Guidelines on the Implementation of Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Projects Supported by the European Research Council under Horizon 2020

“According to the ERC Scientific Council’s Open Access Guidelines : ‘The mission of the European Research Council (ERC) is to support excellent research in all fields of science and scholarship. The main outputs of this research are new knowledge, ideas and understanding, which the ERC expects its researchers to publish in peer-reviewed articles and monographs. The ERC considers that providing free online access to these materials is the most effective way of ensuring that the fruits of the research it funds can be accessed, read, and used as the basis for further research. […] The ERC therefore supports the principle of open access to the published output of research as a fundamental part of its mission.”

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….”

Preprints are beginning to arrive in biology, will medicine be next? – Open Pharma

“In September 2016, 1564 life science preprints were posted to eight of the largest preprint servers available to life scientists. This is a five-fold increase from September 2011, when only 300 preprints were posted, and only three of the platforms examined, if they existed at all at that point, hosted any life science preprints. The increase in submissions has prompted journal policy changes and attitude changes amongst funders and research institutions.

But what does this mean for medicine? Biomedical sciences still only constitute approximately 22% of preprints submitted to BioRxiv, genetics research accounting for almost half of this figure. Clinical trials in particular are rarely posted, and account for less than 1%. The restrictions placed upon medical researchers by journals have been a leading cause of this. Some prominent medical publishers still abide by conservative policies, for instance, the American Heart Association has stated in correspondence as recently as September 2016 that it will not review preprinted submissions. A similar policy was reported in communications from the American Association for Cancer research in November 2015.

Concerns also exist surrounding the sharing of medical research before peer review. This is understandable as poorly conducted research, particularly in medicine, can certainly be damaging. For this reason pharmaceutical companies, major funders of medical research, have been cautious of using preprint platforms. This is particularly true for clinical trial results, and stems from fears that sharing research publicly ahead of peer review could violate regulations regarding off-label or direct-to-consumer promotion.

The meeting concluded with the benefits of preprints seen so far, and encouraging wider uptake in all fields of the life sciences. It is clear in the figures presented that many significant shortcomings of journal publishing can be ameliorated through the hosting of preprints upon submission. Engagement with research is facilitated, with 10% of the preprints posted on BioRxiv receiving comments from other users on the site; 90% of submissions to the site are made publically available and all that pass the basic editorial check are shared in less than 24 hours from submission. Whether or not preprint platforms become widely adopted in biomedical research is yet to be seen, but they have great potential if author behaviour and funder attitudes continue on their present trajectory.”

Scientists, funders flock to ResearchGate | March 1, 2017 Issue – Vol. 95 Issue 10 | Chemical & Engineering News

“ResearchGate, a scientific networking website, says it continues to grow strongly. The organization now boasts connections to more than 100 million publications, 12 million researchers, and 1 million answers to research questions. Akin to a LinkedIn for scientists, ResearchGate claims 840,000 members who are primarily chemists, up from 270,000 in 2013….”

How the US federal OA policies are faring under Trump

“The federal OA policies are under Trump’s control but below his radar. He has no opinion about them, and neither do his top advisors. On the other hand, he and his top advisors have a strong hostility to science, almost a resentment, and show it by cutting the budgets of the science funding agencies, taking some OA databases offline, and and even bar?ring some publicly-funded researchers from communicating directly with the public (except through their publications). All this reduces the volume of OA to publicly-funded research, past and future.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which has an OA policy, is especially vulnerable because Trump-style Republicans believe that protecting the environment is bad for business. They’ve had it in their sights for years, and will either slash it or lay it down. But this shows the Trump approach. He doesn’t oppose OA as such; he just favors corporations and deregulation. OA is collateral damage, along with much bigger things, like the planet.”

Sowing the seeds for change in scholarly publishing – Collaborative Knowledge Foundation

“We envision building an evolving network of modular, interoperable, flexible and reusable open source projects that facilitate rapid, transparent and reproducible research and research communication for the public good. Rather than remaining independent and siloed, these projects will share resources and learn from each other, creating an open science infrastructure.”

Representatives Johnson, Sensenbrenner Question Federal Public Access Policies » Urban Milwaukee

“Today, Representatives Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) sent the following letter to the Government Accountability Office, asking it to evaluate the status, effectiveness, and benefits of current federal public access policies. This letter builds upon previous legislative efforts between these Members to ensure taxpayers, who are footing the bill for federal research, have adequate access to the published results free of charge….Increased access and increased use of technology to enable and promote discovery across the body of scientific literature will advance the frontiers of science, medicine, and innovation across all sectors of our economy….Understanding how federal agencies create and implement their guidelines for covered works of publicly funded research is essential to improving and modernizing our public access policies. We made progress with the previous administration, and I look forward to working with our federal agencies, as well as…fellow congressional colleagues to continue moving forward on this effort….”