Open Access in the UK - challenges of compliance with funder mandates


Published on

This was a presentation given at the LIBER2014 conference in Riga.

See for an abstract and biography.

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Open Access in the UK - challenges of compliance with funder mandates

  1. 1. Whose Property Is It Anyway? Part 2: the challenges in supporting the UK’s main research funder agendas which seek to ensure that the outputs from publicly funded research are published Open Access Chris Banks @chrisbanks Director of Library Services Imperial College London
  3. 3. Research Councils UK (RCUK) Policy • From 2005 RCUK sought to encourage open access publishing • Article Processing Charges could be paid from grants - low take up
  4. 4. Wellcome Trust and Open Access • From 2007 the Wellcome Trust funded APCs • Also mandated deposit in PubMedCentral • Compliance is currently at 66% and costs the Trust around £4.5m a year • Wellcome are now implementing sanctions for non compliant academics seeking further grants
  5. 5. Finch Report • 2011: Dame Janet Finch commissioned to lead a group to explore how to accelerate the adoption of Open Access to publicly funded research • Summer 2012 Finch Report Published • Author-pays model was preferred • Publication Fund established to encourage adoption of OA by explicitly funding APCs for immediate CC-BY publication where possible • September 2012: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) endorses the report (and allocates £10m pump prime funding) • Autumn 2012 RCUK announces new policy to take effect April 2013. They currently spend around £11.2bn on research funding and have allocated 1% towards Gold Open Access • Institutions awarded funding on the basis of Research Council grant income to support the payment of APCs on journal articles and conference proceedings where RCUK acknowledged as funder • Target 45% compliance in the first year- assumed APC £2000
  6. 6. HEFCE policy for post REF2014 • Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) REF policy published on 31st March 2014 states that for any journal article or conference proceeding accepted for publication in a volume with an ISSN from 1 April 2016 to be eligible for the next REF [REF2020?] the Final Author Version/Accepted Author Manuscript must have been deposited in an institutional or subject repository and made discoverable within three months of acceptance for publication.
  7. 7. Big numbers: why the HEFCE policy matters
  8. 8. HEFCE and RCUK policies seen together • From 2016, for a Journal/Conference proceeding publication to be eligible for submission to the next REF it must meet the following minimum criteria: • Have a discoverable metadata record in a repository within 3 months of acceptance for publication • Have a closed deposit FAV/AAM in the repository within 3 months of acceptance for publication • BUT if the research was funded by RCUK/Wellcome/Horizon2020 then the following criteria must also be met: • Be available as an Open Access publication (either Gold or Green). • If Gold: immediately upon publication, and with the relevant license (e.g. CC-BY) • If Green: be open access within the embargo period set by the funder
  9. 9. The challenges of compliance Author action RCUK / Wellcome compliant? HEFCE REF compliant? Additional REF credits? APC paid for Gold OA?    Repository deposit with Green embargo    Immediate Deposit/Optional Access   ? Immediate deposit / Immediate Access / SPARC (or similar) Author Addendum to Publication Agreement    It can be all too easy for academics to comply with one policy and fail to comply with others
  11. 11. • Senior academic leadership is essential to effect behavioural change • High level committees drawn from Research VP, Research Office, Policy, Strategy, Library, ICT + relevant academic representation • Advocacy, Advocacy, Advocacy – the message is still not widely understood • Challenges with multiple policies which are not wholly aligned, particularly cross-border policies
  12. 12. Imperial College 2012 mandate
  14. 14. Responses vary by discipline • Sciences & Medicine likely most engaged • Engineering and Maths less so • Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences – even less so Individual responses • On a spectrum between passionately engaged and unaware/disinterested • Still rewarded by publication in high impact journals, so minimal motivation to change behaviours • Like the elitism of publishing in high impact journals • Beleaguered: yet more constraints, more reporting requirements, perceived less time for research • But: want to be eligible for submission to the REF
  16. 16. • Currently UK pays around £163m in subscriptions • In the UK around 140,000 articles are published per year. • If all opted for gold then funding required would be £245m • Some publishers seeing hybrid gold OA as an additional income stream
  17. 17. • RCUK funding is “transitional” but some evidence suggests publishers are welcoming a growth in hybrid gold • Challenge with license applications: correct funder-compliant license not always applied • “Pure Gold” does not necessarily mean low impact factor (e.g. PLoS) • New government-led research into monograph publishing • New publishing business models are emerging • Some quality monograph publishers actively engaging in OA schemes (e.g. Knowledge Unlatched)
  19. 19. Library Activity • Contributing to the work of institutional implementation groups • Awareness raising amongst library colleagues, academics and students • Working with other departments, including ICT and Research Office, on the requirements for management of the process • Maintenance of web pages, FAQs and links • Running the service to manage the payment of Article Processing Charges (and learning from that process)
  20. 20. Open Access Funds managed at Imperial 2013-14 • Wellcome • RCUK fund: £1,150,458 • Imperial College Fund: £650,000
  21. 21. Library involvement in OA at Imperial College Gold • Management and allocation of the publication funds • Supporting academics to ensure funder compliance • Record keeping and reporting • Working with colleagues on workflows and systems to manage many transactions • Checking whether the publisher has published OA and attached correct license Green • Support for self-archiving in the institutional repository • Repository developments to ensure metadata is discoverable • Metrics (downloads, altmetrics, etc) • “request” button for closed deposits
  22. 22. Open Access workflow (without HEFCE . . .):
  23. 23. - the College Repository
  24. 24. Repository Metrics
  25. 25. Article level metrics
  26. 26. The Library goal: making it as easy and attractive as possible for authors to comply, deposit and get cited People • Be more pro-active about collecting author versions of papers (e.g. at time of request of APC funding) • Consider a mediated licensing advisory service • Engage via repository notifications • Encourage academics to challenge publishers about the green options • Consider in-house publishing options • Consider institutional subscription to ORCID as this makes automation of processes much simpler • Consider which licensing options might increase flexibility of deposit Systems • Consider making the repository the single point of deposit, and simplify the interface • Automated population of SPIRAL with metadata and harvested articles • Development of SPIRAL to support the next REF (e.g. working with publishers) • Develop and visualise metrics and bibliometrics • Interoperability between systems is necessary, as are version control tools • Upgrade Sherpa Romeo to: • Standardise publishers’ text to deliver meaning • Develop a Institutional Repository Specific API
  27. 27. Ongoing challenges • Scalibility of processing, especially for gold • Creating a touchpoint with the repository for FAV/AAM to meet the new HEFCE requirements • Working with publishers to receive notification at “acceptance” for publication • Challenging the enduring hybrid gold – affordability question • Working with publishers to achieve “offsetting” deals • Note that Academic reward systems are not currently contributing to behaviour change
  28. 28. SERVICE
  29. 29. SERVICE
  30. 30. SPARC addendum
  31. 31. Summary of opportunities for libraries • Influence high level academic support and leadership • Have one person whose role it is to oversee practical implementation and reporting • Work with institutions, publishers and with aggregators so as to minimise the number of small value transactions that need to be processed • Work with publishers to get better data, e.g. through implementation of ORCID • Work with publishers to get more transparent license information • Work with CRIS developers and institutions and implement ORCHD etc • Ensure that the CRIS can automatically deposit to the repository • Work with academics so that the are fully aware of the value of appropriate licensing • Consider services which might take away some of the academic “pain” at the point of publication, e.g. licensing advice and support • Work at national and international levels to harmonise embargo periods • Consider the ongoing affordability of hybrid gold OA and whether any policies on upper limits are necessary