Evaluation of offset agreements – report 3: Springer Compact

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.

The Dutch Approach to Achieving Open Access

“In this paper, the authors – both of whom are library directors and involved in the contract negotiations with the bigger scientific publishers – present the conditions that formed the Dutch approach in these negotiations. A combination of clear political support, a powerful delegation, a unique bargaining model and fidelity to their principles geared the Dutch to their success in achieving open access. The authors put these joint license and open access negotiations in the perspective of open science and show that they are part of the transition towards open access.”

Does open prefer to cite open, and closed prefer to cite closed? – Google Sheets

Data showing that both OA and non-OA publications by faculty at Utrecht University cite non-OA sources more than OA sources. But the ratios are significantly different. The non-OA publications cite non-OA sources 67% of the time (open sources, 33%), while the OA publications cite non-OA sources 56% of the time (open sources, 44%). 

Public consultation meeting about open science program – Utrecht University

“The University has drafted an ambitious plan on open science for the coming years. This plan will affect researchers. They are therefore encouraged to help the drafting committee create the best possible plan for our university on the 14th of December.”

ScienceGuide – What is the price per article?

In 2015 the Dutch universities reached a deal with the publishing houses. The ‘golden route’ was supposed to lead to more open access publictions. But at what price? Leo Waaijers took a look at the recently revealed contracts and did some calculations.”

UA Foundation | Connecting Science & Society

“The United Academics Foundation (UAF) is a not-for-profit organization. It was founded in January 2013 by Louis Lapidaire, Robert Paul Kuiper and Anouk Vleugels. The foundation is based in Amsterdam, where a diverse group of dedicated young people is working hard to realize the foundation’s mission: Connecting Science & Society. Several nationalities are represented, contributing to UAF’s international focus….The mission of the United Academics Foundation (UAF) is to connect science and society: creating a world where scientific research results are accessible for all, so that knowledge can easily spread and be built upon….”

Open science | Spotlight

Survey summary

Access to scientific publications is essential to many, because their private or professional lives require them to continually develop themselves. This development is expected of them, as lifelong learning and increasing levels of self-reliance are now a part of life.

Healthcare professionals, for example, must be able to communicate effectively with bodies such as pharmaceutical companies, the National Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Nederland) and ministries, be able to decipher and contextualise countless news reports, and apply scientific results to their professional situation in a responsible and well-founded fashion. To do so they require comprehensive access to information. In the current situation, organising access costs time and money, which are two scarce commodities.

Teachers also state that they need access to research findings in order to apply them in their teaching. If they are unable to access the latest insights, then who is supposed to benefit from the research?

Other groups in society also indicate that they read scientific publications, in order to conduct in social debate in the home, to learn about diseases or food fads, or to gain background information on studies, for instance.”

44% of VU and VUmc scientific output is published Open Access in 2016 – [jul-sep] – University Library, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

“44% of all peer-reviewed publications of the VU and the VUmc are published Open Access.

This includes all articles, letters, reviews and books that are available immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download on the website of the publisher. The policy of the Dutch universities is starting to pay off. During the past two years, universities have made agreements with publishers including Springer, Taylor & Francis and Elsevier about funding Open Access publishing.”