Study into licences used by Open Access journals

The Knowledge Exchange Licensing Expert Group has commissioned a study which examined which licences or licence provisions are being used by open access and hybrid publishers when making their publications available in open access. The study intended to identify a ‘best practice’ licence model framework and to formulate recommendations with respect to an OA licence structure, taking into account the commercial and non-commercial needs of authors as well as the publishers. The study was undertaken by Maverick Outsource Services Ltd. This led to the following recommendations for an optimum licence in an open access journal: The author retains copyright; The author or rightholder grants to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to the work, and besides a licence to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works in any digital medium for any reasonable purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship; A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at least one online repository. This includes the permission as stated under 2, in a suitable standard electronic format; The copyright holder can retain the right to restrict commercial use if they wish; The copyright holder provides the publisher with permission to publish, subject to open accessibility of the work in online published form.

Sustainability of Open Access Services - Phases 1 & 2

Although some services that support Open Access have developed a sustainable business model, many started as projects and continue to run on recurrent project funding or goodwill. If these are critical components of the evolving scholarly communication system the foundation of Open Access is vulnerable. Knowledge Exchange has commissioned this study as part of a larger programme of work to look at the issue of sustaining key services into the long term. This report focuses on phases one and two of the programme. Phase one was a scoping exercise, carried out mainly through a literature review and an extensive stakeholder interview exercise, to describe the services that are currently available or would be valuable in the future. It also investigated what roles stakeholders could play in this future scenario. Phase two was a stakeholder consultation and engagement exercise. The aim was to engage stakeholders with the work programme so that they could contribute their views, get involved with the work and have a voice in the thinking about future scenarios. The key services are presented for three future scenarios: ‘Gold’ Open Access, fully ‘Green’ Open Access and Green’ Open Access supplementing subscription access as ‘Gold’ OA grows. Three strategic areas are identified as having particular potential for future work. These are embedding business development expertise into service development; consideration of how to move money around the system to enable Open Access to be achieved optimally; and governance and coordination of the infrastructural foundation of Open Access. The report concludes with seven recommendations, both high-level and practical, for further work around these strategic areas.

SUSTAINABILITY OF OPEN ACCESS SERVICES: Phase 3: The Collective Provision of Open Access Resources

The report ‘Sustainability of Open Access Services - Phase 3: The Collective Provision of Open Access Resources’ discusses the economic and institutional issues faced by those sustaining free infrastructure services. It also identifies strategies to coordinate the collective provision of infrastructure services. These considerations are valuable input for the phases 4 and 5 of the project ‘Sustainability of Open Access Services’. This body of work will lead to practical recommendations for funders and project planners to consider when initiating an infrastructure service. The report was written by Raym Crow and funded by SPARC. Several key messages from the report are of interest. Providing infrastructure services as a public good imposes specific requirements on the design of the sustainability model. The challenge is to get enough institutions to reveal their demand for the service and support this. Arguments for an institution to support can be altruism or reciprocity or there being sufficient benefit to the institution for supporting a service. Institutions can also work together on a service through collective action (collecting voluntary contributions) and cross subsidies (funding collected by offering exclusive benefits to contributors).

Review of Open Access Policy Dependencies

Knowledge Exchange analysed the extent to which OA policies are dependent on a number of non-commercial, compliance-enabling services used by researchers and institutions. This work offers clear evidence to policy makers on the importance of a number of non-commercial services to the successful implementation of OA policies. It also shows that many of these services are at risk and warrant further support in financial and/or governance terms. The summary report (available here) includes an analysis of a wide range of OA services and policies currently in use and presents: • an analysis of the common elements found in the current OA policies adopted by research funders and institutions • a set of case studies that illustrate the direct or indirect dependency of OA policies on key services • the views of stakeholders on the key services that enable compliance with OA policies • use cases, presented in accessible formats and language for a non-technical audience • a set of priorities for action if OA policies are to be successfully implemented

The impact of Open Access outside of European Universities

The Open Access movement has encouraged the availability of publicly-funded research papers, data and learning content for barrier-free use of that content without payment by the user. The impact of increasing availability of content to researchers in European universities is understood in terms of easier access to previous research and greater exposure for new research results, bringing benefits to the research community itself. A new culture of informal sharing is evident within the teaching and learning communities and to some extent also within the research community, but as yet the growth in informal sharing has not had a major effect upon the use of formal publication choices. This briefing paper explores the impact of open access upon potential users of research outputs outside the walls of research-led European universities, where the economic value of open access may be even greater than the academic value within universities. The potential impact of open access is understood in many communities but requires a greater volume of open access content to be available for the full potential to be realised. More open access content will become available as the opportunities in open, internet-based digital scholarship are understood. This briefing paper was written in cooperation with SPARC Europe. All links provided in footnotes in this Briefing Paper are to studies available in open access.

Costs and Benefits of Open Access

In June 2009 a study was completed that had been commissioned by Knowledge Exchange and written by Professor John Houghton, Victoria University, Australia. This report on the study was titled: "Open Access – What are the economic benefits? A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark." This report was based on the findings of studies in which John Houghton had modelled the costs and benefits of Open Access in three countries. These studies had been undertaken in the UK by JISC, in the Netherlands by SURF and in Denmark by DEFF. In the three national studies the costs and benefits of scholarly communication were compared based on three different publication models. The modelling revealed that the greatest advantage would be offered by the Open Access model, which means that the research institution or the party financing the research pays for publication and the article is then freely accessible. Adopting this model could lead to annual savings of around EUR 70 million in Denmark, EUR 133 million in The Netherlands and EUR 480 in the UK. The report concludes that the advantages would not just be in the long term; in the transitional phase too, more open access to research results would have positive effects. In this case the benefits would also outweigh the costs.

Sustainability of Open Access Services: Phase 4 Workshop report

Phase 4: Review of the conditions under which individual services and platforms can be sustained On Tuesday 1 October 2013, in Bristol, United Kingdom, Knowledge Exchange brought together a group of international Open Access Service providers to discuss the sustainability of their services. A number of recurring lessons learned were mentioned; Though project funding can be used to start up a service, it does not guarantee the continuation of a service and it can be hard to establish the service as a viable entity, standing on its own feet. Research funders should be aware that if they have policies or mandates for making research outputs available they will eventually also be responsible for on-going support for the underlying infrastructure. At present some services are used globally but the costs are only covered by a limited geographic spread, sometimes only a number of institutions or only one country. Finding other funding sources can be challenging. Various routes were mentioned including commercial partnerships, memberships, offering additional paid services or using a Freemium model. There is not one model that will fit all. As more services turn to library sponsorship to sustain them, one strategy might be to bundle the requests and approach a group of research and infrastructure funders or institutions (and others) with a package rather than each service going through the same resource consuming process of soliciting funding. This will also allow the community to identify gaps, dependencies and overlap in the services. The possibility of setting up an organisation to bundle the services was discussed and a number of risks were identified.

Preparing for the Research Excellence Framework: Examples of Open Access Good Practice across the United Kingdom

This article concerns how higher education institutions across the United Kingdom are implementing systems and workflows in order to meet open access requirements for the next Research Excellence Framework. The way that institutions are preparing is not uniform, although there are key areas which require attention: cost management, advocacy, systems and metadata, structural workflows, and internal policy. Examples of preparative work in these areas are taken from institutions who have participated in the Open Access Good Practice initiative supported by Jisc.

Open Access Business Models for Research Funders and Universities

This briefing paper offers insight into various open access business models, from institutional to subject repositories, from open access journals to research data and monographs. This overview shows that there is a considerable variety in business models within a common framework of public funding. Open access through institutional repositories requires funding from particular institutions to set up and maintain a repository, while subject repositories often require contributions from a number of institutions or funding agencies to maintain a subject repository hosted at one institution. Open access through publication in open access journals generally requires a mix of funding sources to meet the cost of publishing. Public or charitable research funding bodies may contribute part of the cost of publishing in an open access journal but institutions also meet part of the cost, particularly when the author does not have a research grant from a research funding body

From policy development to effectiveness and alignment: An analysis of the UK’s Higher Education Open Access policy landscape

The number of Open Access (OA) policies that have been adopted by universities, research institutes and research funders has been increasing at a fast pace. The Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies (ROARMAP) records the existence of 724 OA policies across the world, of which 512 have been adopted by universities and research institutions. The UK is one of the leading countries in terms of OA policy development and implementation with a total of 85 institutional1 and an estimated 35 funder2 OA policies. In order to understand and contextualise how OA policies are developed and how they can be effectively implemented and aligned, this brief looks at two areas. The first section provides an overview on the processes evolving around policy making, policy effectiveness and policy alignment. In particular, it summarises the criteria and elements generally specified in OA policies, it points out some of the relevant steps informing the development, monitoring and revision of OA policies, it outlines what OA policy elements contribute to policy effectiveness, and highlights the benefits in aligning OA policies. The second section revisits the issues previously discussed within the context of the UK institutional (universities) OA policy landscape.

Submission Fees - A Tool in the Transition to Open Access?

Knowledge Exchange examined different routes in achieving the vision of 'having a layer of scholarly and scientific content openly available in the internet'. One of these routes involves exploring new developments in the future of publishing. Work is being undertaken investigating interesting alternative business models which could contribute to the transition to open access. In this light KE has commissioned a study investigating whether submission fees could play a role in a business model for Open Access journals. The general conclusion of the report bearing the title ‘Submission Fees a tool in the transition to open access?', written by Mark Ware, is that there are benefits to publishers in certain cases to switch to a model in which an author pays a fee when submitting an article. Especially journals with a high rejection rate might be interested in combining submission fees with article processing charges in order to make the transition to open access easier. In certain disciplines, notably economic and finance journals and in some areas of the experimental life sciences, submission fees are already common. Overall there seems to be an interest in the model but the risks, particularly those involved in any transition, are seen by the publishers to outweigh the perceived benefits. There is also a problem in that the advantages offered by submission fees are often general benefits that might improve the system but do not provide publishers and authors with direct incentives to change to open access. To support transition funders, institutions and publication funds could make it clear that submission fees would be an allowable cost. At present this is often unclear in their policies. Author acceptance of submission fees is critical to its success. It is an observable fact that authors will accept them in some circumstances. Author acceptance would require further study though. Based on the interviews and the modelling in the study one model in particular is regarded as the most suitable way to meet the current requirements (i.e. to strengthen open access to research publications). In this model authors pay a submission fee plus an Article Processing Fee and the article is subsequently made available in open access. Both fees are set at levels that balance acceptability with the author community with securing a meaningful mix of revenues for the Publisher.

Monitoring Compliance with Open Access policies

In the last few years, academic communities have seen an increase in the number of Open Access (OA) policies being adopted at the institutional and funder levels. In parallel to policy implementation, institutions and funders have also been engaged in developing mechanisms to monitor academics and researchers compliance with the existing OA policies. This study highlights a few of the cases where compliance is being effectively monitored by institutions and funders. In the first section, Open Access is briefly overviewed and the rationale for monitoring OA policy compliance is explained. The second section looks at best practices in monitoring policy compliance with OA policies by funders and institutions. The case studies reflect on compliance with the UK Funding Councils and the USA National Institutes of Health OA policies. The third section makes recommendations on what processes and procedures universities and funders should adopt to monitor compliance with their OA policies. The final section recapitulates some of the key ideas related to monitoring policy compliance.

Open Access policy effectiveness: A briefing paper for UK Higher Education Institutions

There are now almost 700 Open Access policies around the world, two thirds of them in universities and research institutes. There is considerable variation across these policies in terms of the conditions they lay down for authors and of their effectiveness. This briefing paper lays out the main issues that affect the effectiveness of a policy in providing high levels of Open Access research material.

Meeting on Provisions in Licensing Incorporating new developments in daily licensing practice: Setting conditions for open access, patron driven access, and data & text mining

Following the workshop on new developments in daily licensing practice in November 2011, we brought together fourteen representatives from national consortia (from Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and the UK) and publishers (Elsevier, SAGE and Springer) met in Copenhagen on 9 March 2012 to discuss provisions in licences to accommodate new developments. The one day workshop aimed to: present background and ideas regarding the provisions KE Licensing Expert Group developed; introduce and explain the provisions the invited publishers currently use;ascertain agreement on the wording for long term preservation, continuous access and course packs; give insight and more clarity about the use of open access provisions in licences; discuss a roadmap for inclusion of the provisions in the publishers’ licences; result in report to disseminate the outcome of the meeting. Participants of the workshop were: United Kingdom: Lorraine Estelle (Jisc Collections) Denmark: Lotte Eivor Jørgensen (DEFF), Lone Madsen (Southern University of Denmark), Anne Sandfær (DEFF/Knowledge Exchange) Germany: Hildegard Schaeffler (Bavarian State Library), Markus Brammer (TIB) The Netherlands: Wilma Mossink (SURF), Nol Verhagen (University of Amsterdam), Marc Dupuis (SURF/Knowledge Exchange) Publishers: Alicia Wise (Elsevier), Yvonne Campfens (Springer), Bettina Goerner (Springer), Leo Walford (Sage) Knowledge Exchange: Keith Russell The main outcome of the workshop was that it would be valuable to have a standard set of clauses which could used in negotiations, this would make concluding licences a lot easier and more efficient. The comments on the model provisions the Licensing Expert group had drafted will be taken into account and the provisions will be reformulated. Data and text mining is a new development and demand for access to allow for this is growing. It would be easier if there was a simpler way to access materials so they could be more easily mined. However there are still outstanding questions on how authors of articles that have been mined can be properly attributed.

Practical challenges in moving to Open Access: a focus on research funders and universities

At the Berlin7 conference in Paris on 3 December 2009 Knowledge Exchange provided a workshop on the practical challenges to be addressed in moving to Open Access. Presentations where provided by John Houghton and Alma Swan discussing the outcomes of studies on the costs and benefits of Open Access for institutions and the society as a whole. These were followed by presentations by two funding agencies on the results of financing publication costs both at an institutional and national level in Germany. Also the results of the Springer deal in the Netherlands where presented. The third section was focused on the results of implementing mandates both by funding bodies and institutions.