1. What can universities do to promote open access? Harvard University March 17, 2008 Peter Suber Visiting Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Senior Researcher, SPARC peter.suber@yale.edu

2. Delivering OA Repositories or archives (“green” OA) –No peer review –Institutional or disciplinary –Preprints and postprints Journals (“gold” OA) –Peer review –OA from birth or OA by conversion

3. Delivering OA None of the above –personal web sites –blogs –wikis –ebooks –email lists –audio, podcasts –video, webcasts –RSS feeds –P2P networks...

4. What can universities do? 1.OA repositories 2.OA journals 3.OA monographs 4.Promotion and tenure criteria 5.Educate faculty about copyright and OA

5. Premise 1: Authors are primary Authors control: 1.Whether to submit their work to an OA journal 2.Whether to deposit their work in an OA repository 3.Whether to transfer copyright

6. Premise 2: Authors are busy Often too busy –to learn much about OA –to act on what they know

7. Premises 1 + 2 = Awkward impasse Faculty have an interest in OA both as authors and as readers... and they control the solution... but they are not focused on OA...

8. Faculty sluggishness: Submitting to OA journals When “presented with a list of reasons why they have not chosen to publish in an OA journal and asked to say which were important...[t]he reason that scored highest (70%) was that authors were not familiar enough with OA journals in their field.” –Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown –http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11003/

9. Faculty sluggishness: Self-archiving “Of the authors who have not yet self- archived any articles, 71% remain unaware of the option.” –Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown, Open access self-archiving: An author study –http://cogprints.org/4385/

10. What can universities do? 1.OA repositories 2.OA journals 3.OA monographs 4.Promotion and tenure criteria 5.Educate faculty about copyright and OA

11. Launch an institutional repository (IR) Committed to –Open access –Interoperability –Long-term preservation

12. Harvard’s IR Harvard repository coming… Harvard College Thesis Repository –First anywhere for undergrad theses, launched 2/07 –http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/thesis/repo/ Harvard’s Legal Electronic Document Archive (LEDA) –http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/

13. Fill the IR The difficult step Harvard’s trailblazing policy –First university mandate in the US –First to be adopted by faculty

14. Policies to fill the IR Mandates work, requests do not Two kinds of mandate –Deposit mandates (e.g. QUT, 2004) –Permission mandates (e.g. Harvard 2008)

18. University mandates Now 13 university mandates in 10 countries –Many more if we count ETD mandates No punishments, no coercion –Rely on expectations, education, assistance, and incentives May include exceptions –Royalty-producing literature –Unpublished research (e.g. to seek patent) –Accommodation of certain publishers Survey: 81% of authors would willingly comply with an OA mandate from their university or funding agency –13% would comply reluctantly; 5% would not comply –Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown, http://cogprints.org/4385/

19. Digression on NIH policy Similarities to Harvard policy –First in US (January 2008) –Timing –Size and influence of institution –Require researchers to retain key rights University policies still necessary –Not all researchers are funded by NIH –Not all funders have similar policies –Not all researchers are funded

20. Permission for OA Dual deposit/release approach –No permission needed for initial deposit, only for later OA

21. Permission for OA Dual deposit/release approach –No permission needed for initial deposit, only for later OA CIC approach –Ask authors to retain key rights, endorse author addendum

22. Permission for OA Dual deposit/release approach –No permission needed for initial deposit, only for later OA CIC approach –Ask authors to retain key rights, endorse author addendum Harvard/California approach –Require authors to retain key rights (or opt out)

23. Permission for OA Dual deposit/release approach –No permission needed for initial deposit, only for later OA CIC approach –Ask authors to retain key rights, endorse author addendum Harvard/California approach –Require authors to retain key rights (or opt out) OhioLink approach –Endorse author addendum plus: use license negotiations to get publishers to accept its terms –“OhioLINK will seek to add a clause to its licenses with publishers….This clause will seek to automatically provide the recommended self archiving and access rights to all personnel of Ohio higher education institutions.”

24. Fill the IR: assistance Help with deposits and metadata –Librarians or student workers –MIT: wandering FTE’s –St. Andrews University: email and be done Help with digitization Help with permissions –Retroactively, with letters and phone calls –Prospectively, with author addendum IUPUI, MIT, U of North Carolina, Tufts, Washington U… Committee on Institutional Cooperation (12 institutions); at least U’s of Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin Harvard/California

25. What can universities do? 1.OA repositories 2.OA journals 3.OA monographs 4.Promotion and tenure criteria 5.Educate faculty about copyright and OA

26. Fund them Buy institutional memberships –For example at PLoS and BMC Create fund to pay publication fees for faculty, when funders won’t –University OA funds at U of Amsterdam, U California at Berkeley, U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U of Nottingham, Texas A&M, U of Wisconsin at Madison Start or join redirection campaigns –Like CERN’s Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3)

27. Fund them Buy institutional memberships –For example at PLoS and BMC Create fund to pay publication fees for faculty, when funders won’t –University OA funds at U of Amsterdam, U California at Berkeley, U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U of Nottingham, Texas A&M, U of Wisconsin at Madison Start or join redirection campaigns –Like CERN’s Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3)

28. Fund them Buy institutional memberships –For example at PLoS and BMC Create fund to pay publication fees for faculty, when funders won’t –University OA funds at U of Amsterdam, U California at Berkeley, U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U of Nottingham, Texas A&M, U of Wisconsin at Madison Start or join redirection campaigns –Like CERN’s Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3)

29. Publish them Philosophers’ Imprint –U of Michigan Library J of Insect Science –U Wisconsin Library J of Digital Information –Texas A&M University Library Australasian Journal of Victorian Studies –National Library of Australia Overlay journal series –U of California, Boston College…

30. Recognize them Put OA journal records in the library catalogue Support faculty in editing and launching them Give them due weight in hiring, promotion, and tenure

31. What can universities do? 1.OA repositories 2.OA journals 3.OA monographs 4.Promotion and tenure criteria 5.Educate faculty about copyright and OA

32. Through the library Join a book-scanning program –Google Library Project Harvard one of the original five –Open Content Alliance –Microsoft –Kirtas-BookSurge-Amazon

33. Through the university press Dual editions: OA + POD Selected titles –Australian National UP, Ohio State UP, Yale UP All OP titles –Université Libre de Bruxelles All new titles –Hamburg UP, Ilmenau Technical UP, Rice UP –OAPEN (consortium of 6 European institutions) At least one series –U of California, U of Helsinki, U of Michigan, MIT An OA imprint –U of Tennessee (Newfound Press), U of Wisconsin (Parallel Press)

34. Through the university press ACLS report (December 2006) –UPs should move toward OA, join the OCA AAUP report (February 2007) –UPs should experiment with OA monographs Ithaka report (July 2007) –UPs should do more online publishing –Should collaborate for economies of scale

35. What can universities do? 1.OA repositories 2.OA journals 3.OA monographs 4.Promotion and tenure criteria 5.Educate faculty about copyright and OA

36. Promotion and tenure (1) Give due weight to all worthy, peer- reviewed work –Regardless of medium or price –Not just a subset –Don’t use IF’s as a surrogate for quality –Don’t deter publication in new journals –(Don’t lower your standard!)

37. Promotion and tenure (2) Journal articles for consideration should be in the IR –Charles Sturt University: deposit is a condition for internal funding and promotion –Labortoire de Psychologie et Neurosciences Cognitives: deposit is a condition for internal funding –Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: publication lists for promotion must include live links to repository papers –National Research Council Canada: publication lists for promotion generated from repository

38. What can universities do? 1.OA repositories 2.OA journals 3.OA monographs 4.Promotion and tenure criteria 5.Educate faculty about copyright and OA

39. On copyright: Faculty may not know... 1.Authors are the copyright holders until they transfer away their rights. 2.Transferring full copyright to a publisher gives the OA decision to the publisher. 3.Many journals will alter the standard contract when asked. 4.There’s no harm in asking. 5.Experts can help (e.g. author addenda).

40. Educate faculty about OA Harvard FAS unanimous vote is a model OA increases visibility, retrievability, audience, usage, and citation impact It’s about career-building Convert real benefits into felt needs Faculty education about OA: –Must be viral or peer-to-peer –Must appeal to self-interest

41. On OA: Faculty may not know... 1.Which OA journals exist in their field... 2.Some OA journals charge fees and some don’t. 3.There are OA archives, not just OA journals. 4.Deposit in an OA archive takes just a few minutes. 5.OA archiving is compatible with non-OA publication. 6.Most non-OA journals allow postprint archiving. 7.Journals using the Ingelfinger Rule are a shrinking minority. 8.OA significantly increases citation impact.

42. Thank you Peter Suber www.earlham.edu/ ~ peters