News – New KE Report published – Putting down roots: Securing the future of open access policies – News – Knowledge Exchange

“Following extensive consultation with research funders, institutions and service providers, as well as a workshop with 30 representatives from institutional libraries, research funders and policy makers, we analysed the extent to which OA policies are dependent on a number of non-commercial, compliance-enabling services used by researchers and institutions.

The outcomes of these discussions have been reflected in the final report, which will be used to help develop the case for coordinated international action to support crucial OA services. 

Read more about the workshop and access the full report here….”

University of Oxford: RCUK Open Access Block Grant update | Research Support

“The University’s 2017–18 Open Access Block Grant from RCUK has now been exhausted. A new allocation will be available from 1 April 2018. RCUK-funded authors are therefore asked to delay submission of new articles to journals until 1 February 2018, and contact the Bodleian APC Team pre-submission (see the Open Access website for procedure). Please note that RCUK does not permit APCs (article processing charges) or page/other publication charges to be paid from individual RCUK awards – they must be paid from the block grant. Researchers are reminded that Oxford’s block grant will only pay APCs for fully open access journals (ie in the Directory of Open Access Journals), not ‘hybrid’ journals (subscription journals with a paid OA option). RCUK has stated that funding for APCs and other publication charges will continue for at least a further two years (April 2018–March 2020).”

In wake of cuts to federal research funding, UW develops new research submission tool · The Badger Herald

“University of Wisconsin staff have developed a new service to assist faculty researchers in maintaining compliance with federally mandated reporting guidelines and public access requirements when publishing their work.”

REF 2021 Decisions on staff and outputs

“37. Evidence gathered through a recent survey on open access (OA) shows that, for over 80 per cent of outputs in the scope of the policy, either the outputs met the REF policy requirements in the first year (1 April 2016 to 1 April 2017), or an exception to the policy requirement is known to have applied. This reflects significant progress toward the policy intent to increase substantially the proportion of research that is made available open access in the UK.

38. The funding bodies have carefully considered the evidence gathered in the survey relating to the policy’s deposit requirements. We wish to continue building on the progress achieved to date and to maintain the momentum towards developing new tools to implement deposit as soon after the point of acceptance as possible. We therefore confirm the implementation of the REF OA policy as previously set out. The policy will require outputs to be deposited as soon after the point of acceptance as possible, and no later than three months after this date (as given in the acceptance letter or email from the publication to the author) from 1 April 2018.

39. Taking account of some of the practical concerns raised through the survey in relation to deposit on acceptance, we will introduce a deposit exception in to the policy from 1 April 2018. This exception will allow outputs unable to meet this deposit timescale, to remain compliant if they are deposited up to three months after the date of publication. The exception will read: ‘The output was not deposited within three months of acceptance date, but was deposited within three months of the earliest date of publication.’ This exception will remain in place for the rest of the REF 2021 publication period.

40. Further detail on the evidence assessed to make this decision is based at Annex B. The REF OA policy has been updated to include the additional exception. A full report of the UKwide survey on the delivery of funders’ open access policies will be published early in 2018….”

Closing the divide: Subject librarians and scholarly communication librarians can work together to reach common goals | Middleton | College & Research Libraries News

“Over the past year, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about scholarly communication and the role of academic librarians, particularly subject or liaison librarians.

In July 2016, I took on a new role as the associate university librarian for research and scholarly communication at Oregon State University Libraries and Press (OSU)….In 2013, I became the associate university librarian for learning and engagement. During my years in public services, I noted that scholarly communication services at our library were being developed and provided by a small number of librarians who were not in public services, and some did not have subject assignments. I often wondered why scholarly communication was being developed outside the scope of the activities a subject librarian/liaison regularly engaged in when working with faculty….

In addition, in support of the OSU land grant heritage, I worked with community members to provide them with online access to research articles that did not require them to subscribe to a journal or to be a registered OSU faculty member or student to access them.

In 2013, when OSU faculty voted to adopt an open access mandate for our institution, I oversaw the subject librarians/liaisons who promoted the new policy in the campus departments and colleges that they represented.…”

Sharing the work of sharing Harvard’s research

“In early 2016, the Office for Scholarly Communication (OSC) launched a pilot project to recruit help from around the university to deposit faculty-authored articles in DASH, Harvard’s open-access repository. This project has the full support of the Harvard Library.  In January of this year, the project emerged from the pilot phase, and was officially renamed the Distributed DASH Deposits program, or D3. All Harvard schools have made a start with D3, and the next goal is to scale up.”

Open Access is for life and not just for compliance – Medically speaking…

“In deciding where to publish our research, we have to consider why we do research. While some of us would probably undertake research for the intellectual challenge or excitement of discovery alone, for many of us it is important that our research will impact society in some way. This may be from contributing to the advance of our scientific discipline, or through the use of our research by the public, policymakers or industry. For all of these to come to pass, there is a basic premise that our publications can be found and accessed by those who can make use of the information they contain. Hence one of the key decisions around choice of where to publish is to think of the audience that reads the journal, and whether to make your paper Open Access.”

bjoern.brembs.blog » With the access issue temporarily solved, what now?

“However, despite the current success, this strategy of wining over faculty hasn’t been very effective: only a fraction of the current access is created by gold/green open access, much of it stems from sci-hub and sharing sites such as ResearchGate. In other words, as fantastic as full access to the literature that we now enjoy feels, it was brought about only to a small extent by the changed publication behavior of faculty.”