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.

United Kingdom Scholarly Communications model policy and Licence - UK-SCL - update 2017 10 22


Published on

United Kingdom Scholarly Communications model policy and licence. A presentation which sets the context for the UK model university open access policy based on the Harvard model policy

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

United Kingdom Scholarly Communications model policy and Licence - UK-SCL - update 2017 10 22

  1. 1. United Kingdom Scholarly Communications model policy and licence October 2017 Prepared by Chris Banks on behalf of the UK-SCL Steering Group This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.
  2. 2. Overview • Funder Open Access Policy environment – Consequences of multiple funder policies – the policy stack – Minimum compliance/eligibility criteria – Funder encouragement to go beyond the minimum • Need for university open access policies to align with funder policies and to support researchers – Steps being taken in Universities – Steps being taken nationally to align university OA policies • Publisher responses
  3. 3. RCUK • Preference for gold but accepts green • Some institutions are funded for gold • Minimum compliance: CC-BY- NC for green • Varying maximum embargo periods for the first five years depending on whether institution has funds for gold Funder policy differences REF2021 OA policy • Author Accepted Manuscript must be placed in a repository (aiming for within 3 months of Acceptance but for first two years of policy – within 3 months of publication) • Agnostic about Green / Gold • No funding • Minimum compliance: CC-BY- NC-ND with 12/24 month embargoes 3
  4. 4. And that is just two funders • Many funder policies: • Different compliance requirements • Differently funded (or not) • Many publisher policies • Some publisher have different policies depending on who funds the researcher • HEFCE policy in particular, differs substantially from other policies and applies to all UK academics • Many publisher policies are not in line with HEFCE policy • Difficult to know what to do to comply with Funder policies and for outputs to be REF2021 eligible
  5. 5. Funders encourage institutions to go beyond the minimum (and will give credit for doing so). HEFCE:
  6. 6. The Funding Councils also say:
  7. 7. Meanwhile, UK researchers face the “policy stack” challenge • Many funder policies: • Different compliance requirements • Differently funded (or not) • REF policy in particular, differs substantially from other policies and applies to all UK research academics • Many publisher policies • Some publisher have different policies depending on who funds the researcher • Many publisher policies are not in line with REF policy • Difficult to know what to do to comply both with Funder and REF policies (e.g. very easy to comply with RCUK but fall foul of REF2021 eligibility) • Institutional OA and IP policies not in alignment with funder policies, so don’t best support academics.
  8. 8. Institutions • Want to support researchers in the retention of re-use rights, especially as more and more journal submission systems will only allow transfer of © to the publisher, not retention of rights by the author(s) • Recognise that IP, copyright and open access policies are not necessarily supporting funder compliance – something needs to be done • Variety of approaches to academic IP observed across UK institutions • Legally, in the UK: employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work (subject to any agreement to the contrary) created “in the course of employment” which courts have typically taken to mean ‘contract of service’ (e.g. as an employee) rather than a ‘contract for services’ (e.g. as a freelancer or independent contractor). Institutions have generally not asserted this right but are increasingly considering doing so. • See the UK-SCL as a mechanism for academics to retain rights whilst still enabling them to assign © with a publisher
  9. 9. Institutional open access policies need to work in harmony with funder policies and so many have been in need of revision
  10. 10. Publishers • Have varying approaches to copyright, from licence to first publish, to outright copyright transfer. Academics are rarely given a choice • Licenses are generally not read by academics – researchers are more interest in the journal than in the agreement • This is a problem not confined to publishing – how many have read the android google agreement? Social media agreements? • In 2012 Time magazine reported Carnegie Mellon funded research which concluded: You’d Need 76 Work Days to Read All Your Privacy Policies Each Year
  11. 11. Library • Wanting to create frictionless services • Needing to upscale services to all researchers – REF2021 OA policy • Can’t easily give answer to researchers on OA options - need to ask them lots of questions first (who funds, where publishing) before advising of OA options/requirements • Working with researchers to understand challenges and opportunities
  12. 12. Why an OA policy revision is needed, and what it needs to do • Need to ensure that institutional policies are in alignment with funder (RCUK, REF, etc.) policies • Publisher policies vary considerably – many do not enable easy compliance with both funder(s) and REF policies • Want to preserve academic choice as to where to publish, including academic freedom to sign whatever licence/© transfer agreement is necessary (whilst separately continuing to encourage scrutiny of those licenses) • Desire to maximise impact of publication • Desire to retain some re-use rights for use in teaching etc., including rights in diagrams and graphs produced for the publication. Presently, items deposited in the repository often cannot be used in teaching until after the embargo has passed
  13. 13. Options explored
  14. 14. Harvard model policy chosen Key components: • Implemented as part of university OA policy • Academics deposit Author Accepted Manuscripts (AAMs) and grant a non-exclusive licence to the university for all journal articles • Well established policy – has been in use since 2008 • Where a journal seeks a waiver, this can be managed by exception (happens <5% in the USA) • Used by over 60 institutions worldwide • From Harvard and MIT • To smaller institutions, including two in Kenya
  15. 15. Summary of process • Harvard model policy reviewed in the context of UK © law • Model policy adjusted for UK law, and to ensure it facilitated funder deposit compliance and REF eligibility • Institutions reviewed IP policies to ensure alignment • Institutions reviewed employment contracts (some contain © and IP policy statements within them, others refer to external policies)
  16. 16. Key components of the new model policy • Retain the right to make accepted manuscripts of scholarly articles authored by its staff available publicly under the CC BY NC (4.0) licence from the moment of first publication (or earlier if the publisher’s policy allows). • Allow authors and publishers to request a temporary waiver for applying this right for up to 12 months for AHSS and 6 months for STEM (aligned to REF panels). • Where a paper is co-authored with external co-authors, the institution will: – Automatically sub-licence this right all co-authors credited on the paper and their host institutions. – Not apply the licence if a co-author (who is not based at an institution with a UK-SCL-based model policy) objects. – Honour waiver requests granted by other institutions which have adopted the UK-SCL model policy.
  17. 17. Next steps by the community • 60 institutions overall interested • First mover group ~ 12 institutions • Ongoing discussions with publishers • Wider engagement with the researcher, library, research office and legal office communities • Website and advocacy materials: • Boilerplate texts for authors, collaboration agreements etc., being drafted • Steering Committee established • Responding to publisher concerns and perceptions
  18. 18. Publisher responses • Some very positive responses from some publishers, including pure gold (e.g. PLoS) but also learned society (Royal Society). Other publishers are in discussion with Steering Group members with a view to aligning their policies with the UK-SCL • Other publishers less happy but now in dialogue with the Steering Group through membership bodes: Publishers’ Association and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
  19. 19. Researcher concerns • The need to seek agreement from co-authors (particularly for those collaborations commenced before policy adoption) – Can be addressed through a phased/gradual implementation and supported by the library • Fear that a publisher will refuse to publish – Institutions using the Harvard model report no instances of this happening • Learned Societies – fear loss of income – Publishers add value and readers prefer continue to prefer the Version of Record rather than the Author Acceptance Manuscript. No reliable research evidence to back up Learned Society fears. • Don’t like the CC-BY-NC licence – This was chosen so that it complied with RCUK where a ND licence is not compliant
  20. 20. Further reading & watching • Banks, C., (2016). Focusing upstream: supporting scholarly communication by academics. Insights. 29(1), pp.37–44. DOI: • Torsten Reimer, UK Scholarly Communications, Licence and Model Policy, • “Focusing upstream” – recording of talk given at UKSG 11 April 2017: • “Copyright and Licensing session : Rights as the foundation of scholarly communication” – outputs (ppt and recording) from talk given at the OAI10 – CERN – UNIGE Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication • Responses to concerns raised by the Publishers’ Association: and
  21. 21. Credits • All those who originally developed the “Harvard” model • Dr Torsten Reimer (formerly Imperial, now British Library) • Simon Bains (Manchester) • RCUK • HEFCE • Wellcome • RLUK for funding much of the legal costs • Many RLUK and LERU librarians
  22. 22.