1. Traditional Distribution Electronic Distribution User Florida Entomologist Issues Reprints FTP

2. Publishers Individual subscriptions Institutions’ staff and affiliated personnel Everyone else Editing, reviewing, composing Subscriptions Site Licenses $$$$ Credit cards Internet addresses Usernames and passwords Subscr. Pay Per View Site L. $ Fee Access Publishers Editing, reviewing, composing Everyone on the Internet Authors and/or their institutions $$ Free Access

3. What is OA? OA is immediate, permanent, toll-free, online access to the full contents of peer- reviewed journal articles.

4. Stages in publication 1) Manuscript (=“preprint”) submitted 2) Peer review and decision as to publication 3) Author’s final draft (peer-reviewed) submitted [Content complete.]

5. Stages in publication 1) Manuscript (=“preprint”) submitted 2) Peer review and decision as to publication 3) Author’s final draft (peer-reviewed) submitted [Content complete.] 4) If final draft accepted, copyright transfer usually requested 5) Copyright signed away (in whole or in part) 6) Copy editing, formatting, proofing 7) Version of record (print and/or pdf)

6. Copyright rights Right to make copies Right to publicly distribute copies Right to prepare derivative works Right to deny others these rights

7. Who has copyright to journal articles? Authors own all rights to the preprint The final submitted manuscript is a derivative work

8. Who has copyright to journal articles? Authors own copyright to their preprints. The final submitted manuscript is a derivative work To publish an article, publishers need only a nonexclusive right to make and publicly distribute copies. Yet many publishers ask for permanent transfer of all rights.

9. Two paths to OA Journal publishers make articles OA = “Gold” OA

10. Versions of gold OA 1) New journal established as fully OA (e.g., Journal of Insect Science) 2) Traditional journal transforms to fully OA journal (e.g., Florida Entomologist, in 1994) 3) Traditional journal sells OA by the article (=“hybrid OA”) (e.g., Entomological Society of America journals, starting in 2000)

11. Two paths to OA Journal publishers make articles OA = “Gold” OA Authors make articles OA = “Green” OA = Self-archiving

12. Variables in green OA Place of deposit Central or subject repository (e.g. PubMed Central) Institutional repository Author’s home page Version deposited Author’s peer-reviewed manuscript PDF of version of record Motivation for deposit Author’s initiative Mandates Q

13. OA tipping point reached in 2008? Four indicators 1) Rates of increases 2) A funder mandate 3) Institutional mandates 4) UF pilot repository

14. Increases in OA journals and Institutional Repositories in 2008 OA journals +27% (to 3,812) Institutional Repositories +28% (to 1,296) Items in IRs +45% (to 7,532,473) Yet ~85% of 2008 articles still not OA. Source: SPARC Open Access Newsletter (2 Jan 2009).

15. Why authors don’t self-archive Lack of understanding of the benefits? (OA maximizes accessibility, usage, and citation impact.) Concern that it might be illegal Concern that it might put acceptance by their preferred journal at risk Concern that it might take a lot of time

16. NIH OA mandate (signed into law 26 Dec 2007) All NIH-supported investigators must submit to PubMed Central electronic versions of their final peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after official date of publication. Implementation must be in a manner consistent with copyright law.

17. How NIH mandate addresses copyright issues 1) Researcher receives funding from NIH 2) As a condition of funding, researcher agrees to deposit any resulting paper in PMC 3) Researcher offers paper to journal on the understanding that journal will allow PMC deposit 4) Any transfer of copyright must include the right of the author to deposit paper in PMC 5) If journal will not comply, author must find one that will.

18. Institutional OA mandates Harvard Faculty of Arts & Sciences (FAS) (unanimous, Feb 2008) Harvard Law School (unanimous, June 2008) Stanford School of Education (unanimous, June 2008) Considering mandates in 2009 Harvard Medical School Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences University of California Colorado State University University of Colorado at Boulder Brigham Young University University of New Hampshire Rollins College and others yet to be made public

19. Harvard’s FAS OA mandate Authors grant Harvard “permission to make available” their scholarly articles and to “exercise the copyright” in those articles. What is granted is a nonexclusive, irrevocable, paid- up, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright.

20. Harvard’s FAS OA mandate Authors grant Harvard “permission to make available” their scholarly articles and to “exercise the copyright” in those articles. What is granted is a nonexclusive, irrevocable, paid- up, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright. Each faculty member “will provide an electronic copy of the final version” of each article to the Provost’s office. Dean “will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written request by a Faculty member explaining the need.”

21. ScholARchive: UF’s Pilot Repository Principals were EYN, FCLA, and UF Libraries. Four EYN faculty uploaded full texts of 25 articles to a pilot IR at http://eprints.fcla.edu/. Participants were Marc Branham, Dan Hahn, Oscar Liburd, and Tom Walker.

22. ScholARchive: UF’s Pilot Repository Principals were EYN, FCLA, and UF Libraries. Four EYN faculty uploaded full texts of 25 articles to a pilot IR at http://eprints.fcla.edu/. Downloading, mostly through Google, started in Mar 2007 and increased suddenly in Oct 2007. By 7 Jan 2008, downloads averaged 159 per article. (Range was 0 to 474.) Participants were Marc Branham, Dan Hahn, Oscar Liburd, and Tom Walker.