Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe

on

  • 1,710 views

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 ...

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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,710
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
1,710
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe Knowledge sharing: OA and preservation in Europe Document Transcript

    • Sharing knowledge: open access and preservation in Europe Conclusions of a strategic workshop - Brussels, 25-26 November 2010ReseaRch & InnovatIon POLICY
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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
    • 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
    • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • Section ONE: The workshop
    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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/
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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
    • Section TWO:Discussion of the outcomes
    • 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’
    • 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/
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 30SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE de factostandardswithwhichOpenAccessjournalsmustcomplyhasbeendevelopedby OASPA. Enablinginfrastructuresalsoencompassissueslikepersistentidentifiers(forresearchers, researchoutputs,institutions).Alotofworkhasalreadygoneonintheseareas(seeBox 11below). With respect to e-research, Europe is well-advanced, thanks to the ambitious e-infrastructuresprogrammeinFP7fundingandcoordinatingthedevelopmentof internationally-competitiveinfrastructures8.Thesehavenotnecessarilybeendeveloped withtheissueofOpenDatatothefore,however,andadditionalthinkingmustbedoneto connecttheprovisionofplannedandexistinginfrastructurestotheneedsoftheresearch communityforfreelyaccessibledata. WhiletheoriginaldefinitionofOpenAccessreferredtothescholarlyliterature,researchhas subsequentlybecomemoredata-intensiveanddatasets(betheynumerical,graphical,audio orvideofiles,etc)arenowtheobjectofadriveforopenaccessibility,too–OpenData.There arealreadymanypoliciesfromresearchfundingagencies9coveringtheaccessibilityofdata createdduringworktheyhavefunded,andthenumberisexpectedtocontinuetogrow. Policiessupportculturechangeandthedevelopmentofgoodpractices,buttomaximise usefulnessofOpenData,datasetsmustbefindable,citableandavailableinthelongterm. Someinitiativeshavebeendevelopingaroundtheseissues,suchasmechanismstoenable theidentificationandcitingofdatasets(forexample,DataCite),onrightsofaccessto andre-useofdata(forexample,theOpenKnowledgeFoundation’sguides)andon preservationofresearchdataforthelongertermatinstitutionalandnationallevel(for example,theKeepingResearchDataSafeprojects).SomuchworkhasbeendoneonOpen Data-relatedtopicsoverthelast2-3yearsthatareasonableoverviewisoutofscopehere: thatinitselfindicatesthatworktocollateanddistilinformationaboutdevelopmentsand directionsinthisfieldwouldbeuseful. Furtherworkintheareasofinfrastructureandstandardswillbenecessary,butwhat maynotbecleartoallistheextentofachievementssofarandhowMSmightusethese todevelopOpenAccessandpreservationactivitiesmosteffectively.Here,coordinating activitiesatEuropeanUnionlevelcouldbebeneficial.Whatismissingistheeffective joining-upofaratherfragmentedsystem:thereareinitiativesthataimtolinkdataand journalarticles,dataandrepositories,andrepositoriesandjournals.Butthesearebeing executedinpiecemealfashionwithlittleornocoordination.Thiscanmeanduplication ofeffortormissedopportunitiestoexploitsynergies.Data-drivenand‘liquid’publication may be the best opportunities to make progress on this issue as they will require connectionsacrossinfrastructuralcomponentsofthesystem. 8 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/ 9 http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/
    • SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES   31PreservationPreservationissomethingthathaslargelyfallentonationallibrariesorothersimilarnational-level organisations to tackle, though there are significant players on aninternationalscale,too.Whilesomeacademicpublishershavecommendablytakenstepstoenterintoarrangementswithnationallibraries(e.g.Elsevier’se-archivingarrangementwiththeRoyalLibraryinTheNetherlands),thesearefew,andpreservationisanywayamatterbestconfrontedinternationally.SomenotableinitiativesintheareaofpreservationincludetheDigitalCurationCentreintheUK(whichspecialisesinresearchdata),DigitalPreservationEurope,theNationalDigitalInformationandInfrastructurePreservationProgram(USA),andtheInternetArchive.Preservationmetadataisanotherareathathasreceivedconsiderableattentionalready(seepreservationresourceslinkinBox11fordetails).Standardshavebeendevelopedfortextualinformationatleast,thoughmoreworkwillbeneededinthecaseofdatainsomedisciplines.Researcharticlesarecurrentlypreservedbypublishers,libraries,e-journalarchivinginfrastructuressuchasCLOCKSS(ControlledLOCKSS)andrepositories.Digitaldatasetsarepreservedbyamyriadofplayersfromthelargeinternationaldatabanksthroughnationaldatacentres,disciplinarydatacollections,institutionsandsub-institutionalentitiesdowntoindividualresearchersortheirgroups.Someofthisdatapreservationiswell-organisedandresultsinatrustedprovisionbutthisisnotthecaseoverall.TheestablishmentoftheOpenPlanetsFoundation(whichgrewoutofthePlanetsproject)hasgonealongwayintakingacoordinatingroleandofferingtoolsandmethodologiesforbestpracticewiththedevelopmentofaglobalviewandapproachtopreservationofdigitalinformation.Suchinitiativesmayhavearoleinhelpinguniversitiestotakeresponsibilityforpreservingresearchinformationintheirownsphere.Thetechnicalinfrastructureforpreservationofbothresearcharticlesanddataisbeingassembled,then,butthereremainrelativelyloworunclearlevelsoftrust.Long-termaccessalsorequiresashiftinbusinessmodelsandculturalpracticesand,moreover,mustberootedinthenormsofscholarlybehaviourandthedigitaltechnologiesthatprevail:thesechange,andthatchangemustbeaccommodatedbypreservationsolutions.Workremainstobedoneinthisarea,especiallyintheareaofpolicyandlegalframeworks,andindeterminingsuitablebusinessmodels(seebelowforthistopic).Legaldepositandorphanworkslegislationarerelevanthereandneedtobesupportedbyfurtherareasofexceptionifacademicresearchistobeproperlyandfullypreserved.Jurisdictionaldifferenceswillneedtobeaddressedinthiscontext.Deposit and curation of Open Access collectionsThereisnodoubtthateasingtheprocessofdepositwillhelptoovercomeresearchers’reluctancetoself-archivetheiroutputs.Enteringmetadataintoarepositorydepositsystemistime-consuming(thoughnotasmuchasisbelievedbythosewhohavenevertried(Carr,Harnad&Swan,2007))andfarlessinterestingthangettingonwiththeresearchitself.Requiringresearcherstodepositonceisaburdentheycanjustaboutbear
    • 32SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE iftheyareconvincedofthemeritsofdoingso:requiringthemtodepositthesameitem morethanonceismostunwiseandcandamagethecauseofOpenAccess.Anumberof projectshaveaddressedthisissueofmultipledepositandsometechnologieshavebeen developedthatenablerepository-to-repositoryexchangeofcontent. Theearlierworkinthisareawasmostlyforpreservationpurposes,butmorerecentwork hasappliedtodepositofnewscholarlycontent.Examplesarethedevelopmentofthe SWORDprotocol10,enhancementsofthat11,andtechnologiesthatcanstreammetadata frominstitutionalrepositoriestoappropriatedisciplinaryorsubject-basedrepositories andvice versa12.SONEX(ScholarlyOutputNotificationAndExchange)isbuildingonthis workbyidentifyingandanalysingdepositusecases13. Alliedtodepositistheissueofhigher-levelcollectionandpresentationofOpenAccess content.AnewinitiativeinthisregardisOpenAIRE,therepositorybuilttocollectthe outputsfromFP7andfutureFrameworkProgrammeresearchprogrammes.OpenAIRE willcollectcontentbyharvestingfromlocalrepositories(inuniversitiesandresearch institutes),theoptimalarrangementforanationalorinternationalshowcase(Swanet al, 2005).Thismeansthatinstitutionalcollectionsbenefitfromthelocaldepositofmaterial andharvestingfornationalorinternationalservicescanthenbecarriedout.National repositorieshavebeenbuiltonthispatterninmanyEUstates,includingIreland,Spain andtheNetherlands. Business models Ingeneral,existing(‘traditional’)businessmodelsforaccessandpreservationofscholarly contentdonotalignwellwiththeimperativeforOpenAccess.Itcanbearguedthat realignmentisessentialintheinterestsofEuropeanresearch,commerceandsociety. Certainlythe‘InnovationUnion’cannotbeachievedwithouttrueOpenAccesstoscientific information.WherestructuresandpracticesarenowinplacetosupportOpenAccess andrelatedprinciples,theyaretoofrequentlyonthebasisofprojectsorservicesthat arereliantonshort-termfunding,withnosustainablebusinessmodeltoensurelong- termviability.Newthinkingisneededinthisarea,basedontheprinciplethataccessand preservationareintegralelementsoftheresearchprocessinwhichpublicinterestis significant,andnotanoptionalextrafundedpatchilyandwithoutcoordinatedplanning. 10 h  ttp://swordapp.org/SWORDdevelopedastandarddepositinterfaceandthemechanismtodeposit tomultiplelocations 11 Forexample,EasyDeposit:http://easydeposit.swordapp.org/ 12 F  orexample,Open-Access-Fachrepositorien:http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/bibliothek/projekte/ open-access-fachrepositorien.html 13 http://sonexworkgroup.blogspot.com/
    • SECTION TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE OUTCOMES   33Box 11: Resources on digital preservation • P  ersistentidentifiers:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • A  uthoridentifiers:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • I nstitutionidentifiers:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • R  epositoryharvestingsystems:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • P  reservation:listofexistinginitiatives,studies,projectsand developments(fromtheInternationalRepositoryInfrastructuresProject) • JISC’sdigitalpreservationprogramme:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/preservation
    • Section THREE: Recommendations
    • 36SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE TheserecommendationshavebeendevelopedbytheRapporteurfromthediscussionsat theWorkshop.ThestructureofthissectionprimarilyfollowsthatofSection2(discussion oftheoutcomesoftheWorkshop)ofthereport,thoughthereisnotaseparatesection hereforcoordinationactivities.Instead,coordinationactivitiesarerecommendedunder variousheadingsbelow,sincecoordinationapproachesarecross-cuttinginnature. 3.1  Advocacy Coordinationofadvocacyeffortscouldsupportandimprovetheeffectivenessofthe currentMS-levelefforts.TheWorkshopwasagoodfirststep,bringingtogethernational expertsandEUofficialstoshare,learnanddevelopnetworks.Improvedadvocacyin Europecouldresultfromtwothings–coordinationofexistingefforts,andUnion-wide advocacyonaplannedbasiswithcleartargetsandgoals. Recommendation 1: BuildonwhatwasachievedbytheWorkshoptostrengthenthe nascentnetworkandenableandencouragefurtherinteractionsandcollaborations (coordination) Recommendation 2:Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtodevelopadvocacy programmesacrosstheUnion Recommendation 3: Fundthedevelopmentofindicatorsthatbetterassessscientific progressandmeasurethebenefittostakeholdercommunitiesacrosssociety 3.2  Policy Policy development is slow because policymakers are not sufficiently alert to the importanceofOpenAccess.Whereithappensitisinpiecemealfashion.Allthosewith alegitimateinterestinscientificinformation(universities,researchinstitutions,research fundingagencies,governments)havearesponsibilitytodevelop,fundandimplement coordinatedpolicestoenableOpenAccessandpreservation. Recommendation 4: EnablecoordinationofpolicyatEuropeanlevel Recommendation 5:Encourageandsupportinitiativesthataimtoincreaseawarenessand understandingoftheissuesaroundOpenAccessandpreservationatpolicymakerlevels 3.3  Rights AppropriaterightsarerequiredtoenableOpenAccessandpreservationbutthecurrent situationisunclearorevenprohibitive.Stakeholdersneedtobebetterappraisedof theissues:Europeancoordinationonclarifyingandagreeingtherightsrequiredwould providethemostelegantsolution.
    • SECTION THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS  37Recommendation 6:Informandencourageauthorsandinstitutions(andfunderswhereappropriate)toretaintherightsthatarenecessarytoprovideOpenAccessandenableadequatepreservationofscientificoutputsRecommendation 7:Enableasharedunderstandingacrossallstakeholders(researchers,institutions,funders,librariesandpublishers)ofthelegalterminologyandconceptsinvolved3.4  InfrastructureWhilemanyelementsoftheinfrastructureneededforaccesstoandpreservationofscientificinformationarenowinplace,theoverallpictureremainsfragmented.MS-levelinitiativescanbecomplementedandenhancedbyEuropeancoordination,withtheaddedadvantageofpotentialsavingsinexpenditure.Recommendation 8: Build upon the investment in OpenAIRE by further enablingcoordinateddevelopmentsthatjoinupemerginginfrastructurestomaximumeffect3.5  Business modelsCurrently,manyofthecomponents–theinfrastructureinitswidestsense,includingservicesandtechnologicaldevelopments–supportingandenablingOpenAccess(and,toaslightlylesserextent,preservation)arefoundedonshort-termfunding,projectfundingoronvoluntaryeffort.Sustainabilityiscriticalandmustbeaddressed.Recommendation 9:ProvideEuropean-levelguidanceandleadershiptoMSontheprincipleofthelong-termnecessityandbenefitofaccesstoandpreservationofscientificinformationRecommendation 10:Examinethelong-termprospectsfortheinfrastructuralbasisforOpenAccesssofardevelopedinEurope.Assessthisinthecontextofcreatingacoordinated,viable,sustainablesystemthatwillenablethecreationoftheInnovationUnionoverthenext15years
    • 38SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE References Bardyn,T,Brennan,M,Camp,PP,Carter,J,andFarb,S(2010)MeasuringCapacityand EffectivenessofNIHPublicAccessPolicyProgrammingasaModelforOpenAccess. PresentationattheEvidenceBasedScholarlyCommunicationConference,March11-12, 2010,inAlbuquerque,USA. http://repository.unm.edu/bitstream/handle/1928/11002/Bardyn_ EBSCC2010BardynPaperSlides%20corrected.pdf?sequence=1 Björk,B-C,Welling,P,Laakso,M,Majlender,P,Hedlund,TandGudnasson,G(2010). OpenAccesstotheScientificJournalLiterature:Situation2009.PloSOne,23.6.2010.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 Carr,L.,Harnad,S.andSwan,A.(2007)ALongitudinalStudyofthePracticeofSelf- Archiving.http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13906/ Cassella,M(2010)InstitutionalRepositories:aninternalandexternalperspectiveonthe valueofIRsforresearchers’communities.Liber Quarterly 20(2),October2010. http://liber.library.uu.nl/ CounciloftheEuropeanUnion(2007)CouncilConclusionsonscientificinformationin thedigitalage:access,disseminationandpreservation.2832nd COMPETITIVENESS (Internal market, Industry and Research) Council meeting, Brussels, 22 and 23 November 2007. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/intm/97236.pdf EuroHORCsandtheEuropeanScienceFoundation(2008)Visiononagloballycompetitive EuropeanResearchAreaandroadmapforactionstohelpbuildit.http://eurohorcs.drift. senselogic.se/download/18.45b270a411a9ed8e12780003647/EUROHORCs_ESF_ERA_ RoadMap.pdf EuropeanCommission(2006)Studyontheeconomicandtechnicalevolutionofthe scientificmarketsinEurope. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf EuropeanCommission(2007a)CommunicationonScientificInformationintheDigital Age:Access,DisseminationandPreservation. http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ ylt=A0oG7h8.U49NSEQAEsxXNyoA;_ ylu=X3oDMTB yMTNuNTZzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG =13kfjh01f/ EXP=1301267390/**http%3a//ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/ pdf_06/communication-022007_en.pdf EuropeanCommission(2007b)GreenPaperontheEuropeanResearchArea. EuropeanUniversityAssociation(2008)RecommendationsfromtheEUAWorkingGroup onOpenAccess. http://www.eua.be/eua-work-and-policy-area/research-and-innovation/open-access/
    • REFERENCES  39Houghton,J.,Steele,C.andSheehan,P.2006.ResearchCommunicationCostsinAustralia:EmergingOpportunitiesandBenefits,ReporttotheDepartmentofEducation,ScienceandTraining,Canberra.http://dspace.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/44485Houghton,J.W.,Rasmussen,B.,Sheehan,P.J.,Oppenheim,C.,Morris,A.,Creaser,C.,Greenwood,H.,Summers,M.andGourlay,A.(2009)EconomicImplicationsofAlternativeScholarlyPublishingModels:ExploringtheCostsandBenefits,ReporttoTheJointInformationSystemsCommittee(JISC).http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/Houghton,JohnandSheehan,Peter(2006)TheEconomicImpactofEnhancedAccesstoResearchFindings.CSESWorkingPaperNo.23,VictoriaUniversity,Melbourne(August2006).http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp23.pdfHoughton,JohnandSheehan,Peter(2009)EstimatingthePotentialImpactsofOpenAccesstoResearchFindings.EconomicAnalysis&Policy.39 (1),1March.http://www.eap-journal.com/download.php?file=696http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/consultation-era_en.html#greenpaperht tp : //e c .europa.eu /research /science -so cie t y/do cument _librar y/p d f_ 06/communication-022007_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdfKnowledge Exchange (2009) Open Access – what are the economic benefits?AcomparisonoftheUnitedKingdom,NetherlandsandDenmark.http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Default.aspx?ID=316Parvan,S-V(2007)StatisticsinFocus:Scienceandtechnology,81/2007.http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-07-081/EN/KS-SF-07-081-EN.PDFSale,A(2006)‘TheAcquisitionofOpenAccessResearchArticles.’First Monday 11,no.10.http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1409Swan,A.(2008)StudyontheavailabilityofUKacademic‘greyliterature’toUKSMEs:ReporttotheJISCScholarlyCommunicationsGroup.http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17667/Swan,A.(2008)StudyontheavailabilityofUKacademic‘greyliterature’toUKSMEs.ReportfortheJISC.http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17667/Swan,A.(2010)Modellingscholarlycommunicationoptions:costsandbenefitsforuniversities. Technical Report, Scholarly Communications Group, Joint InformationSystemsCommittee.http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18584/
    • 40SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Swan,A.,Needham,P.,Probets,S.,Muir,A.,Oppenheim,C.,O’Brien,A.,Hardy,R.and Rowland,F.(2005)Delivery,ManagementandAccessModelforE-printsandOpenAccess JournalswithinFurtherandHigherEducation. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11001/ Ware,M(2009)AccessbyUKsmallandmedium-sizedenterprisestoprofessionaland academicinformation. http://www.publishingresearch.net/SMEaccess.htm Ware,M.(2009)AccessbyUKsmallandmedium-sizedenterprisestoprofessional and academic literature, Publishing Research Consortium, Bristol. http://www. publishingresearch.net/SMEaccess.htm
    • Appendices
    • 42SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE APPENDIX ONE: Workshop participants National experts: Goran Bogdanovic Ministry for Education and Research (SE) EU Bureau of the German Federal Ministry of Alexandra Burgholz Education and Research (DE) Centre for Open Electronic Publishing - CLEO Marin Dacos (FR) Elena Giglia University of Turin (IT) Iveta Gudakovska Library of the University of Latvia (LV) Fridrika Hardardottir Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (IS) Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Grete Kladakis Innovation (DK) Spanish Foundation for Science and Izaskun Lacunza Aguirrebengoa Technology (ES) Eric Laureys Federal Science Policy Office - BELSPO (BE) Wieslaw Majos Ministry of Science and Higher Education (PL) Biotechnology and Biological Sciences David McAllister Research Council (UK) Archimedes Foundation/Estonian Libraries Marika Meltsas Network Consortium (EE) Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Ana Christina Neves Education (PT) Vit Novacek DERI, National University of Ireland Galway (IE) Ministry of Education, Culture and Science Louise Perbal (NL) Žibutė Petrauskienè Vilnius University Library (LT) Paraskevi Sachini National Hellenic Research Foundation (GR) Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Peter Seitz Research (AT) Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Petra Tramte Technology (SI) Czech Liaison Office for Research and Anna Vosečková Development – CZELO (CZ) Slovak Centre of Scientific and Technical Mária Žitňanská Information (SK)
    • APPENDIX ONE: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS  43The European Commission • Jean-MichelBaer,DGRTD,AdvisortotheDirectorGeneral • Jean-FrançoisDechamp,DGRTDUnitB6 • FrancescoFusaro,DGRTDUnitB6 • GillesLaroche,DGRTDUnitB6,HeadofUnit • MatthieuKleinschmager,DGHR,UnitB3 • Alexis-MichelMugabushaka,EuropeanResearchCouncilExecutiveAgency,A.1 • TheodorePapazoglou,EuropeanResearchCouncilExecutiveAgency,A.1,HeadofUnit • JuanPelegrin,DGINFSO,UnitE4 • CarlosMoraisPires,DGINFSO,UnitF3 • CelinaRamjoué,DGRTDUnitB6 • LorenzaSaracco,DGRTD,UnitB3 • JarkkoSiren,DGINFSO,UnitF3 • EcaterinaStamate,DGRTD,UnitJ4Rapporteur:AlmaSwan,EnablingOpenScholarship(EOS)andKeyPerspectivesLtd
    • 44SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE APPENDIX TWO:  The format of the Workshop TheWorkshopemployedseveralmethodsforensuringthatparticipantswereableto shareandcontributefullyintheproceedings: Landscape:AvisualrepresentationoftheWorkshopwascreatedanddisplayedonthe wallforthedurationoftheevent.Thisrepresentationcapturedtheflowofactivities thatwasproposedfortheeventsothatnationalexpertscouldseehowtheeventwould developoverthetwodays. World Café:WorldCafésessionsinvolvednationalexpertsinsmall-group(fourpeople) conversationsaroundtablesonwhichtherewasalwaysplentyofpaperandpensto recordkeyinsightsandideas(www.theworldcafe.com). The Circle: nationalexpertssatinalargecirclewithnoobvious‘head’andwithno orderingofseating.TheCircleechoesancientandtraditionalformsofhumangathering for discussion and decision-making (www.artofhosting.org/thepractice/methods/ circlepractise/) Pro-Action Café: nationalexpertsgatherinacircleandindividualsvolunteertohost small-groupdiscussionsonaparticulartopic.Thesevolunteer‘hosts’eachremainatone ofthetablesintheWorldCafé,whileotherparticipantsmovefromtabletotable,taking theopportunitytoengageindiscussionsonaselectionoftopics.Thehostsrecordthe mainissuesarisingindiscussionsattheirowntable,forlaterreportingtothewholegroup. Check-in, Check-out: usedinthiscasesystematicallyatthebeginningandendofthe days’proceedings,thisinvolvesnationalexpertssittinginacircleandrespondingtoa keyquestionthatoneoftheleadersposes.Theaimistogatherexperiences/thoughts togetherandencouragesomeconsolidationofthinking. Collective mind map:amindmapisconstructedinrealtimeasparticipantsoffer reflections,suggestionsandideas.ItwasusedinthisWorkshopattheveryend,tocollect suggestionsforthemostimportantissues.Participantsthenvotedforthe5issuesmost importantintheirview.Thisenabledtheconstructionofanoverallrankingofprioritiesfor futureconcreteactionsonOpenAccessandpreservation.
    • APPENDIX THREE: OPEN ACCESS – THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT  45APPENDIX THREE: Open Access – The european contextThissectionwillprovideabriefoverviewofthebackgroundtotheworkshop,specifically: • Thestudyonscientificinformationinthedigitalage,2006(EuropeanCommission, 2006) • Theconferenceresultingfromthestudy,February2007 14 • TheCouncilConclusions,2007(CounciloftheEuropeanUnion,2007) • TheCREST(Comité de la recherche scientifique et technique;inEnglish:Scientificand TechnicalResearchCommittee)surveyofmembersin2008 • ThesessiononOpenAccessandpreservationintheERAconferenceonthefuture ofscienceinEurope(2009) 15Does scientific publishing work well?Becausescientificpublishingmodelsderivefromtheprint-on-paperage,thepredominantbusinessmodelissubscription-based.Mostuniversitylibrariescanaffordsubscriptionstoonlyaproportionoftheseandlackofaccessremainsamajorimpedimenttotheworkofmostresearchers,eveninresearch-intensive,developedcountries16.Interestinimprovingthesharingofscientificinformationgrewmarkedlywhen,in2004,theEuropeanCommissionembarkeduponanexaminationofthescientificpublishingmarketinEurope.In2006,theresultant‘Study on the economic and technical evolution ofthe scientific markets in Europe’(EuropeanCommission,2006)waspublished.Subsequentdebateonhowtoimproveaccessanddisseminationforscientificoutputsengagedtheresearchcommunityandotherstakeholders,includingataconferenceonthetopicinFebruary2007.Theresearchcommunitymadeitsvoiceheardatthistimeintheformof18,500signaturesgatheredinfourweeksforapetition,organisedbytheKnowledgeExchangepartnership,callingfortheCommissiontoimplementarecommendationfromtheStudythattheCommissionguaranteethatresultsfrompublicly-fundedresearchbemadepublicly-accessibleshortlyafterpublication17.Fouryearslater,thepetitioncontinuestogathersignatures[thenumberofsignatoriesinearly2011isaround28,000].TheoutcomeoftheoverallexercisewastheadoptionbytheCommissionofaCommunicationon Scientific Information in the Digital Age: Access, Dissemination and Preservation,apolicydocumentannouncingaseriesofmeasuresthatincludedexperimentingwithOpenAccess14 E  uropeanCommissionpressrelease:Scientificinformationinthedigitalage:Ensuringcurrentand futureaccessforresearchandinnovationhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference= IP/07/190&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en15 h  ttp://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2009/era2009/index_en.htm16 ‘ …manyresearchersareencounteringdifficultiesingettingaccesstothecontenttheyneedandthat thisishavingasignificantimpactontheirresearch.’Press Release: Overcoming barriers,Research InformationNetwork,London(2009).Availablehttp://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing- information-resources/overcoming-barriers-access-research-information.Seealsothefullreport: http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Sarah/Overcoming-barriers-report-Dec09_0.pdf17 h  ttp://www.ec-petition.eu/
    • 46SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE andfundinge-infrastructures(EuropeanCommission,2007).TheCommissionhassince enactedsomeofthemeasures.ThereisafulllistofOpenAccess-relatedactivitiesonthe Commission’swebsite18.Themeasuresincludethefundingofaseriesofprojects,including LiquidPublications19,SOAP(StudyofOpenAccessPublishing)20 ;PEER(Publishingandthe EcologyofEuropeanresearch)21 ;OAPEN22,NECOBELACandothers;amandatorypolicyon providingOpenAccessfor20%ofoutputsfromFP7-fundedresearchandthefundingofa Europeanrepositoryande-infrastructure,OpenAIRE23,tohousetheseoutputs.TheEuropean ResearchCouncil,whichwaslaunchedinearly2007witha€7.5billionbudget,hasdeveloped apolicyonOpenAccessforresearchoutputsfromtheworkitfunds. TheCommissionhasnotbeentheonlyinfluentialactor.ECdevelopmentsweretakingplace againstabackdropofpolicyactivity–boldapproaches–onthepartofresearchfundersinthe ERAandelsewhere.In2006,sixofthesevenUKresearchcouncils,theircounterpartinAustria, andAustralia’stworesearchcouncilsallintroducedmandatorypoliciesonOpenAccess. Duringthefollowingyear,14morefundersfollowedsuit,elevenoftheminERA(includingthe newly-establishedEuropeanResearchCouncil),oneinCanadaandtwointheUSincluding, notably,theNationalInstitutesofHealth,theworld’slargestresearchfundingbody. Morerecently,furtherbodieshavedeclaredtheirsupportfor,andreinforcedtheimportance of,OpenAccess,includingtheEuropeanUniversityAssociation(EuropeanUniversity Association)andEuroHORCs(EuropeanHeadsofResearchCouncils)andtheEuropean ScienceFoundation(EuroHORCsandEuropeanScienceFoundation).Therearenowat least257mandatoryOpenAccesspoliciesinforcefromresearchfunders(46policies), universitiesandresearchinstitutes(108policies)andindividualdepartments,facultiesor schoolsinresearch-basedinstitutions(29policies)24.Mandatorypoliciescoveringdoctoral andmaster’stheseshavealsobeenintroducedinsomeinstitutions(73policies). Economic issues AlongsidetheseOpenAccess-relateddevelopments,otherplayerswereconnectingaccess toscientificinformationwitheconomics.InAustralia,JohnHoughtonandhiscolleagues conductedaseriesofstudiesontheeconomicsofscholarlycommunicationandpublished resultsindicatingthatOpenAccesswouldprovidebothefficiencyimprovementsand monetarysavingsinscholarlycommunication(Houghtonet al,2006;Houghton& Sheehan,2006;Houghton&Sheehan,2009).Houghton’srecentstudydemonstrating thecosts,benefitsandeconomicadvantagesofOpenAccessonanationalbasisforthe 18 http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/open_access 19 http://project.liquidpub.org/ 20 http://project-soap.eu/ 21 http://www.peerproject.eu/ 22 http://www.oapen.org 23 http://www.openaire.eu/ 24 R  egistryofOpenAccessRepositoryMaterialArchivingPolicies: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
    • APPENDIX THREE: OPEN ACCESS – THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT  47UK(Houghtonet al,2009),hasbeenextendedtootherEUcountries(TheNetherlandsandDenmark)(KnowledgeExchange,2009)andtoindividualinstitutions(Swan,2010).IneverycaseOpenAccessattainedthroughOpenAccessjournals(‘OApublishing’)orthroughOpenAccessrepositorieshasbeenshowntobemorecosteffectivethanthecurrentsubscription-based,access-restrictionsystem.Meanwhile,inrespectofknowledge-sharingbetweenpublicresearchandindustry,adesirablegoalfortheERA(seenextsection),theEU’sownCommunity Innovation Surveywasshowingthatthereisa‘weaklinkbetweeninnovativeenterprises(mainlysmall-andmediumsizedenterprises,SMEs)andpublicresearchinstitutes/universities’andthat‘innovativeenterprisesfindcooperationpartnersmoreeasilyamongsuppliersorcustomersthaninuniversitiesorpublicresearchinstitutes’(Parvan,2007).TwostudiesonaccessibilityofuniversityresearchtoSMEshavebeenconductedrecently.Inastudyof186SMEs,Wareshowedthatwhile71%ofrespondentsininnovativecompaniesfindaccessingarticlesfairly/veryeasy,two-thirds(66%)ofrespondentspayforaccessintheformofsubscriptionsorsocietymembershipswhichis,ofcourse,easybutcostly.Thereisalsotheremainder,‘bydefinition,aminority(29%)forwhomaccesswasfairlyorverydifficult’(Ware,2009).Inasmallerstudyontheeaseofaccess23SMEstothe‘grey’academicliterature(unpublishedreports,workingpapers,thesesanddissertations),SwanreportedthatSMEshadproblemsdiscoveringrelevantgreyliterature,andinaccessingpublishedliterature(forreasonsofcost)(Swan,2008).The ERA Green PaperSevenyearsafterthecreationoftheERAtheCommissionpublishedaGreenPaper(EuropeanCommission,2007b)assessingprogressmadeandstimulatingdiscussionanddebateaboutthefutureorientationofERA.TheGreenPaperoutlinedsixfeaturesneededby‘thescientificcommunity,businessandcitizens’thatERAshouldhave,oneofthembeing‘effective knowledge-sharing, notably between public research and industry,as well as with the public at large’.Alsoofrelevancetoknowledge-sharingisanotherofthefeatures,‘opening the European Research Area to the world with special emphasis on
    • 48SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE neighbouring countries and a strong commitment to addressing the global challenges with Europe’s partners’25. TwoofthequestionsthattheGreenPaperposedinordertostimulateknowledge-sharing werethese: • IsthereaneedforEU-levelpoliciesandpracticestoimproveandensureOpen Accesstoanddisseminationofrawdataandpeer-reviewedpublicationsfrom publiclyfundedresearchresults? • WhatshouldconstituteaEuropeanFrameworkforknowledgesharingbetween researchinstitutionsandindustrybasedonidentifiedgoodpracticeandmodels? ThesearecorequestionsthatresurfacedintheWorkshop.Headlinefindingsfromthe responsestotheGreenPaperthatshowedthat68%ofrespondentsthinkthatraw datafrompublicly-fundedresearchshouldbemademorereadilyaccessible,theseand moresuggestingthatEU-levelcollectionsarethepreferredlocation.Sixty-fivepercent ofthetotalrespondentpopulationthinksthatpeer-reviewedpublicationsresulting frompublicly-fundedresearchshouldbeaccessiblewithoutcharge(includedinthis respondentgrouparepublishers,71%ofwhomdisagreewiththisstatement).And65% ofrespondents(presumablymostlythesame65%)alsobelievethatthesepublications shouldbeavailablewithoutchargeassoonastheyarepublished. Council Conclusions Latein2007,theCounciloftheEuropeanUnionadopteditsConclusions on Scientific Information in the Digital Age: Access, Dissemination and Preservation(Councilofthe EuropeanUnion,2007).ThisdocumentcalleduponMemberStatestoreinforce national strategies and structures for access to and dissemination of scientific information,and pledgedtoenhance the co-ordination between Member States on access and dissemination policies and practicesandtoensure the long term preservation of scientific information – including publications and data – and pay due attention to scientific information in national preservation strategies. 25 R  elevant statements contained in the Green paper in reference to the topic of Knowledge Sharing are:  ‘State-of-the-art knowledge is crucial for successful research in any scientific discipline. Reliable, affordable and permanent access to, and widespread dissemination of, scientific research results should therefore become defining principles for Europe’s research landscape.Thedigitalerahasopenedupnumerouspossibilitiesinthisrespect.Opportunities forprogresscanbeseen,notablyinthedevelopmentofonlinelibraries,repositoriesofscientific informationanddatabasesofpublicationsandpubliclyfundedresearchresults.Theseshould be integrated at European level and interlinked with similar databases in third countries. In particular,thesystembywhichscientificinformationispublishedispivotalforitsvalidation anddissemination,andthushasamajorimpactontheexcellenceofEuropeanresearch.Europe should stimulate the development of a “continuum” of accessible and interlinked scientific informationfromrawdatatopublications,withinandacrossdifferentcommunitiesandcountries.   ‘Effectiveknowledgesharing[…]shouldconsistof:openandeasyaccesstothepublicknowledgebase; asimpleandharmonisedregimeforIntellectualPropertyRights,includingacost-efficientpatenting systemandsharedprinciplesforknowledgetransferandcooperationbetweenpublicresearchand industry;innovativecommunicationchannelstogivethepublicatlargeaccesstoscientificknowledge, themeanstodiscussresearchagendasandthecuriositytolearnmoreaboutscience.’
    • APPENDIX THREE: OPEN ACCESS – THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT  49TheEuropeanCommissionitselfwasinvitedtomonitorgoodpracticesandsupportMemberStatepolicyco-ordination.Specifically,itwasinvitedtoimplement the measuresannounced in the Communication on ‘scientific information in the digital age: access,dissemination and preservation’ and in particular to: - experiment with Open Access to scientific publications resulting from projects funded by the EU Research Framework Programmes - support experiments and infrastructures with a cross-border added-value for access to and preservation of scientific information - contribute to improved policy co-ordination between Member States and to a constructive debate between stakeholdersThe Commission responded in part by including a session on Open Access andPreservation in the ERA conference ‘Working Together to Strengthen Science inEurope’conferenceinOctober200926.Thesessionresultedinasetofconclusionsandrecommendationswhichidentifiedthreemainissues:theneedtoprovideresearchoutputs(articles,books,datasetsetc)inanopenlyaccessibleandeasilyre-usableway;theneedtoprovideanintegratedsystemofsciencecommunication–anecosystemofinfrastructures–thatensurestheoptimalfunctioningofthesystem;andtheweaklinkbetweenthebasicresearchsectorandinnovativeindustriesinERA.The CREST27 questionnaire (Comité de la recherche scientifique et technique; in English: Scientific and Technical Research Committee)AquestionnairewassentouttoMemberStatesviatheScientificandTechnicalResearchCommittee(CREST)inDecember2008andresponsescollectedinthefirstpartof2009.Twenty-fiveresponseswerereceivedfromCRESTmembers(EUMemberStates)andfivefromCRESTobservers.Aselectedfewofthesummarisedfindingsfromtheresponsesindicatethegeneralstateofaffairsreported: • Withrespecttonational strategies on access and dissemination,theCommission concludesthatwhile‘the growing number of national initiatives in this field shows a clear and encouraging move towards the development of policies in these areas …there are very few of the nationally coordinated strategies or policies called for in the 2007 Council Conclusions’. • Oncoordination activities on access and dissemination,theCommissionfinds that‘while existing declarations and initiatives form a solid basis to build on, explicit common national funding body principles, for example on Open Access, are still missing’.Moreover,despitesomeadvances,‘transparency regarding big deals [between publishers and libraries] is still lacking’.Thereisbetternewson repositoriesinEurope,though,withthefindingthat‘significant coordination initiatives are underway regarding interoperability of repositories’.26 http://ec.europa.eu/research/conferences/2009/era2009/index_en.htm27 renamedERAC(EuropeanResearchAreaCommittee)in2010
    • 50SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Regarding long term preservation,‘specific attention to the preservation of scientific information needs to be further developed within most existing national policies and legislative frameworks’. Inadditiontothesemainsummarypoints,thefindingsshowedthatstrategiesarelargely attheleveloffundingbodies,universitiesorlibrariesratherthanattruenationallevel; thatpoliciesonsharingdataarelesswell-developedthanthoseonsharingarticles;and thatresearchersremainlargelyunawarethatOpenAccessisnotnecessarilyinconflict withthecopyrightpoliciesofscientificpublishers. European initiatives for the future Europe2020,thestrategyforgrowthandjobsinEurope,encompassessevenflagship initiatives.Amongstthem,heDigitalAgendaaimstomaximisethesocialandeconomic potentialofICT(Information&CommunicationTechnologies).TheInnovationUnion focusesoninnovationandhowbesttofosterit.Openaccessibilityofresearchfindings mustplayaroleinbothofthese.TheEuropeanUnionDigitalAgenda(EDA)aimstodeliver sustainableeconomicandsocialbenefitsfromadigitalsinglemarketbasedonultra fastbroadbandandinteroperableapplications.Itfocusesonsevenmainareas,ofwhich researchandinnovationisone.InadditionaCommunicationonScientificInformation willbeissuedbytheendof2011.
    • APPENDIX FOUR: QUESTIONNAIRE ON NATIONAL OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION POLICIES  51APPENDIX FOUR: Questionnaire on national open access and preservation policiesPart A - Respondent1. General informationCountry:Organisation:Nameofrespondent:Contactdata:Inwhatcapacitydoyouworkonopenaccessand/orpreservationissues?Internetlinkstopagescontaininginformationonnationalpoliciesand/orotherusefulinformation:Part B - Strategies in your Member State2. Policies in place for dissemination of and access to scientific information (including information on how these policies are financed)Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.
    • 52SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE Pleasealsoanswerthefollowing(youmayhavetobringclarificationsintheboxabove): 2�1 Generally speaking, the situation has (even slightly) improved since 2009: ¨Yes ¨No 2�2 Your country experienced problems in the implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusions (e�g� legal barriers): ¨Yes ¨No 2�3 Policies (or overall strategies) are in place: ¨Yes,atnationallevel ¨Yes,atregionallevel ¨No 2�4 Laws or legal provisions encouraging or mandating OA are in place: ¨Yes,atnationallevel ¨Yes,atregionallevel ¨No 2�5 Some funding bodies have OA policies: ¨Yes(pleaseprovidealist) ¨No 2�6 Some universities and research centres have OA policies: ¨Yes(pleaseprovidealist) ¨No 3. Policies and arrangements in place aiming to provide open access to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles resulting from public research funding Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Pleasealsoanswerthefollowing(youmayhavetobringclarificationsintheboxabove): 3�1 There are special incentives in place to encourage researchers to provide OA to their publications: ¨Yes ¨No 3�2 There are some agreements regarding open access between funding bodies and publishers: ¨Yes ¨No 3�3 In the case of funding body policies on OA, research contracts or grant agreements include a specific reference to provide open access: ¨Yes(pleaseprovidephrasing) ¨No
    • APPENDIX ONE: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS  534. Policies and arrangements in place aiming to provide open access to other publicly funded research results (e.g. research data)Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.5. Assess the situation regarding:5�1 The way in which researchers exercise their copyright on scientific articlesPleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.5�2 The level of investments in the dissemination of scientific information as compared to total investments in researchPleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.Pleasealsoanswerthefollowing(youmayhavetobringclarificationsintheboxabove):5�2�1 The development (growth) of OA is measured:¨Yes ¨No5�2�2 The impact of OA is measured (examples: citation count, impact on R&D budget, increased access by specific stakeholders, e�g� SMEs, uptake of research results leading to innovative findings)?¨Yes ¨No5�3 The use of financial mechanisms to improve access (e�g� refunding VAT for digital journal subscriptions to libraries)Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.
    • 54SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 6. Policies and activities with regard to repositories (“open archives”) of scientific information (including repository sustainability and interoperability) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. 7. Activities bringing together main stakeholders in the debate of scientific information (e.g. scientists, funding bodies librairies, scientific publishers) Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Part C – Co-ordination between Member States 8. Assess the situation regarding the way your Member State has been involved in exploring possibilities for co-ordination e.g. 8�1 Defining common national funding bodies principles on open access Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. 8�2 Improving transparency of the contractual terms of “big deals” financed with public money and assessing the possibilities to achieve economies of scale by demand aggregation Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.
    • APPENDIX ONE: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS  558�3 Working towards the interoperability of repositories of scientific information in Member StatesPleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.8�4 (other)Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.Pleasealsoanswerthefollowing(youmayhavetobringclarificationsintheboxabove):8�4�1 Your country - or organisations in your country - works in collaboration with others on topics related to access, dissemination and preservation:¨Yes ¨NoPart D – Long term preservation of scientific information (publication and data)9. Structured approach to the long term preservation of scientific information (whether incorporated in national plans for digital preservation) in line with Commission Recommendation of 24 August 2006 and Council Conclusions of 13 November 2006 on online accessibility to cultural material and digital preservation)Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009.
    • 56SHARING KNOWLEDGE: OPEN ACCESS AND PRESERVATION IN EUROPE 10. Specific characteristics of scientific information taken into account when setting up the legislative framework (including legal deposit) or practical set-up for digital preservation Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Part E – Role of the European Commission/European Union 11. Role that you see for the European Commission/European Union in terms of policies Pleasedescribe,orupdatethesituationasreportedin2009. Part F – Additional comments 12. Any additional comment or suggestion that have not been covered by the questionnaire
    • European CommissionSharing knowledge: open access and preservation in EuropeLuxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union2011 – 50 pp. – 17.6 x 25.0 cmISBN 978-92-79-20449-4doi: 10.2777/63410 How to obtain EU publicationsPublications for sale: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number; • by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.Free publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
    • KI-31-11-187-EN-NA workshop was held in Brussels, attended by around20 invited national experts from EU Member States,with the aims of: getting an understanding of MemberStates’ implementation of the 2007 Council Conclusionson scientific information in the digital age, sharingexperiences and know-how regarding successfulimplementations and best practices, and creatinga common vision of what can be done next in termsof policy and action at Member State and at Europeanlevels. The report documents the proceedings, setsthem in the context of developments so far on openaccess and preservation at an international level andmakes a set of recommendations for future EC action. doi:10.2777/63410