“Dealing with Open Access publications, where there are multiple authors, affiliated institutions, research funders, business models, policies, mandates, requirements and agreements involved, is complex and administratively burdensome. Funders, institutions and publishers are faced with a myriad of systems, portals and processes when dealing with Open Access publication-level arrangements. This hampers the transition to Open Access, the realisation of policies and agreements, and progress in developing new business models. From a researcher perspective, this landscape is at best confusing and at worst impenetrable. (see visual 1)
These challenges are in no way unique to the open access publishing landscape and are in fact relatively common in marketplaces that have an increasingly complex web of interactions between buyers and sellers (see OA Switchboard introductory blog, 2019). The introduction of a central intermediary is often the easiest way to reduce complexity on all sides, but a payment component doesn’t come without challenges and risks. If one leaves out the payment component, there is still complexity around information and data exchange in our ecosystem. Other industries have already tackled similar problems successfully a long time ago. (Think of SWIFT, the global financial messaging service: they have developed a common language across banks worldwide, serving their community for over 40 years now). The inspiration for the OA Switchboard has come also from examples of community-governed scholarly infrastructure (such as Crossref), which have successfully brought together a large and diverse community of stakeholders to address complex challenges.?…”
“Horizon Europe is expected to mandate that grant recipients publish their results according to the principles of open science.
In particular, immediate open-access publishing will become mandatory for all recipients of Horizon Europe research grants, including those from the ERC, says Kütt. Scientists will be required to post an accepted, peer-reviewed version of their papers online at a ‘trusted repository’, according to a draft of the instructions for applicants, but it is unclear at this time which repositories will be acceptable. Grants will cover publishing costs for pure open-access journals, but not for hybrid publications. Authors must also retain intellectual-property rights for their papers….”
“This is a community resource for tracking, comparing, and understanding current U.S. federal funder research data sharing policies. Originally completed by SPARC & Johns Hopkins University Libraries in 2016, the content of this resource was updated by RDAP and SPARC in 2021….”
This presentation was given by Johan Rooryck during the Open Access Talk on 29 October 2020. Johan Rooryck, Professor at Leiden University and Executive Director of cOAlition S, briefly outlines the rationale for the principles of Plan S. Beyond that, he discusses its implementation for all grants awarded by cOAlition S funders from 1 January 2021, including the Horizon Europe framework. In his talk, Johan Rooryck covers the following questions: Which conditions do you need to fulfil to publish in a journal of your choice under Plan S? What can the newly developed Journal Checker Tool do for you? How does the recent Rights Retention Strategy help you to keep the rights to your Author Accepted Manuscript? In addition, Johan Rooryck mentions a number of other projects initiated by cOAlition S, such as the Price Transparency Framework to ensure that prices for publishing services become more transparent and fair or the commission of a study to identify concrete funding mechanisms to support and strengthen diamond journals and their platforms. The lecture “Plan S and funding – What is going to change?” was held as part of the Open Access Talk online series of the BMBF-funded project open-access.network.
“The economic impact of a new Open Access (OA) policy from UK Research and Innovation Report (UKRI) is assessed in this report, produced by FTI Consulting.
The main focus of this exercise was to:
assess the impact of specific policy conditions that have been proposed for journal articles and long-form research publications (monographs), using the existing policy framework as a benchmark;
consider the impact of the UKRI policy on different groups of stakeholders within the scholarly communications ecosystem;
understand the immediate economic impact of the proposed policy and how this might change in the future in light of industry trends; and
compare the impact of the policy proposals against UKRI’s stated policy objectives….”
“The Rights Retention Strategy is perhaps one of the most complicated pieces of the cOAlition’s policy regime. Unpacking each word — rights, retention, and strategy — is one approach to better understanding what this policy is and how it functions within the Plan S compliance framework overall. …”
“Our goal is universal and immediate open sharing of all scientific knowledge and outputs. With our Open Science program, we empower more people to engage in research practices that accelerate the pace, robustness, and reproducibility of science through partnerships, policies, and grants. Helping scientists build on each others’ work can dramatically accelerate the pace of discovery, and in turn, our understanding of health and disease.
We support our grantees and the broader scientific community to deposit software code to open repositories, make experimental protocols openly accessible, and submit manuscripts to preprint servers to communicate results more quickly….”
“What are the publishing requirements of ASAP [Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s] and Plan S?
All ASAP-funded researchers will follow the basic tenets of OA publication set forth in Plan S, as follows:
Immediate free access: Peer-reviewed, author-accepted research must be made freely available immediately upon publication, without any embargo period (zero embargo).
Unrestricted reuse rights:
ASAP funded authors or their institutions must retain the copyright for their research articles unless they are published in the public domain.
Articles must be published under the Creative Commons Attribution license CC-BY 4.0, or under the CC0 license which does not require attribution, or equivalent. Both licenses permit reuse of the material without restriction….”
“As more funders implement or consider mandates, we were curious whether the data show any connection between funders’ open access policies and open access uptake….
Although both curves are broadly similar, it seems that they diverge in the detail. The number of OA policies grew faster than OA uptake around 2001 to 2017. But we have since seen a turnaround. The proportion of OA continues to increase apace, even though the numbers of policies have almost reached a steady state….
Are policies driving OA adoption?
At first glance: Yes. Clearly there is a strong overall correlation between numbers of policies and OA uptake.
However, correlation is not causation. Policies do not necessarily mandate actions. Different funders and institutions may apply different incentives to researchers. Policies take time to take effect – as we see with Plan S. And, while the longest-standing and most robust policies are likely to see highest compliance, compliance rates are highly variable.
Whatever the correlation with policy numbers, perhaps the OA market has taken on a life of its own. It continues to grow regardless of policy numbers and – in many cases – of policy strength. Anecdotally, we can say that many publishers view OA as “the direction of travel” and are increasing their OA options often in advance of mandates….
Our underlying data show repository-only articles hovering at a steady state of around 5% of annual output; with articles in gold fully OA journals driving the increase in OA uptake….”