Open access potential and uptake in the context of Plan S – a partial gap analysis | Zenodo

“Data available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3549020

The analysis presented in this report, carried out by Utrecht University Library, aims to provide cOAlition S, an international group of research funding organizations, with initial quantitative and descriptive data on the availability and usage of various open access options in different fields and subdisciplines, and, as far as possible, their compliance with Plan S requirements.

Plan S, launched in September 2018, aims to accelerate a transition to full and immediate Open Access. In the guidance to implementation, released in November 2018 and updated in May 2019, a gap analysis of Open Access journals/platforms was announced. Its goal was to inform Coalition S funders on the Open Access options per field and identify fields where there is a need to increase the share of Open Access journals/platforms. 

The report should be seen as a first step: an exploration in methodology as much as in results. Subsequent interpretation (e.g. on fields where funder investment/action is needed) and decisions on next steps (e.g. on more complete and longitudinal monitoring of Plan S-compliant venues) is intentionally left to cOAlition S and its members….”

Gaps Report highlights why Plan S is needed | Plan S

“The main result of the study is that, in 2017 prior to the launch of Plan S, researchers across all fields had a number of options to share their peer reviewed articles immediately and openly. Already in 2017, 75% of all journals used by cOAlition S funded researchers allowed open access publishing. Many of these journals were hybrid journals but could be made compliant with Plan S by bringing them under ‘Transformative Agreements’ which many consortia around the world are seeking to negotiate with publishers. Alternatively, cOAlition S is developing the concept of “Transformative Journals” which would allow publishers to make their hybrid journals compliant with Plan S.

The study also shows that almost all hybrid journals and 50% of closed journals used by cOAlition S funded grantees already provided self-archiving options. A 12-month embargo period was the most prevalent in many fields. Arguably the simplest approach publishers could take to make their journals Plan S compliant (at least in the short term) is agreeing to a zero embargo policy. This study shows that examples of zero-embargo policies exist in all fields but especially in the social sciences.

The report reveals differences between research fields and subdisciplines in the availability of open access publishing options and their alignment with aspects of Plan S. It also shows that the usage of these options by cOAlition S funded researchers varied. These differences provide valuable insights into which approaches are working well in particular contexts, and provide fields and venues that can serve as examples or role models for other fields where appropriate.

In conclusion, across all disciplines, a large majority of existing journals could be made compliant with Plan S, either through “Transformative Arrangements” or through enabling unembargoed self-archiving….”

Scholarly Communication: From Understanding to Engagement | Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL)

“Academic and research librarians increasingly recognize scholarly communication as a core competency of the profession. Whether helping researchers meet their funder’s mandates for public access and data sharing, guiding responsible copyright practice, or supporting new types of scholarship and instruction, librarians are leading change across campus and around the world. With this workshop, ACRL empowers our community in accelerating the transformation of the scholarly communication system.

This workshop has been updated with a series of targeted modules that reflect the most exciting and pressing issues in the field today. The goal of the structured, interactive program is to equip participants with knowledge and skills to help accelerate the transformation of the scholarly communication system.

You can bring this workshop at full cost to your campus year round. Additionally, ACRL offers a partial subsidy on a competitive basis for up to five hosts each academic year. The deadline to apply to host the subsidized version in 2020 is Friday, November 15, 2019. View more information about the subsidized program….”

Historians Respond to Plan S: Open Access vs OA Policies Redux – The Scholarly Kitchen

“For years, humanists have been pointing to the multi-dimensional importance of openness and accessibility of scholarship, and the multi-dimensional costs of rigid open access (OA) policies. In late October, the Royal Historical Historical Society (RHS) released a “guidance paper” on “Plan S and the History Journal Landscape.” Authored by RHS president Margot Finn, a distinguished professor at University College London (UCL) and a prolific scholar, this follows the RHS’s April 2019 working paper on Plan S and researchers in history of medicine, and June 2019 paper, responding to Plan S, as well as the society’s long-standing engagement with OA policies, and guidance to researchers, particularly in regards to OA policies vis à vis the Research Excellence Framework (REF). It is relevant that the RHS has supported OA initiatives, including their monograph series, “New Historical Perspectives.”  

The new report brings together important evidence about the state of journals that UK historians are publishing in terms of Plan S compliance, and a survey of journal editors. From public data on publications and publishing (including from the 2014 REF), as well as a survey of more than 100 journal editors from 26 UK and international presses, the report concludes that “unless major shifts occur…in the next few months, it is unlikely that either UKRI or Wellcome Trust-funded History researchers will be able to identify sufficient high-quality journal outlets that  comply with full-scale implementation of Plan S.” The report offers perspectives in discreet chapters on “Plan S:  What Do We Know?” and “Plan S:  What Don’t We Know?” An overview of “Research and Journal Publication in History” is followed by an overview of “Open Access History Journals, DOAJ and Plan S” and then coverage of the RHS survey results, and potential routes to Plan S compliance….”

Building a Plan S-compliant journal list in QOAM

“In addition to the categories ‘fully OA’, ‘no-fee’, and ‘discounted’, QOAM now provides an initial list of Open Access journals that meet the mandatory technical conditions of Plan S. Preparing QOAM for the implementation of Plan S has been made possible by donations of Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica and the Fair Open Access Alliance.

The technical Plan S conditions are:

Use of persistent identifiers (PIDs) for scholarly publications (with versioning, for example, in case of revisions), such as DOI (preferable), URN, or Handle.
Deposition of content with a long-term digital preservation or archiving programme (such as CLOCKSS, Portico, or equivalent).
High-quality article level metadata in standard interoperable non-proprietary format, under a CC0 public domain dedication. Metadata must include complete and reliable information on funding provided by cOAlition S funders (including as a minimum the name of the funder and the grant number/identifier).
Machine-readable information on the Open Access status and the license embedded in the article, in standard non-proprietary format.

 

Publishers wishing to see their journals included can send a mail to QOAM’s Contact box stating that the attached list of journals (eISSNs suffice) meets the technical conditions of Plan S. The journals will then be added to the list after a check of a random sample of journals….”

SAGE Publishing supplies full-text articles to Publications Router | Jisc scholarly communications

“SAGE Publishing, one of the world’s leading independent academic and professional publishers, is now supplying full-text content to Jisc’s Publications Router service. The research articles, which span a wide range of subject areas, are then distributed to institutions and automatically ingested into their open repositories, enabling them to capture and disseminate the outputs of their researchers….”

Building Trust to Break Down Barriers | The Official PLOS Blog

“At PLOS we have invested significantly in people and processes to support a strong journal data sharing policy since 2014. We are seeing a steady increase year-on-year in the proportion of PLOS authors who use a data repository. Although less costly for publishers, journal policies that only encourage data sharing have much lower levels of compliance….”

A Great Development on the GREAT Act – SPARC

“Yesterday, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Grant Reporting Efficiency and Agreements Transparency (GREAT) Act (S. 1829). The GREAT Act aims to simplify and harmonize federal grant recipient reporting obligations. Specifically, it requires the creation of a comprehensive and standardized data structure covering all data elements reported by recipients of federal awards — including grant and cooperative agreements. It standardizes how the government reports its grants data much in the same way the 2014 DATA Act did for agency spending.

By replacing outdated documents with open data, the GREAT Act will deliver transparency for grantmaking agencies and the public and allow grantees to automate their reporting processes, reducing compliance costs. The bill fosters increased federal oversight and transparency into the distribution of federal funding and facilitates the adoption of modern technologies….”

A Great Development on the GREAT Act – SPARC

“Yesterday, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Grant Reporting Efficiency and Agreements Transparency (GREAT) Act (S. 1829). The GREAT Act aims to simplify and harmonize federal grant recipient reporting obligations. Specifically, it requires the creation of a comprehensive and standardized data structure covering all data elements reported by recipients of federal awards — including grant and cooperative agreements. It standardizes how the government reports its grants data much in the same way the 2014 DATA Act did for agency spending.

By replacing outdated documents with open data, the GREAT Act will deliver transparency for grantmaking agencies and the public and allow grantees to automate their reporting processes, reducing compliance costs. The bill fosters increased federal oversight and transparency into the distribution of federal funding and facilitates the adoption of modern technologies….”

Do Authors Deposit on Time? Tracking Open Access Policy Compliance – IEEE Conference Publication

Abstract:  Recent years have seen fast growth in the number of policies mandating Open Access (OA) to research outputs. We conduct a large-scale analysis of over 800 thousand papers from repositories around the world published over a period of 5 years to investigate: a) if the time lag between the date of publication and date of deposit in a repository can be effectively tracked across thousands of repositories globally, and b) if introducing deposit deadlines is associated with a reduction of time from acceptance to public availability of research outputs. We show that after the introduction of the UK REF 2021 OA policy, this time lag has decreased significantly in the UK and that the policy introduction might have accelerated the UK’s move towards immediate OA compared to other countries. This supports the argument for the inclusion of a time-limited deposit requirement in OA policies.