The Evolution of Publishing Agreements at the University of Michigan Library – Digital Library

“Book chapter on the evolution of publishing agreements at the University of Michigan Library. Taking as an example an open-access journal with a single editor, this chapter discusses the various configurations of rights agreements used by the University of Michigan Library throughout the evolution of its publishing operation, the advantages of the various models, and the reasons for moving from one to another….”

The Lancet journals welcome a new open access policy – The Lancet (April 2013)

“The Lancet journals welcome and support all efforts to make research more widely accessible and useable in ways that continue to sustain our broad mission to serve clinical medicine and global health. We will, in accordance with the new RCUK policy, offer either a “gold” open access choice with a creative commons license after payment of an article processing charge of US$5000, or a “green” open access solution—where authors can deposit the final accepted version of their paper in any repository they choose 6 months after publication—for all RCUK-funded research papers submitted after April 1. In addition, for the “green” open access solution we will also make the published paper free to access on our websites 6 months after publication.

These options and a choice of three different creative commons licenses (CC-BY, CC BY-NC-SA, or CC BY-NC-ND) will be open to authors of all research papers supported by those funders with whom we currently have payment agreements….”

The Lancet journals welcome a new open access policy – The Lancet (April 2013)

“The Lancet journals welcome and support all efforts to make research more widely accessible and useable in ways that continue to sustain our broad mission to serve clinical medicine and global health. We will, in accordance with the new RCUK policy, offer either a “gold” open access choice with a creative commons license after payment of an article processing charge of US$5000, or a “green” open access solution—where authors can deposit the final accepted version of their paper in any repository they choose 6 months after publication—for all RCUK-funded research papers submitted after April 1. In addition, for the “green” open access solution we will also make the published paper free to access on our websites 6 months after publication.

These options and a choice of three different creative commons licenses (CC-BY, CC BY-NC-SA, or CC BY-NC-ND) will be open to authors of all research papers supported by those funders with whom we currently have payment agreements….”

FASEB editorial policy, updated to allow submission of preprints

“FASEB [Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology] permits the submission of preprint manuscripts, which will undergo the same review process as “non-preprint” manuscripts. Preprint submissions must meet the following criteria and conditions:
  
  1. The preprint cannot be under consideration for publication elsewhere, at any time it is being considered for publication by FASEB.
  2. Once a manuscript has been formally submitted to FASEB, no additional versions of the manuscript may be posted to preprint servers (A) while it is under consideration or reconsideration, (B) while undergoing revision prior to, or during, re-review/resubmission, and (C) while being prepared for publication.
  3. Additional manuscript versions of articles published by FASEB may not be posted to preprint servers after publication unless these manuscripts have an open access copyright license. (FASEB does permit certain manuscript versions of accepted articles to be posted to repositories and archives. Please click here to read that policy.)
  4. The preprint must be assigned a preprint DOI, and the preprint server must make all versions of a preprint manuscript (and related materials, such as figures, tables, supplemental data, etc.) available, as well as make it clear which version is the latest version. Please click here for more information about preprint DOIs.
  5. The preprint server must automatically link to the article in the journal once the article has been published on the journal’s web site.
  6. Preprint submissions posted to preprint servers with an open access license are allowed, but authors will be required—without exception—to pay the journal’s open access fee as a condition of acceptance.
  7. The authors must: (A) disclose at first submission that a manuscript has been posted to a preprint server, (B) indicate which server is being used and the copyright license under which the manuscript has been posted, and (C) provide a link to the preprint version of the article.
  8. Once a manuscript has been formally submitted, the authors may not change the copyright terms of the preprint. …”

FASEB editorial policy, updated to allow submission of preprints

“FASEB [Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology] permits the submission of preprint manuscripts, which will undergo the same review process as “non-preprint” manuscripts. Preprint submissions must meet the following criteria and conditions:
  
  1. The preprint cannot be under consideration for publication elsewhere, at any time it is being considered for publication by FASEB.
  2. Once a manuscript has been formally submitted to FASEB, no additional versions of the manuscript may be posted to preprint servers (A) while it is under consideration or reconsideration, (B) while undergoing revision prior to, or during, re-review/resubmission, and (C) while being prepared for publication.
  3. Additional manuscript versions of articles published by FASEB may not be posted to preprint servers after publication unless these manuscripts have an open access copyright license. (FASEB does permit certain manuscript versions of accepted articles to be posted to repositories and archives. Please click here to read that policy.)
  4. The preprint must be assigned a preprint DOI, and the preprint server must make all versions of a preprint manuscript (and related materials, such as figures, tables, supplemental data, etc.) available, as well as make it clear which version is the latest version. Please click here for more information about preprint DOIs.
  5. The preprint server must automatically link to the article in the journal once the article has been published on the journal’s web site.
  6. Preprint submissions posted to preprint servers with an open access license are allowed, but authors will be required—without exception—to pay the journal’s open access fee as a condition of acceptance.
  7. The authors must: (A) disclose at first submission that a manuscript has been posted to a preprint server, (B) indicate which server is being used and the copyright license under which the manuscript has been posted, and (C) provide a link to the preprint version of the article.
  8. Once a manuscript has been formally submitted, the authors may not change the copyright terms of the preprint. …”

Advantages of a Truly Open-Access Data-Sharing Model — NEJM

“Multi-institutional randomized clinical trials have been a feature of oncology research in the United States since the 1950s. Since that time, cancer-treatment trials have been continuously funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) through a program that has evolved to become the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). Currently, approximately 19,000 patients with cancer participate in NCTN clinical trials each year. Approximately 70,000 additional patients with cancer are enrolled each year in treatment trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.1,2

It is important to honor and reward the altruism of patients who participate in clinical trials. One way to do so is to share the data gathered in clinical trials with other researchers in a responsible and meaningful way. The cancer research community, encouraged by recommendations from the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot, is finally moving data sharing forward from its traditional, largely unfunded, place at the end of the long list of clinical research responsibilities to center stage.

There are a number of reasons why it has it taken more than 60 years for this issue to receive the attention that it deserves. Although the incentives for doing so may differ, competitive forces lead both academic researchers and pharmaceutical companies to protect data and to use data exclusively for their purposes. This approach protects their intellectual property and also shields the primary study team and the sponsor if the release of data from a trial for analysis by others leads to conclusions or interpretations that the primary researchers deem to be misleading or erroneous. When the academic and monetary stakes are high, the chance of this situation occurring is real. Another reason for the delay is that the protection of research participants dictates that confidentiality is the highest priority, and this risk may be greater with wide sharing of the new data-dense individual data sets that are required in order to develop personalized medicine approaches. Finally, and probably most important of all, data sharing has been hampered by a lack of resources, including access to enabling data systems technology, bioinformatics expertise, and legal agreements that facilitate sharing.”

Advantages of a Truly Open-Access Data-Sharing Model — NEJM

“Multi-institutional randomized clinical trials have been a feature of oncology research in the United States since the 1950s. Since that time, cancer-treatment trials have been continuously funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) through a program that has evolved to become the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). Currently, approximately 19,000 patients with cancer participate in NCTN clinical trials each year. Approximately 70,000 additional patients with cancer are enrolled each year in treatment trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.1,2

It is important to honor and reward the altruism of patients who participate in clinical trials. One way to do so is to share the data gathered in clinical trials with other researchers in a responsible and meaningful way. The cancer research community, encouraged by recommendations from the Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot, is finally moving data sharing forward from its traditional, largely unfunded, place at the end of the long list of clinical research responsibilities to center stage.

There are a number of reasons why it has it taken more than 60 years for this issue to receive the attention that it deserves. Although the incentives for doing so may differ, competitive forces lead both academic researchers and pharmaceutical companies to protect data and to use data exclusively for their purposes. This approach protects their intellectual property and also shields the primary study team and the sponsor if the release of data from a trial for analysis by others leads to conclusions or interpretations that the primary researchers deem to be misleading or erroneous. When the academic and monetary stakes are high, the chance of this situation occurring is real. Another reason for the delay is that the protection of research participants dictates that confidentiality is the highest priority, and this risk may be greater with wide sharing of the new data-dense individual data sets that are required in order to develop personalized medicine approaches. Finally, and probably most important of all, data sharing has been hampered by a lack of resources, including access to enabling data systems technology, bioinformatics expertise, and legal agreements that facilitate sharing.”

Resisting the Resistance: Resisting Copyright and Promoting Alternatives – Journal of Law and Technology

Abstract: “This article discusses the resistance to the Digital Revolution and the emergence of a social movement “resisting the resistance.” Mass empowerment has political implications that may provoke reactionary counteractions. Ultimately—as I have discussed elsewhere—resistance to the Digital Revolution can be seen as a response to Baudrillard’s call to a return to prodigality beyond the structural scarcity of the capitalistic market economy. In Baudrillard’s terms, by increasingly commodifying knowledge and expanding copyright protection, we are taming limitless power with artificial scarcity to keep in place a dialectic of penury and unlimited need. In this paper, I will focus on certain global movements that do resist copyright expansion, such as creative commons, the open access movement, the Pirate Party, the A2K movement and cultural environmentalism. A nuanced discussion of these campaigns must account for the irrelevance of copyright in the public mind, the emergence of new economics of digital content distribution in the Internet, the idea of the death of copyright, and the demise of traditional gatekeepers. Scholarly and market alternatives to traditional copyright merit consideration here, as well. I will conclude my review of this movement “resisting the resistance” to the Digital Revolution by sketching out a roadmap for copyright reform that builds upon its vision.”