The document discusses the challenges faced in the UK regarding the promotion of open access publishing for publicly funded research, highlighting the policies set by Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust. It underscores the complexities for academics in complying with multiple open access mandates, along with institutional and publisher responses to these policies. The document emphasizes the need for effective leadership and support from libraries and institutions to navigate the evolving open access landscape.

1. Whose Property Is It Anyway?
Part 2: the challenges in supporting the UK’s main research
funder agendas which seek to ensure that the outputs from
publicly funded research are published Open Access
Chris Banks @chrisbanks
Director of Library Services
Imperial College London

2. POLICY ENVIRONMENT

3. Research Councils UK (RCUK) Policy
• From 2005 RCUK sought to encourage open access publishing
• Article Processing Charges could be paid from grants - low take up

4. Wellcome Trust and Open Access
• From 2007 the Wellcome Trust funded APCs
• Also mandated deposit in PubMedCentral
• Compliance is currently at 66% and costs the Trust around £4.5m a
year
• Wellcome are now implementing sanctions for non compliant
academics seeking further grants

5. Finch Report
• 2011: Dame Janet Finch commissioned to lead a group to explore how
to accelerate the adoption of Open Access to publicly funded research
• Summer 2012 Finch Report Published
• Author-pays model was preferred
• Publication Fund established to encourage adoption of OA by
explicitly funding APCs for immediate CC-BY publication where
possible
• September 2012: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)
endorses the report (and allocates £10m pump prime funding)
• Autumn 2012 RCUK announces new policy to take effect April 2013.
They currently spend around £11.2bn on research funding and have
allocated 1% towards Gold Open Access
• Institutions awarded funding on the basis of Research Council grant
income to support the payment of APCs on journal articles and
conference proceedings where RCUK acknowledged as funder
• Target 45% compliance in the first year- assumed APC £2000

6. HEFCE policy for post REF2014
• Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) REF policy
published on 31st March 2014 states that for any journal article or
conference proceeding accepted for publication in a volume with an
ISSN from 1 April 2016 to be eligible for the next REF [REF2020?] the
Final Author Version/Accepted Author Manuscript must have been
deposited in an institutional or subject repository and made
discoverable within three months of acceptance for publication.

7. Big numbers: why the HEFCE policy matters

8. HEFCE and RCUK policies seen together
• From 2016, for a Journal/Conference proceeding publication to be
eligible for submission to the next REF it must meet the following
minimum criteria:
• Have a discoverable metadata record in a repository within 3 months
of acceptance for publication
• Have a closed deposit FAV/AAM in the repository within 3 months of
acceptance for publication
• BUT if the research was funded by RCUK/Wellcome/Horizon2020 then
the following criteria must also be met:
• Be available as an Open Access publication (either Gold or Green).
• If Gold: immediately upon publication, and with the relevant
license (e.g. CC-BY)
• If Green: be open access within the embargo period set by the
funder

9. The challenges of compliance
Author action RCUK /
Wellcome
compliant?
HEFCE
REF
compliant?
Additional
REF
credits?
APC paid for Gold OA?   
Repository deposit with
Green embargo
  
Immediate Deposit/Optional
Access
  ?
Immediate deposit /
Immediate Access / SPARC
(or similar) Author Addendum
to Publication Agreement
  
It can be all too easy for academics to comply with one policy and fail to comply with others

10. INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES

11. • Senior academic leadership is essential to effect behavioural change
• High level committees drawn from Research VP, Research Office,
Policy, Strategy, Library, ICT + relevant academic representation
• Advocacy, Advocacy, Advocacy – the message is still not widely
understood
• Challenges with multiple policies which are not wholly aligned,
particularly cross-border policies

12. Imperial College 2012 mandate
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/library/subjectsandsupport/spiral/oamandate

13. ACADEMIC RESPONSES

14. Responses vary by discipline
• Sciences & Medicine likely most engaged
• Engineering and Maths less so
• Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences – even less so
Individual responses
• On a spectrum between passionately engaged and
unaware/disinterested
• Still rewarded by publication in high impact journals, so minimal
motivation to change behaviours
• Like the elitism of publishing in high impact journals
• Beleaguered: yet more constraints, more reporting requirements,
perceived less time for research
• But: want to be eligible for submission to the REF

15. PUBLISHER RESPONSES

16. • Currently UK pays around £163m in subscriptions
• In the UK around 140,000 articles are published per year.
• If all opted for gold then funding required would be £245m
• Some publishers seeing hybrid gold OA as an additional income stream

17. • RCUK funding is “transitional” but some evidence suggests publishers
are welcoming a growth in hybrid gold
• Challenge with license applications: correct funder-compliant license
not always applied
• “Pure Gold” does not necessarily mean low impact factor (e.g. PLoS)
• New government-led research into monograph publishing
• New publishing business models are emerging
• Some quality monograph publishers actively engaging in OA schemes
(e.g. Knowledge Unlatched)

18. LIBRARY ACTIVITIES

19. Library Activity
• Contributing to the work of institutional implementation groups
• Awareness raising amongst library colleagues, academics and
students
• Working with other departments, including ICT and Research Office,
on the requirements for management of the process
• Maintenance of web pages, FAQs and links
• Running the service to manage the payment of Article Processing
Charges (and learning from that process)

20. Open Access Funds managed at Imperial 2013-14
• Wellcome
• RCUK fund: £1,150,458
• Imperial College Fund: £650,000

21. Library involvement in OA at Imperial College
Gold
• Management and allocation
of the publication funds
• Supporting academics to
ensure funder compliance
• Record keeping and reporting
• Working with colleagues on
workflows and systems to
manage many transactions
• Checking whether the
publisher has published OA
and attached correct license
Green
• Support for self-archiving
in the institutional
repository
• Repository developments
to ensure metadata is
discoverable
• Metrics (downloads,
altmetrics, etc)
• “request” button for closed
deposits

22. Open Access workflow (without HEFCE . . .):

23. http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/ - the College Repository

24. Repository Metrics

25. Article level metrics

26. The Library goal: making it as easy and attractive as possible
for authors to comply, deposit and get cited
People
• Be more pro-active about collecting
author versions of papers (e.g. at
time of request of APC funding)
• Consider a mediated licensing
advisory service
• Engage via repository notifications
• Encourage academics to challenge
publishers about the green options
• Consider in-house publishing
options
• Consider institutional subscription to
ORCID as this makes automation of
processes much simpler
• Consider which licensing options
might increase flexibility of deposit
Systems
• Consider making the repository the
single point of deposit, and simplify the
interface
• Automated population of SPIRAL with
metadata and harvested articles
• Development of SPIRAL to support the
next REF (e.g. working with publishers)
• Develop and visualise metrics and
bibliometrics
• Interoperability between systems is
necessary, as are version control tools
• Upgrade Sherpa Romeo to:
• Standardise publishers’ text to deliver
meaning
• Develop a Institutional Repository
Specific API

27. Ongoing challenges
• Scalibility of processing, especially for gold
• Creating a touchpoint with the repository for FAV/AAM to meet the new
HEFCE requirements
• Working with publishers to receive notification at “acceptance” for
publication
• Challenging the enduring hybrid gold – affordability question
• Working with publishers to achieve “offsetting” deals
• Note that Academic reward systems are not currently contributing to
behaviour change

29. SERVICE

30. SERVICE

31. SPARC addendum

32. Summary of opportunities for libraries
• Influence high level academic support and leadership
• Have one person whose role it is to oversee practical implementation and
reporting
• Work with institutions, publishers and with aggregators so as to minimise
the number of small value transactions that need to be processed
• Work with publishers to get better data, e.g. through implementation of
ORCID
• Work with publishers to get more transparent license information
• Work with CRIS developers and institutions and implement ORCHD etc
• Ensure that the CRIS can automatically deposit to the repository
• Work with academics so that the are fully aware of the value of appropriate
licensing
• Consider services which might take away some of the academic “pain” at
the point of publication, e.g. licensing advice and support
• Work at national and international levels to harmonise embargo periods
• Consider the ongoing affordability of hybrid gold OA and whether any
policies on upper limits are necessary