This document is the third report of five on the evaluation of offset agreements in Sweden and will focus on the agreement with Springer called Springer Compact and its outcome during 2017.
The evaluation is conducted to examine the effects of Springer Compact regarding economy, administration, researcher attitudes and research dissemination, and make recommendations for future negotiations with Springer Nature and other publishers. The previous reports were written in Swedish, but the remaining reports will be written in English. Therefore, some of the sections from the previous reports are repeated here to provide a background for the international reader. In addition to this, there is also a section comparing the Swedish Springer Compact agreement to that of three other countries (Netherlands, United Kingdom and Austria) and one society (Max Planck Society).
The report is structured in the following way: below is a short summary. Then the first section presents an introduction, describing open access, offset agreements and the background to why such agreements have emerged, the aim of the evaluation and a brief overview of existing recommendations for negotiating open access with publishers. The next section explains the specific offset model of Springer Compact. The third section makes the comparison between different Springer Compact agreements. The fourth and fifth sections contain the evaluation and recommendations for future negotiations.
“This report presents the first major comparative analysis of usage data for OA and non-OA scholarly books, and provides an informed view of how a book benefits from OA publication. It also highlights the challenges involved in measuring the impact of OA on scholarly books and suggests that there is much to do across the whole scholarly communications network in supporting authors and their funders.”
“Since 2015, the Universities’ UK Open Access Co-ordination Group has commissioned a bi-annual exercise to monitor the UK’s transition to open access, including the financial health of learned societies. As part of this exercise, I have been working with Professor Robert Dingwall to assess how 30 UK learned societies have fared between 2011 and 2015.”
“The Open Science Policy Platform has adopted consensual reports on the European Open Science Cloud governance and on Open Access Publishing in Europe. The report on EOSC includes recommendations on governance and financial schemes, while the report on Open Science Publishing gives recommendations on how to implement open access publishing in Europe by 2020.”
Not OA and not close. The report costs $1,795 (for the plain PDF) or $2595 (for the PDF plus one year of updates).
“Today, Delta Think releases the first component of the Open Access Investigation with a summary report titled The Evolving State of Open Access. It delivers a thorough analysis of the market, derived from extensive data collection, normalization, and in-depth review by an unbiased source.”
“During autumn 2016 the Open Citizen Science Project will map out Finnish citizen science stakeholders and research infrastructures. A set of recommendations for fostering and promoting open citizen science will be co-developed with the stakeholders. The aim of this event is to present and discuss the projects results.”
[From the Preface] … For the past couple of years, the open access debate has been dominated by university administrators, librarians, government, funding organisations and publishers. Voices of researchers are seldom heard in this debate. That is why the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences wants to shift the focus a bit by initiating this booklet. It contains an illustrative number of interviews with outstanding researchers in a variety of disciplines. As it turns out, their opinions vary quite a bit, making the interviews a very interesting read indeed. Weighing up all the pros and cons, and regardless of the eventual outcome of this debate, I would like to point out two things. First, whatever the final policy terms will be, let’s make absolutely clear that the open access principle is ultimately beneficial to research and society. And second, let’s keep in mind that knowledge is not the exclusive privilege of researchers or academics, and that everyone in society has a right to access results paid for by taxes. Our future depends on it.
[From the Executive Summary] “This!report,!prepared for SPARC!Europe, sketches!the!landscape!of!university+based!not+for+ profit! publishing! in! Europe! with! a! primary! focus! on! open! access! publishing! of! journals.! It! provides! a! view! of!the! different! types! of! initiatives! in! terms! of!their!size,! operational! and! business! models,! technologies! used,! stakeholder! involvement,! concentration! of! scientific! fields,! growth,! as! well! as! regional! characteristics and! recommendations! for! SPARC! Europe! and!DOAJ.! The! report! attests! to! a rich! and! continuously! evolving! ecology! of! open! access! publishing! initiatives! in! universities! in! Europe! and! elsewhere …”
“After a month of intense conversations and negotiations, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) will bring the ‘Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act’ up for mark-up on Wednesday, July 29th. The language that will be considered is an amended version of FASTR, officially known as the ‘Johnson-Carper Substitute Amendment,’ which was officially filed by the HSGAC leadership late on Friday afternoon, per committee rules. There are two major changes from the original bill language to be particularly aware of. Specifically, the amendment Replaces the six month embargo period with ‘no later than 12 months, but preferably sooner’ as anticipated; and Provides a mechanism for stakeholders to petition federal agencies to ‘adjust’ the embargo period if the12 months does not serve ‘the public, industries, and the scientific community.’ We understand that these modifications were made in order accomplish a number of things: Satisfy the requirement of a number of Members of HSGAC that the language more closely track that of the OSTP Directive; Meet the preference of the major U.S. higher education associations for a maximum 12 month embargo; Ensure that, for the first time, a number of scientific societies will drop their opposition for the bill; and Ensure that any petition process an agency may enable is focused on serving the interests of the public and the scientific community …”
“Impact is multi-dimensional, the routes by which impact occur are different across disciplines and sectors, and impact changes over time. Jane Tinkler argues that if institutions like HEFCE specify a narrow set of impact metrics, more harm than good would come to universities forced to limit their understanding of how research is making a difference. But qualitative and quantitative indicators continue to be an incredible source of learning for how impact works in each of our disciplines, locations or sectors.”