Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Current Status of Open Access Policy
Similar to Current Status of Open Access Policy (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Current Status of Open Access Policy
- 1. 2014/09/26, National Institute of Informatics, Japan The 2nd SPARC Japan Seminar 2014 "Institutional Open Access Policy : toward the development of Japanese models" Current Status of Open Access Policy Shinji Mine (Mie University) mine@human.mie-u.ac.jp, @openaccessjapan
- 2. Outline 1. OA policy in scholarly communication 2. Current Status of OA policy 1. ROARMAP and Sherpa/Juliet 2. University OA policy 3. Government and Funder’s OA policy 3. Summary
- 3. OA Policy：7 benefits (SPARC Europe 2014) 1. Systematic contribution to the greater worldwide visibility 2. Increase institution’s ranking position 3. Faster innovative and economic growth 4. Stimulate new research partnerships and project collaborations, research income 5. Increase value of institution’s knowledge 6. Increase the social impact and reputation of institution 7. Demonstrate institutional commitment to OA and Open Science 7 institutional benefits to implementing an Open Access policy. http://sparceurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SPARCEurope-7OABenefits4ResearchOrgs.pdf
- 4. Open Access Policy • Policy • a course of principle and procedure adopted or proposed by a organization, or individual to solve problems • Goal, Target, Procedure • “Open Access” Policy • a course of principle and procedure adopted or proposed by a organization, or individual to solve Open Access-related problems
- 5. Stakeholders in OA policy • Researcher • University • Library • Government • Funder • Learned Society/Commercial Publisher • Public/Taxpayer
- 6. Library Univ Researcher Commercial Publisher Learned Society Journals Reviewer Editorial Board Author Reader Production Editing Basic Model of Scholarly Communication Based on: Kurata, K, Scholarly Communication and Open Access(Gakujutsu-joho-ryutsuu to Open Access) .Keiso Shobo, 2007. p.71, Fig3.5 Gov. Funder Provision Archiving Public Taxpayer
- 7. Source: ROARMAP: Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies. http://roarmap.eprints.org/
- 8. 120 90 60 30 0 Funder Thesis Institutional *Institutional+multi-institutional+department 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Institutional Thesis Funder 0 Europe North America Asia Oceania South America Africa 5 8 28 4 1 6 10 34 33 42 70 43 43 153 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Source: ROARMAP: Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies. http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/type/
- 9. Africa South America Asia Oceania North America Europe Europe 120 90 60 30 North America Asia Oceania South America Africa 153 70 34 10 0 Institutional Thesis Funder 1 4 42 43 6 5 28 33 43 8 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 source: ROARMAP: Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies. http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/type/
- 10. Funders by Country Funders by Publication Archiving Policy Others 17% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 9% UK 51% 22% 13% 65% Canada Australia Sweden Ireland Denmark International USA Funders by Data Archiving Policy Funders by OA Publishing Policy 45% 22% 33% 24% 64% 12% Required Required Required Encouraged Encouraged Encouraged No Policy No Policy No Policy Source: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/stats.php?la=en&mode=simple
- 11. 26% 32% 52% 1%6% 9% 7% 33% 34% Publishers’ Self-archiving Policy (RoMEO) RoMEO Statistics Statistics for the 1681 publishers in the RoMEO database. http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple Postprint Publishers’ Self-archiving Policy (SCPJ) Society Copyright Policies in Japan. http://scpj.tulips.tsukuba.ac.jp/info/stat Not Supported Preprint Pre/Postprint Postprint Not Supported Pre/Postprint No policy Preprint
- 12. Commercial Publishers Societies All Allowed Not Permitted No formal support 0 25 50 75 100 Commercial Publishers Societies All Immediately 6-12 month 18-24 month Not permitted 0 25 50 75 100 Commercial Publishers Societies All Immediately 6-12 month 18-24 month Not permitted 0 25 50 75 100 Preprint Accepted manuscript Publisher version Laakso M. Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics. 2014, 99(2), p.475–494.
- 13. University OA policy • Pioneers • Soton(2003), QUT(2003), Minho(2004) • Two major models • Liège model • No deposit No Tenure & Promotion • eg. appointments, promotions and budget allocations decisions • Harvard model • Faculties’ work：OA as the default • Faculty grants permission university
- 14. Immediate Deposit No Waiver Retention of Rights Deposit if/ when publisher permits Author → University University e.g Liege Harvard QUT Soton Mandates Y Y Y Y Immediate deposit Y Usually Usually N Embargo Y（Fulltext） immediate OA for metadata Usually ← Usually ← Y Deposit if/ when publisher permits Right Retention Optional Y Y N Waiver N Y Y N Source: Policy Guidelines FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF OPEN ACCESS.
- 15. Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Lariviere V, Gingras Y, et al. (2010) Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13636. 1200! 1000! 800! 600! 400! 200! 0! 100%! 80%! 60%! 40%! 20%! 0%! 2004D 2012! 2004! 2005! 2006! 2007! 2008! 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! Public!Access! Restricted!Access! Not!Deposited! ISI!ArTcle!Count! Percentage!of!ArTcles! ISI!arTcles!in!2004D2012! 3a# 70! Public!60! 50! 40! 30! 20! 10! Access!Delay! Restricted!Access!Delay! Average!Delay!(months)! 1600! 1400! 1200! 1000! 800! 600! 400! 200! 0! 100%! 90%! 80%! 70%! 60%! 50%! 40%! 30%! 20%! 10%! 0%! Public!Access! Restricted!Access!! Metadata!Only! Not!Deposited! ISI!ArTcle!Count! Figure 4. Comparing Deposit Rates. Percent Public Access deposits (PA), Restricted Access deposits (RA), Metadata Only and Not Deposited for the universities of Liège, Minho, Surrey (Mandated) and Lancaster (Non-Mandated) as well as the averages for 26 Mandated and 73 Non-Mandated UK repositories that were analyzed for publication year 2012 !Percentage!of!ArTcles! ISI!ArTcles!in!2012! Gargouri Y, Lariviere V, Harnad, S. Ten-year Analysis of University of Minho Green OA Self-Archiving Mandate. Rodrigues, Eloy, Swan, Alma and Baptista, Ana Alice (eds.) Ten-year Anniversary of University of Minho RepositoriUM. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358882/
- 16. Government & Funder’s policy • Pioneers • WT，ERC，NIH，HHMI • Hot topics • UK：Finch Report / HEFCE REF2020 • Green OA→Gold OA • OA as Pre-requisite for Research Assessment • USA：OSTP，FASTR，FIRST • OSTP • Fed agency w/ over $100M in annual conduct of research and development expenditures must develop a plan for public access • CHORUS & SHARE
- 17. UK・RCUK policy USA・Consolidated Appropriations Act, HR 3547 A warenss of the Policy and Green Open Access Choose either Gold or Green Open Access for their funded research; choosing Gold, they must sign a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence when publishing their article; choosing Green, they must deposit their article in a repository within a maximum of 12 months (STM) or 24 months (SSH) from publication; They should also disclose the location of underlying research data. summary of the policy has been created by Taylor & Francis for this purpose of survey. For complete and up to date information please follow the links below to the funder’s website. Please note that not all OA policies for United Kingdom are here. United Kingdom Research Councils UK Policy Introduction Policy type: Gold and Green Open Access What do funded researchers have to do? x Choose either Gold or Green Open Access for their funded research; x If choosing Gold, they must sign a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence when publishing their article; x If choosing Green, they must deposit their article in a repository within a Are you aware of this Policy? [n = 882] maximum of 12 months (STM) or 24 months (SSH) from publication; x They should also disclose the location of underlying research data. Further information: This summary of the policy has been created by Taylor & Francis for this purpose of http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/ z Yes 62% z No 38% https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3547 [n = 771] 5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand United States Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 Introduction Policy type: Green Open Access Publishing work under this Policy What do funded researchers have to do? Awarenss of the Act Publishing work under this Act United States Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 Introduction Policy type: Green Open Access What do funded They should ensure free public online access to a machine-readable version of either researchers have to do? the Author’s Accepted Manuscript version or the final published article within 12 months of publication. Annex A: United States September 2014 Further information: This summary of the policy has been created by Taylor & Francis for this purpose of z Yes 14% z No 53% z Unsure 32% this survey. For complete and up to date information please follow the links below to visit the funder’s website. Please note that not all OA policies for United Kingdom are listed here. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/ Publishing work under this Policy How well do you understand this Policy? http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/ Have you published work under this Policy previously? [n = 873] They should ensure free public online access to a machine-readable version of either the Author’s Accepted Manuscript version or the final published article within 12 months of publication. this survey. For complete and up to date information please follow the links below to visit the funder’s website. Please note that not all OA policies for United States are listed here. See section 527 of this bill: https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3547 Will you publish work under this Policy in the future? [n = 872] Are you aware of this Act? Have you published work under Will you publish Further information: [n = 2,394] This summary of the policy has this been Act created previously? by Taylor [n & = Francis 2,409] for this purpose Act of in the future? z Yes 32% z No 68% z Yes 39% z No How well do you understand this Act? z Yes 42% z No 3% z Unsure 55% Awarenss of the Act Publishing work under this Policy 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Will you publish work under this Policy in the future? [n = 872] Are you aware of this Act? Have you published work under this Policy previously? [n = 873] z Yes 42% z No 3% z Unsure 55% z Yes 14% z No 53% z Unsure 32% Will you publish work under this Policy in the future? [n = 872] z Yes 42% z No 3% z Unsure 55% 2014 Open Access Author Survey 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% All US authors [n = 2396] Authors already aware of the Act 23% Annex B: United Kingdom September 2014 8 9% 13% 21% 30% 30% 37% 17% 16% A warenss of the Policy All UK authors [n = 837 ] Authors already aware of the policy Have you published work under this Policy previously? [n = 873] Are you aware of this Policy? [n = 539 ] [n = 2,394] 5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy z Yes 32% z No 68% this survey. For complete and up to date information please follow the links below to visit the funder’s website. Please note that not all OA policies for United States are listed here. See section 527 of this bill: https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3547 Publishing work under this Act 11% 18% Have you published work under this Act previously? [n = 2,409] z Yes 16% z No 40% z Unsure 44% z Yes 16% z No 40% z Unsure 44% 20% 32% 30% Will you publish work under this Act in the future? [n = 2,408] z Yes 39% z No 4% z Unsure 57% How well do you understand this Act? z Yes 14% z No 53% z Unsure 32% z Yes 62% z No 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2014 Open Access Author Survey 17% 36% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 11% 18% 20% 32% 30% 17% 36% 22% 12% 23% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% All US authors [n = 2396] Authors already aware of the Act [n = 771] 5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy [n = 882] How well do you understand this Policy? 23% Taylor & Francis Open Access Survey Open Access Mandates. http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey/2014 2014 Open Access Author Survey Annex B: United Kingdom September 2014 8 9% 13% 21% 30% 30% 37% 17% 16% All UK authors [n = 837 ] Authors already aware of the policy [n = 539 ] 5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy 2014 Open Access Author Survey 17% 22% Annex A: United States September 2014 8 Awarenss of the Act Are you aware of this Act? [n = 2,394] z Yes 32% z No 68% Publishing work under this Act Have you published work under this Act previously? [n = 2,409] z Yes 16% z No 40% z Unsure 44% Will you publish work under this Act in the future? [n = 2,408] z Yes 39% z No 4% z Unsure 57% How well do you understand this Act? 11% 18% 20% 32% 30% 36% 12% All US authors [n = 2396] Authors already aware of the Act [n = 771] 5 – I fully understand the policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy Policy? Research Councils UK Policy 21% 30% 30% 37% 17% 16% policy 4 3 2 1 – I do not understand the policy
- 18. 10000 7500 5000 2500 0 5-May 5-Oct 6-Mar 6-Aug 7-Jan 7-Jun 7-Nov 8-Apr 8-Sep 9-Feb 9-Jul 9-Dec 10-May 10-Oct 11-Mar 11-Aug 12-Jan 12-Jun 12-Nov 13-Apr 13-Sep 14-Feb 14-Jul 500000 375000 250000 125000 0 Legislation Mandates Total Monthly Aggregate Submission Source: NIHMS StatisticsMonthly Aggregate Submission Statistics. http://www.nihms.nih.gov/stats/
- 19. Japanese OA policy • Thesis • Okayama U.（2011, Mandate） • MEXT（2013, Mandate） • University • Hokkaido U.（2008, Strongly Recommended） • JAIST（2008，articles in Faculty DB, Deposit in principles） • Okayama U.（2011, Intramural Research, Mandates） • Nitech（2012, Articles, Deposit in principles） • Funder • JST（2013, Funded articles, Recommended）
- 21. Form Mandate / Recommendation Content Journal Article/Proceedings/Monograph/Data/Metadata Locus IR / Subject Repository / Shared Repository Version Publisher’s PDF/Author Final Manuscript / Preprint Embargo Immediate deposit/Embargo/Embargo+Dark Deposit Waiver Y / N Right Retention University / Author(Faculty) Compliance Y / N Sanction Y / N Gold OA Y / N
- 22. Current status of OA policy • Region • Europe & North America take the lead • The rest of world: few funder policy • Japanese learned societies: lagging behind major pub/soc • Content • Journal articles＋Research data • Type • Green OA + Gold OA • Monitoring & Sanction • Only a few funders(&institutions)
- 23. Summary •“OA policy implementation is a tough job”（Armbruster 2011） • Institution-specific culture & politics • requiring years of dedicated effort • Hita-hita and/or Mandate? • Failure of Policy • Implementation (U of Maryland)，Post-implementation(NIH) • Sharing experiences (Good Practice, Bad Practice) • Monitoring compliance • Possibility after implementing OA policy • Difficulty in capturing the total number and OA rate of research results in a institution Armbruster C. Open access policy implementation: first results compared. Learned Publishing. 2011, 24(4), p.311–324.
- 24. Summary • Art & Science in OA policy implementation • Empirical/heuristic knowledge for implementing policy • Knowledge needed in the process and decision making • To make it happen • Objective evidence, Leadership, Assessment (Suber 2012) • Policy, Advocacy, Infrastructure • Policy’s goal, target, procedure •“Implementing policy is only open up the possibility” （Armbruster 2011） Suber, P. Open Access. MIT Press. 2012, 242p. Armbruster C. Open access policy implementation: first results compared. Learned Publishing. 2011, 24(4), p.311–324.