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

Open Access policies: An Overview. The OpenDOAR Policy Tool. Copyright management. Iryna Kuchma, eIFL Open Access program manager, eIFL.net Presented at Open Access: Maximising Research Impact, April 24 2009, New Bulgarian University Library, Sofia

Berlin Declaration in Support of Open Access

‘ Our mission of disseminating knowledge

is only half complete

if the information is not made widely

and readily available to society.’

Issued on 22 nd October 2003

http://www. zim .mpg.de/ openaccess - berlin / berlindeclaration .html

Berlin Declaration in Support of Open Access

Signatories should promote open access by

encouraging researchers/grant recipients

to publish in open access. - encouraging the holders of cultural heritage

to support open access

by providing their resources on the Internet. - developing means to evaluate

open access contributions and online-journals

in order to maintain the standards of quality assurance and good scientific practice. - advocating that open access publication

be recognized in promotion and tenure evaluation.

Open Access policies

Increasing number of Open Access policies from:

Research groups

Research centers

Universities

Funding bodies

Governments

National and international bodies

Funder policies - mandates

Australian Research Council

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia

Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Research Foundation Flanders)

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

European Research Council (ERC)

Agence Nationale de la recherche (France)

Health Research Board (HRB) of Ireland

Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering & Technology

Swiss National Science Foundation

Arthritis Research Foundation, UK

Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), UK

British Heart Foundation

Cancer Research UK

Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Executive Health Department)

Department of Health (UK)

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), UK

JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), UK

Medical Research Council (MRC), UK

National Environmental Research Council (NERC), UK

Science & Technology Facilities Council, UK

Wellcome Trust, UK

National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)

The Wellcome Trust, UK

From October 1 2006,

it became a condition of funding

that copy of any original research paper published in a peer-reviewed journal

must be deposited into PubMed Central. http://www. wellcome .ac. uk /doc_WTX022827.html

National Institutes of Health

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.

This policy, passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the President, went into effect in April of 2008.

(Alliance for Taxpayer Access, Worldwide momentum for policies supporting public access to publicly funded research)

The European Research Council

In January of 2008 The European Research Council (ERC) implemented a mandatory public access policy for its funded researchers.

The policy states:

“ 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.”

(Alliance for Taxpayer Access, Worldwide momentum for policies supporting public access to publicly funded research)

Proposed Funder mandates

European Commission

European Research Advisory Board (EURAB)

European University Association (EUA)

Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), USA

European University Association

Universities should develop

institutional policies and strategies

that foster the availability

of their quality-controlled research results

for the broadest possible range of users,

maximising their visibility, accessibility

and scientific impact.

The basic approach …should be

the creation of an institutional repository

or participation in a shared repository..

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

European University Association

University institutional policies

should require that their researchers

deposit (self-archive) their scientific publications

in their institutional repository (IPR)

upon acceptance for publication.

Permissible embargoes should apply

only to the date of open access provision

and not the date of deposit.

...It should be the responsibility of the university

to inform their faculty researchers about IPR

and copyright management…

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

Ireland

The Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (IRCSET)

has adopted an ideal OA mandate.

From the policy :

...Where a research publication arises in whole or in part from IRCSET funded research...,

the following policy will be adhered to

with effect from 1st May 2008.....

1. This publication policy confirms

the freedom of researchers to publish first

wherever they feel is the most appropriate.

Ireland

2. The effect of the policy is intended to increase

the visibility of, and improve access to,

the research funded by IRCSET and the State,

where such research is intended to be published

by the researcher(s) concerned.

3. The policy is based on recognised best practice.

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.

Ireland

Conditions to which IRCSET funded Award Recipients should adhere:

All researchers must lodge their publications resulting in whole or in part from IRCSET-funded research in an open access repository

as soon as is practical,

but within six calendar months at the latest.

2. The repository should ideally be

a local institutional repository

to which the appropriate rights must be granted

to replicate to other repositories.

Ireland

3. Authors should deposit post-prints

(or publisher’s version if permitted)

plus metadata of articles accepted for publication

in peer-reviewed journals

and international conference proceedings;

4. Deposit should be made upon acceptance

by the journal/conference.

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.

Ireland

5. Suitable repositories should make provision for long-term preservation of,

and free public access to,

published research findings....

Harvard

Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences

voted to adopt a policy under which

faculty are required to deposit

a copy of their scholarly journal articles

in an institutional repository and

(2) automatically to grant to the University

a University License to make those articles openly accessible on the Internet.

Harvard

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University is committed to disseminating

the fruits of its research and scholarship

as widely as possible.

In keeping with that commitment,

the Faculty adopts the following policy:

Each Faculty member grants to the President and Fellows of Harvard College permission

to make available his or her scholarly articles

and to exercise the copyright in those articles.

Harvard

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,

provided that the articles are not sold for a profit.

Russia

Central Economics and Mathematics Institute

of Russian Academy of Sciences (institutional-mandate)

http://www. cemi . rssi . ru /

http:// socionet . ru /index-en.html

http:// cemi . socionet . ru /

http://www. cemi . rssi . ru / rus /news/ initiat -eng. htm

All researchers of the Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences

are mandated by director's decree to immediately deposit

their papers/articles in the institutional Open Archive. ["...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."]

Ukraine

Since January 2007 Ukraine has a law - proposed mandate for open access to publicly funded research.

The Law of Ukraine On the principles of developing information society in Ukraine for 2007-20015 at www. rada . gov . ua

Ukraine

And the most recent open access policy

adopted by Ternopil State Ivan Pul'uj Technical University (TSTU)

mandates that all published journal articles

and conference papers

must be deposited in Electronic Archive of TSTU (ELARTU http:// dspace . tstu . edu . ua )

if there are no legal objections by publishers.

ELARTU also encourages and fully supports

self-archiving of other research outputs

produced by scientists and students of the university as well as other members of the scientific community.

Open Access – A Policy Issue

Open Access policies are:

Welcomed by authors

Complied with by authors

Compatible with copyright and respect authors’ moral rights

Compatible with patent registration

Respectful of academic and intellectual freedoms

Aligned with the aims of most funding bodies and institutions

Effective!

Appealing to All the Major Stakeholders

To the funders of researcher – both as a public service and as an increased return on their investment in research

To the authors – as it gives wider dissemination and impact

To readers – as it gives them access to all primary literature, making the most important ‘research tool’ more powerful

Appealing to All the Major Stakeholders

To editors and reviewers – as they feel their work is more valued

To the libraries – as it allows them to meet the information needs of their users

To the institutions – as it increases their presence and prestige

To small and society publishers – as it gives them a survival strategy and fits with their central remit

Repository policies The OpenDOAR Policy Tool

Thanks to the SHERPA Team

Especially

Peter Millington, Technical Development Officer

for the slides

OA policy options

Open access policy options for funding agencies and universities

(Based on The SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #130 and The SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #127,

by Peter Suber: http://www. earlham . edu /~peters/ fos /newsletter/02-02-09. htm

and http://www. earlham . edu /~peters/ fos /newsletter/11-02-08. htm )

Request or require?

Recommendation :

If you're serious about achieving open access

for the research you fund,

you must require it.

Green or gold?

Recommendation :

If you decide to request and encourage open access, rather than a mandate it,

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.

But if you decide to mandate open access,

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.

Which repository?

Recommendation :

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.

Another path is to shift the choice to authors.

Deposit what?

Recommendation:

Require the deposit of the final version of the author's peer-reviewed manuscript, not the published version.

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.

A peer-reviewed manuscript in an open access repository should include a citation and link to the published edition.

Deposit what?

Recommendation:

Allow the deposit of unrefereed preprints,

previous journal articles,

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.

The university itself could consider other categories as well, such as open courseware, administrative records, and digitization projects from the library, theses and dissertations

Scope of policy?

Recommendation :

For simplicity and enforceability,

follow the example of most funding agencies: apply your open access policy

to research you fund

"in whole or in part"

What embargo?

Recommendation :

Cap the permissible embargo at six months. Any embargo is a compromise with the public interest;

even when they are justified compromises,

the shorter they are, the better.

What exceptions?

Recommendation :

Exempt private notes and records not intended for publication.

Exempt classified research.

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.)

And unless you fund research, which often results in royalty-producing books, exempt royalty-producing books.

Managing rights for OA

As content producers

(responsible for licensing- out), universities need to deal

with ownership of rights

in material produced by academics, researchers etc

- rights to be granted to others publishers;

- users and re-users

Copyright Management

Provide Intellectual Property Rights support by

a. Admitting to the challenges and fears surrounding IPR; empathise with the author

b. Emphasising what can be done rather than what not

c. Analysing the publisher challenges within your specific subject communities where different challenges will be apparent

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)

Copyright Management

d. Ensuring that your IR team liaising with the author is informed and up-to-date on self-archiving and related publisher policies

e. Utilising and monitoring tools such as Sherpa/RoMEO to support you in your information

f. Liaising with publishers on a case by case basis if time and resources allow

Copyright management

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

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

i. Securing agreements between Library and author where possible

Repository Deposit Licence

ensures that depositors own copyright in the material they are depositing or have permission from the copyright owner to deposit;

and grants to the repository the necessary rights to make the material available to end-users

(from A Guide to Developing Open Access Through Your Digital Repository by Kylie Pappalardo and Dr Anne Fitzgerald, Open Access to Knowledge Law Project: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00009671/01/9671.pdf )

Author Distribution Agreement

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?

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?

(from A Guide to Developing Open Access Through Your Digital Repository by Kylie Pappalardo and Dr Anne Fitzgerald, Open Access to Knowledge Law Project: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00009671/01/9671.pdf )

Plagiarism

If articles are easily available, then plagiarism will be made easier?

“ 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.”

( http :// www .driver- support . eu / faq / oafaq . html )

Plagiarism

How can I protect myself from plagiarism, or from someone altering my paper and using it in a way I disapprove of?

“ 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.”

(JISC Opening up Access to Research Results: Questions and Answers, www. jisc .ac. uk /publications )

Plagiarism

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.

http://www. earlham . edu /~peters/ fos /newsletter/10-02-06. htm #quality

Plagiarism

For the same reason, they'll avoid OA dissemination for any of their own works containing plagiarized passages.

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.

http://www. earlham . edu /~peters/ fos /newsletter/10-02-06. htm #quality

Plagiarism

Discovering and deterring duplicate publications

A study in the January 24 issue of Nature turned up 200,000+ duplicate articles in journals indexed by Medline.

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.

http://www. earlham . edu /~peters/ fos /2008/01/discovering-and-deterring-duplicate.html

Action Steps Checklist

Here is a summary of key steps to implementing a University License policy at your institution:

1. Identify key internal supporters and champions.

2. Research your institution’s rules and procedures to understand the right process

for initiating the policy change.

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.

4. Work with an existing faculty committee or create an ad-hoc committee to study your institution’s scholarly communications policy.

5. Communicate the plan to faculty and key stakeholders and conduct surveys or obtain other feedback to determine faculty support.

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.

7. Develop a set of policy recommendations, including the scope of the University License, the deposit requirement, and opt-out provisions.

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

publishers.

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.

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?

Thank you ! Questions ? Iryna Kuchma iryna.kuchma[at]eifl.net; www. eifl .net The presentation is licensed with Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License