Overview of the Open Access Landscape - ALA ALCTS Midwinter Symposium


Published on

Published in: News & Politics, Technology
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
  • DOI – Digital Object IdentifierORCID - Open Researcher and Contributor IDVIAF - Virtual International Authority FileISNI - International Standard Name IdentifierFundRef - www.crossref.org/fundref/Data Cite - www.datacite.org/‎
  • Overview of the Open Access Landscape - ALA ALCTS Midwinter Symposium

    1. 1. Here There Be Dragons Public Access to Federally Funded Research Overview of the Open Access Landscape Open Access to Federally Funded Research: Current Status and Future Directions January 24, 2014 Richard Huffine, Senior Director U.S. Federal Government Market, ProQuest
    2. 2. Overview • Definition • Types of Open Access • The Audience for Open Access • Mandates • Open Versus Public • U.S. Federal Government Mandate • Don’t Forget the Data! • Current State • Role of Providers • • • • • • Potential Opportunities Controversies Changing Landscape Future State *A Note About Copyright Questions and Feedback
    3. 3. Definition • Open Access – “literature [and data that] is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. – Peter Suber, co-founder of the Open Access Directory (OAD) (with Robin Peek) http://www.wordle.net/create
    4. 4. Types of Open Access • GOLD OA – content where the cost barrier is removed by journals, regardless of their business model, with permission of the copyright holder • GREEN OA – content where the cost barrier is removed by serving the content through institutional repositories or by “self-archiving” by the author or copyright holder • CLEAR OA – content where both the cost and permissions barriers have been removed (e.g. libre OA)
    5. 5. Types of Open Access • Gold open access includes: – Journals dedicated to being open. These are typically supported by Author Page Charges (APCs) and they can be operated by commercial publishers, societies, or non-governmental organizations dedicated to that model. – Articles in subscription journals. Some publishers offer APCs within subscription journals or selectively make articles open within the context of their subscription offerings. Some publishers are also lowering subscription rates based on the percentage of articles that are published as open access. – Content made open after an embargo period. Some publishers make their content open after an embargo period, regardless of how the research was funded. – Supplemental data can be included by the publisher, posted by the author to their own site, or embargoed along with the articles. Practices vary greatly across disciplines.
    6. 6. Types of Open Access • Green open access includes: – Research deposited either directly by the authors or on their behalf by the publisher. – Author’s final drafts or a copy of the published article, depending often on terms defined in agreements signed by authors and publishers prior to acceptance of the paper. – Research data can be deposited along with articles, as separate submissions, or linked out from repositories and hosted on departmental services. • The practices for data access vary greatly and depend on what formats institutional repositories accept and how the data can be provided for review, analysis and re-use.
    7. 7. Types of Open Access • Clear (libre) open access includes: – In the United States, works in the “public domain,” specifically intramural research products produced by federal employees in the normal course of their work. – Works produced and distributed for free and with a disclaimer that provides for redistribution, re-use and repurposing. This may include creative commons and other types of licensing. – There is some discussion and debate about what extent of licensing can constitute clear or libre OA. Some policies are explicit but many are not. – The issues involve attribution, commercial use, and the creation of derivative works. – The issue gets more complicated when considering data sets and the rights provided or restricted in their release.
    8. 8. The Audience for Open Access • Originally, scholarly communications were peer-to-peer with a very defined audience for the work of research. • As publishing and scholarship matured, the audience widened within communities and scientific disciplines. – Research disciplines splintered off and aligned with one another as an ebb and flow of communications advanced scientific understanding – We have one from Discipline to Cross-Disciplined to Interdisciplinary • As the Internet was established, a broader audience was recognized, that of the public at large. – Some research became accessible to anyone with a connection to the Internet and disparities across disciplines were recognized. • We now see value in the potential of finding relevant research in any number of places and across all disciplines of practice.
    9. 9. Mandates • An open access mandate is a policy, adopted by a research institution, research funder, or government entity, requiring researchers (e.g. employees, faculty, research grant recipients) to make the outcome of their work available without fee. • SHERPA/JULIET – Database of research funders archiving mandates and guidelines http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/index.php
    10. 10. Mandates • In addition to open access mandates from funders, many employers and academic institutions are instituting policies that ensure their rights to the products of work conducted by their researchers. https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/policies
    11. 11. Open Versus Public • Using the term open access typically means that research is available without a fee and that there are some rights provided for re-use, redistribution, etc. • The term Public Access does not carry those same assumptions. Public Access policies may leave the question of rights to the authors and their publishers. – This is the case with the NIH Public Access policy today. • Public Domain, on the other hand, applies to research produced by the Federal government or by employees in the course of their daily work. Public Domain material has no copyright associated with it. – Publishers may, however, assert copyright over the format of research produced by federal employees. – Some federal employees have also signed copyright over to publishers even though there was no copyright to relinquish.
    12. 12. U.S. Federal Government Mandate • The U.S. Government has tried to legislate open access without success: – Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) proposed requiring open public access to research funded by eleven U.S. federal government agencies. It was proposed by Senators John Cornyn and Joe Lieberman in 2006 and then again in 2010, and then once more in 2012. – Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) is a bi-partisan effort intended to make federally supported research more readily and publicly available. It was proposed by Sens. Wyden (D)and Cronyn (R) and House members Lofgren (D), Doyle (D), and Yoder (R).
    13. 13. U.S. Federal Government Mandate • Other legislation has also been proposed to restrict open access. These include: – Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (2009) – Research Works Act (2011) – Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology Act (FIRST) (2013) • These proposals have been viewed as efforts to protect the investment made in scientific publishing by publishers.
    14. 14. U.S. Federal Government Mandate • In lieu of legislation, the National Institutes of Health instituted a public access policy in 2005 that applied to all research funded by the NIH. • That policy was codified in appropriations legislation in 2008 [see Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110-161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008)]
    15. 15. U.S. Federal Government Mandate • The Obama Administration took on a series of conversations with funders, researchers, publishers, and academic institutions. • Those conversations culminated in a February 22, 2013 memoranda from the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), directing Agencies develop plans to support increased public access to the results of research funded by the Federal Government.
    16. 16. U.S. Federal Government Mandate • The OSTP Memo does not specify Open Access publishing or self-archiving. • It doesn’t directly address the copyright of works funded by the government either. • It does address the potential for embargo periods, to be established based in part on the “challenges and public interests that are unique to each field and mission combination.” • It is unique in that it doesn’t stop with making the published results of research publicly accessible. It also identifies objectives for public access to scientific data in digital formats.
    17. 17. U.S. Federal Government Mandate • With the 2014 Omnibus Spending Bill, Congress codified Public Access requirements for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (page 1,020 of the 1,582 page bill, H.R. 3547) • The specifics in the Omnibus bill include: – Submission of a “machine-readable version” of the author’s final, peerreviewed manuscripts – Free online public access of either the manuscripts or published versions not later than 12 months after the official date of publication, and – Compliance with all relevant copyright laws • Congress also asked all of the other Departments and Agencies identified in the OSTP memo to report on their progress within 45 days and with semi-annual updates thereafter.
    18. 18. Don’t Forget the Data! • The OSTP Memo goes beyond the established practices of open access mandates to direct Agencies to also maximize access, by the general public and without charge, to digitally formatted scientific data created with Federal funds. • Agency plans must also address requirements for data management plans from all intramural (government employees) and extramural (Federal grantees and contractors) researchers – The National Science Foundation began requiring Data Management Plans in 2011 of all of their extramural grantees.
    19. 19. Current State • Federal agencies impacted by the OSTP Memo (those with over $100 million in annual conduct of research and development expenditures) have been meeting in two groups (publications and data) since the memo was released. • Draft plans were due to OSTP by late August 2013. They were to provide feedback quickly. • Agencies are expected to start sharing their Public Access plans for stakeholder and public input in early 2014. • Once adopted, modifications to contract and grant language will be required for implementation. • The current government-wide shutdown will definitely impact their planned schedule.
    20. 20. Role of Providers • The OSTP Memo encourages Agencies to work together to address the issues and to leverage archives and strategies for accomplishing the goal of broader public access. • The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has developed a solution for the challenge, the Clearinghouse for the Open Research of the United States or CHORUS. • SHared Access Research Ecosystem (SHARE) is another alternative that has been proposed by Proposed by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), Association of American Universities (AAU), and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU)
    21. 21. Role of Providers • The National Institutes of Health system, PubMedCentral is presumed to meet the requirements of the OSTP Memo for NIH and other agencies that can use that system • The Department of Energy has developed a prototype clearinghouse for DOE funded research that will be able to link to articles wherever they are provided by the authors, publishers, or institutions. • Researchers will have the choice of publishing in Open Access journals, working with commercial publishers to comply with the policy or self-archiving their research in order to comply with the policy. • The strategy for releasing the data associated with research will likely also have a number of options for compliance.
    22. 22. Role of Providers • Options for providing access to both the publications and the data will continue to evolve with new business models continuing to develop. • A number of efforts are underway to improve discovery and access, including: – DOIs and Handles for persistent linking to digital objects – ORCID for linking the works of a specific individual – VIAF and ISNI for linking the work funded or conducted by specific institutions or organizations – FUNDREF for linking the outcomes of specific funding efforts – DATA CITE for linking to data
    23. 23. Potential Opportunities • Publishers, aggregators, and other information intermediaries have opportunities in this new environment: – – – – Provide enhanced discovery for researchers Provide tools for compliance with Open Access and Public Access policies Utilize identifiers to identify, index, and link to Open Access content Add value through additional indexing description and associations • The business models for Open Access and Public Access are still evolving and there are a number of ways value can be added and realized in this process.
    24. 24. Controversies • Open Access publishing is not without its controversies, detractors, champions, and antagonists: – Librarian Jeffrey Beall has developed a list of predatory publishers and been sued over his efforts. (see his Website at www.scholarlyoa.com ) – Journalist John Bohannon investigated peer review in Open Access journals for Science magazine in October 2013. (see: DOI:10.1126/science.342.6154.60) – Research Council UK’s decision to “prefer” gold over green OA for research they fund continues to be controversial. (see: www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/outputs.aspx) – Researcher Michael Eisen’s “liberation” of NASA Curiosity research published in Science in September 2013, challenges both publishers and federal agencies to change their practices sooner than later. (see: www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1430)
    25. 25. Changing Landscape • The popular press and scholarly literature is struggling to define and understand the changing landscape of open access. • Recent news stories have challenged the validity of Open Access journals and have challenged the peer-review process conducted by these providers. • Self-archiving is being criticized because it may not be the best record of a work published commercially. • Institutional repositories struggle to be indexed and seen as trusted repositories of research. • The distribution of multiple copies of a publication or data set would further proliferate multiple identifiers for the same work.
    26. 26. Future State • Open Access publishing and archiving are growing activities in a number of research disciplines today. • The business models for providing open access and public access are evolving and a number of examples exist that have proven viable and accepted in their communities. • The U.S. Federal Government has chosen to implement policies that take advantage of these new strategies for publication and dissemination. • The ultimate outcome will likely continue to be a variety of strategies, depending on the maturity of the research discipline and the willingness of researchers, institutions, societies, publishers, and funders to work together.
    27. 27. *A Note About Copyright • As mentioned earlier, the OSTP Memo does not explicitly mention copyright in their guidance. We do not know if the Agency Plans will explicitly address it. • It is presumed that authors of federally funded research will continue to retain, transfer, and define the copyrights associated with their work. • Work by government employees, done in the course of their daily jobs, is considered in the public domain and cannot have copyright assigned or transferred. • Whether publishers can or will wish to copyright the format, structure or presentation of publications and data will potentially determine how the policies address what is made available and with what permissions. • Works can be controlled under copyright and still be made Open Access or publicly accessible. Licensing like Creative Commons can also be used to communicate permissions in such an instance.
    28. 28. Questions and Feedback Feedback: Richard Huffine, Senior Director U.S. Federal Government Market, ProQuest 301-968-3930 richard.huffine@proquest.com