“This document is a compilation of comments provided in response to a public Request for Information issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The information contained herein does not represent and is not intended to represent any position, recommendation, or views of the White House, OSTP, or any U.S. Government organization.”
“In 2018, 68% of the publications resulting from NWO funding were Open access. The percentage for ZonMw was 60%. These are the findings of an analysis published today by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS). NWO and ZonMw are aiming for 100% Open access. Achieving this target will require an extra effort and further steps.
On behalf of NWO and ZonMw, CWTS analysed how many NWO and ZonMw publications were Open access between 2015 and 2018. The CWTS also looked at the different types of Open access (gold, green, hybrid, etc.). Since 2009, NWO has been committed to ensure all publications resulting from NWO funding are made available in Open access. In 2015, NWO made further agreements on this with the State Secretary at the time, Sander Dekker. CWTS used the bibliographic database Web of Science and Unpaywall for its analysis….”
Open access to scholarly articles has become the norm. A recent study shows that 60% to 70% of the articles funded by NWO are freely available in Open access. The transition to Open access for academic books is lagging behind though.
NWO wants to step up its efforts to make the academic books that result from its funding Open access as well. That is why NWO will make 500,000 euros a year available for the Open access publication of books from 1 June 2020 onwards. Applications for this ‘Open Access Books’ call for proposals can be submitted throughout the year as long as the budget lasts.
Open Access Books is a continuous call, initially until 2022. The total budget is 500,000 euros per year with a limit of 10,000 euros per publication.
The UKRI open access consultation deadline is this Friday and we’re likely to see a flurry of responses leading up to it. One response to the consultation caught my eye today from the Friends of Coleridge, a society that ‘exists to foster interest in the life and works of the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge and his circle’. I wanted to jot down a couple of thoughts on this because I think it represents something quite interesting about the way that open access is playing out within UK humanities organisations.
Adhering to Plan’s S key principle of transparent pricing, cOAlition S publishes today its guidance on implementing price transparency when Open Access (OA) publication fees are applied. Specifically, cOAlition S announces that from July 1st, 2022 only publishers who provide data in line with one of the two endorsed price and service transparency frameworks will be eligible to receive OA publications funds from cOAlition S members. This covers funder contributions to any model of financing open access publications including, but not limited to, non-APC journals or platforms, article processing charges (APCs), transformative agreements, and transformative journals.
Science journals will have to disclose the costs of publishing articles in order for them to be paid for by a coalition of research funders pushing for open access. The price transparency rules, which will take effect in July 2022, were announced today by cOAlition S, a group of 22 international organizations, European national research agencies, and foundations. In 2018, cOAlition S launched a scheme called Plan S that will require grantees’ work, beginning in January 2021, to be open access, meaning it can be read immediately upon publication, free of charge. One route to accomplish this is for authors to pay journals a fee for each article published this way.
“A draft pricing and service framework, developed by Information Power, was published in January 2020 and to help validate this – and ensure that the information sought could be provided – ten publishers (Annual Reviews, Brill, The Company of Biologists, EMBO, European Respiratory Society, F1000 Research, Hindawi, Institute of Physics Publishing, PLOS, and Springer Nature) participated in a pilot. Based on the outcomes of this – and informed by workshops and discussions – the framework has been updated and endorsed by the cOAlition S leadership. It consists of a data collection spreadsheet, an implementation guide, and recommendations.
Independent of this work, the Fair Open Access Alliance (FOAA) developed a Publication Services and Fees framework which, to date, has been implemented by Frontiers, MIT Press, Copernicus and MPDI.
Both frameworks have been endorsed by cOAlition S….”
“Here we share our draft response to the UKRI Open Access consultation. We will answer the questions that pertain to books and chapters, since that is our area of expertise.
Please annotate this post with any thoughts or relevant evidence you wish to share (we have integrated Hypothes.is to make this easy to do). Please also feel free to draw on our answers when writing your own response, if you are submitting one.
If you would like to express support for the arguments made here, you can sign this Google doc, which will be submitted as part of our response. If we make any changes to this draft response, they will be posted on this blog by noon on Thursday 28 May (24 hours before UKRI’s deadline) in case you wish to see the final version before signing….”
“Pancreatic Cancer UK are now members of EuropePMC and the AMRC open research platform. If you are funded by us, please see our new Open Access Policy to understand more about how you can make the outputs from your research accessible to the wider community. If you are unsure of how to use EuropePMC, you can watch a guide to using their system.
You are also able to deposit your unpublished preprints on Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s free online archives bioRxiv and medRxiv. By posting preprints on these archives, you are able to make your findings immediately available to the scientific community and receive feedback on draft manuscripts before they are submitted to journals….”
“Open access publishing of scientific research could have a significant impact on science, development, and health in LMICs, but it does need support. Established publishing companies could do more to make papers accessible to researchers in LMICs and improve the immediacy of the research. Funders and philanthropic organizations should support the work they fund being open access. Authors should be encouraged to publish in open access journals or those journals that allow free access to research conducted in LMICs, or at least ensure that other researchers and communities have access to their findings for the benefit of communities in these areas.”