“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 last iteration of this post made the assumption that ‘gold’ Open Access meant you had to pay for it. I of all people should know that this is what us English scientists call ‘pish-posh’. It turns out that in reality, around 70% of journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) have zero author-facing charges. So an APC of $0. Gold does not mean you shell out gold for it. It just means it’s Open Access at the point of publication….
If we, as a research community, self-archive en masse, several things could be potentially achieved.
- Global, democratic access to the research literature will become a reality for a very low cost;
- Subscriptions to publishers for our own research will be largely redundant as everything will be OA already;
- We create the basis for building tools, like Unpaywall, that can leverage the power of massive-scale access;
- We save $billions every year from university libraries that can be reinvested into our students and open scholarly infrastructure;
- We make the need for quasi-legal entities like SciHub and ResearchGate to become redundant.
- We make the world a better place for every single human being.”
“We are pleased to inform you that in May 2017, e-LIS : eprints in Library and Information Science migrated to a new hosting institution – the Federico II University of Naples (Italy). In 2018 e-LIS will celebrate its 15th anniversary ! Library and information science (LIS) researchers, librarians, students and research institutions are invited to search, browse and participate by depositing their own work in e-LIS !
Articles (pre- and post-prints), presentations can be in any language (abstracts and keywords should be also in English). Preferred formats are .pdf and .html, best suited for later retrieval.
All works deposited in the E-LIS server remain the property of the author who are responsible for the documents they archive. Authors have to ensure that the intellectual property of their deposited work is theirs and that no restrictions exist for digital distribution of the deposited work. The quality of the metadata of the submission is controlled by country editors.
“Since the earliest pressures to develop open access (OA) options for journal literature were in the fields of science and medicine, the predominant models reflect those origins and fit those disciplines. These models are less applicable to humanities publishing models, which have been slower to embrace open access. Current literature on OA in the humanities focuses on theoretical frameworks and end-user perceptions. This study complements those perspectives by examining current practices in the humanities, specifically, the OA options offered by journals serving the discipline of the classics.”
“The issue of cost also factors into interviewees’ approach to making their peer-reviewed publications available via open access. When asked about whether their publications are available via open access, many interviewees focused on the cost of gold open-access models. These interviewees highlighted that while they are generally supportive of open access, the cost of making their articles open access through the journals they publish in is prohibitively high, especially since they are expected to publish multiple articles per project and per year. A typical response by an interviewee: “I am all for the open access. That’s good but I have mixed feelings because you have to pay to get your paper published… That’s a lot of money and my lab can publish around twenty papers a year. I tell my students to please find a free journal. If it is open access where is my money?” Some had built those costs into their grants or had qualified for funds made available for that purpose by their institution, but others noted that money is already such a concern that they didn’t perceive it as prudent to allot costs towards open access or that institutional funds were not available. As the same interviewee highlighted, “Yes you can use grants to get it published, but you have to make the cuts somewhere else to make it work. …When I first came the department would pay for publication but now the department cannot afford it.”
Interviewees rarely reported deliberately seeking out green open access peer-reviewed publications, which reflects that other considerations such as reputation and scope are generally more important. Interviewees also reported low participation in their institutional repositories as a mechanism for making their publications open access, with some being unaware of such programs or perceiving the participation as too onerous. Some recognize that they may be required in the future to deposit their publications in an appropriately designated repository as a condition of receiving government funding, but the majority had not yet experienced such a requirement. Those who have reported that they deposited did so because non-agriculture-specific agencies, such as the National Institute of Health, required it. Others conflated open access and institutional repositories with academic social networking sites (discussed in further detail below)….”
“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. …”
“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….”