Why Open Access? Research outputs must be accessible - and re-usable - to enable exploitation. Research funders have a responsibility to ensure accessibility and re-usability. Dissemination is part of the research process and has to be paid for. Journals, libraries, repositories & publishers have a key role to play in the process. Get the stuff out there and get it used!
RCUK Definition of ‘Open Access’ Unrestricted on-line access to peer reviewed and published scholarly research papers. Specifically a user must be able to do the following free of any publisher-imposed access charge: 1. Read published research papers in an electronic format; 2. Search for and re-use (including download) the content. Allows unrestricted use of manual and automated text and data mining tools, as well as unrestricted re-use of content with proper attribution (as defined by CC-BY).
Scope of RCUK Policy Peer-reviewed research articles: –Published in journals or conference proceedings; –Acknowledging Research Council funding; –Submitted for publication from April 2013. Monographs, books, critical editions, volumes etc currently excluded.
RCUK Support Block Grants to support OA paid to most RCUK- funded organisations Total values set for 2013/14 (£17m) and 2014/15 (£20m) - based on estimates (average APC, number of papers expected…) Values of grants post 2015 not yet set – awaiting clarity on RC funding levels.
Expectations: Researchers Publish in RCUK Open Access compliant journal. Include Research Council funding acknowledgement (see RIN Guidance) Where relevant, include statement on access to underlying research materials.
Expectations: Journals Offer ‘Gold’ option: –immediate online access on publication –re-use subject only to a CC-BY licence –free of any publisher imposed access charge –may charge and ‘article processing charge’ (APC) Or allow ‘Green’ option: –permit deposit of final accepted MS in any repository; –permit un-restricted non-commercial re-use; –limited embargo on toll-free access/re-use (e.g. 6 months in bio-medicine).
Expectations: Institutions Institutions receiving RCUK OA block grants to: –Establish institutional publication funds; –Develop processes to manage and allocate funds transparently and fairly between disciplines and researchers. RCUK expects the primary use to be for payment of APCs. RCUK preference is for Gold OA, but decision lies with authors and institutions.
Implementation Five year transition period. Compliance: –Year-one 45%; –Year-two 53%; –Year-five 100% (¾ Gold, ¼ Green). First evidence-based review Q4 2014.
Transitional Flexibility Embargo periods: –Where funding for APCs unavailable, longer embargo periods allowable (12/24 months), except biomedicine (6 months max). Use of OA block grant: –Flexibility over use, provided delivers RCUK OA policy; –Primary use still for payment of APCs for Research Council funded papers.
2014 Review: Scope International landscape. Impact of policy on: –Disciplines; –Peer review; –Research collaboration. Impact of licences. Embargo periods. Block grants and costs of managing them. Overall cost of supporting APCs.
2014 Review: Schedule Review panel being constituted. Call for evidence – planned for Q2 2014: –Invitations to key stakeholders to submit evidence; –Plus general ‘open’ call for evidence. Review panel to consider evidence – Q4 2014. Confirmed schedule will be widely publicised.
2014 Review: Compliance monitoring Has the RCUK policy made a difference? How much RCUK funded research is: –Published? –Gold with CC BY? –Green? –Non-compliant? Account for how ‘block grant’ has been spent, on a per-publisher basis.
2014 Review: Compliance Analysis By institution and by Research Council : –‘Year-1’: April 2013 to July 2014; –Then on an academic year basis. RCUK analysis based on sub-set of papers reported via ResearchFish and ROS: –Aim to include a ‘Year-0’ baseline (April 2010 to July 2011).
Monitoring: Working in partnership Identify with Research Organisations: –Minimum achievable level of reporting; –Data gathering mechanisms. RIN ‘HEI Best Practice Project’: –Cooperative framework for monitoring progress towards OA; –Working Group established, report due shortly
The future must be sustainable The motto, Non Solus, says that promoting science is an effort that calls on mutual aid and support - no one can do it alone. Whatever the business model for OA it must be sustainable.
Sustainable: Who For? Publishers: –Publishing quality, peer-reviewed journals costs money and these costs need to be covered. Institutions and funders: –Green is not sustainable with journal subscriptions rising at 4% to 6% or more PA; –Hybrid-gold is not sustainable whilst institutions have to pay subscriptions and APCs.
The transition: Non Solus Gold OA: –RCUK preference for immediate, unrestricted access to the ‘article of record’; –Publishers’ preference as sustainable and scalable in an OA world. BUT transition costs are disproportionately falling on research funders and research institutions. If publishers want Gold to succeed, they must help to support the costs of transition. –Differential pricing for hybrid-Gold.
Further information RCUK Policy http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/outputs/ http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/outputs/ RCUK Blogs http://blogs.rcuk.ac.uk http://blogs.rcuk.ac.uk Finch Group report http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch- Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch- Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf Royal Society Report http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/science-public-enterprise/report/ http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/science-public-enterprise/report/ RIN Guidance on Funder Acknowledgement http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/research-funding-policy-and- guidance/acknowledgement-funders-journal-articles firstname.lastname@example.org
2014 Review: Evidence Information: All articlesSource DOIROS / Researchfish Gold*/Green/Other/not knownROS / Researchfish The licence which applies (including confirmation of CC ‐ BY for articles flagged as ‘gold’) Sherpa/FACT service (based on Journal ‐ level data) Whether article carries Funder Acknowledgement Random dipstick checking by RCs (incl. through use of available bibliometric data e.g. Web of Science data) Article carries statement on access to underlying research materials Random dipstick checking by RCs (incl. through use of available bibliometric data e.g. Web of Science data) Information: All articles not made immediately OA with CC ‐ BY on publisher’s website Source URLROS / Researchfish Embargo period –Sherpa/FACT service (based on Journal ‐ level data)
2014 Review: Evidence Section A – ‘Expenditure by Publisher’ To include all spend connected with publishing individual articles, i.e. APCs, page charges, colour charges, etc Publisher A£-Number of articles published as a result of this spend Publisher B£-Number of articles published as a result of this spend Publisher C£-Number of articles published as a result of this spend Publisher D£-Number of articles published as a result of this spend etc… (add rows as necessary)
2014 Review: Evidence Section B Other expenditure analysis Other Expenditure to achieve OA - 1 £ - Brief description (500 characters, incl punctuation and spaces) of activity funded Other Expenditure to achieve OA – 2 £ - Brief description (500 characters, incl punctuation and spaces) of activity funded Other Expenditure to achieve OA – 3 £ - Brief description (500 characters, incl punctuation and spaces) of activity funded etc(add rows as necessary) sub-total paid to publishers£ - sub-total of other expenditure £ - If balance is negative, a brief description (500 characters incl punctuation and spaces) of source funds used in addition to RCUK block grant Balance of block grant remaining £ -