Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Scholarly Communications Model Policy and Licence: Publishers' Association Concerns together with UK-SCL Steering Group Responses - 2017 10 12

656 views

Published on

Responses from the UK-SCL Steering Group to a second letter from the Publishers' Association about a revision of the UK-SCL model policy which took into account concerns that publishers had raised with us. The first letter is here: https://www.slideshare.net/chrisabanks/scholarly-communications-model-policy-and-licence-publishers-association-concerns-together-with-ukscl-steering-group-responses

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Scholarly Communications Model Policy and Licence: Publishers' Association Concerns together with UK-SCL Steering Group Responses - 2017 10 12

  1. 1. Response​ ​from​ ​the​ ​UK-SCL​ ​Steering​ ​Group​ ​to​ ​PA​ ​comments​ ​on​ ​the​ ​22.ix.2017​ ​version of​ ​the​ ​model​ ​policy October​ ​12,​ ​2017. PA​ ​text Policy​ ​statements SG​ ​response A​ ​reminder​ ​of​ ​the​ ​key​ ​aims​ ​of​ ​the​ ​UK-SCL​ ​and model​ ​policy: ● To​ ​facilitate​ ​the​ ​retention​ ​of​ ​re-use​ ​rights​ ​​as encouraged​ ​by​ ​funders​ ​of​ ​UK​ ​research ● To​ ​provide​ ​a​ ​one-step​ ​action​ ​by​ ​which researchers​ ​can​ ​both​ ​comply​ ​with​ ​multiple funder​ ​policies​ ​​and​​ ​remain​ ​eligible​ ​for​ ​the​ ​REF and​​ ​go​ ​beyond​ ​funder​ ​minimum​ ​compliance (e.g.​ ​HEFCE,​ ​see​ ​below).​ ​Particularly: o CC-BY-NC:​ ​=​ ​RCUK​ ​compliant​ ​and above​ ​the​ ​minimum​ ​compliance​ ​for REF​ ​eligibility o Zero​ ​month​ ​embargo​ ​default​ ​(earlier if​ ​publisher​ ​policies​ ​allow):​ ​in​ ​line with​ ​institutions​ ​that​ ​have​ ​adopted the​ ​Harvard​ ​model​ ​since​ ​2008 o Automatic​ ​granting​ ​of​ ​a​ ​waiver​ ​with 6/12​ ​month​ ​embargo​ ​for​ ​those publishers​ ​requesting​ ​it: ● compliant​ ​with​ ​RCUK, Horizon​ ​2020​ ​etc ● Above​ ​REF​ ​OA​ ​minimum eligibility ● Allows​ ​for​ ​accidental​ ​12 month​ ​waiver​ ​granting​ ​of an​ ​output​ ​which​ ​might subsequently​ ​be​ ​allocated to​ ​a​ ​Science​ ​Panel​ ​(=​ ​6 month)​ ​embargo,​ ​and consequently​ ​ensures​ ​all outputs​ ​deposited​ ​under the​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​the​ ​model 1​ ​|​ ​​Page
  2. 2. policy​ ​are​ ​eligible​ ​for inclusion​ ​in​ ​REF2021. HEFCE​ ​issued​ ​a​ ​revision​ ​to​ ​its​ ​REF​ ​​FAQ​ ​document​​ ​–​ ​specifically​ ​to section​ ​7.​ ​That​ ​FAQ​ ​contains​ ​the​ ​following​ ​statement: Section​ ​2​ ​of​ ​the​ ​​RCUK​ ​policy​​ ​contains​ ​this​ ​statement​ ​on​ ​green. The​ ​earlier​ ​version​ ​of​ ​the​ ​policy,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​provision on​ ​an​ ​article​ ​by​ ​article​ ​basis​ ​to​ ​allow​ ​for​ ​a discretionary​ ​waiver​ ​up​ ​to​ ​24​ ​months​ ​was​ ​drawn​ ​up on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​level​ ​of​ ​waiver​ ​claims experienced​ ​by​ ​those​ ​who​ ​have​ ​implemented​ ​the Harvard​ ​model​ ​policy​ ​-​ ​<5%.​ ​PA​ ​members​ ​have indicated​ ​that​ ​in​ ​the​ ​UK​ ​publishers​ ​will​ ​request waivers​ ​on​ ​a​ ​much​ ​greater​ ​scale.​ ​Whilst​ ​we​ ​still​ ​do not​ ​yet​ ​comprehend​ ​why​ ​UK​ ​authors​ ​would​ ​be treated​ ​differently,​ ​we​ ​felt​ ​it​ ​necessary​ ​to​ ​respond. In​ ​offering​ ​a​ ​blanket​ ​waiver​ ​to​ ​publishers​ ​– something​ ​that​ ​can​ ​be​ ​agreed​ ​on​ ​behalf​ ​of​ ​all institutions​ ​adopting​ ​the​ ​UK-SCL​ ​–​ ​we​ ​can​ ​eliminate the​ ​need​ ​for​ ​article​ ​by​ ​article​ ​waiver​ ​claiming​ ​for both​ ​publisher​ ​and​ ​institution.​ ​For​ ​the​ ​reasons stated​ ​above,​ ​only​ ​​ ​6/12​ ​month​ ​embargoes​ ​would ensure​ ​that​ ​all​ ​outputs​ ​were​ ​eligible​ ​for​ ​inclusion​ ​in REF2021,​ ​and​ ​would​ ​be​ ​compliant​ ​with​ ​not​ ​only RCUK,​ ​but​ ​other​ ​funders​ ​including​ ​Horizon2020 We​ ​note​ ​that​ ​under​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​policy,​ ​where​ ​funding is​ ​not​ ​available​ ​to​ ​academics​ ​the​ ​maximum embargo​ ​periods​ ​are​ ​already​ ​6/12​ ​months​ ​– something​ ​that​ ​was​ ​agreed​ ​with​ ​publishers​ ​during the​ ​Finch-led​ ​discussions. The​ ​longer​ ​than​ ​6/12​ ​month​ ​embargo​ ​periods allowed​ ​by​ ​RCUK​ ​was​ ​for​ ​a​ ​transition​ ​period​ ​only and​ ​in​ ​section​ ​3.10​ ​the​ ​policy​ ​notes​ ​that​ ​the transition​ ​“may​ ​be​ ​around​ ​five​ ​years​ ​in​ ​duration”. We​ ​are​ ​well​ ​into​ ​the​ ​fifth​ ​year​ ​of​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​policy​ ​. Many​ ​other​ ​​funders​​ ​already​ ​have​ ​6/12​ ​month minimum​ ​requirements​ ​so,​ ​again,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​unsure​ ​as to​ ​why,​ ​for​ ​UK​ ​funded​ ​authors,​ ​some​ ​publishers​ ​are insistent​ ​on​ ​stretching​ ​embargo​ ​periods​ ​to​ ​the absolute​ ​maxima​ ​​ ​allowed​ ​by​ ​some​ ​funders​ ​of​ ​some research.​ ​Publishers​ ​are​ ​already​ ​working​ ​with​ ​6/12 month​ ​embargoes​ ​for​ ​some​ ​funded​ ​research,​ ​a growing​ ​number​ ​of​ ​publishers​ ​have​ ​reduced embargo​ ​periods. 2​ ​|​ ​​Page
  3. 3. For​ ​the​ ​REF​ ​2021​ ​OA​ ​policy​ ​–​ ​see​ ​above. On​ ​this​ ​page​ ​of​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​FAQs​ ​updated​ ​September​ ​2017 http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/openaccessfaqsv2-pd f/ 2.1​ ​Do​ ​researchers​ ​have​ ​the​ ​freedom​ ​to​ ​choose​ ​the​ ​green​ ​route even​ ​if​ ​the​ ​publisher​ ​offers​ ​a​ ​‘gold’​ ​route? UPDATED​ ​Yes:​ ​although​ ​the​ ​Research​ ​Councils’​ ​preference​ ​is​ ​for immediate​ ​unrestricted​ ​open​ ​access​ ​(‘Gold’),​ ​they​ ​support​ ​a​ ​mixed approach​ ​to​ ​Open​ ​Access,​ ​and​ ​​the​ ​decision​ ​on​ ​which​ ​route​ ​to​ ​follow remains​ ​at​ ​the​ ​discretion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​researchers​ ​and​ ​their​ ​research organisations​. Where​ ​publishers​ ​offer​ ​a​ ​Gold​ ​Route,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​researcher​ ​chooses green,​ ​papers​ ​should​ ​be​ ​published​ ​in​ ​a​ ​journal​ ​with​ ​a​ ​​maximum embargo​ ​of​ ​12​ ​months​ ​for​ ​STEM​ ​funded​ ​disciplines,​ ​or​ ​24​ ​months​ ​in the​ ​arts,​ ​humanities​ ​and​ ​social​ ​sciences​ ​funded​ ​research. Research​ ​papers​ ​in​ ​biomedicine​ ​should​ ​be​ ​published​ ​with​ ​an embargo​ ​of​ ​no​ ​longer​ ​than​ ​six​ ​months​,​ ​as​ ​has​ ​been​ ​the​ ​MRC’s mandated​ ​policy​ ​since​ ​2006. 3.9​ ​One​ ​of​ ​our​ ​researchers​ ​has​ ​recently​ ​published​ ​in​ ​a​ ​journal​ ​that offers​ ​the​ ​gold​ ​route​ ​but​ ​the​ ​author​ ​did​ ​not​ ​choose​ ​that​ ​before publication​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​the​ ​article​ ​does​ ​not​ ​comply​ ​with​ ​RCUK open​ ​access​ ​policy.​ ​Can​ ​we​ ​use​ ​funding​ ​from​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​open​ ​access block​ ​grant​ ​to​ ​make​ ​the​ ​article​ ​open​ ​access?​ NEW​ ​The​ ​decision​ ​as​ ​to​ ​when​ ​this​ ​is​ ​a​ ​good​ ​use​ ​of​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​open access​ ​block​ ​grant​ ​lies​ ​with​ ​the​ ​research​ ​organisation.​ ​It​ ​should always​ ​be​ ​the​ ​priority​ ​to​ ​make​ ​new​ ​articles​ ​open​ ​access,​ ​but​ ​where​ ​a research​ ​organisation​ ​has​ ​funds​ ​remaining,​ ​they​ ​may​ ​decide​ ​to​ ​make a​ ​recently​ ​published​ ​article​ ​compliant​ ​with​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​policy.​ ​However, where​ ​the​ ​article​ ​concerned​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​recently​ ​published,​ ​then the​ ​research​ ​organisation​ ​should​ ​consider​ ​the​ ​allowable​ ​embargo periods​ ​for​ ​the​ ​‘Green’​ ​route​ ​(​ ​6​ ​months​ ​for​ ​STEM​ ​funded​ ​disciplines and​ ​12​ ​months​ ​for​ ​arts,​ ​humanities​ ​and​ ​social​ ​sciences​ ​funded research),​​ ​and​ ​if​ ​the​ ​length​ ​of​ ​time​ ​from​ ​when​ ​the​ ​article​ ​was​ ​first published,​ ​to​ ​when​ ​it​ ​is​ ​being​ ​made​ ​publicly​ ​accessible​ ​exceeds​ ​the embargo​ ​period,​ ​then​ ​the​ ​article​ ​would​ ​not​ ​be​ ​compliant​ ​with​ ​the RCUK​ ​open​ ​access​ ​policy​ ​and​ ​open​ ​access​ ​block​ ​funding​ ​must​ ​not​ ​be used​ ​to​ ​make​ ​such​ ​outputs​ ​open​ ​access. Embargo​ ​periods 5.1​ ​If​ ​an​ ​article​ ​is​ ​based​ ​on​ ​work​ ​funded​ ​by​ ​MRC,​ ​AHRC​ ​and​ ​ESRC, what​ ​embargo​ ​period​ ​applies? In​ ​saying​ ​that​ ​“the​ ​majority​ ​of​ ​PA​ ​members​ ​work​ ​to the​ ​HEFCE​ ​and​ ​RCUK​ ​policies”​ ​what​ ​you​ ​are​ ​in​ ​fact stating​ ​is​ ​that​ ​​those​ ​publishers​ ​work​ ​to​ ​the minimum​ ​compliance​ ​for​ ​those​ ​policies​ ​by choosing​ ​the​ ​maximum​ ​allowable​ ​embargo periods.​​ ​Both​ ​RCUK​ ​and​ ​HEFCE​ ​have​ ​minimum compliance​ ​terms​ ​and​ ​encourage​ ​authors​ ​and institutions​ ​to​ ​go​ ​beyond​ ​those​ ​minima.​ ​​ ​RCUK​ ​is quite​ ​clear​ ​on​ ​the​ ​transition​ ​period. The​ ​UK-SCL​ ​offer​ ​of​ ​a​ ​6/12​ ​month​ ​waiver​ ​achieves both​ ​the​ ​aims​ ​of​ ​the​ ​policy​ ​–​ ​single​ ​step​ ​eligibility and​ ​compliance​ ​–​ ​and​ ​achieves​ ​the​ ​institution​ ​aim of​ ​moving​ ​away​ ​from​ ​the​ ​minima​ ​set​ ​by​ ​the funders.​ ​In​ ​this​ ​sense,​ ​the​ ​UK-SCL​ ​​does​​ ​harmonise with​ ​UK​ ​funder​ ​policies.​ ​It​ ​also​ ​eliminates​ ​the confusion​ ​caused​ ​by,​ ​especially,​ ​those​ ​publisher policies​ ​which​ ​vary​ ​depending​ ​on​ ​the​ ​source​ ​of funding​ ​that​ ​the​ ​researcher​ ​receives​ ​–​ ​in​ ​other words​ ​those​ ​policies​ ​that​ ​already​ ​allow​ ​for​ ​6/12 months​ ​where​ ​the​ ​author​ ​is​ ​not​ ​funded,​ ​but​ ​insist on​ ​12/24​ ​where​ ​funding​ ​might​ ​be​ ​available​ ​at​ ​the institution. 3​ ​|​ ​​Page
  4. 4. In​ ​circumstances​ ​where​ ​research​ ​is​ ​funded​ ​by​ ​more​ ​than​ ​one​ ​funder, including​ ​multiple​ ​Research​ ​Councils,​ ​the​ ​shortest​ ​embargo​ ​period will​ ​apply,​​ ​as​ ​otherwise​ ​Terms​ ​and​ ​Conditions​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the funding​ ​would​ ​be​ ​breached.​ ​RCUK​ ​funded​ ​researchers​ ​should​ ​ensure that​ ​collaborators​ ​are​ ​aware​ ​of​ ​all​ ​the​ ​terms​ ​and​ ​conditions​ ​of​ ​their funders​ ​as​ ​early​ ​as​ ​possible,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​relevant​ ​wording​ ​stating​ ​the obligation​ ​to​ ​publish​ ​results​ ​in​ ​Open​ ​Access​ ​is​ ​included​ ​in collaboration​ ​agreements.​ ​As​ ​part​ ​of​ ​future​ ​review​ ​of​ ​the​ ​policy,​ ​the Research​ ​Councils​ ​will​ ​consider​ ​how​ ​maximum​ ​embargo​ ​periods​ ​can be​ ​further​ ​harmonised. Where​ ​publishers​ ​offer​ ​a​ ​Gold​ ​Route,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​researcher​ ​chooses green,​ ​papers​ ​should​ ​be​ ​published​ ​in​ ​a​ ​journal​ ​with​ ​a​ ​​maximum embargo​ ​of​ ​12​ ​months​ ​for​ ​STEM​ ​funded​ ​disciplines,​ ​or​ ​24​ ​months​ ​in the​ ​arts,​ ​humanities​ ​and​ ​social​ ​sciences​ ​funded​ ​research. Yes,​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​policy​ ​supports​ ​a​ ​maximum​ ​of​ ​12/24 months​ ​​during​ ​the​ ​transition​ ​period​​ ​but​ ​also encourages​ ​institutions​ ​to​ ​go​ ​beyond​ ​that.​ ​​ ​The UK-SCL​ ​achieves​ ​that. A​ ​reminder​ ​of​ ​the​ ​REF​ ​statement: And​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​statement​ ​on​ ​licenses​ ​from​ ​​this​ ​document​: 6.2​ ​What​ ​licenses​ ​are​ ​compliant​ ​with​ ​the​ ​RCUK​ ​OA​ ​policy?​ ​​UPDATED i)​ ​Gold​ ​-​ ​(immediate​ ​open​ ​access):​ ​​ ​Where​ ​an​ ​APC​ ​is​ ​paid,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​a requirement​ ​that​ ​the​ ​licence​ ​applied​ ​is​ ​CC-BY ii)​ ​Green​ ​-​ ​(deposit​ ​of​ ​the​ ​final​ ​accepted​ ​manuscript​ ​in​ ​a​ ​repository, usually​ ​with​ ​an​ ​embargo):​ ​The​ ​RCUK​ ​preference​ ​is​ ​for​ ​CC-BY, however,​ ​the​ ​formal​ ​requirement​ ​is​ ​that​ ​the​ ​licence​ ​places​ ​no restriction​ ​on​ ​non-commercial​ ​reuse,​ ​including​ ​non-commercial​ ​text- and​ ​data-mining.​ ​The​ ​licence​ ​should​ ​also​ ​allow​ ​for​ ​the​ ​sharing​ ​of adaptations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​material.​ ​This​ ​means​ ​a​ ​CC-BY-NC​ ​licence,​ ​or equivalent​ ​is​ ​acceptable​.​ ​​A​ ​CC-BY-NC-ND​ ​licence​ ​is​ ​not​ ​compliant. HEFCE​ ​also​ ​encourages​ ​institutions​ ​to​ ​go​ ​beyond the​ ​minimum.​ ​The​ ​UK-SCL​ ​achieves​ ​that​ ​whilst preserving​ ​the​ ​NC​ ​element​ ​that​ ​was​ ​of​ ​concern​ ​to the​ ​publishers. RCUK​ ​notes​ ​its​ ​preference​ ​for​ ​gold​ ​but​ ​allows​ ​the academic/institution​ ​to​ ​choose​ ​the​ ​green​ ​route. The​ ​FAQ​ ​is​ ​absolutely​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​a​ ​ND​ ​licence​ ​is​ ​not compliant,​ ​as​ ​highlighted. 4​ ​|​ ​​Page
  5. 5. CC-BY-NC​ ​allows​ ​a​ ​greater​ ​degree​ ​of​ ​TDM​ ​beyond academe,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​what​ ​funders​ ​and​ ​researchers wish​ ​to​ ​see​ ​enabled,​ ​including​ ​beyond​ ​the​ ​UK. For​ ​publishers​ ​wishing​ ​to​ ​claim​ ​blanket​ ​waivers,​ ​we would​ ​wish​ ​to​ ​reach​ ​a​ ​single​ ​agreement​ ​on​ ​behalf of​ ​all​ ​institutions​ ​adopting​ ​the​ ​UK-SCL. The​ ​Steering​ ​Group​ ​welcomes​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that publishers​ ​now​ ​feel​ ​they​ ​can​ ​work​ ​with​ ​us.​ ​We would​ ​ask​ ​them​ ​to​ ​support​ ​the​ ​academics​ ​by​ ​not instituting​ ​article​ ​by​ ​article​ ​waiver​ ​requests​ ​– something​ ​that​ ​would​ ​be​ ​costly​ ​to​ ​both​ ​publishers and​ ​unwelcomed​ ​by​ ​individual​ ​academics​ ​and​ ​their institutions​ ​–​ ​but​ ​instead​ ​work​ ​with​ ​us​ ​to implement​ ​not​ ​simply​ ​the​ ​funder​ ​minima​ ​but​ ​also, as​ ​the​ ​UK-SCL​ ​seeks​ ​to​ ​do,​ ​to​ ​accept​ ​the​ ​stretch challenge​ ​by​ ​funders​ ​that​ ​institutions​ ​are​ ​seeking​ ​to rise​ ​to​ ​and​ ​many​ ​publishers​ ​are​ ​responding​ ​to. 5​ ​|​ ​​Page

×