Open Access policies: An Overview. The OpenDOAR Policy Tool. Copyright management.


Published on

Presented at Open Access: Maximising Research Impact, April 24 2009, New Bulgarian University Library, Sofia

Published in: Education
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 policies: An Overview. The OpenDOAR Policy Tool. Copyright management.

  1. 1. Open Access policies: An Overview. The OpenDOAR Policy Tool. Copyright management. Iryna Kuchma, eIFL Open Access program manager, Presented at Open Access: Maximising Research Impact, April 24 2009, New Bulgarian University Library, Sofia
  2. 2. Berlin Declaration in Support of Open Access <ul><li>‘ Our mission of disseminating knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>is only half complete </li></ul><ul><li>if the information is not made widely </li></ul><ul><li>and readily available to society.’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Issued on 22 nd October 2003 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www. zim openaccess - berlin / berlindeclaration .html </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Berlin Declaration in Support of Open Access <ul><li>Signatories should promote open access by </li></ul><ul><li>encouraging researchers/grant recipients </li></ul><ul><li>to publish in open access. - encouraging the holders of cultural heritage </li></ul><ul><li>to support open access </li></ul><ul><li>by providing their resources on the Internet. - developing means to evaluate </li></ul><ul><li>open access contributions and online-journals </li></ul><ul><li>in order to maintain the standards of quality assurance and good scientific practice. - advocating that open access publication </li></ul><ul><li>be recognized in promotion and tenure evaluation. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Open Access policies <ul><li>Increasing number of Open Access policies from: </li></ul><ul><li>Research groups </li></ul><ul><li>Research centers </li></ul><ul><li>Universities </li></ul><ul><li>Funding bodies </li></ul><ul><li>Governments </li></ul><ul><li>National and international bodies </li></ul>
  5. 6. Funder policies - mandates <ul><li>Australian Research Council </li></ul><ul><li>National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia </li></ul><ul><li>Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Research Foundation Flanders) </li></ul><ul><li>Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) </li></ul><ul><li>European Research Council (ERC) </li></ul><ul><li>Agence Nationale de la recherche (France) </li></ul><ul><li>Health Research Board (HRB) of Ireland </li></ul><ul><li>Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering & Technology </li></ul><ul><li>Swiss National Science Foundation </li></ul><ul><li>Arthritis Research Foundation, UK </li></ul><ul><li>Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK </li></ul><ul><li>Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), UK </li></ul><ul><li>British Heart Foundation </li></ul><ul><li>Cancer Research UK </li></ul><ul><li>Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Executive Health Department) </li></ul><ul><li>Department of Health (UK) </li></ul><ul><li>Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), UK </li></ul><ul><li>JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), UK </li></ul><ul><li>Medical Research Council (MRC), UK </li></ul><ul><li>National Environmental Research Council (NERC), UK </li></ul><ul><li>Science & Technology Facilities Council, UK </li></ul><ul><li>Wellcome Trust, UK </li></ul><ul><li>National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA </li></ul><ul><li>Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) </li></ul>
  6. 7. The Wellcome Trust, UK <ul><li>From October 1 2006, </li></ul><ul><li>it became a condition of funding </li></ul><ul><li>that copy of any original research paper published in a peer-reviewed journal </li></ul><ul><li>must be deposited into PubMed Central. http://www. wellcome .ac. uk /doc_WTX022827.html </li></ul>
  7. 8. National Institutes of Health <ul><li>The U.S. National Institutes of Health , the single largest funder of research in the U.S with an annual budget of $28.9 billion USD, implemented a policy requiring that its grant recipients make articles resulting from any NIH funding publicly available within 12 months of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. </li></ul><ul><li>This policy, passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the President, went into effect in April of 2008.   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Alliance for Taxpayer Access, Worldwide momentum for policies supporting public access to publicly funded research) </li></ul></ul>
  8. 9. The European Research Council <ul><li>In January of 2008 The European Research Council (ERC) implemented a mandatory public access policy for its funded researchers. </li></ul><ul><li>The policy states:   </li></ul><ul><li>“ Requires that all peer-reviewed publications from ERC-funded research projects be deposited on publication into an appropriate research repository where available, such as PubMed Central, ArXiv or an institutional repository, and subsequently made Open Access within 6 months of publication.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Alliance for Taxpayer Access, Worldwide momentum for policies supporting public access to publicly funded research) </li></ul></ul>
  9. 10. Proposed Funder mandates <ul><li>European Commission </li></ul><ul><li>European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) </li></ul><ul><li>European University Association (EUA) </li></ul><ul><li>Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), USA </li></ul>
  10. 12. European University Association <ul><li>Universities should develop </li></ul><ul><li>institutional policies and strategies </li></ul><ul><li>that foster the availability </li></ul><ul><li>of their quality-controlled research results </li></ul><ul><li>for the broadest possible range of users, </li></ul><ul><li>maximising their visibility, accessibility </li></ul><ul><li>and scientific impact. </li></ul><ul><li>The basic approach …should be </li></ul><ul><li>the creation of an institutional repository </li></ul><ul><li>or participation in a shared repository.. </li></ul><ul><li>http://www. eua .be/ fileadmin /user_upload/files/Policy_Positions/Recommendations_Open_Access_adopted_by_the_EUA_Council_on_26th_of_March_2008_final. pdf </li></ul>
  11. 13. European University Association <ul><li>University institutional policies </li></ul><ul><li>should require that their researchers </li></ul><ul><li>deposit (self-archive) their scientific publications </li></ul><ul><li>in their institutional repository (IPR) </li></ul><ul><li>upon acceptance for publication. </li></ul><ul><li>Permissible embargoes should apply </li></ul><ul><li>only to the date of open access provision </li></ul><ul><li>and not the date of deposit. </li></ul><ul><li>...It should be the responsibility of the university </li></ul><ul><li>to inform their faculty researchers about IPR </li></ul><ul><li>and copyright management… </li></ul><ul><li>http://www. eua .be/ fileadmin /user_upload/files/Policy_Positions/Recommendations_Open_Access_adopted_by_the_EUA_Council_on_26th_of_March_2008_final. pdf </li></ul>
  12. 14. Ireland <ul><li>The Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (IRCSET) </li></ul><ul><li>has adopted an ideal OA mandate.  </li></ul><ul><li>From the policy : </li></ul><ul><li>...Where a research publication arises in whole or in part from IRCSET funded research..., </li></ul><ul><li>the following policy will be adhered to </li></ul><ul><li>with effect from 1st May 2008..... </li></ul><ul><li>1. This publication policy confirms </li></ul><ul><li>the freedom of researchers to publish first </li></ul><ul><li>wherever they feel is the most appropriate. </li></ul>
  13. 15. Ireland <ul><li>2. The effect of the policy is intended to increase </li></ul><ul><li>the visibility of, and improve access to, </li></ul><ul><li>the research funded by IRCSET and the State, </li></ul><ul><li>where such research is intended to be published </li></ul><ul><li>by the researcher(s) concerned. </li></ul><ul><li>3. The policy is based on recognised best practice. </li></ul><ul><li>It is in keeping with the recommendations of the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB) Policy in relation to scientific publication. It is also in keeping with the combined OECD Ministers’ Declaration entrusting the OECD to work towards commonly agreed Principles and Guidelines on Access to Research Data from Public Funding. </li></ul>
  14. 16. Ireland <ul><li>Conditions to which IRCSET funded Award Recipients should adhere: </li></ul><ul><li>All researchers must lodge their publications resulting in whole or in part from IRCSET-funded research in an open access repository </li></ul><ul><li>as soon as is practical, </li></ul><ul><li>but within six calendar months at the latest. </li></ul><ul><li>2. The repository should ideally be </li></ul><ul><li>a local institutional repository </li></ul><ul><li>to which the appropriate rights must be granted </li></ul><ul><li>to replicate to other repositories. </li></ul>
  15. 17. Ireland <ul><li>3. Authors should deposit post-prints </li></ul><ul><li>(or publisher’s version if permitted) </li></ul><ul><li>plus metadata of articles accepted for publication </li></ul><ul><li>in peer-reviewed journals </li></ul><ul><li>and international conference proceedings; </li></ul><ul><li>4. Deposit should be made upon acceptance </li></ul><ul><li>by the journal/conference. </li></ul><ul><li>Repositories should release the metadata immediately, with access restrictions to full text article to be applied as required. Open access should be available as soon as practicable after the author-requested embargo, or six month, whichever comes first. </li></ul>
  16. 18. Ireland <ul><li>5. Suitable repositories should make provision for long-term preservation of, </li></ul><ul><li>and free public access to, </li></ul><ul><li>published research findings.... </li></ul>
  17. 19. Harvard <ul><li>Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences </li></ul><ul><li>voted to adopt a policy under which </li></ul><ul><li>faculty are required to deposit </li></ul><ul><li>a copy of their scholarly journal articles </li></ul><ul><li>in an institutional repository and </li></ul><ul><li>(2) automatically to grant to the University </li></ul><ul><li>a University License to make those articles openly accessible on the Internet. </li></ul>
  18. 20. Harvard <ul><li>The Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University is committed to disseminating </li></ul><ul><li>the fruits of its research and scholarship </li></ul><ul><li>as widely as possible. </li></ul><ul><li>In keeping with that commitment, </li></ul><ul><li>the Faculty adopts the following policy: </li></ul><ul><li>Each Faculty member grants to the President and Fellows of Harvard College permission </li></ul><ul><li>to make available his or her scholarly articles </li></ul><ul><li>and to exercise the copyright in those articles. </li></ul>
  19. 21. Harvard <ul><li>In legal terms, the permission granted by each Faculty member is a nonexclusive, irrevocable, paid-up, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, and to authorize others to do the same, </li></ul><ul><li>provided that the articles are not sold for a profit. </li></ul>
  20. 26. Russia <ul><li>Central Economics and Mathematics Institute </li></ul><ul><li>of Russian Academy of Sciences (institutional-mandate) </li></ul><ul><li>http://www. cemi . rssi . ru / </li></ul><ul><li>http:// socionet . ru /index-en.html </li></ul><ul><li>http:// cemi . socionet . ru / </li></ul><ul><li>http://www. cemi . rssi . ru / rus /news/ initiat -eng. htm </li></ul><ul><li>All researchers of the Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences </li></ul><ul><li>are mandated by director's decree to immediately deposit </li></ul><ul><li>their papers/articles in the institutional Open Archive. [&quot;...mandate researchers of CEMI RAS to deposit all completed research (in working paper form), including the full text, in institutional OA (repository) not later than 6 months after completion.&quot;] </li></ul>
  21. 27. Ukraine <ul><li>Since January 2007 Ukraine has a law - proposed mandate for open access to publicly funded research. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Law of Ukraine On the principles of developing information society in Ukraine for 2007-20015 at www. rada . gov . ua </li></ul></ul>
  22. 28. Ukraine <ul><li>And the most recent open access policy </li></ul><ul><li>adopted by Ternopil State Ivan Pul'uj Technical University (TSTU) </li></ul><ul><li>mandates that all published journal articles </li></ul><ul><li>and conference papers </li></ul><ul><li>must be deposited in Electronic Archive of TSTU (ELARTU http:// dspace . tstu . edu . ua ) </li></ul><ul><li>if there are no legal objections by publishers. </li></ul><ul><li>ELARTU also encourages and fully supports </li></ul><ul><li>self-archiving of other research outputs </li></ul><ul><li>produced by scientists and students of the university as well as other members of the scientific community. </li></ul>
  23. 29. Open Access – A Policy Issue <ul><li>Open Access policies are: </li></ul><ul><li>Welcomed by authors </li></ul><ul><li>Complied with by authors </li></ul><ul><li>Compatible with copyright and respect authors’ moral rights </li></ul><ul><li>Compatible with patent registration </li></ul><ul><li>Respectful of academic and intellectual freedoms </li></ul><ul><li>Aligned with the aims of most funding bodies and institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Effective! </li></ul>
  24. 30. Appealing to All the Major Stakeholders <ul><li>To the funders of researcher – both as a public service and as an increased return on their investment in research </li></ul><ul><li>To the authors – as it gives wider dissemination and impact </li></ul><ul><li>To readers – as it gives them access to all primary literature, making the most important ‘research tool’ more powerful </li></ul>
  25. 31. Appealing to All the Major Stakeholders <ul><li>To editors and reviewers – as they feel their work is more valued </li></ul><ul><li>To the libraries – as it allows them to meet the information needs of their users </li></ul><ul><li>To the institutions – as it increases their presence and prestige </li></ul><ul><li>To small and society publishers – as it gives them a survival strategy and fits with their central remit </li></ul>
  26. 32. Repository policies The OpenDOAR Policy Tool
  27. 40. Thanks to the SHERPA Team <ul><li>Especially </li></ul><ul><li>Peter Millington, Technical Development Officer </li></ul><ul><li>for the slides </li></ul>
  28. 41. OA policy options <ul><li>Open access policy options for funding agencies and universities </li></ul><ul><li>(Based on The SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #130 and The SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #127, </li></ul><ul><li>by Peter Suber: http://www. earlham . edu /~peters/ fos /newsletter/02-02-09. htm </li></ul><ul><li>and http://www. earlham . edu /~peters/ fos /newsletter/11-02-08. htm ) </li></ul>
  29. 42. Request or require? <ul><li>Recommendation : </li></ul><ul><li>If you're serious about achieving open access </li></ul><ul><li>for the research you fund, </li></ul><ul><li>you must require it. </li></ul>
  30. 43. Green or gold? <ul><li>Recommendation : </li></ul><ul><li>If you decide to request and encourage open access, rather than a mandate it, </li></ul><ul><li>then you can encourage submission to an open access journal and encourage deposit in an open access repository as well, especially when researchers publish in a toll access journal. </li></ul><ul><li>But if you decide to mandate open access, </li></ul><ul><li>then you should require deposit in an open access repository, and not require submission to an open access journal, even if you also encourage submission to an open access journal. </li></ul>
  31. 44. Which repository? <ul><li>Recommendation : </li></ul><ul><li>Because there are advantages to each type of repository, and because each provides bona fide open access, the stakes are low in the choice between them. That is, you can't go seriously wrong by preferring one to the other. One path, then, is simply to make a choice. Another is to support both types in ranked order, for example, requiring deposit in an institutional repository, when the grantee's institution has one, and otherwise requiring deposit in the funder's repository or in a designated disciplinary or multi-disciplinary repository. </li></ul><ul><li>Another path is to shift the choice to authors. </li></ul>
  32. 45. Deposit what? <ul><li>Recommendation: </li></ul><ul><li>Require the deposit of the final version of the author's peer-reviewed manuscript, not the published version. </li></ul><ul><li>Require the deposit of data generated by the funded research project. In medicine and the social sciences, where privacy is an issue, open access data should be anonymised. </li></ul><ul><li>A peer-reviewed manuscript in an open access repository should include a citation and link to the published edition.   </li></ul>
  33. 46. Deposit what? <ul><li>Recommendation: </li></ul><ul><li>Allow the deposit of unrefereed preprints, </li></ul><ul><li>previous journal articles, </li></ul><ul><li>conference presentations (slides, text, audio, video), book manuscripts, book metadata (especially when the author cannot or will not deposit the full-text), and the contents of journals edited or published on campus. </li></ul><ul><li>The university itself could consider other categories as well, such as open courseware, administrative records, and digitization projects from the library, theses and dissertations </li></ul>
  34. 47. Scope of policy? <ul><li>Recommendation : </li></ul><ul><li>For simplicity and enforceability, </li></ul><ul><li>follow the example of most funding agencies: apply your open access policy </li></ul><ul><li>to research you fund </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;in whole or in part&quot; </li></ul>
  35. 48. What embargo? <ul><li>Recommendation : </li></ul><ul><li>Cap the permissible embargo at six months. Any embargo is a compromise with the public interest; </li></ul><ul><li>even when they are justified compromises, </li></ul><ul><li>the shorter they are, the better. </li></ul>
  36. 49. What exceptions? <ul><li>Recommendation : </li></ul><ul><li>Exempt private notes and records not intended for publication. </li></ul><ul><li>Exempt classified research. </li></ul><ul><li>Either exempt patentable discoveries or allow an embargo long enough for the researcher to apply for a patent. (This could be a special embargo not allowed to other research.) </li></ul><ul><li>And unless you fund research, which often results in royalty-producing books, exempt royalty-producing books. </li></ul>
  37. 50. Managing rights for OA <ul><li>As content producers </li></ul><ul><li>(responsible for licensing- out), universities need to deal </li></ul><ul><li>with ownership of rights </li></ul><ul><li>in material produced by academics, researchers etc </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- rights to be granted to others publishers; </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- users and re-users </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  38. 54. Copyright Management <ul><li>Provide Intellectual Property Rights support by </li></ul><ul><li>a. Admitting to the challenges and fears surrounding IPR; empathise with the author </li></ul><ul><li>b. Emphasising what can be done rather than what not </li></ul><ul><li>c. Analysing the publisher challenges within your specific subject communities where different challenges will be apparent </li></ul><ul><ul><li>From Proudman, V. (2007) The population of repositories. In Eds. K. Weenink, L.Waaijers and K. van Godtsenhoven, A DRIVER's Guide to European Repositories (pp.49 - 101) </li></ul></ul>
  39. 55. Copyright Management <ul><li>d. Ensuring that your IR team liaising with the author is informed and up-to-date on self-archiving and related publisher policies </li></ul><ul><li>e. Utilising and monitoring tools such as Sherpa/RoMEO to support you in your information </li></ul><ul><li>f. Liaising with publishers on a case by case basis if time and resources allow </li></ul><ul><ul><li>From Proudman, V. (2007) The population of repositories. In Eds. K. Weenink, L.Waaijers and K. van Godtsenhoven, A DRIVER's Guide to European Repositories (pp.49 - 101) </li></ul></ul>
  40. 60. Copyright management <ul><li>g. Encouraging your authors to liaise with publishers on the self-archival of their own work, striving for the immediate deposit of publications in repositories in the future </li></ul><ul><li>h. Discussing with your authors how to improve the dissemination of their work in the future and experimenting with them on making more material open access </li></ul><ul><li>i. Securing agreements between Library and author where possible </li></ul><ul><ul><li>From Proudman, V. (2007) The population of repositories. In Eds. K. Weenink, L.Waaijers and K. van Godtsenhoven, A DRIVER's Guide to European Repositories (pp.49 - 101) </li></ul></ul>
  41. 61. Repository Deposit Licence <ul><li>ensures that depositors own copyright in the material they are depositing or have permission from the copyright owner to deposit; </li></ul><ul><ul><li>and grants to the repository the necessary rights to make the material available to end-users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(from A Guide to Developing Open Access Through Your Digital Repository by Kylie Pappalardo and Dr Anne Fitzgerald, Open Access to Knowledge Law Project: ) </li></ul></ul>
  42. 62. Author Distribution Agreement <ul><li>Do you want to provide a facility to enable authors to enter into an Author Distribution Agreement with end-users, for example by attaching a Creative Commons licence to their work? </li></ul><ul><li>Required end-users to agree (through a click-wrap agreement) to the terms of the Author Distribution Agreement or the Repository Distribution (End-User) Agreement? </li></ul><ul><li>(from A Guide to Developing Open Access Through Your Digital Repository by Kylie Pappalardo and Dr Anne Fitzgerald, Open Access to Knowledge Law Project: ) </li></ul>
  43. 71. Plagiarism <ul><li>If articles are easily available, then plagiarism will be made easier? </li></ul><ul><li>“ In fact, plagiarism is diminished as a problem. It is far easier to detect if the original, date-stamped material is freely accessible to all, rather than being hidden in an obscure journal.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>( http :// www .driver- support . eu / faq / oafaq . html ) </li></ul></ul>
  44. 72. Plagiarism <ul><li>How can I protect myself from plagiarism, or from someone altering my paper and using it in a way I disapprove of? </li></ul><ul><li>“ It is easier to detect simple plagiarism with electronic than with printed text by using search engines or other services to find identical texts. For more subtle forms of misuse, the difficulties of detection are no greater than with traditional journal articles. Indeed, metadata tagging, including new ways of tracking the provenance of electronic data and text, promise to make it easier.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(JISC Opening up Access to Research Results: Questions and Answers, www. jisc .ac. uk /publications ) </li></ul></ul>
  45. 73. Plagiarism <ul><li>In the early days, some authors worried that OA would increase the incentive to plagiarize their work. But this worry made no sense and has not been borne out. On the contrary. OA might make plagiarism easier to commit, for people trolling for text to cut and paste. But for the same reason, OA makes plagiarism more hazardous to commit. Insofar as OA makes plagiarism easier, it's only for plagiarism from OA sources. But plagiarism from OA sources is the easiest kind to detect. Not all plagiarists are smart, of course, but the smart ones are steering clear of OA sources. </li></ul><ul><li>http://www. earlham . edu /~peters/ fos /newsletter/10-02-06. htm #quality </li></ul>
  46. 74. Plagiarism <ul><li>For the same reason, they'll avoid OA dissemination for any of their own works containing plagiarized passages. </li></ul><ul><li>Because OA will only reduce plagiarism by smart plagiarists, the effect may be small. And today the effect is small in any case because so little of the literature is OA. But just as we can expect good things from a pest-resistant strain of wheat, even when we've just introduced it in one field, we can expect good things from this plagiarism-resistant strain of research literature. </li></ul><ul><li>http://www. earlham . edu /~peters/ fos /newsletter/10-02-06. htm #quality </li></ul>
  47. 75. Plagiarism <ul><li>Discovering and deterring duplicate publications </li></ul><ul><li>A study in the January 24 issue of Nature turned up 200,000+ duplicate articles in journals indexed by Medline. </li></ul><ul><li>As the OA percentage of the literature continues to grow, journals wishing to avoid publishing a duplicate or plagiarized article will find it easier to discover potential problems in advance of publication. Likewise, journals that don't care, or with the opposite desire, will find it harder to publish duplicates undetected. </li></ul><ul><li>http://www. earlham . edu /~peters/ fos /2008/01/discovering-and-deterring-duplicate.html </li></ul>
  48. 79. Action Steps Checklist <ul><li>Here is a summary of key steps to implementing a University License policy at your institution: </li></ul><ul><li>1. Identify key internal supporters and champions. </li></ul><ul><li>2. Research your institution’s rules and procedures to understand the right process </li></ul><ul><li>for initiating the policy change. </li></ul><ul><li>3. Work with provosts, faculty governance, and the general counsel’s office to determine critical policy and legal requirements that must be met by the policy. </li></ul>
  49. 80. Action Steps Checklist <ul><li>4. Work with an existing faculty committee or create an ad-hoc committee to study your institution’s scholarly communications policy. </li></ul><ul><li>5. Communicate the plan to faculty and key stakeholders and conduct surveys or obtain other feedback to determine faculty support. </li></ul><ul><li>6. Identify and take advantage of events for education and awareness building, such as seminars, discussion panels, presentations, and colloquia. Consider holding a workshop to discuss open access. </li></ul>
  50. 81. Action Steps Checklist <ul><li>7. Develop a set of policy recommendations, including the scope of the University License, the deposit requirement, and opt-out provisions. </li></ul><ul><li>8. Identify critical resources and support that will be needed to implement the policy, including responsibility for maintaining an institutional archive. Prepare to provide resources to assist faculty in complying with the policy and working with </li></ul><ul><li>publishers. </li></ul>
  51. 82. Action Steps Checklist <ul><li>9. Plan for success: work with the institution library to make sure there is a repository to maintain and allow download of deposited articles and that it has sufficient capacity – or that there is a plan to create one. </li></ul><ul><li>10. Find the faculty who already are posting their work on the Internet by searching the Web and asking around. By their actions, they are signaling an understanding of why open access is important. Do the librarians have stories of access problems faced by faculty or other researchers? </li></ul>
  52. 83. Thank you ! Questions ? Iryna Kuchma iryna.kuchma[at]; www. eifl .net The presentation is licensed with Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License