“Chronos is currently available to Gates grantees and employees. We anticipate making Chronos available to a wider audience sometime next year….Chronos processes and pays publisher Article Processing Charges (APCs) on behalf of grantees and employees, conducts policy compliancy checks, and tracks publishing activity, along with its impact….
“The implementation of open access policies in Europe is a socio-technical undertaking whereby a wide range of stakeholders work together to bring out the benefits of open access for European and global research. This work provides a unique overview of national awareness of open access in 32 European countries involving all EU member states and in addition, Norway, Iceland, Croatia, Switzerland and Turkey. It describes funder and institutional open access mandates in Europe and national strategies to introduce and implement them. An overview of the current European repository infrastructures is given, including institutional and disciplinary repositories, national repository networks, information portals and support networks. This work also outlines OpenAIREplus, a continuation project which aims to widen the scope of OpenAIRE by connecting publications to contextual information, such as research data and funding information. Opportunities for collaboration in order to achieve European and global synergies are also highlighted. The OpenAIRE project, a joint collaboration among 38 partners from 27 European countries, has built up a network of open repositories providing free online access to knowledge produced by researchers receiving grants from the European Commission or the European Research Council. It provides support structures for researchers, operates an electronic infrastructure and a portal to access all user-level services and works with several subject communities. Birgit Schmidt is affi liated with Goettingen State and University Library. Iryna Kuchma is affiliated with EIFL.”
“The beginning of April marked the end of the fourth year of RCUK’s Open Access (OA) policy. We submitted our finance and compliance report in May and have made our 2016-17 APC data available via the University’s institutional repository, Pure.
The headlines for us from this period are:
- We have estimated 75% compliance for 2016-17 (54% Gold OA and 21% Green OA).
- This is a significant increase in Green OA. In part this is due to the launch of HEFCE’s OA policy but it is also a consequence of the constraints of the block grant, ie, we have been unable to meet demand for Gold OA during the reporting period.
- Despite the increase in Green OA, expenditure on Gold OA has not decreased. This is partly due to publishers that do not provide a compliant Green OA option but increased APC unit level costs are also a factor.
- We have reported an 18% increase in the average APC cost in 2016/17 (£1869) against the 2015/16 average (£1578). To some extent this increase can be accounted for by foreign exchange rate differences.
- Although we operate a ‘first come, first served’ model for allocating the block grant, it was necessary to impose restrictions for 3 months of this period. We limited expenditure to Pure Gold OA journals, non-OA publication fees and hybrid journals that do not provide a compliant Green OA option.
- The level of Gold OA achieved has only been possible due to continued investment from the University (£0.2m) and credits/discounts received from publishers relating to subscription packages and offsetting deals (£0.1m).
- We arranged Gold OA with 60 different publishers. Of these, we managed offsetting schemes and memberships with 11 and arranged Gold OA for only one paper with 20.
- We continued to assess publisher deals to obtain best value from the block grant but are committed to engaging only with publishers that offer a reasonable discount and overall fair OA offer.
- As in previous years, most APCs were paid to Elsevier (139), almost double the number paid to the next publisher, Wiley (75).
- As in previous years, our highest cost APC (£4679) was paid to Elsevier. The lowest cost APC (£196) was paid to the Electrochemical Society.
- We reported expenditure of £72,297 on ‘other costs’. This amount includes colour and page charges as well as publication fees associated with Green OA papers.
- Despite reminders to authors that papers must be published as CC-BY, 8 papers were published under non-compliant licences and we were unable to identify licences for a further 16 papers. We contact publishers to correct licences when we are aware of a non-compliant licence.
- We continued to see engagement with Gold OA from Humanities researchers who produce outputs other than journal articles. We have supported Gold OA for one monograph and one book chapter during the reporting period, at a cost of £11,340 from the block grant. A further monograph has been paid for from an institutional OA fund.
- Despite a concerted effort on our part we continued to see inconsistency in the inclusion of grant acknowledgements on papers. We act in good faith when approving payment from the block grant but believe a joined up approach from RCUK, institutions and publishers is needed to ensure all researchers are aware and fulfil this requirement consistently.”
The statement in its entirety:
At a strategy meeting of our members last year  STM developed new positions on access which inform all our policies going forward:
- Publishers are committed to the wide dissemination of, and unrestricted access to, their content
- We support any and all sustainable access models that ensure the integrity and permanence of the scholarly record
- We do not support unfunded mandates that constrain scholarly authors or affect the sustainability of the publishing enterprise
- Services that publishers provide must be paid for in some way
We believe that a level playing field with light touch regulation is the quickest and best way to realise the goals of widening access we ALL share
“Our open access policy
As a CRUK-funded researcher, we:
Require electronic copies of any research papers that have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and which acknowledge CRUK funding, to be made available through Europe PubMed Central(link is external) (Europe PMC) as soon as possible and no later than 6 months after publication.
Encourage you to select publishing routes that ensure the work is available immediately on publication in its final published form, wherever such options exist for their journal of choice and are compliant with our policy*.
Encourage, and where an article processing charge is paid, require, you to license research papers using the Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC-BY)(link is external)**, so they may be freely copied and reused (for example, for text- and data-mining purposes), providing that the original authors are properly credited. …”
“This report looks closely at the attitudes on open access of a sample of 314 deans, chancellors, department chairmen, research institute directors, provosts, trustees, vice presidents and other upper level administrators from more than 50 research universities in the USA, Canada, the UK, Ireland and Australia. The report gives detailed information on what they think of the cost of academic journal subscriptions, and how they understand the meaning of the term “open access.” The study also gives highly detailed data on what kind of policies the research university elite support or might support in the area of open access, including policies such as restricting purchases of very high-priced journals, paying publication fees for open access publications, mandating deposit of university scholarship into digital repositories, and developing open access educational materials from university resources.
Just a few of the report’s many findings are that:
- The lowest percentage considering the high cost of journals a big problem was in the United States, where only 11.56% of higher education leadership had this opinion; the highest share, in Canada, 27.45% had this view.
- More than 40% of administrators from public universities in the sample supported the idea of using university funds to develop open access textbooks from materials developed or owned by the university or its scholars.
- Support for mandatory deposit requirements for scholarly output into university digital repositories was highest among the universities ranked in the top 41 worldwide.
Data in the report is broken out by country, university ranking, work title, field of work responsibility, level of compensations, age, gender and other variables.”
“Researchers at UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are now subject to HEFCE’s open access policy if they want to submit their work to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) in 2021. The policy applies to journal articles and conference proceedings accepted for publication after 1 April 2016. These research outputs must be deposited in an institutional or subject repository as soon as possible after the point of acceptance. For the first two years of the policy there is flexibility to deposit up to three months after the date of early online publication. After April 2018, it is anticipated that the policy terms will become stricter and deposit must occur within three months of acceptance….The financial costs associated with supporting compliance with the policy are high. Many HEIs initially relied heavily on their Research Councils UK funding to meet staffing costs. Over time, institutions have taken on staff costs to ensure the longevity of their open access teams, and some have even been in a position to create institutional funds for gold open access. At a time when increasing subscription costs are regularly imposed by publishers it can be difficult for institutions to find the means to support open access, despite its obvious importance. The cultural challenges associated with the HEFCE policy can prove to be even more difficult to overcome….After three years of promotion and engagement with researchers through school board meetings, research support meetings, training sessions and online support materials, attitudes have gradually shifted towards support for open access. Following a review of 2016, we discovered that 93% of the papers in our repository that are subject to HEFCE’s policy are REF eligible. This positive trend has continued into 2017 with many more papers being deposited on a daily basis….”
“As a NASA grant awardee, you have the option to submit your accepted manuscript(s) to NASA’s PubSpace repository. PubSpace is available from a collaboration between the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NASA to allow wider access to the results of federally-funded research. For the grant listed below, you may deposit any peer-reviewed manuscripts describing work supported by NASA awards that were published or accepted for publication through the NIH Manuscript Submission (NIHMS) system. At this time, this is not a Term and Condition of the grant listed below; however, you may voluntarily submit any manuscripts that were a result of the funded research from this grant.
Grant Award Information: Grant Number: ????? Proposal: ????? Technical Officer: ????? Technical Officer Email: ?????
In order to complete this process, you will need to have an ORCID ID number. Your ORCID ID number is required to align your award information to you and to allow you to log into the NIHMS system. Please follow this link to create an ORCID ID or to log in with your current ORCID ID number.”