalandnationalbaseshadhelped OpenAccessintheirMS.Portugalisagoodexampleofthis,withthebuildingofanational harvestertriggeringactivityinabottom-upfashionatinstitutionalrepositorylevel. 1.7.3.4.  Funding FundingearmarkedforOpenAccessandpreservationdevelopmentscanbeimportant. Bothinfrastructureandadvocacyrequiresomefinancialsupport. 1.7.3.5.  Collaborative approaches ThepartnershipcreatedbytheFP7projectOpenAIREwasmentionedasacontributory factorinenhancingOpenAccessinonedelegate’scase. 1.7.4. The results, impacts and benefits Theresults,impactsandbenefitsreportedbynationalexpertsfellintofourmaincategories –policydevelopment,culturechange,establishmentofinfrastructureandtheamassingof acorpusofOpenAccesscontent.Itwasnotable,however,thatfarfewernationalexperts reportedanythinginthissessionthanforthebottlenecksandkeysuccessfactors. 1.7.4.1.  Policy development TwonationalexpertsreportednationalpoliciesonOpenAccessforthesesandone reportedthesuccessfulcoordinationofOpenAccesspolicieswithintheircountry. 1.7.4.2.  Culture change Examplesofculturechangegivenwere:instigatinganOpenAccessawarenesscourse, determiningthroughastudythat55%ofjournalarticlespublishedbyDanishresearchers arepublishedin‘Green’journals(thatis,thepublisherallowsthemtobearchivedinOpen Accessrepositories);andachievingsomesuccessinchangingthebehaviourandattitudes ofresearcherstowardsOpenAccess. 1.7.4.3.  Infrastructure Infrastructuredevelopmentswereaboutestablishingnationalrepositorysystems, includingthenationalharvestingrepositoriesinIrelandandPortugal.
  19. 19. SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP  171.8  Suggestions for concrete actions TheseconddayoftheWorkshopbeganwithaProActionCafésessiontoreflectuponwhathadhappenedthusfarandforindividualstoidentifyparticulartopicsthattheyconsideredworthyofexploringtopromoteOpenAccessandpreservationinEurope.Eighttopicswereoffered: • Preservationofscientificinformationandexperimentaldata • HowOpenAccesscanmakeknowledgemoreconnectedandaccessible • Publisherrelationsandnegotiations • MeasuringOpenAccessoutputsandcreatingevidenceofthebenefitsofOpen Access • NationalpoliciesonOpenAccess • Makingrepositoriesuser/researcher-friendly • Openaccessimpactindicatorsasareplacementforexistingresearchbibliometric systems • LinkingEuropeanandnationallevelsParticipantsusedtheWorldCaféformattodiscussthesetopics.Topicleadersremainedatatableandthreeotherpeoplejoinedthediscussionforaperiod,movingontoothertablesattheendofeachperiod.Thetopicleadermadenotesofthekeyinsightsarisinginthesediscussionsandproducedashortoverviewdetailingthemainpointsthatarose,whichtheypresentedtothewholegroup.Asummaryofthesemainpointsforeachtopicfollows:1.8.1. Preservation of scientific information and experimental dataTechnicalbottlenecksshouldnotbeallowedtohinderpreservationandpreservationsolutionsshouldbebasedonopensourcesoftware • Optimalpreservationsolutionswillvaryaccordingtoresearchdiscipline • ThereneedstobeaEuropeandimension(EuropeanStorageInfrastructure)tolink nationalrepositoryinfrastructures • AFederationofPreservationshouldbeestablishedonaEuropeanscaletoenable nationalarchivestoworktogetherincommonaim,withmirrorsitesestablishedto ensuresafecustodyofdataBox 1: Next steps on preservation of scientific information and experimental data include: • S ettingupworkingpartieswithresearchersandusersofexperimentaldata indifferentdisciplinestodefinestandards • E xplorationoftheissuesinvolvedinmigrationofdataovertimefromone formattoanother • D evelopmentofguidelinesonwhatdatatopreserves,forhowlong,where andhow
  20. 20. 18SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.8.2. How Open Access can make knowledge more connected and accessible Therearebothculturalandscientific/technicalissuesatstakehere.Culturalaspects includelegalpracticeandincentivesforbothauthorsandpublisherstochangetheirown practicesandnormstoembraceOpenAccess.Scientific/technicalissuesincludemetadata standards,technologiesforextractionandautomaticcreationofmetadata,bettersearch capabilities(using,forexample,naturallanguagequerying),andtheestablishmentof infrastructureforrepresentingandpreservinglargevolumesofresearchdata. Box 2: Next steps on how Open Access can make knowledge more connected and accessible: • DevelopincentivesforresearcherstomaketheirworkOpenAccess • Investigatestandardsforgood,cleanmetadata(includinglinkingtoother datasets) • Clarifylegalissuesrelatedtolinking,sharingandre-usingOpenAccess content • Educateallconstituenciesaboutthenewparadigmsofresearch communication 1.8.3. Publisher relations and negotiations Thereshouldbetransparencyoverpricenegotiationswithpublishers,withinformation postedontheWeb.Thediscussionconcludedthatsomepublishersareinnovativeand forward-looking,andthesecouldbenurturedandencouragedandpromotedwherever possible.Alternative,viableandsustainablepublishingbusinessmodelsthatallowOpen Accesscanbedeveloped,andtheseshouldbeexplored,especiallywithlearnedsocieties. TherewasasuggestionforacommonEuropeanapproachinnegotiatingwithpublishers. Box 3: Next steps on publisher relations and negotiations include: • Creatingawebsitedocumentingthestateofplayforeachpublisherwith respecttoOpenAccess.Thisneedstobekeptuptodate • Astudyshouldcollectinformationonnewbusinessmodelsforpublishers • TheCommissionshouldorganiseaworkshoponrelationsanddealingswith publishers • T hereshouldbenationalandEuropean-levelprojectsinassociationwith innovativepublishersinordertopromotethesepublishersandtheirwork • W orkshouldbeginwithlearnedsocietypublishers • D GCompetitionshouldexaminewhethertheacademicpublishingindustry isactuallyamonopolysituation • A lobbyisneededtopromoteOpenAccess • A commonEuropeanapproachisneededinnegotiationswithpublishers, ratherthanthefragmentedinstitutionalornationalapproachesofthepresent
  21. 21. SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP  191.8.4. Measuring Open Access outputs and collecting evidence of the benefits of Open AccessThetraditionalacademicmeasureofimpacthasbeenthecitationofapieceofwork,buttherearemanyusersofresearchthatdon’tciteit,suchasprofessionals,practitionersandbusinessusers.New,additionalmetricsareneededtomeasureandreflectthebiggerworthandutilityofresearch.Measuresthatcouldbeimportantare:For researchers:mediacoverageandusagemetricsFor institutions:economicefficienciesofOpenAccess,usagemetrics,mediacoverage,enhancementofinterdisciplinaryresearchbyOpenAccessFor governments and national research funders: usage metrics, media coverage,compliancewithpolicies,enhancementofinterdisciplinaryresearchbyOpenAccess,costpercitation,costperuseFor society at large:publicsurveys,citizeneducation,qualityofmediareportingBox 4: Next steps on Measuring Open Access outputs and creating evidence of the benefits of Open Access include: • E xplorationofthescopeofindicatorsthatcouldbeusefultodifferent constituencies • S copingstudytoprovideanoutlineofwhatworkisnecessarytodevelop them1.8.5. National policies on Open AccessTherewasnoagreeddecisionaboutwhethernationalpoliciesareneededornot.Somepeoplearguedthatabottom-upapproachismosteffective,butothersholdthatanationalpolicyisessentialsothatatop-downinfluencehelpsthebottom-upinitiatives.Theadvantageofanationalapproachisthatnationalauthoritiesareusuallyneededforinvolvementwithlegalissues,copyrightandinnegotiationswithpublishers.Withrespecttopreservation,anational-levelapproachishighlydesirabletopreserveculturalheritageandtoputinplacepropersystemsforpreservingscientificresearchmaterialinthelongterm.Box 5: Next steps on National policies on Open Access include: • C onsiderationofwhethertheCommissionshouldissueguidelineson developmentofnationalpolicies:thesewouldcoverbestpractice,practical issues,samplecontracts
  22. 22. 20SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 1.8.6. Making repositories user/researcher-friendly Atissueisthefactthatmostrepositoriesarehalf-emptyandoftenhavepoorquality metadata.NationalCRISsarebeingbuiltwithOAIcompliance,whichshouldaddvalueto thesesystems. Box 6: Next steps on making repositories user/researcher-friendly include: • CreateamoreefficientbusinessmodelforlinkingrepositoriesandCRISs Europe-wide • Setstandardsonplatformsandinteroperability,withtheneedfor researcherstodeposittheirarticlesonlyonce 1.8.7. Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing research bibliometric systems The most-used bibliometric indicator systems (e.g. Web of Science, Scopus) are commercial,paid-forservicesthatarenotavailabletoallandwhichcreatedataonly foraproportionoftheworld’sresearchliterature.Newcitationservicesworkingon OpenAccesscontentwouldencourageresearcherstomaketheirworkOpenAccessand convinceadministratorsthatOpenAccesscanbeusefulinresearchassessmentand monitoring. Box 7: Next steps on Open Access impact indicators as a replacement for existing research bibliometric systems include: • Lookatthetechnicalchallengesthissuggestionpresents • Explorethepossibilityofdigitalobjectidentifiers(DOIs)beingusedforall digitalobjects,includingdatasetsandcomponentsofcomplexobjects
  23. 23. SECTION ONE: THE WORKSHOP  211.8.8. Linking European and national levelsTherearedefinedrelationshipsbetweentheCommission,theCouncilandMS,includingpossibleresponsesofMStoCommissionguidelines.DoMSneedguidanceonOpenAccessandpreservation?AttheleastthereisaneedtochangethinkingatMSlevel.Box 8: Next steps on linking European and national levels include: • T heCommissioncouldcoordinate,guideandname-and-shameinorderto createacommonunderstandinganddriveprogress • T heCommissionshoulddevelopaformalOpenAccessplan • O napracticallevel,theCommissionshouldimposeOpenAccessasa criterionforFPproposals1.9  Priorities for the recommended actionsThefinalsessionoftheWorkshopfocusedononequestion:What elements should bepart of an action plan for Open Access and preservation in Europe?Thenationalexpertssuggestedactionareasandthesewerecollectedonamindmap.Nationalexpertswerethengivenfivevotestocastfortheactionareastheyconsideredofgreatestpriority.TheoutcomeisshowninTable1.
  24. 24. 22SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Table 1: Assignment of priority by national experts for action points developed in discussion Votes cast Action point in favour DevelopmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess 13 Fundingforinfrastructuraldevelopments 12 CreationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent(usagemeasures,successstories, 9 mediaimpact,citationimpact,etc) Makingthe‘Green’routetoopenAccess(throughrepositories)mandatory 8 Exploration of copyright laws in EU states with a view to recommending 8 modificationorcreatinganewlawonacademicresearchoutputs(whicharenot thesameasmusicandothercreativeoutputs)tosupportorpermitOpenAccess Revisitagreementswithpublisherstoachievepricetransparency,re-negotiateBig 8 Dealsandimprovetheproportionofpublishersthatallow‘Green’self-archivingin repositories Investmentine-researchinfrastructuresinEurope,especiallythosethatsupportthe 8 developmentoftheOpenDataagenda InvestmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData 6 Supportforcoordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupporting 5 actionsforOpenAccess InvestigationofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccess(includingusing 5 opensourcetechnologiesandafocusonaddingvalue) Supportfurtherawareness-raisingactivities 5 Developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,andinstitutionallevelacrossEurope 4 Developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs 3 Developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasetheamountof 2 OpenAccesscontent DevelopmentofindicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess 1 Identificationofexistinginitiativesandbuildinguponthem 1 Fundworkondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term 1 DevelopmentoftoolstosupportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccess 0 collections Encouragesharingofgoodpractices 0
  25. 25. Section TWO:Discussion of the outcomes
  26. 26. 24SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE ThissectiondiscussestherecommendedactionpointsoftheWorkshopinthecontext ofwhatalreadyexistsorisbeingdeveloped,andisdevelopedherebytheRapporteurfor theWorkshop.TheactionpointsrecommendedbytheWorkshopnationalexpertsare groupedunderaseriesofheadingsbelowfordiscussion.Todrawthingstogether,the actionpointshavebeengroupedinawaythatalignswiththeKey Success Factors (see Section1.7.3)thatweredistilledfromthefirstdayoftheWorkshopproceedings(these were:OApolicies,advocacyandculturalchange,infrastructure,fundingandcollaborative approaches).Theactionpointheadingswere: • Stakeholderengagement/involvement(advocacy) • Top-levelengagementandsupport(policydevelopment) • Collaborationsandpartnerships(coordination) • Implementationandmanifestations(infrastructure) Itisunsurprisingthatthedevelopmentofpoliciesandstakeholderengagementappeared astwokeyissuesfromdiscussionsonthefirstdayoftheWorkshop.Worldwide,these twoissuesarealsoattheforefrontofOpenAccessadvancesandEuropeannationswould notbeexpectedtobeanydifferent.Therearenearing200mandatoryOpenAccess policiescoveringjournalarticlesandconferencepapersaroundtheworld,andafurther 70+coveringmaster’sanddoctoraltheses.EUmemberStatesaccountforthegreater proportionofthesepolicies,anditiscorrecttosaythatEUnationshaveledtheway inthisrespect,forbothfunderandinstitutionalmandates.PoliciesfromtheEuropean CommissionandtheEuropeanResearchCouncilhavehelpedraiseawarenessingeneral, thoughmonitoringandfollow-upofthesepolicieshavestilltotakeplacesothattheir impactcanbeassessed. ThisrelativelyhighlevelofpolicydevelopmentdoesnotmeanthatOpenAccessis achievedintheEuropeanUnion,though.AstheWorkshopitself,theresponsetothe CRESTsurvey,andinformalmonitoringbyOpenAccesscommunityplayershaveshown, thereisstillmuchtodo.TheproportionofglobalresearchoutputsthataremadeOpen Accesshoversnowaround20%(Björket al,2010),uponly5%inthelastfiveyears.Possibly, theEuropeanUnionfigureishigherthanthisglobalaverage(ithasneverbeenmeasured), thoughitisextremelyunlikelytobemorethan25-35%.Mandatorypoliciesdosucceedin raisingthepercentagewell,achievingover50%insomecases(forexample,Universityof Minho,thefirstEuropeanUnionuniversitywithamandatoryOpenAccesspolicy,andthe London-basedWellcomeTrust,thefirstresearchfunderwithamandatorypolicy). Stakeholderengagementisanessentialpartofpolicydevelopment,ofcourse,and gettingtheattentionofpolicymakershasbeensuccessfullyachievedin,now,hundreds ofcases.ButtherearethousandsofuniversitiesandresearchinstitutesintheEU,and manyhundredsofresearchfundingagenciesthathavenotsofarengagedwiththe issueofOpenAccess.TheEuropeanUniversityAssociation’sRecommendationsonOpen Access(2009)tooktheissuetonearly800research-baseduniversitiesacrossEurope. Nonetheless,policieswerenotforthcomingasaresult.Attheinstitutionallevel,aswell asatfunderlevel,moreneedstobedone. Ininfrastructuralterms,theEUisdoingwell.Severalcountrieshavecreatedcoherent nationalnetworkedrepositoryinfrastructures,sometimeswithanational‘shopwindow’
  27. 27. SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES   25frontingthem.Infrastructurecanmeansofterthingstoo,though.Forexample,TheNetherlandshasestablishedanationalauthoridentifierschemesothateveryresearcherinDutchuniversitiesnowhasauniqueidentity,enablinghisorherworkandoutputstobediscriminatedfromthatofotherswhomightbearthesamename2.Thisisanimportantstepforwardincreatingareallyworkable,usableresearchenvironmentforthedigitalage.ThedevelopmentofatechnologythatallowsdepositintomultiplerepositorieswithasingleinputhasbeendevelopedintheUK3andthiseasestheproblemforauthorswish,orarerequiredasaresultofbeingundermorethanonemandatorypolicy,todeposittheirpapersinmultiplecollections.Theyneedonlydepositinoneplaceandtheitemisthencopiedintootherlocationsbymachineprocesses.TherearemanyotherexampleswhereEuropeandevelopmentsareleadingthewayforOpenAccessbutatthesametimethegoalofhavingallEuropeanoutputsfrompublicly-fundedresearchremainselusive.TheWorkshopwentontodebateanddiscusswhatconcreteactionstheCommissionmighttaketofurtherthisaim.2.1  Stakeholder engagement / involvement (advocacy)Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare: • CreationofnewmetricsforOpenAccesscontent(usagemeasures,successstories, mediaimpact,citationimpact,etc) • DevelopmentofindicatorstodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccess • Supportfurtherawareness-raisingactivities • Developmentofincentivesforauthorsandpublisherstoincreasetheamountof OpenAccesscontent • EncouragesharingofgoodpracticesResearch metricsSomedevelopmentsontheissueofmetrics–whichthemselvesactasanincentiveforauthorsandpublisherstoembraceOpenAccess–arealreadyunderway.ThedevelopmentofnewresearchmetricsisthesubjectofacurrentFP7CallandthereisaprojectinprocessatthemomentintheUSandCanadatodevelopnewmetricsthatapplytoOpenAccessmonographsandoneoncitationanalysis.Inaddition,someplayersare,individually,introducingnewimpactmeasuresthathelptoincentiviseauthorsandreaders.OneexampleisPLoSONE,publishedbythePublicLibraryofScience,whichhasintroducedarangeofarticle-levelmetricsthatgiveauthorsfarmoreinformationabouthowtheirworkisbeingusedthanisprovidedbyanysubscription-basedjournal.AconsiderablenumberofprojectsandserviceshaveorarebeingplannedtoprovidewaysofassessingresearchthroughuseoftheOpenAccesscorpusinrepositories(seeBox92 h ttp://www.surffoundation.nl/en/themas/openonderzoek/infrastructuur/Pages/ digitalauthoridentifierdai.aspx3 S WORD(SimpleWeb-serviceOfferingRepositoryDeposit)http://swordapp.org/
  28. 28. 26SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE below)andnewmetricsforassessingtheperformanceofrepositorieshavealsobeen proposed(Cassella,2010). Box 9: Resources on research metrics Overviewsofresearchmetricsdevelopedsofar: • OpenAccessScholarlyInformationSourcebook:Researchmetrics • Newmetricsforresearchoutputs:overviewofthemainissues.(2008) • U sagereportingandmetrics:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projects anddevelopments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • P restigeandprofilingmetrics:listofresearchandresearchprofilingand assessmentservices(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) Indicators of Open Access benefits BenefitsfromOpenAccessaccruepotentiallytoanumberofstakeholders.Theresearch communityistheobviousone,butoutsidethisaretheprofessionalandpractitioner communitieswhoseworkisalsodependentupontheoutcomesoftheresearchcarried outinpublicly-fundeduniversitiesandresearchinstitutes.Thesecondaryandtertiary educationcommunities,sciencemediaandmembersofthepublicatlarge(‘othercurious minds’,astheBudapestOpenAccessInitiativeputit 4)arealsopotentialbeneficiaries.In all,accesstotheknowledgethatisbeingcreatedusingpublicmoneycanhelptocreatea well-informedpopulaceandbuildtheKnowledgeSociety. EarlyworktodemonstratethebenefitsofOpenAccessoutsideoftheresearchcommunity isgoingoninthisarea.Twostudieshavelookedatlevelsofaccesstoresearchinformation forSMEs(Ware,2009;Swan,2008)andfoundthemlessthansatisfactory:atleasttwo furtherstudiesarecurrentlyunderwayonthebenefitofaccesstoresearchoutputsfor SMEsandthesewillreportinthefirsthalfof2011. MeasurementofbenefitsfromOpenAccesstootherstakeholdercommunitiesisvery importantbutisnotyetbeingcarriedout.Norhaveanygoodindicatorsofbenefittoany stakeholdergroupyetbeendeveloped.Thefirststepistoachieveabetterunderstanding oftherelevanceandpotentialbenefitofaccesstoresearchoutputsbythedifferent stakeholdercommunities;thesecondstepistodevelopappropriateindicators(asmanyas possible),acknowledgingthatsomeofthesemaybemeasuringverylong-termoutcomes. Open Access advocacy AlthoughmucheffortcontinuestogointoOpenAccessadvocacyworkaroundtheworld, itisstillthecasethatresearchersandpolicymakersremainlargelyunawareoftheconcept and,eveniftheyclaimtobeaware,theydemonstratehighlevelsofignoranceand 4 http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
  29. 29. SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES   27misunderstanding5.Someofthismaybeduetoincorrectinformationeitherinnocentlyorwilfullyprovidedtothem,butmostlyitisbecauseproperOAadvocacyeffortshavenotyetreachedtheirtargetcommunitieseffectively.Evenwhereaparticularcommunityhasreceivedhigh-profileinformationandguidanceontheissue,awarenessremainswoefullylow(Bardynet al,2010).ThisissuewashighlightedduringtheWorkshopandisencapsulatedintwooftheactionpointsattheheadofthissection.OneofthevaluableoutcomesoftheWorkshopwastheopportunityfornationalexpertstosharetheirexperiencesofadvocacyandrelatewhathasworkedwellandwhatnotsowell,identifyingtheproblemsanddiscussingwaystoovercomethem.FurthereventsandinitiativeswouldofferthechancetostimulatedeeperintegrationbetweenMSwithrespecttoadvocacyactivities.2.2  Top-level engagement and support (policy development)Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare: • Makingthe‘Green’routetoOpenAccess(throughrepositories)mandatory • Developmentofpoliciesatgovernment,funder,andinstitutionallevelacross Europe • ExplorationofcopyrightlawsinEUstateswithaviewtorecommending modificationorcreatinganewlawonacademicresearchoutputs(whicharenot thesameasmusicandothercreativeoutputs)tosupportorpermitOpenAccessMandatorypoliciesonOpenAccessaretheprovenkeytoengenderinghighlevelsofOpenAccesscontent(Sale,2006).Anyotherkindofpolicy,howeverpersuasive,doesnothavethesameeffect,evenwhensupportedbyintenseadvocacyandpracticalsupport.Mandatorypolicies,aswellashavinganobligatoryelement,serveasawareness-raisingtoolsthemselves,especiallywhenimplementedalongwithsupportinginformationthatreassuresandencouragesauthors.Thereisalackofawarenessaboutthechangingfaceofscholarlycommunicationonthepartofpolicymakersthemselves,however,especiallyatinstitutionallevel.Thoughthenumbersofmandatorypoliciesintroducedininstitutionshasgrownconsiderablyoverthelastfewyears6,thishasbeenachievedonlybyintenseadvocacyeffortwithininstitutionsandbyadvocacyorganisations.Governmentsandlargeresearchfunding5 A surveyofmembersofUKlearnedsocietiesbytheAssociationofLearnedandProfessionalSociety Publishers(ALPSP)foundthatmostsaidtheyknewwhatOAwasandsupportedtheideaofOA journals,whilefewknewwhattheyweretalkingabout.‘[A]lthough60%saidthattheyreadOA journalsand25%thattheypublishedinthem,inbothcasesaroundone-thirdofthejournalsnamed werenotOA.”Inaddition“lessthanhalfknewwhatself-archivingwas;36%thoughtitwasagood ideaand50%wereunsure.Justunderhalfsaidtheyusedrepositoriesofself-archivedarticles,but 13%ofreferenceswerenotinfacttoself-archivingrepositories.29%saidtheyself-archivedtheirown articles,but10%ofreferenceswerenottopubliclyaccessiblesitesofanykind.’(FromtheSPARC Open Access Newsletter, January 2011, by Peter Suber: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ newsletter/01-02-11.htm)6 http://bit.ly/dyWWaA
  30. 30. 28SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE agenciessimilarlyneedtobemademoreawareoftheissuesandimportanceofopening upscholarshiptoachievegreaterbenefitsforthewidersociety.Thisremainsamajor issuetobetackled,bothatMSandatEuropeanlevel.Europeaninfluenceintheformof enablingsomecoordinationactivitiescouldhelp,andthereisacurrentFP7Calloutfor projectsinthisarea. Action is also urgently needed from the perspective of author (and funder and institutional)rights.ActionstoenableOpenAccessandpreservationrequirethatauthors haveappropriaterights.OneofthegreatestbarrierstoachievingOpenAccessisauthor uncertaintyoverwhattheyareallowedtodowithrespecttoself-archiving.Clarification ofthesituation(forauthorsandpolicymakers)regardingrightswouldhelpenormously, particularlyregardingwhatrightstheyneedtoretaintoenableOpenAccess.AtEuropean levelamostsignificantcontributioncouldbemadeifitcouldbeensuredthatcopyright lawcannotbeoverriddenbycontractlaw.Thiswouldupholdexceptionsforscholarly outputsandachieveabetterbalancebetweentheinterestsofthepartiesconcerned.The WorkshopnationalexpertsdiscussedandcalledforanewEuropeanlawinthisareato standardisethesituationacrossMSandclarifytheissueonceandforall. 2.3  Collaborations and partnerships (coordination) Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare: • Revisitagreementswithpublisherstoachievepricetransparency,re-negotiateBig Dealsandimprovetheproportionofpublishersthatallow‘Green’self-archivingin repositories • CoordinationactivitiestosupportadvocacyandothersupportingactionsforOpen Access • Identifyexistinginitiativesandbuilduponthem • Encouragesharingofgoodpractices NegotiatingwithpublishersonpricingordealsisnotrelatedtoOpenAccesssothispoint willnotbediscussedfurtherhere. WithrespecttopublisherpermissionsforOpenAccessprovisionthroughrepositories, over60%ofjournalsallow‘Green’self-archivingofauthorpostprints(afterpeerreview) andafurther30%allowself-archivingoftheauthorpreprint(beforepeerreview)7.Yet theoverallproportionoftheliteraturethatisopenlyavailableisonlyaround20%and voluntaryself-archivingratesarenomorethanabout15%(thoughtherateishugely increasedonceaproperly-implementedmandatorypolicyisinplace).Improvementin self-archivingrateisnotpublisherpermission-dependent,therefore,butinsteadrequires changesinauthorbehaviour,policysupportand,importantly,clarificationoftheissues regarding rights (institutional, funder and author rights) with respect to scholarly informationwhichdiffersagreatdealfromothertypesofcreativeoutput.Thismatter hasbeendealtwithunderpolicydevelopment(Section3.2)above. 7 EPrintsRoMEO:Journalpolicies–summarystatistics:http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
  31. 31. SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES   29Asidefromthispoint,coordinationactivityatEuropeanlevelhasmuchpotentialbenefitinthedrivetoachieveOpenAccessandpreservationforscientificoutputs.Ontheonehand,thereisthedevelopmentofregistriesthatcollect,organiseandshareinformationabouttechnicalissuesorservicescancatalysedevelopmentsandhelpavoidduplication.TheseenhanceOpenAccessandpreservationandcontributetotheirdevelopment.Ontheotherhand,advocacyactivitiesgoonineveryMSbutlessonslearnedareoftennotshared,andthereisclearlyconsiderableduplicationofeffortthatmightbenefitfromsomecollaborativeapproaches,especiallywithrespecttothecollectionandcontributionofdatatotheevidencebase.CoordinationatrepositorylevelisnowprovidedbyCOAR(ConfederationofOpenAccessRepositories).Thereare,however,manynational-leveladvocacyprovidersinEuropethatworkmainlyinisolation.FuturesupportforactivitiesthataimtoprovidecoordinationandsupportforadvocacyworkacrossMScouldbeverybeneficialforOpenAccessandforpreservationinitiatives.Box 10: Resources on collaborative and coordination activities • R egistries:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsanddevelopments(from theInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • Repositorysupportorganisations:Listoforganisationsandgroups(fromthe InternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject)2.4  Implementation and manifestations (infrastructure)Theactionpointsfallingunderthisheadingare: • DevelopmentofstandardsforallaspectsofOpenAccess • Fundingforinfrastructuraldevelopments • Investmentine-researchinfrastructuresinEurope,especiallythosethatsupport thedevelopmentoftheOpenDataagenda • InvestmoreeffortindevelopmentoftechnologiesandenablersofOpenData • Developtechnicalinfrastructuretosupportpreservationofresearchoutputs • Fundworkondataandmetadatacurationforthelong-term • DevelopmentoftoolstosupportdepositandcurationofcontentinOpenAccess collections • InvestigationofnewbusinessmodelsapplicabletoOpenAccess(includingusing opensourcetechnologiesandafocusonaddingvalue)Standards and infrastructureStandardsenableinteroperabilityandareessentialforOpenAccesstobeimplementedeffectively.Therehasalreadybeenprogressinthisarea.OAI-PMHandtheDublinCoremetadatastandardunderpintheinteroperabilityofOpenAccessrepositories.Asetof

×